President Obama concludes that it is personally important for him to affirm that he thinks same sex couples should get married

The full context of the President’s remarks is here, if you wish to read it.  But in a rhetorical display typifying the President’s penchant for brevity and understatement, here is what he told ABC News’ Dianne Sawyer:

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

So the President has come out of the closet, so to speak, with regard to his personal view on gay marriage.  Thank you for clarifying the issue, Mr. President.

A couple of months ago, William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal had this to say about the double-standard politics surrounding President Obama’s stance on gay marriage:

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue.

Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets.

There’s no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.

President Obama, by contrast, gets a pass because everyone understands—nudge nudge, wink wink—that he’s not telling the truth. The press understands that this is just one of those things a Democratic candidate has to say so he doesn’t rile up the great unwashed.

So at least he doesn’t have to pretend any more.  But now that the President has essentially been forced to admit that his personal beliefs and public stance have been incongruent on on at least one major issue, the big-name editorialists in print and broadcast media ought to start asking questions – how many more of President Obama’s publicly stated beliefs and ideals don’t match up with his own personal worldview?

The Obama Administration was thrown a serious curve by Vice President Biden’s off-the-cuff remarks on gay marriage this past weekend, and after their attempts to downplay Biden’s remarks failed miserably, it seems that this big statement by the President might be the only workable damage control option they had left.  Conservative pundits are already asking if this is an attempt by the White House to spin gay marriage into yet another issue they can try to use to polarize the electorate and create a radicalized image of the Republican Party.  But considering that traditional marriage has already been backed via referendum in 31 states so far, some with margins of victory (or defeat) as great as 60%, I would expect that a “war on gays” would flop about as badly as the “war on women” or the “war on dogs.”

The Anchoress, Elizabeth Scalia, writes:

Back in 2008 it was the black Christian vote that defeated gay marriage in California. African Americans voted for Obama, but while they were there, they voted against gay marriage. It’s one of those stories no one wanted to talk about. Now, things become interesting: do African American churches, hearing the president say that “my Christian beliefs” inform this newly declared viewpoint, simply give up their own beliefs to support his do they stand for their own? And then, who’s Christian beliefs are right? That’s a whole ball of wax I bet no one wanted to deal with in this election.


ABC's Robin Roberts has an Obamagasm on live TV
WV Dems Not Thrilled About Anti-US Energy Obama, Voted for Felon Instead
  • Guest

    Obama makes history again.

    And once again, this president has made history. As Diane Sawyer and
    George Stephanopoulos of ABC pointed out in reporting the news, Barack
    Obama is now the first president of the United States to publicly
    endorse same sex marriage. Serious students of history will recall that
    James Madison fought in Philadelphia to get same sex marriage sanctioned
    in the Constitution, and both Woodrow Wilson and Dwight D. Eisenhower
    came close to publicly embracing the concept. But Obama is the first
    president to risk everything—including his own political future—to do
    what’s right.

    • iwogisdead

      Well, if Barack Obumble believed in anything except himself, he could have “made history” and could have done the “right thing” back when the Dems had the House and a filibuster-proof hold on the Senate. Which, I assume, would’ve included repeal of DOMA. But, since he’s a candy-ass chickenshit who has no core values, he waited until Biden pushed him a corner and he had nothing to lose. As a result, the evolution of his position on gay marriage has no meaning whatsoever. Congratulations!!

      • Guest

        You ought to listen to what Obama said. He explained why he was reluctant to do this before.

        But then that would be “facts” and we all know that conservative meatheads hate facts.

        • iwogisdead

          I read Obumble’s comments. Neighbors, children, staff all have something to say about gay marriage, yada, yada, yada, on and on and on. It’s bullshit, it’s all bullshit. If you don’t see it, you’re the only one in the country who does not.
          Oddly, as far right as I am, I don’t care too much about this issue. Frankly, I’d just as soon see gay marrage be legal as not. I figure once we see some really big alimony awards coming out of gay marriage divorces this issue will lose steam.
          In any event, I wouldn’t marry you regardless of what sex you are. You’re an idiot.

