The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

Sudden 180° turn on a highly contentious issue..?

Say anything. Do anything. To get elected.


It's the American way!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Sudden 180° turn on a highly contentious issue..?
Say anything. Do anything. To get elected.

It's the American way!


Actually, Obama was pro-same-sex-equality before his presidency.

Biden's unplanned statement on Meet the Press, plus the NC amendment pushed him to make this (also unplanned) statement that the White House said was haphazardly put together, and may actually endanger his standing with some African American and Latino constituents.

Since when does being pro-same-sex-marriage get you elected in the US? It's a bold move, especially because it's an election year.

My point exactly.

"The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control," White House adviser David Axelrod said today on MSNBC.

He was pro-equal rights. Then anti-equal rights.
Now all of sudden he's pro-equal rights again.

Anything to gain votes.

>> ^blahpook:


Actually, Obama was pro-same-sex-equality before his presidency.
Biden's unplanned statement ... pushed him to make this (also unplanned) statement and may actually endanger his standing with some ... constituents.

And we should listen to him...why?

It's a bold move that may well cost him votes. On this score, Obama has more to fear from 'centrist' white independent voters than African Americans or Latino voters.

Ultimately though, this issue will not drive his election or Romney's. The economy and some foreign issues are too important.

There goes the redneck votes.

Oh, really? Never mind.

It's a shame that every statement is measured in the votes they may cost.. why can't politicias just say what they mean and do shit they think is right. Cards on the table, fuckers!

the extreme religious right wasn't going to vote for him even if he didn't say anything so from that standpoint, he loses nothing by saying this...but yeah, not sure what he will gain from this.

My theory is that what this will do is rile the right up into saying something stupid that alienates the moderate conservatives even further away from the right. Already you've got that pastor coming out advocating violence against gays so the people tend to vote right but are at the very least neutral to gays will just distance themselves further from the right.

To me, taking a pro-gay stance forces the right to their standard "we gotta ALWAYS take the opposite position of the president in ALL things" mentality. When your opponent is so predictable to always take the opposite stance of every position you take. You can use that to your advantage and make them do what YOU want them to do.

Acceptance of gays isn't going away and isn't getting any smaller...regardless of how you feel about the subject, you just better get used to it. You're just going to have to join the ranks of closeted bigots everywhere as they grow old and die and get replaced with acceptance and tolerance.

That's great...now if we could just get him to stop rolling over for wall street.

*equality

Adding video to channels (Equality) - requested by burdturgler.

Its about he grew a pair and just say it.

I say that we should make a federally defined and protected institution called a "civil union" that extends every single legal protection enjoyed by married couples to any committed couple that wants it. Including straight couples. That way everyone can start getting civil unions and eventually marriage will just be a religious term, distinguished only by the semantics of a sermon. In any case, I prefer the term "partner" over "wife." The latter term has too many historically submissive connotations for my liking anyway.

I love how every time Obama does something good, a bunch of people who supposedly agree with what he's doing show up to take a dump on his chest for not having done more.

It's a historic moment, and y'all are pissed because he didn't do it sooner/more vociferously/in a dress to the tune of It's Rainin' Men.

Pointless drivel from a pointless president.

HEYYYYYY OHHHHHHHHHHH.

** Pointless because I cant believe anything the man says. He states his opinion sure, but his opinion doesnt mean dick all when it comes down to signing paper or getting things done. I see a man talking about a subject, giving SOMEONES point of view.

>> ^NetRunner:

I love how every time Obama does something good, a bunch of people who supposedly agree with what he's doing show up to take a dump on his chest for not having done more.
It's a historic moment, and y'all are pissed because he didn't do it sooner/more vociferously/in a dress to the tune of It's Rainin' Men.


Maybe because to me Gay Marriage isn't as big as assassinating innocent civilians or hiring the people that destroyed our economy to fix it. They're making all the same moves that will make the next collapse inevitable.

Gay marriage is a good thing...but there are bigger things that he is so far to the Right on he's worse than Bush.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

@Yogi, Obama is saying he supports gay marriage -- that's a good thing, right? Is there some reason you feel compelled to fling mud at him, even when he's just done something historic that will advance a civil rights cause you supposedly support?

