Obama declares support for same-sex marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Havard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you’ve hit it JimG. He likely did not lose one vote by this action, and likely solidifiwd many.

John
 
Havard said:
President Obama, marking the end of a prolonged “evolution” on the issue, now favors allowing homosexual couples to marry, he said in a television interview Wednesday.

Obama told ABC’s Robin Roberts Wednesday: “Over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-abc-gay-marriage-position-20120509,0,6635227.story
Click to expand...
:mad: :okpeople: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/a-prayer-for-obama-psalm-109-82.jpg :okpeople:
 
His opinion hopping is making him look unstable. Hes saying it to get votes. He is losing my respect.

Also I heard recently hes making the CC pay for others abortions though some insurance plan. 🤷
 
oldcelt said:
I think you’ve hit it JimG. He likely did not lose one vote by this action, and likely solidifiwd many.

John
Click to expand...
…except for possibly further alienating Catholics.

I wonder what he would do, as he told PM Medvedev, should he win a 2nd term, and become “more flexibile”. :eek:
 
oldcelt said:
I think you’ve hit it JimG. He likely did not lose one vote by this action, and likely solidifiwd many.

John
Click to expand...
I think there will be some dropout from socially conservative Hispanics and Blacks.
 
I think there will be some dropout from socially conservative Hispanics and Blacks.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but I feel somewhat certain that it was a highly calculated risk on his part.

John
 
oldcelt said:
Possibly, but I feel somewhat certain that it was a highly calculated risk on his part.

John
Click to expand...
I agree. His campaign people know what they are doing. It’s a hot topic, but it will be a very close race. Romney’s state of Mass one of the first to pass gay marriage, so I don’t know how much credibility he has.

On another note I heard that the Methodist council recently woted to not allow gay marriage in their church.

It will be social conservatives against social liberals. It much depends on the media and how the candidates appear. Most people are very easily swayed one way or the other if they don’t have any vested interest in the issue.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Most people are very easily swayed one way or the other if they don’t have any vested interest in the issue.
Click to expand...
I agree. E.g., I’d think that many elderly are more concerned with euthanasia than with abortion.
 
It is a shame that the Republican Party and Mitt Romney have swung so far right. If they were modereate, I would vote Republican this time because of Obama’s support for gay marriage and other things.

But, there simply is no way that I can, in good conscience, vote for Mitt Romney because:
  1. He would bend to Republican pressure and invade Iran.
  2. He would continue to side against working Americans in positions favorable to big business.
  3. The right wing Republican led Congress is too powerful in their anti-student and anti-worker ideology and a Republican President would upset the balance of power.
May God help us (and Iran) if Mitt Romney gets elected.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
I agree. His campaign people know what they are doing. It’s a hot topic, but it will be a very close race. Romney’s state of Mass one of the first to pass gay marriage, so I don’t know how much credibility he has.

.
Click to expand...
Obama chose the color of money over the votes of the people of color.

buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gay-marriage-reversal-means-cash-for-obama
President Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage carries a political cost, but it also means floods of cash from wealthy gay donors and disillusioned young people eager to be inspired by him again.
Click to expand...
And now we know why.
 
Interpreting the talking heads, pundititas, and other chattering nabobs it seems the oval office occupier’s demographers and pollsters has figured he has keep a rather non-traditional coalition to get to electoral majority. He has to hold the elite chattering class, the rich liberals of the credentialed class (the people with BS in angry chick studies, angry minority studies, journalism, political science other liberal arts) people who end up as social workers and HR types or government employees, teachers and the college kids. All the above classes they think will be sympathetic and dumb like confabulating civil rights and gay marriage. The demographic under 30 is more sympathetic with homosexual marriage and may draw nearer to him because right now the graduating credentialed are not finding jobs and are not too enthusiastic, not like last cycle. So he has to start ginning up support somehow, war on wymon war on homosexuals, war on racial minorities watch for more.
 
myriad1 said:
It is a shame that the Republican Party and Mitt Romney have swung so far right. If they were modereate, I would vote Republican this time because of Obama’s support for gay marriage and other things.

But, there simply is no way that I can, in good conscience, vote for Mitt Romney because:
  1. He would bend to Republican pressure and invade Iran.
  2. He would continue to side against working Americans in positions favorable to big business.
  3. The right wing Republican led Congress is too powerful in their anti-student and anti-worker ideology and a Republican President would upset the balance of power.
May God help us (and Iran) if Mitt Romney gets elected.
Click to expand...
Oh please, all those issues are exactly the same for both parties. What has Obama done for you in the last 4 years? Invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with who is President.