          • And what BO had to say on the subject really convinced him.

            You ever notice how it’s just fine for any Democrat anywhere to change their minds on a subject, yet it’s completely unacceptable for any Republican to change their thinking on a subject?

            Kind of peculiar, that.  Almost a double-standard…

          • Were it not for double standards the Jackass party would have no standards at all…

      • LiberalNightmare

        As a result, the evolution of his position on gay marriage has no meaning whatsoever.<

        Actually, I think it means that Obama thinks the gay vote is more important than the black vote.

        • klaffner

          Well I think he believes that Gay contributions are more important than potential lost black votes.  

      • ackwired

        Actually, this may cost him the election.  The swing states are pretty conservative on this issue.  He is clearly risking something here.

        • herddog505

          Perhaps, and perhaps not.

          Wonder if this sudden change of heart had something to do with money.  A few weeks ago, Ed Morrissey noted that “Obama remains significantly off of his own 2008 pace of fundraising, and way under the Democratic donation performance of that cycle.”  And as Dan Eggen reports in the Washington Post:

          Many of Obama’s key financial supporters are gay–including finance director Rufus Gifford and Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias–and the campaign has regularly held fundraisers focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender donors.A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay.
          It’s all about the money, friends.

          IF Barry’s “courage” really has to do with his campaign war chest as The Gay Patriot and others suggest, then it’s less “risking something” and more “desperately trying to save what he’s got”: those social conservatives in the swing states (who likely won’t vote for him in any event) really won’t matter if his money dries up before the campaign really gets going.


          via PowerLine

          • ackwired

            Interesting take on it.  I’ll be watching to see it his contributions pick up.

    • GarandFan

       “James Madison fought in Philadelphia to get same sex marriage sanctioned
      in the Constitution, and both Woodrow Wilson and Dwight D. Eisenhower
      came close to publicly embracing the concept.”

      The Kool Aid kid is great at ‘cut and paste’.  Perhaps you’d like to share the DOCUMENTATION for the above?

      • Guest

         Sorry, insults get you “look it up yourself” in return.

        • GarandFan


          TRANSLATION:  I don’t know.  I just cut and paste.

          • Guest

             I put in in quotes meathead. Google it yourself.

          • GarandFan

             TRANSLATION:  I believe whatever the lib MSM tells me.  Diane Sawyer says farts smell like roses, then that’s a fact.

            DOCUMENTATION  “James Madison fought in Philadelphia to get same sex marriage sanctioned
            in the Constitution, and both Woodrow Wilson and Dwight D. Eisenhower came close to publicly embracing the concept.”

            WHERE?  WHEN?

            As I said earlier, you’re the “cut and paste kid”.  No thought required.  Just regurgitate.

          • Guest

            Is this the part where I’m supposed to  insult you in return? Sorry, but I flunked elementary school insult throwing.

            Look – if you don’t know how to use the Google ask a 10 year old to help you. Seriously, you’re wasting bandwidth just to prove you’re stubborn and you like to whine when you don’t get your way. Grow up or grow a pair, but quit yer whining.

          • iwogisdead

            It’s not that hard. Post a link showing that James Madison supported gay marriage. I Googled, I did not find.

          • GarandFan

             I’m merely pointing out your stupidity in quoting from a couple of outstanding Obama worshipers – such as yourself.  You accept their statement as fact.  I have NEVER heard anything about gay rights coming out of the mouths of those men.  Maybe Tingles Matthews will buy it. I won’t.

            But since you think it’s great, I would assume you know it’s the truth, and would be able to quickly supply links to same.

            You didn’t.  You can’t.  They don’t exist.  Ego, you’re a Kool Aid drinker.

          • Guest

             You can google the quote and go for the source yourself.