To me, that looks like you're trying to step on a positive story to try to minimize any bump in his popularity, because you're worried it'll make him harder to defeat when he's up for election.

I think it's sweet that you say you care about issues and stuff, but do you really advance any sort of cause by trying to make the War on Terror into something that's all Obama's fault? By trying to make the bad economy all Obama's fault? You think you have some sort of shot at electing someone better than Obama in November?

I understand why Republicans and Libertarians talk like that, but what's your deal? You think you're saving the world from Obama's reign of gay pride terror?

>> ^NetRunner:

@Yogi, Obama is saying he supports gay marriage -- that's a good thing, right? Is there some reason you feel compelled to fling mud at him, even when he's just done something historic that will advance a civil rights cause you supposedly support?
To me, that looks like you're trying to step on a positive story to try to minimize any bump in his popularity, because you're worried it'll make him harder to defeat when he's up for election.
I think it's sweet that you say you care about issues and stuff, but do you really advance any sort of cause by trying to make the War on Terror into something that's all Obama's fault? By trying to make the bad economy all Obama's fault? You think you have some sort of shot at electing someone better than Obama in November?
I understand why Republicans and Libertarians talk like that, but what's your deal? You think you're saving the world from Obama's reign of gay pride terror?


Maybe actually read my post. I said supporting Gay marriage is a good thing, I stated the reasons that I don't like him.

Also I'm not an idiot, I can see he's doing this because it's an election year. He's a politician just like the rest of them.

Mostly agree with this:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/obama-endorses

It seems pretty calculated to me. These kinds of decisions just aren't made off cuff. The speed and sequence of events just feels too convenient in an attempt to make it look spontaneous.

Politically it's a huge boon. Romney wants to sell the the tested business-person image. Santorum and to a lesser extent Gingrich have already done damage by derailing the debate to the culture wars. The Republican base which doesn't trust him will need to see him defend 'traditional' marriage virulently to turn out to vote. It'll be out of his comfort zone & strengths and gut any chances he had left.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

That article makes a good point about Obama dragging this into partisan politics.>> ^RedSky:

Mostly agree with this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/obama-endors
es
It seems pretty calculated to me. These kinds of decisions just aren't made off cuff. The speed and sequence of events just feels too convenient in an attempt to make it look spontaneous.
Politically it's a huge boon. Romney wants to sell the the tested business-person image. Santorum and to a lesser extent Gingrich have already done damage by derailing the debate to the culture wars. The Republican base which doesn't trust him will need to see him defend 'traditional' marriage virulently to turn out to vote. It'll be out of his comfort zone & strengths and gut any chances he had left.

Making it such a big deal for the Two Person relationship is just a ploy to lend legitimacy to the Two Person relationship model.

The truth is, marraige has nothing to do with the survival of DNA. DNA will find a way.

These INCORPORATIONS between two people logically must be a process extended to MORE THAN TWO.

Polygamy is just as legitimate when the participants are of age, and love each other (or not) and raise each others kids (or not).

It doesnt stop with homosexual COUPLES. This farce of govt endorsing COUPLES is obvious.

This whole thing is just misdirection away from the real issues of reproductive health and the consequences of overpopulation. Gah.

Shrewd and calculated political move, but good outcome nonetheless. A Win-Win for all of us.

This isn't really a surprise; he endorsed it back in 1996 but has pretended otherwise until such time as it was politically convenient. This was actually politically inconvenient; it was introduced at an akward time, in an akward way, probably a lot earlier than he had planned, and he won't get much political mileage out of it. It will also serve to divide his base and galvanize conservatives. It's pretty much a lose-lose for Obama, except for the increased donations from the gay elite in hollywood and elsewhere.

I think everyone can figure out where I stand, but I've come to realize that these social issues are really just symptomatic to the larger issue of an apostate church failing to show the love of God. There is also the coming tribulation and the increase of sin in the world. The state is not going to be able to control sin or legislate it away. It is a spiritual battle, one the church must fight by being obedient to Christ, and one a compromised church cannot win.

Don't forget us atheists.

If you campaigned or voted for Obama, it's OK you guys, we forgive you!!

Here's something: our pay is structured to necessitate 2 working parents to survive .. vagina or penis optional.

Make money and pay taxes. methinks this distraction is working. as are you and your precious family. until you die.