Obama about to announce support of marriage rights for all?

**Galen Sevinne** · 05-09-2012, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Nice try. Please go through where anyone is trying to turn this into a debate about Christianity other than you.

And yet again you're pretending to play stupid. You know damn well I am not saying religion should regulate marriages, but the EXACT OPPOSITE, if people wanted to be recognized in government it needs to be separate. Did you read the thread?

I think you need to read the thread. You have this inherent and incorrect belief that a governement official such as a judge can't "marry" someone but they can. In some states simple notaries can "marry' people. The only government intervention is the one that PROHIBITS marriage between gay people. By allowing gays to marry, you are actually LIFTING government intervention and removing government from the equation. For some reason you think government prohibiting marriage is lack of government intervention while government backing out and thus allowing all people to marry is somehow government getting involved. The ONLY reason government prevents gay people from marrying is because of the church so therefore the church and yes, the christian church in this country, is driving the government intervention that prohibits a behavior. No government intervention equals marriage for all.

Your problem, just like every other connie on this thread, is that gay marriage isn't a conservative ideology so you have to find something wrong about it so you go to the typical "Big Scary Government getting involved is wrong" when really your problem is something else. What it is I don't know but there is no government intervention in allowing gays to marry.

Government intervention in most cases restricts behavior and it is exactly what is happening here. No government intervention usually means freedoms such as the freedom to marry. This is why I joke you guys for your "liberty" fetish because you wouldn't know liberty if it hit you in the head. Restricting people from marrying who they want is a lack of liberty in this country.

It is consistent with Obama's secular and intellectual approach to politics to come out in support of gay marriage. I have always had a problem with Obama stance on this but understood his quasi-support of it was simply politics. His full support of it, without getting into the legality of rights etc., was the perfect statement. This is something I could care less about how it polls and more about him doing what folks like myself see as the right thing to do. For many people, this is a transformative moment and I am happy for them. You guys can dawdle around with finding ways to condemn it. I would expect nothing less and good luck. Allowing people who love each to fully marry is what liberty is all about. Its been a great day.

**AirFlacco** · 05-09-2012, 11:05 PM

How can it be consistent with OBY when he just changed his mind after tremendous pressure
from his own party and they were pressured by the gays. It would have been consistent if
he came out and said this in 2004 which he didn't.

In fact, it was Biden who forced OBYs hand. Now that's leadership Galen, the #2 guy
telling the #1 guy what to do.

And this link is from the DEMs own site - politicol.com.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76103.html

**darb72** · 05-10-2012, 03:10 AM

I'm all for civil unions, like everybody else on this thread who isn't a thief, but not gay marriage. People should have every right to live with whoever they want and do whatever they want.

The great thing about this is that Obama probably just lost the election and that means a full Republican government by the end of next year. Him saying he supports gay marriage isn't going to win anymore votes from the gay community. People who support gay marriage are by and large democrats, so this didn't help him any. On the other hand, there are a lot more people who will get out and vote against him just because of what he said. Women tend to view the institution of marriage more strictly than men do, so Obama will lose some support from them. Some minorities who supported him the last time time around won't because of this little speech.

**ActualSpamBot** · 05-10-2012, 03:22 AM

The thing about my view is that if a gay couple wants to go to a reform synagogue or universalist Unitarian church and get their civil union recognized as a marriage, then that's ok too. A marriage is a religious ceremony and anyone can have a religious ceremony at their particular church.

Nice thing about my compromise is that it officially removes the government from a religious ceremony while simultaneously granting everyone equal rights to be civilly unionized. I would be fine with my straight marriage being called a civil union, and if my wife wanted it to be called a marriage we could go down to a religious group that we believe in and get our union sanctified.

I don't see why you'd object to this Galen. I'm suggesting 100% equal treatment under the law for all couples. If private religious groups want to have a ceremony called "a marriage" they still can, but the government wouldn't be involved. There is no reason, aside from "tradition," that the government is involved in marriages at all. I think my compromise is the most strict application of the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

**AirFlacco** · 05-10-2012, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by darb72

I'm all for civil unions, like everybody else on this thread who isn't a thief, but not gay marriage. People should have every right to live with whoever they want and do whatever they want.

The great thing about this is that Obama probably just lost the election and that means a full Republican government by the end of next year. Him saying he supports gay marriage isn't going to win anymore votes from the gay community. People who support gay marriage are by and large democrats, so this didn't help him any. On the other hand, there are a lot more people who will get out and vote against him just because of what he said. Women tend to view the institution of marriage more strictly than men do, so Obama will lose some support from them. Some minorities who supported him the last time time around won't because of this little speech.

On theme with that I just saw a possibility of Huck as the VP with Mitt.

That assures the Christian right which loaths OBYs support of gay marriage.

Even Carville says DEMs can lose and lose big if they don't connect to the
middle class.

OBY just alienated it even more.

**AirFlacco** · 05-10-2012, 07:46 AM

OBY really didn't want to do this now. His party leader said to man up but 6 months before
the election and the president has to lead a war on traditional marriage, when he's losing in landslides?

Nope, even OBY didn't want this now but was forced into it.

To recap:

He's started class warfare declaring war on the rich.