            I’m busy drinking Kool Aid, remember?

          • GarandFan


            I’m an echo chamber of liberal thought.

          • Jay

            Look at Federalist Paper 10 for Madison’s views on factions.  They are quite relevant to the issue you seem to be discussing.

          • Below.

          • TomInCali

            Dude, do you really think you’re looking clever by refusing to Google something that you’re interested in knowing? You’re just proving that your only knowledge comes from things that are forcibly fed to you (such as by Fox News), rather than from your own curiosity and inquisitiveness. That’s not really a trait to be proud of.

          • herddog505


            No results found for “Serious students of history will recall that James Madison fought”.


            We did not find results for: +”Serious students of history will recall that James Madison fought”.


            Google found it:


            I rather get the idea that Philip Terzian wrote the blog post with his tongue firmly embedded in his cheek.  Here’s more for the interested reader:

            Here at THE WEEKLY STANDARD we are prostrate with admiration! President Obama’s sudden reversal of opinion on gay marriage was, by any measure, an incredibly gutsy thing to do.

            So how courageous is the president’s change of mind? This now puts Barack Obama in the same reviled category as the Hollywood elite, the New York Times editorial page, the American professoriat, his Wall Street fundraising bundlers, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, readers of the Nation, the cast and crew of The Daily Show, and the majority of residents on New York’s Upper West Side. And lest we forget: He now risks the wrath of zealots, extremists, partisans, and ideologues.

            At any rate, I really can’t imagine either James Madison or Ike publicly coming out for gay marriage as that was hardly a hot-button social issue in their days.  I don’t say that they would have opposed it (I really don’t know), but rather that the thought likely would never have occured to them.

          • Guest

             Wow, now teach google to rest of this crowd.

            And just because you can’t imagine it — that doesn’t prove it didn’t happen.

            Why don’t you write to Philip Terzian and ask him why he wrote that Madison “fought in Philadelphia to get same sex marriage sanctioned in the Constitution”?

          • herddog505

            I thought I DID make it clear why I think he wrote it: sarcasm / satire.  However, I’ll see what I can do about getting something from Terzian.

          • Jay

            I’m not sure I agree about that…  It seems that Madison was concerned with factions forming which would divide the public considerably.  But supporting gay rights in the time of the Founding Fathers may not have been as prevalent an issue as now.

          • jim_m

             Come on Jay.  Even an idiot like you should recognize that with the general disaprobation of homosexuality 200 years ago that there is zero chance that the founders ever intended their writings to be used to defend the notion of same sex marriage.  Extrapolate what you like from the theoretical foundations of their writings, they themselves would never have supported it.

          • Jay

            Jim, I wasn’t talking about homosexuality, I was talking about factions.  There will be people that disagree for whatever reason and Madison’s ideas were to have both sides, regardless of the issue, deal with it in a public forum.  How (un)surprising that you don’t understand the concepts of democracy.

          • Guest

            there’s so much Jim doesn’t understand.

            The good news is that he puts his lack of understanding on constant display and often confesses to not understanding an issue.

          • The burden of proof remains with those who have asserted that Madison et al supported same sex marriage.  They have failed to do so, their point fails.

          • News Flash: When you make an assertion or attribute a quote and fail to provide citation when challenged, Olaf’s hammer gets that much loser to smiting you.

          • Give me a break.
            The assertion should be debated and defeated on the merit of the argument, not a banning threat.

            If it’s wrong, it will fail through the natural progression of a free exchange of ideas presented through discussion.


          • It is incumbent on those making assertions (stating something as a fact) or quoting to provide evidence / citation for same, else argument by assertion prospers.

            It is not incumbent on others to disprove assertions, it is incumbent on the party making the assertion to offer proof.

          • I’m not arguing that.

            I am saying, holding “Olaf’s Troll Hammer” over the heads of every reader who voices their disagreement with you or screws up the facts is not only wrong, it’s petty.

