Courage

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Barack Obama finally endorsed gay marriage.

The world press and political leaders, shaken by the political courage and uncompromising step, said that this is the dawn of the new historic era. Well, not everyone, but those who are worthy of attention.

My comments are as follows:

1. Obama had to gather all his glorious courage into a fist, all his qualities of a leader and to finally join Dick Cheney on this topic.
2. A spokesman for Vice President Biden announced that Obama was leading on this issue from day one. That's after Biden apologized for forcing Obama to announce his decision before Obama was ready.
3. This incredibly bold decision might cost him at least a dozen votes.
4. But this is unlikely, given that Obama has just explained that he would not insist that the party should do something about it.

Obama is now in a position where he is struggling to avoid things like the pre-election debates on the state of the economy.  And he frantically throws into the furnace any topic that he can hang on to. Free condoms for women! Burned. Romney does not like dogs! Oops. Julie's Life! Mega-ups. Well ... Well ... Oh! I support gay marriage!

I think there are enough distraction topics to last for a month at most. And then what?

Comments

[acethepug.livejournal.com]

Then we get things like the Romney bullying story. Nevermind that it was nearly 50 freaking years ago -- although it does show the media is willing to vet Republicans.

Interesting they can dredge this up on Romney, and we still don't have school transcripts on Obama ...

Thanks for posting!

[merig00.livejournal.com]

What else would you expect from the newspaper that reported about Perry and the painted over word on a stone.

Not to mention that various websites (dont have links right now) are reporting that the source of the story wasn't present at the prank. Didn't really remember/think about it till WaPo approached him. And was a volunteer for Obama '08 campaign.

[modernelegance.livejournal.com]

Breitbart.com has a few pieces on the story....pretty pathetic especially when you consider Barry's school/college days were filled with recreational drug use and not really doing anything....by his own admittance.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

The family of Romney's "bullying victim" has released a statement saying they're "aggrieved" that he would be used to further a political agenda. They also say that the Washington Post's portrayal of him is "inaccurate."

http://amerpundit.com/2012/05/10/whoa-family-of-romneys-alleged-bullying-victim-says-story-inaccurate-theyre-disgusted-by-wapo/

[blondebaroness.livejournal.com]

He's not done a thing. He's leaving it to the states. And looking at how the people in the states vote no, vs. how the states with legislators voting are yes, his statement is meaningless.

You're right, it's a distraction from the fact that he is the worst president ever. He has no plan for the economy other than trashing it. But he can't come out and talk about that, can he?

Bread and circuses, or in BO's case, just circuses.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

food stamps and circuses :D

[shezan.livejournal.com]

1. Obama had to gather all his glorious courage into a fist, all his qualities of a leader and to finally join Dick Cheney on this topic.

CLASSIC.

[mprice.livejournal.com]

This was all stage managed for the benefit of his Hollywood contributors and the gay donation bundlers. Period.

He also said that he prefers marriage over civil unions because the latter doesn't go far enough. How, I don't know. (That's what they have in the UK and it seems to be working just fine.) The only difference I can see is that a civil union leaves the church completely out of the equation and thereby eliminates any First Amendment issues.

They want to force churches to conform to thier view and not vice versa. Funny, and here I thought they wanted a separation of church and state. Or is it that they only want to keep the church out of government and not the other way around? Hmmm...

[modernelegance.livejournal.com]

"The only difference I can see is that a civil union leaves the church completely out of the equation and thereby eliminates any First Amendment issues."

That is what I thought...personally i am not going to choose sides in this issue because both sides are blabbering idiots that I do not want to be associated with....but to me Civil Unions seem to be a good resolution.

[kelincihutan.livejournal.com]

Civil unions are taxed as a non-married couple, I don't think they have hospital visitation... There's a couple other things. But there are some minor differences on paper between a union and a marriage, and there is some legal purpose for those differences (mostly applying, I believe, to two/more people who are not romantically involved but want to adopt for whatever reason).

If unions were restructured or something like "civil marriage" or something were created... I don't think this route would be a hard one to go in most places (TBH, I don't think it'd be hard to go anywhere, but you never know). The objections I hear when something like this is brought up are usually something like, "But that would give the religious fundies a reason to discount gay marriages as 'not real.'" Which is going to happen whether an SSM is called a "marriage" or not, so... IDK.