He declared war on the Church.

He's now declared war on traditional marriage.

He's declared war on the coal industry.

he's declared war on the oil industry.

He's declared war on the insurance industry.

He's declared war on capitalism.

He's declared war on wall street using his OWS.

What's left for him to declare war on?

Bad timing indeed.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-10-2012, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

I think you need to read the thread. You have this inherent and incorrect belief that a governement official such as a judge can't "marry" someone but they can. In some states simple notaries can "marry' people. The only government intervention is the one that PROHIBITS marriage between gay people. By allowing gays to marry, you are actually LIFTING government intervention and removing government from the equation. For some reason you think government prohibiting marriage is lack of government intervention while government backing out and thus allowing all people to marry is somehow government getting involved. The ONLY reason government prevents gay people from marrying is because of the church so therefore the church and yes, the christian church in this country, is driving the government intervention that prohibits a behavior. No government intervention equals marriage for all.

Your problem, just like every other connie on this thread, is that gay marriage isn't a conservative ideology so you have to find something wrong about it so you go to the typical "Big Scary Government getting involved is wrong" when really your problem is something else. What it is I don't know but there is no government intervention in allowing gays to marry.

Government intervention in most cases restricts behavior and it is exactly what is happening here. No government intervention usually means freedoms such as the freedom to marry. This is why I joke you guys for your "liberty" fetish because you wouldn't know liberty if it hit you in the head. Restricting people from marrying who they want is a lack of liberty in this country.

It is consistent with Obama's secular and intellectual approach to politics to come out in support of gay marriage. I have always had a problem with Obama stance on this but understood his quasi-support of it was simply politics. His full support of it, without getting into the legality of rights etc., was the perfect statement. This is something I could care less about how it polls and more about him doing what folks like myself see as the right thing to do. For many people, this is a transformative moment and I am happy for them. You guys can dawdle around with finding ways to condemn it. I would expect nothing less and good luck. Allowing people who love each to fully marry is what liberty is all about. Its been a great day.

This is awesome. Galen is having a meltdown.

I am aware judges can perform marriages. I've seen them do it. We ALL are talking about getting government out of the marriage business. Not having them extend a privilege/right that they have no business being involved in, in the first place. Or having marriage and civil unions be separate 6 of one half dozen of the other.

But either with either approach, it's funny that you fathom "connies" don't have a problem with same-sex couples getting together, so you play dumb to the point we are trying to make and debate an argument no one is making. So sad...

**NCRAVEN** · 05-10-2012, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Give kudos to Gawker. They are calling the Prez's BS.

They accurately point out the nuance in his stance. He's hardly supporting it as a "right". He's saying they "should" be allowed to marry. Galen pulled the trigger too soon.

http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-oba...e-announcement

Damn, they hit him pretty hard there.

**AirFlacco** · 05-10-2012, 08:54 AM

Not here. NPR said he made a conservative movement as America's evolution, well,
evolves.

http://newsbusters.org/

**Galen Sevinne** · 05-10-2012, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

This is awesome. Galen is having a meltdown.

I am aware judges can perform marriages. I've seen them do it. We ALL are talking about getting government out of the marriage business. Not having them extend a privilege/right that they have no business being involved in, in the first place. Or having marriage and civil unions be separate 6 of one half dozen of the other.

But either with either approach, it's funny that you fathom "connies" don't have a problem with same-sex couples getting together, so you play dumb to the point we are trying to make and debate an argument no one is making. So sad...

You're too funny. You say you dont want the church to regulate marriage and you want the government out of marriage. So do we go to Target then and get married? Should we also get big scary government out of licensing drivers too? Fishing licenses? How about my license to practice? Should government have no power to license anything? Why is marriage any different? Governments regulate a ton of behaviors through licensure.
Its okay for governments to license civil unions? Or is that too much government too? Or is that okay? As long as they don't use the word marriage?

In the end your stance is no different than those who said "I am fine with that black person riding the bus as long as she sits on the back." You are making second class citizenry out of your own heterosexual privilege.

There are a boatload of people, heterosexual and homosexual, who want to get married in a secular fashion. Most of my friends were married outside of the church. Believe it or not there are a lot of people who find it just a lot easier and honest to go down the the local courthouse, get married and move on.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

**NCRAVEN** · 05-10-2012, 09:20 AM

Your grasping for straws Galen. Back of the bus, really?

My first stance, is that government have no business in marriage or unions at all. As a compromise, I agree with Spambot's stance, that if you want equality in the law, that government (i.e. judges) perform civil unions, anyone who wants a marriage ceremony can go to their church. And as I said and as others have pointed out there are churches and synagogues where same- sex couples can have a marriage ceremony.

But in reality, Obama coming out and "support" of gay marriage is to get everyone talking about this. When we all know "It's the economy stupid"

**HoustonRaven** · 05-10-2012, 09:40 AM

Let Galen have his moment. Seriously.

But make no mistake, the President didn't want to make this statement. It was forced by Biden and came WAY too early.

And even the Politico sees the pitfalls of this move. This move, while gets his base re-energized, puts him in serious jeopardy in the battle ground states:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...0-1BA398B37248