            A cogent argument is strong enough to prove someone wrong in the arena of ideas.  The ‘free market’ of debate will eliminate erroneous or weak statements.

            The threat or talk of ‘banning hammers” should be a last resort saved for disruptive antagonists who threat commendable blog practice.

          • Yes, you are arguing that wether you intend to or not.  Our latest bozo has been carrying on thus for a while now and is only getting worse as time goes by.

        • Sky__Captain

          The stupidity and senility are strong with this one…

          • Guest

            Quit bragging…

        • News Flash: When you make an assertion or attribute a quote and fail to provide citation when challenged, Olaf’s hammer gets that much closer to smiting you.

      • At the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison said that he wanted to supplement that provision in the Articles of Confederation, to let Congress “provide for the execution of Judgments in other States, under such regulations as might be expedient.”[7] By September 1, 1787, negotiations at the Constitutional Convention had led to the following draft which included supplementary language as Madison had requested:[8]
        Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.This is where libs get their idias of Madison fought. It is all BS

    • Brian_R_Allen

      Grumpy says Ted Nugent is a draft-dodging pedophile. 

      Chuck in treason, recidivism, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering, perjuring, civil-rights-denying, perjury-suborning, sexually-harassing, co-serial-raping and another score or so felonies and he might turn into Billy-Bubbah Blythe and steal (and subsequently loot) the White House! 

      • Guest

        Nugent likes underage girls, and check out his explanation of how he scammed his way out of the draft.

        Just another example of right wing hypocrisy. Conservatives worshiping another false god who goes against several important “beliefs”.

        Nugent is a draft-dodging pedophile —  and the far right wing idolizes the guy because he hates Obama and publicly says he wishes Obama was dead.

        Amazing… nice Christian values!

  • Pingback: Obama Comes Out – UPDATED()

  • Vagabond661

    If you think providing birth control was an issue for churches, wait until they are forced to perform marriages to gay couples. Once marriage is redefined, lawsuits will be filed against churches for not performing gay marriages.

    • MichaelLaprarie

      Which is exactly why I oppose same sex marriage.  Civil unions and domestic partnerships, fine.  But marriage is a religious sacrament and the government has no business dictating how churches are to perform sacraments.  You are absolutely right – if you think the First Amendment battle over mandated birth control is going to be ugly, then wait until churches are forced under penalty of law either to perform same sex marriages, or prohibit any non-members from entering their facilities for any reason other than to attend worship services.

      • TomInCali

        Fortunately for both of you, proponents of gay rights don’t really give a shit
        what churches do. They want the state to recognize
        same-sex marriage. So yay, your excuse for opposing it has vanished!

        But marriage is a religious sacrament and the government has no business dictating how churches are to perform sacraments.

        Again fortunately for you, no one has seriously proposed that. So yay, you have nothing to worry about!

        • Vagabond661

          We never thought someone would mandate churches provide birth control either.

          • herddog505

            We never thought:

            — Uncle Sugar would mandate lightbulbs, toilets, or the content of school lunches

            — Government agents would grope people, including children and the elderly, at airports

            — The US government would go for years without an actual budget


            It’s rather sickening just how far our government has gone off the rails.

          • Hear him!  Hear him!

            —We never thought an agency of the Executive Branch would try to set itself above judicial review.

            —We never thought the Department of Justice would base law enforcement on the race of the “victim” or aid arms smugglers moving weapons to Mexico.


          • TomInCali

            We never thought an agency of the Executive Branch would try to set itself above judicial review.

            After the Bush years, that’s not a credible claim.

          • TomInCali

            We never thought:

            — Uncle Sugar would mandate lightbulbs

            More manufactured outrage. Do you mean the lightbulb efficiency guidelines that were requested by the lightbulb industry and overwhelmingly passed by the Republicans in Congress?

