Is Obama the Gayest President Ever? CrossRoads, posted by Cindy Cross, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on May 15, 2012 at 10:54 pm Cindy Cross is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Is Obama the Gayest President Ever? By Cindy Cross
President Obama put in his support for same sex marriage after having his hand forced by Vice President Joe Biden. Many republicans are claiming this was a calculated strategy to garner more support from moderates and younger voters whose views on social issues are more liberal. A May 2011 Gallup poll showed 53% of those polled supported same sex marriage, where 45% did not.
Obama was clear about being against gay marriage in 2008 when he was first elected. Obama flip-flopping on a major issue is music to Romney’s ears.
In an interview with MTV in 2008, Obama said, "I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary," Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.”
Why the change of heart in 2012? Is Obama attempting to force the republicans into a corner? A large segment of the population supports civil unions for same sex partners. If the republicans come out forceful against Obama’s new view on same-sex marriage, it could alienate centrist republicans and libertarians.
Ron Paul co-founded the Marriage Protection Act that gives authority to individual states to regulate marriage. If a marriage license was issued to a same-sex couple in one state, it would not be forced to be recognized in another state where same-sex marriage was illegal. Paul personally believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but understands that each state should have the right to decide on the issue.
Mitt Romney has always been firmly against same-sex marriage throughout the years based on moral and religious grounds. “When I am President, I will preserve the defense of marriage act and I will fight for a federal amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.”
Romney could have ammunition against Obama in future debates should the issue come up. With a reputation as a flip-flopper, Romney could shove this issue in Obama’s face since he was clearly against same sex marriage when he was first elected.
Being the lame duck president, Obama has little to lose and much to gain. Same sex marriage can either be Obama’s legacy or anchor. Rand Paul said that Obama “couldn’t get any gayer.”
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 16, 2012 at 7:05 am
"Paul personally believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but understands that each state should have the right to decide on the issue."
The problem with this is that same sex couples would not enjoy the legal benefits such as taxes, social security, at the federal level.
I personally think there should be civil unions but those unions need to be recognized in all states, with all the federal benefits and protections (taxes, social security, etc). Marriage would then be a religious thing, couples getting married in churches and having marriage be between a man and a woman.
I doubt that any individual will switch to the Romney camp because of Obama's sudden support of same sex marriage. But Romney has alienated many with his announcement because it reminds everyone that the GOP is all for limiting rights: anti-abortion, etc.
It is about choosing which extreme is better. For instance, I do not think third trimester abortion should be legal, but I also do not believe that someone should be forced to have a baby they did not ask for (case of rape). Neither extreme is good but if I had to choose, well, I'd rather have third trimester abortions be legal than having girls forced to carry their rapist's baby to term. Likewise,
if I have to choose here, I'd rather allow gays to marry than having Romney and his ultra conservative social ideas be implemented (because Romney is being influenced big time by the most backward segment of this nation, the extreme right).
I have a feeling that once Romney announces his VP running mate, it will be easy for everyone to run away from him (Imagine Huckabee as the choice, yikes, yikes, yikes!)
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on May 16, 2012 at 8:39 am
Resident, you're absolutely right about the civil union position you described, but the problem is that gay political lobbyists want more than that. The issue is not about benefits and legal standing any longer (actually it hasn't been for a while now).
They are like spoiled little brats stomping their feet until they get exactly what you have. While they think this approach will bring them happiness and greater clout in the political arena, in reality it further galvanizes the majority of people who will never condone their perverse lifestyle. Ever. If only this much effort were put forth in finding a cure to this genetic anomoly.....
Posted by wise owl, a member of the Hart Middle School community, on May 16, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Neighborhood - The Gates - Why is this even an issue. As a country we should be beyond this. Cheney has a gay daughter. He is a family man. He would want what makes his child happy, including a gay marriage and supporting her gay marriage, despite his political and religious objection to it.
The USA was founded by a multiple of religions, most escaping religious persecution. It is our culture to put aside religion and do what is best for all US citizens.
For those of you who espouse that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, I ask; What do you do with marriages when the couple is infertile? Do you annul it, divorce it, ignore it, have an affair, expel the couple from their religion, and a fertile spouse to the marriage, stone the infertile spouse until death or what?
There will always be religious differences, but only one "United" States of America.
REAL ISSUES THAT YOU SHOULD SPEND YOUR TIME ON AND ACT UPON:
The issues should be the deficit, health care, bring the troops home, medicare, social security, homeless, job creation, Super Pacs, lobbyists, the super rich and the super poor and not much else in the middle, and the VA that sucks the taxpayer money from each of us, (as the court said about the VA - It is ridiculous unbridled incompetence) to which I add the VA top officials are mostly violating federal laws with impunity and with the complicity of Congress. 18 veterans commit suicide a day. DO YOU CARE??
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on May 16, 2012 at 3:19 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Resident wrote: "I personally think there should be civil unions but those unions need to be recognized in all states, with all the federal benefits and protections (taxes, social security, etc)."
What's gained by such duplication? If a civil union confers all the same legal benefits that a marriage does, why call it something else? It's a waste to have two different institutions enshrined in law that do the same exact thing. Marriage _is_ a civil union. You need a marriage license from the government before you can receive the legal benefits.
"Marriage would then be a religious thing, couples getting married in churches and having marriage be between a man and a woman."
Our society already does this. Heterosexual couples don't need a church or any other religious institution to receive a marriage license today (it's a civil union!). If they want to get married in a church, they follow church law at that point, which may (or may not) say marriage is between one man and one woman.
The real problem is that government arbitrarily restricts the benefits of a marriage license to one particular religious doctrine to the exclusion of others. What public interest could government possibly have in regulating marriage in this way? It certainly isn't "for the children".
Posted by Mr. Rational, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on May 17, 2012 at 12:11 am
'The real problem is that government arbitrarily restricts the benefits of a marriage license to one particular religious doctrine to the exclusion of others. What public interest could government possibly have in regulating marriage in this way? It certainly isn't "for the children".'
It's because governments are bad, power craving, and want to regulate us all by increasing all kinds of taxes, especially for education in the state of California.
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on May 17, 2012 at 8:28 am
Very true, Mr. Rational. I'm hoping the current incarnation of 'honest Abe' will be freeing the taxpaying slaves any day now.
'Hmmm...'.based on your response, we have to conclude you're not in favor of curing genetic defects. Sad. Why would you not want to help these people, or at the least, help prevent this problem for future generations? (of course, this assume procreation continues to occur....)
Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin, on May 17, 2012 at 8:40 pm dublinmike is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Mr. Rational, by your comments "It's because governments are bad, power craving," makes me think you are an Anarchist. But, you follow by stating "especially for education in the state of California." suggests you are playing around, right? On the other hand, you along with steve, a resident of the Parkside, are a bunch of whiners.
Hard to tell.
All political leaders crave power at some point. Many start out with the best of intentions then that old adage kicks in "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin, on May 17, 2012 at 8:51 pm dublinmike is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
So, going back to a thread about marriage, I believe that a union between a man & woman should be "civil union" and licensed as such. Thereafter, if they would like a "marriage" then, by all means, go somewhere to have a ceremony and feel free to call it a marriage.
The government has absolutely no right to define a marriage. Government is just that, government. It is a system used to keep people in some sort of order thereby avoiding chaos. It's structure, it's an infrastructure. It's not a social or religious entity.
Along the way, the idea of government became corrupted when people decided it should govern the morals & religious beliefs of people in addition to creating and maintaining order. Don't believe me, look at Iran.