not that i think anyone cares.

I really don't think the gay marriage issue is going to change the election at all. A massive majority (not all but most) people who are against it were going to vote against Obama anyway.

Also about damn time!

It's about time a political figure, let alone the president has said something, out loud.

What I fear is that it's a smoke and mirrors thing for election reasons and even if he was serious and tried to pass something, congress would shoot him down.

If this were to become a real thing, I would be very happy for my LGBT friends and family.

The real reason this is important is that minority voters have been the major force against same sex marriage in many states. Everybody acts like California is the most liberal place on the planet but they have voted down gay marriage twice, with black and hispanic voters as the overwhelming reason. The first black president taking a public stance on the issue has a huge potential to change that.

Honestly, I do not think black and hispanic people are going to change their minds because a black president says its a good thing. I believe most people's objections to this are deeply rooted in religion or "the way they were raised", not a racial or political stance. But then again, this is just my speculation, since I am not religious and I am a white dude.

Just gotta follow the money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/top-obama-donors-witholding-money-over-executive-order-punt/2012/05/07/gIQAPKsl8T_blog.html

Not that Obama would take money from a PAC...or at least he said he wouldn't before he changed his mind.

Anti-stance wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Seems funny that conservatives are all "Government out of people's lives! Smaller less intrusive Government! RAH RAH!" When it comes down to women's rights or LGBT rights it's "The Government should inject itself in those people lives and ban whatever behavior I disagree with! The Government should be bigger and more oppressive!"

Hence those of us that are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Right there with ya. Don't oppress people that are different whether that is mentally, physically, or financially.

Yeah, but I'm REALLY socially liberal.

Prostitution, drugs, etc........should all be legal. As long as what you're doing isn't denying anyone else's rights, so be it.

^^^ Still there with ya man. Someone paying to have sex or doing drugs in there home doesn't concern me. Telling someone they can't have a similar right because of their sexual preference does concern me, its not right to pick and choose who gets what rights.

Anti-stance wrote: ^^^ Still there with ya man. Someone paying to have sex or doing drugs in there home doesn't concern me. Telling someone they can't have a similar right because of their sexual preference does concern me, its not right to pick and choose who gets what rights.

I will +3 to that.

given our diverse (and passionate) political positions on this board, I find it really reassuring that the majority share my view on this topic. Not necessarily whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, but that it's not the place of the government to withhold someone's rights because of it.

Now if only the rest of humanity was as level-headed as all of us...

Oh, man. I usually try to steer clear of the political stuff, but this one has got me a bit riled up. As a North Carolinian, I've been involved in a few discussions about what happened here. Count me in among the social very liberal and moderate fiscal conservatives here.

Just as a point of perspective, Obama's open support for gay marriage is the first time a sitting president has come on in favor of this type of equal rights for all. Sure, the timing might suck, if you think his support might have changed something in North Carolina. Back up a second, though. Do you honestly think that his support before the amendment succeeded would've changed the way the voting went? I don't think it would've swayed one single voter. If you look at the demographic breakdown of the voting, the amendment passed because the rural counties supported it in overwhelming numbers. The more moderate, urban counties (Mecklenburg, Wake, Orange, Durham, Watauga, Chatham and Buncombe) all voted against Amendment One.

Now, it is a given that he is using the outrage generated by Amendment One passing in North Carolina to try and gain some approval points. I think only a fool would dispute that, given the timing of the announcement. It seems like a good idea, at first, but look again at what I posted up there in regards to the demographic breakdown of voting in North Carolina. I am no political expert, but it seems that the voting demographics of the country at large break down in a very similar manner. Even worse, the Presidential election is decided by the Electoral College, which was set up specifically to prevent the voting power of large cities from swaying the national election.

What Obama said might have very well hurt his election chances in a few months.

Oh great, the born-again Christians on my FB from high school are throwing their religious two-cents in.

And no, it's not positive towards the subject.

I care.

However, I also see Obama saying anything to get another four years of wicked cool vacations, golf outings and a nice car.

Remember when he said he would cut the debt in half his first term in office? How's that working out? He had a Dem House and Senate for two years and couldn't get it done.

He's a nice man, well spoken, makes his point of view clearly, but I don't trust him.

Dan

Coworker just told me has was all for it:

"Why shouldn't they have a chance to be miserable too?"

Nice .....