          • herddog505

            Let me see if I understand your point:

            I complain that the government has gone off the rails because it asserts powers to meddle in our lives, even down to telling us what sort of lightbulbs we must use.  You reply that this is “manufactured outrage” because the government allegedly did this at the behest of the lightbulb industry.


            I note that you gloss over the other examples, especially the groping of passengers by TSA.  May I assume, therefore, that you’re cool with it?

            By the way, though President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, it was (as you might determine from the date) a democrat-sponsored bill.  Further, the vote to pass the bill in the House where it originated was (for / against / not voting):

            d – 221 / 14 / 3

            R – 7 / 174 / 11


            Not exactly “overwhelming” Republican support, I’d say.

            Finally, my outrage in this particular case is not only because of what I perceive as massive overreach and meddling by Uncle Sugar, but also because I regard it as damned foolish – DANGEROUSLY foolish – to mandate that we deliberately introduce fragile containers of mercury into our homes.

          • TomInCali

            And no one has. However, they have mandated that hospitals and universities do. Please try to be informed.

          • Vagabond661

            states already recoginize same sex unions. they are called civil unions. and tom those hospitals and universerities areran by religious organizations. it’s like trying to force PETA to habe a BBQ or an orthodox jew to eat meat that isnt kosher.

      • Guest

        Disagree. Religious marriage is a sacrament. Civil marriage is a contract.

    • TomInCali

      Once marriage is redefined….

      mar·riage noun ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij

      the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or
      wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

      So now who’s the one who’s trying “redefine” marriage?

  • jim_m

    Best comment on this I’ve heard was this:  “The Barack Obama of Wednesday denounces the Barack Obama of Monday as a closed-minded bigot.”


  • GarandFan

    ” That’s a whole ball of wax I bet no one wanted to deal with in this election.”

    Not to worry.  They won’t.  It’s now a “dead” issue.  The Chosen One has spoken.  Since “The Mouth” forced his hand, he won’t mention it again.  Barry wouldn’t want his former utterances (enshrined on YouTube) to be played over and over and over.

  • Jim Raper

    Bad idea

  • Sky__Captain

    Given 0bama’s history since 2007 or so, why would one expect anything else but this?
    It’s just “par for the course”, so to speak.

  • herddog505

    [A]t a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

    Um… oooookaaaaay.  So, what the hell does that MEAN?  Does that mean:

    — “I’ll make this the law of the land by executive order if I have to”? 

    — “If Congress passes a law to this effect, I’ll sign it”? 

    — “If my pals Joe and Tom decided to tie the knot, I’d totally show up for the wedding”? 

    — “If two gay people want to get married, I won’t squawk about it”?

    What DOES it mean???

    Remember when Barry compared himself to a blank screen upon which people could project their own ideals and preferences?  This is an example: people can take away whatever they want from this nonsensical statement.  Those opposed to gay marriage can console themselves that Barry is only expressing a personal belief.  Those in favor can believe that he’s totally in their corner.  Only Barry knows what he REALLY means… well, he’ll know when he reads the polls, anyway.

    • The man’s a genius at crafting statements that can be read many different ways.

      Either that, or the teleprompter is.

      • 914

        That would depend on what the meaning of the word IS is..

  • And around the country, divorce lawyers are readying for their next great business opportunity….

    Gay Divorce.

    (Or, conversely, prosecutions (and defense) of gay bigamy.)

    Shrug.  I think Obama just blew his foot off, no pun intended.  This is going to play REALLY well in the black churches.

    And as far as the bigamy and divorce stuff goes – seems to me if you argue that it’s not a real marriage (for the bigamy stuff) or that a divorce isn’t needed for the dissolution of a marriage because it isn’t a ‘real’ marriage, it’s going to open up a whole lot of really interesting precedents…

    • Hugh_G

      About it playing really well in in black churches, you ought to check that out with resident hypo/hyper ventilator Jim_M. After all he  knows for sure that blacks just vote for Obama cause they are all racists. Ergo,  President Obama’s views on same sex marriage will make no difference in those black churches.