You should follow your religion and your conscience, and vote for the only issues that do divide the two parties, social issues.
 
SamH said:
Obama chose the color of money over the votes of the people of color.
Click to expand...
I’m certain that he won’t lose all that many Hispanic and black votes. The number who will defect won’t affect the overwheming percentage of that demographic who will stick with him. IMO. 🤷
 
I’m certain that he won’t lose all that many Hispanic and black votes. The number who will defect won’t affect the overwheming percentage of that demographic who will stick with him. IMO.
Click to expand...
Agreed,

John
 
i agree that Obama will not lose his base support. but, in a close election, the undecided middle of the road voters could swing to Romney on the far right.

it is a shame that neither Obama nor Romney are moderates. I think that they would like to be but they have to be true to their left wing parties where the money and votes are.

but, at least Santorum is out of the picture. that’s a plus, anyway.
 
myriad1 said:
It is a shame that the Republican Party and Mitt Romney have swung so far right. If they were modereate, I would vote Republican this time because of Obama’s support for gay marriage and other things…
Click to expand...
You are certainly not saying Obama and the democrat party are middle of the road? You can’t be serious.:o
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
You should follow your religion and your conscience, and vote for the only issues that do divide the two parties, social issues.
Click to expand...
Yep. Abortion is the number one issue. If it’s not your conscience has a major problem. :cool:
 
**Obama spiritual adviser Joel Hunter concerned about support of gay marriage **
The president and the pastor spoke for 15 minutes, as Hunter, who had been driving with his wife in their home town of Orlando, Fla., pulled into a parking lot to listen. The pastor said he told the president that he did not agree with his view.
Click to expand...
Here’s another tidbit from our interview with Hunter: Obama expressed concern that his full embrace of gay marriage was now putting the evangelical mega-church leader in an uncomfortable spot.
Click to expand...
“We have a close relationship,” Hunter told The Post. “And he wanted to make sure that I wasn’t in a really precarious position by not knowing what he had done, and he wanted to make sure our relationship was solid.”
Click to expand...
Hunter assured the president that the relationship was fine.
Click to expand...
“Of course it is,” Hunter said. “A pastor doesn’t abandon people because he happens to disagree with the decisions that they’ve made.”
Click to expand...
Still, Hunter was not pleased. Upon answering his phone when a Post reporter called, Hunter sounded exasperated. “I’ve had better days,” he groaned.
Click to expand...
The pastor went on to explain that, from his church’s perspective, even a symbolic gesture by the president (Obama made clear he was not pursuing a policy shift and was expressing personal views) could foreshadow future laws that could force religious institutions’ hands.
Click to expand...
His fears were not soothed by assurances from Obama and the White House that the president’s view would have no bearing on churches or religious groups. Obama said that these organizations should make their own decisions on whether to marry same-sex couples. In their conversation, Hunter said Obama referred to his belief in “civil marriage” for gays and lesbians, drawing a distinction between relationships sanctioned by the government and those by churches.
Click to expand...
**“If there is a law that you cannot discriminate between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, then, eventually, there will be pressure on the church to obey the law,” Hunter said. “And there will be lawsuits that come testing this thing, and we just know that we will certainly be pressured to conform to the law.”
Click to expand...
Hunter continued: “As we see this possibly getting written into the Democratic Party platform, we look down the road. And the conversation I hear among religious leaders is that when you have this kind of powerful voice in the government and even an entire party talking about marriage non-discrimination, then there will be laws put in place somewhere down the line.”**
Click to expand...
Such comments from Hunter underscore the political dangers and tension points for Obama in the months ahead.

The president, since his 2008 campaign, has taken extraordinary steps to forge ties with religious groups, particularly those whose memberships tend to be socially conservative. Hunter was a key part of that effort – a high-profile, white, evangelical pastor who could tell his flock that this African American president with an unusual family background was indeed a good and faithful Christian.

That outreach – including Obama’s decision to include an invocation by Pastor Rick Warren during his inaugural festivities – often created tension with the gay and lesbian community, the very group Obama pleased the most with his declaration this week.

The open question is whether Obama’s move this week on gay marriage means that he now feels that his reelection campaign will hinge more on motivating his base than on trying to appeal more socially conservative swing voters. Alternatively, if friends like Hunter remain dismayed and worried, that could help presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney reenergize the mega-churches, just as George W. Bush did in 2004 (with the assist of some well-timed initiatives against gay marriage).

washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obama-spiritual-adviser-joel-hunter-concerned-about-support-of-gay-marriage/2012/05/10/gIQAbSTaFU_blog.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top