As a Northcarolinian I am/was not surprised by the out come of the recent Amendment. NC is on whole still a very conservative state. I think if Obama had come out in support of Gay Marriage before the vote it might have actually hurt the chances of the bill failing. There are that many people in this state who really hate him that much they would vote for Amendment 1 just to spite him alone. It's kind of scary to be the one Socially Liberal person in my place of work during the recent dicussions. I have heard some magnificently worded hate speech from people I otherwise would call friends and resonable people. At least here the bottom line is most of my Rural friends were taught to hate or shun that which they do not understand or do not have experience with. They hold their Bibles very close, which is fine with me as long as they aren't throwing them at me, and they keep everyone else at arms reach out of fear of the unknown.

914Driver wrote: Coworker just told me has was all for it: "Why shouldn't they have a chance to be miserable too?" Nice .....

Still single

That a president seeking re election voiced this opinion is a pretty big deal. Somebody, whether him or an advisor, thinks that its politically beneficial to favor gay marriage. This isn't a fringe politician in a liberal area, but the leader of the whole country. It's pretty staggering how far we've come in the last 30 years.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: Oh great, the born-again Christians on my FB from high school are throwing their religious two-cents in. And no, it's not positive towards the subject.

Oh heavens no, not a differing opinion! The humanity.

mazdeuce wrote: That a president seeking re election voiced this opinion is a pretty big deal.

Especially now. We already know which candidate each party will be running in the fall. At this stage in the game, parties typically try to get their candidates to stop doing/saying things that appeal to their base, and instead try to appeal to moderates and independents.

First Obama was for it. Then he was against it. Now he is for it again. Sound like John Kerry?

I think this all to get the focus off the sucky economy.

While I am somewhat of a moderate conservative, I strongly believe in the separation of the church and state. I would love for the gov't to stay the hell out of the bedroom.

Oh, and he had to do something because loose cannon Biden one-upped him the day before.

spitfirebill wrote: First Obama was for it. Then he was against it. Now he is for it again. Sound like John Kerry?

Yes, or like Romney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

Later during his time as governor, Romney's position on abortion changed in conjunction with a similar change of position on stem cell research.[144][nb 19] Also during that time, his position or choice of emphasis on some aspects of gay rights,[nb 20] and some aspects of abstinence-only sex education,[nb 21] evolved in a more conservative direction. The change in 2005 on abortion was the result of what Romney described as an epiphany experienced while investigating stem cell research issues.[144] He later said, "Changing my position was in line with an ongoing struggle that anyone has that is opposed to abortion personally, vehemently opposed to it, and yet says, 'Well, I'll let other people make that decision.' And you say to yourself, but if you believe that you're taking innocent life, it's hard to justify letting other people make that decision."[144]

Here's the unvarnished truth....when someone gets close to the presidency, they get the political equivalent of the 'red mist'....the goal becomes so important that they will do stupid things that can destroy them; they'll say anything, regardless of what they believe, so long as it can get them ahead of the other guy.

MG Bryan wrote:

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: Oh great, the born-again Christians on my FB from high school are throwing their religious two-cents in. And no, it's not positive towards the subject.

Oh heavens no, not a differing opinion! The humanity.

Point here is that any arguments based on religion SHOULD be immediately null and void. Separation of church and state.

Same reason I stopped going to mass at the closest church to me, the priest wouldn't stop talking about politics.

JoeyM wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: First Obama was for it. Then he was against it. Now he is for it again. Sound like John Kerry?

Yes, or like Romney

Or like any other politician...

mtn wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: Oh great, the born-again Christians on my FB from high school are throwing their religious two-cents in. And no, it's not positive towards the subject.

Oh heavens no, not a differing opinion! The humanity.

Point here is that any arguments based on religion SHOULD be immediately null and void. Separation of church and state. Same reason I stopped going to mass at the closest church to me, the priest wouldn't stop talking about politics.

The concept of separation of church and state doesn't mean that no-one's opinion should reflect his religious beliefs. It just means that we won't/shouldn't adopt an official state religion or have a theocracy.

I don't go to Mass where they preach politics either, but that's a whole different story.

93EXCivic wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: First Obama was for it. Then he was against it. Now he is for it again. Sound like John Kerry?

Yes, or like Romney

Or like any other politician...

Indeed, hence my 'red mist' analogy.