      • Mr Kimber

        Some blacks will leave Obama by not voting but most will stay with him. I have heard more then a few blacks admit him being black is the reason they voted for him and they will do it again. If Obama looses more they 5% of the Black vote I’ll be suprised. Time will tell.

        • Guest

          Religious extremists hold extreme views. Romney may pander to that crowd but Obama won’t.

          And that’s one of the reasons he’ll win. He has backbone, and standing next to Captain Etch-A-Sketch that becomes glaringly obvious.

          • Mr Kimber

            I said nothing about Romney or religious extremists. I didn’t say anything about who will win. As far as backbone goes we have differences of opion. Try not to change the topic and do be civil.

      • Looking at what happened in CA re their proposition for gay marriage, I think I’ll wait and see.  It’s not like they haven’t had a chance by now to examine the whole package and see what’s under the wrapper, and correlate what he was saying vs what he was doing… and judge the effects thereof.

    • Jay

      Wow… The fact that gays can actually get married in 20 different states is lost on you isn’t it.

      BTW, the word is polygamy.

      • Humor is really lost on you, isn’t it?  And it’s not ‘polygamy’, it’ll be bigamy.  You’re married to one person at a time, legally.  (Unless you’re looking at mass conversion to Islam – but then you’ve got that whole gay stoning thing to worry about, and I ain’t talkin’ reefers…) 

        Current polygamy efforts in the US… 

        (I figure Wiki’ll be about as concise as any other summary I could find quickly…) 

        Time will tell. I think he was looking at this to provide a big boost – but I don’t think it’s going to help as much as he thinks.

    • Guest

      Not sure what will happen in black churches. It will probably mirror to an extent gay conservatives’ actions. How important is gay marriage to black churchgoers?

      • Good question. 

        Lot of opposition to Prop. 8.

        Lot of approval for Amendment 1 in NC – which passed, apparently.

        It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out. If you pander to enough groups, you’re going to be ticking other groups off.

        Again, as I said above, folks have had the chance to see the whole package with Obama.  They might not like his policies on energy, jobs, foreign affairs, war, or domestic problems – either individually or singly, and it wouldn’t be sufficient to knock off their support.  But sooner or later voters who couldn’t talk up Obama enough in ’08 are going to be going… “Party loyalty be damned, we can’t take much more of this crap…”

        Skin color and ethnic identification only goes so far, as does soaring rhetoric.  Guess we’ll see in November whether the limits have been reached.

        My thinking is Obama’s going to lose it in public before then.  He’s built his entire persona about being smart and capable and wonderful, and everyone’s backed him on that… when he demonstrably isn’t all that smart, hardly capable, and the ‘wonderful’ wax job wore off a long time back.

        that’s why he’s campaigning so hard now – trying to get the gloss back, the ‘Hope and Change’ feeling going again. But that doesn’t seem to be coming along well – and underneath the gloss, he doesn’t have much at all.

        • Jay

          Compared to Romney who’s built an entire campaign on lying?  I don’t know how that’s going to fly…

          • Keep trying the memes, man.  Sooner or later you’ll hit one that’s got some traction. Why don’t you try calling for the release for Romney’s college transcripts?

          • Guest

            Ask Santorum and Gingrich about Romney’s lies.

            Never mind, you’ll hear them thoughout the fall in Obama’s campaign ads explaining how Romney lies…

          • Jay


            He lied about the auto bailout where now he’s taking credit.

            He’s lying about gay marriage right now.

            He lied even more than John McCain and that’s saying something.  I can’t believe a word the guy says and he has no core believe that he won’t flip flop on.  

        • Guest

          Huh, he’s beating Romney in almost every poll.

          Sounds like he’s back on top of his game.

          • Guest

            speechless? Lol…

            Captain Etch-A-Sketch has flip flopped so many times over the years. You’d have to be an imbecile to think he wasn’t lying half the time and just pandering and saying what he thought people wanted to hear.