[mprice.livejournal.com]

It this is so, than a heterosexual couple who has a civil ceremony (Justice of the Peace) as opposed to a church ceremony has the law applied differently? I'm not sure that's the case, although it could just vary from state to state. I know it doesn't make a difference to the IRS.

Not all that long ago, if a couple had a civil ceremony there were those who didn't consider them "properly married" until they had a church wedding. Since that isn't the case anymore, I still don't see what difference it makes. My own parents couldn't get married in the church proper because my mother wasn't a Catholic. They had to have the ceremony in the rectory.

[kelincihutan.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are minor legal differences between a marriage and a union. I don't remember all of them, and they aren't huge (at least on paper), but they do exist. So, yes, a civil ceremony for a het couple would be slightly different in the law from a civil union for a gay one.

[glo-unit.livejournal.com]

A heterosexual couple that has a civil ceremony is still legally married. The way that all civil-union or domestic partnership laws in this country have been written, they have not given all of the rights that marriage grants.

Honestly I have never seen a demand for religious marriage or being seen as properly married or forcing churches to have a ceremony. It's about having all of the rights that married heterosexual couples get when they get married, and many (including myself) believe this won't happen without actual legal gay marriage.

[glo-unit.livejournal.com]

It isn't so much that it fives religious fundies a reason to discount gay marriages, as much as any attempt in this country to create a civil union that is equal to marriage has failed. In every attempt to create something separate, but equal there have been rights not included or rights or loopholes so that somethings can be ignored.

Basically as I like to say: Separate but equal has never worked in this country, all attempts to create something separate but equal in this regard have failed so far. I have absolutely no faith that separate but equal will ever work in this country.

[kelincihutan.livejournal.com]

Without getting too far into the politics (I am a religious "fundie" but one of my best friends is gay which has made my political position on this issue...complicated), there's also the problem that civil unions are legally useful for things other than romantic partnerships. So while I have no major issues with legal recognition of gay couples (like I said, complicated), it wouldn't strike me as productive to change unions to be identical to marriage on paper, since IIRC, that would cause another set of problems.

I was going to add other thoughts, but that paragraph turned into a fairly nonsensical mess. I generally agree with you on what options are bad or don't work, but beyond that...there lies the realm of complicatedness.

There is a reason I never say much about this issue. I always end up saying stuff that makes no sense at all. Argh. :(

[blondebaroness.livejournal.com]

Ding, ding, ding! Margaret wins the prize! Keep any moral view that might be Christian out of government, but the government gets to regulate churches and what is said in them.

The government can dress up homosexual marriage in tuxedos and lace, but God still doesn't approve.

[glo-unit.livejournal.com]

It only forces the church to confirm to their view if churches are forced to perform same-sex marriages. I have seen no arguments for this position.

[mprice.livejournal.com]

If it is legal under the law, then a couple who is refused by a church to have a wedding performed can attempt to force the issue. Much in the way Obamacare is now trying to force the Catholic church to pay for contraceptives. It's against the church's view, but HHS is still forcing the issue.

Again, they want the church out of the government, but it's okay to have the government in the church.

[foodsthatcan.livejournal.com]

I thought Obama's presidential nomination was the dawn of a new era. Earth healing, tides un-rising, etc.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

The pathetic thing is watching everyone fall for it. His mug was on the cover of everything yesterday!

(Silly me, I actually thought he was going to be ridiculed for his hypocrisy, and for the blatantly obvious timing of this "evolving" view.)

[chibimarchy.livejournal.com]

Common sense? And people seeing through obvious fallacies? In today's day and age? SURELY YOU JEST.

(I'm over here headdesking about it, too. Ugh ugh ugh.)

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

INORITE?

[michelle8899.livejournal.com]

Whatever. Just using it to get younger people who have no idea what his other policies are to get their votes.

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

So, the moral of the story is "I was against it before I was for it." Or, "I believe in it, because I was brave to voice it publicly and cost me votes."

Courage. And now I sound like Dan Rather. Help meeeeee........

On the other hand, Biden comes off looking like a genius, and I'm not being sarcastic, this time. RLY!