            Anyone seen JLawson?

          • Obama talks – gays walk.


            Even lost Mother Jones – kinda. 


            “The official replied, “He has always said that it is a state issue, and he’s not suggesting changing that. He did not support the North Carolina amendment, but he’s not saying he will bring up a piece of federal legislation on gay marriage. This is how he feels himself about the issue, and he leaves it to the states.”

            Bad move.  “I support it, won’t do jack shit about it.” 

            He just voted ‘Present.”

            They’ll figure it out.

          • Guest

            They’ll figure it out and some other democrat will propose legislation and Obama will campaign in favor of the legislation.

            Maybe you’ll figure it out. Gays certainly will.

            And so far I haven’t heard anyone suggest that gays won’t vote for Obama because of his recently position on gay marriage.

            They’ll vote for Romney, who favors a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

            No, they will actively oppose Romney and campaign for obama regardless of his straddle.

            Once again the right is fantasizing about what they hope will happen and pretending it’s fact.

            Obama has helped his position and 2012 “electability” not harmed it in any way.

  • 914

    ABO  and away we go,,

  • ackwired

    It bothers me that the religious freedom aspect always gets ignored in the gay marraige question.  The individual civil liberties issue is important.  But I’m not comfortable with the state telling the churches who they can or can not marry.  Neither the gay community nor the religious right seems to be sensitive to this aspect.

    • Commander_Chico

      The freedom of contract thing gets ignored, too.

      • ackwired

        Iit is not specifically addressed.  But I think it is inferred in the civil liberties aspect of the discussion.

      • Sky__Captain

         Hey, it appears that both of those went by the wayside with 0bamacare, did they not?

    • TomInCali

      Then you’re bothered for no reason. No one is suggesting that the state tell the churches anything. That’s just what opponents of same-sex marriage tell people to get them in a lather. Marriage is a state institution, and supporters of same-sex marriage simply want City Hall to perform marriages. The church can do whatever it wants. You’re imagining a threat to the church that doesn’t exist.

      • Brian_The_Adequate

        Tom – Google “Church must rent to lesbian couple” read the links from both church sources and pro-gay sources that you will find concerning the proposed rule from Hutchinson Kansas as the tip of the iceberg.  If you still argue that the threat does not exist you are either a liar, a moron or both.

        • Guest

          Translation: “It happened once, therefore Karl Rove says we have to pretend we believe it will happen all the time”….

          • Sky__Captain

             With liberals in the White House, it will…

          • Guest

            Yeah, cause you can see how many times its happened over the last 3 years, and from 1992-2000.

            Oops, my bad. That’s bullshit. Sorry.

          • Guest

            There’s at least one other case out there.  Look up Elane Photography v. Willock.

          • Guest

            Thanks for proving my point.

          • Guest


          • Sky__Captain

             Give it up. The stupidity is simply too strong in the Senile One.

      • Sky__Captain

         Umm, 0bama telling religious institutions they have to provide birth-control coverage.


        The threat to the church DOES exist.

        • And the only majority group here in Santa Clara County, CA (Silicon Valley) is Catholics…  Who voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8.

          I’m having to wonder if California just became a swing state for the first time in more than twenty years…

      • ackwired

        Hmmm…I hadn’t looked at it from that frame of reference.,  I assumed that the churches would be required to grant everyone the civil liberties to which they were entitled. 

        You may be right.  But I doubt that it is as simple as you laid it out.  Maybe there is a constitutional lawyer on the board that could help us out.

        • Commander_Chico

          Churches will not have to perform gay marriages,  It is a matter of state enforcement of the marriage contract.

          • Sky__Captain

             Just like with 0bamaCare, no?

          • 914

            Yes, just like Arizona enforcing its borders.. No interference there at all..

          • ackwired

            Let me ask you a hypothetical.  Let’s say gay marraiges are protected by federal law, the Southern Baptists prohibit their churches from marrying gays, and a gay couple sues the Southern Baptists. 

            Or let’s say that federal law prohibits gay marraige, a Quaker meeting encourages gay marraiges, and a Sherriff Joe type decides to shut them down to gian some political points with the local conservatives.

            Are you sure there is no issue here?

          • herddog505

            ackwired[L]et’s say that federal law prohibits gay marraige, a Quaker meeting encourages gay marraiges, and a Sherriff Joe type decides to shut them down to gian some political points with the local conservatives.

            The sorry thing is that scoring political points is a lot of what all this is about, from both sides.  Well, political points and money (though they are closely related, of course).

          • ackwired

            True enough!

      • Guest

        There is one issue; churches that provide their banquet halls or other facilities for marriages regardless of creed might come under fire under the rubric of laws regarding public accommodations.  

        • Easy.

          No longer accommodate the public at all, serve only their membership.

  • Guest

    To break this out separately:

    In terms of the purely religious aspects of marriage, I think you can argue convincingly that clergy could not, in any uncertain terms, be required to perform same-sex marriages.  You can also argue convincingly that it would be impossible to force a church to host such a ceremony in its chapel.

    Civil marriage and religious marriage are two entirely separate animals.

    Public-accommodation laws, however, throw a wrinkle into this.  You already have the Willock case, where a wedding photographer faces litigation (currently on appeal, as far as I know) because she refused to photograph a same-sex marriage.  (Professor Volokh has opined that the photographer’s free-speech rights should trump the state’s public-accomodation laws).

    If a church makes some of its facilities — i.e., its fellowship hall, a banquet hall, or similar — available for rental to the general public for weddings and wedding receptions, then you could conceivably argue that, should the relevant laws be amended, the church should also be required to make the hall available for same-sex nuptials. 

    If those facilities are available generally to the public, does the church then get to duck out of offering them to same-sex couples?  What if they’re primarily used for religious purposes and only rented out at set times?  What if such facilities are only available for rental by members of the congregation?  (This last, I think, would mean that the facility is by definition no longer a public accommodation).

    Where this gets really hazy, IMO, is when you talk about public accommodations that are owned by a church or a religious person, but are not of a religious character.  Examples might include a church that rents out adjacent property for public uses, or a religious person who owns a catering business and doesn’t want to cater a gay wedding.  

  • Our latest troll has asserted that Hamilton supported “same sex marriage.”

    He is now invited to show where issues relating to Homosexuality and same sex marriage were so much as mentioned in the Federalist / Anti-Federalist debate, or to retract.

    • They meant to put it in, you know.

      Along with free cell phones and internet for all, and unlimited first class airline tickets for descendents of those who came over on the Mayflower.

    • Jay

      Wrong on two counts.

      I stated Madison, not Hamilton.  

      Two, I was discussing factions and how they come to use the public sphere to express ideas.  More dialogue before laws are passed, not less.  Your excellent strawman ignores this idea that is found in Federalist Paper 10, which I stated above.

      Get your story straight next time.

      • I referred to “Our latest troll.”

        While I will not dispute your self identification as a troll, you are by no means our latest troll, unless of course you have just admitted to sock puppeting.

        I look forward to your clarification on the above matter with interest, as sock puppet accounts are deleted on detection.

        • Jay

          Dunno who you were referring to.  You told me to look below and the comment was exactly what I described in regards to Grumpy.

          You also misinterpreted exactly what I said on at least two accounts.  Further, I’m sure that you’ve referred to me as a troll even though I usually argue my points with the stats to back it up.

          So no, I’m no troll, I keep my own account, and I have my own opinions based on evidence.  It might be better to clarify who you’re referring to in the future so as not to lead to confusion.

    • Commander_Chico

      Will you be going to the commissioning of the USNS Harvey Milk?  

  • Pingback: Why do Black Christians vote Obama? – John Malcolm()