StrangeSox

Yeah, this thread is full of unremitted love for Obama, especially on this very topic. Obama is telling me what to believe re: gay marriage, a position I've supported long before he did? kap, for your own sake, don't hit the drinks so early!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:42 PM) Because I'm sure you'd be so open minded to someone telling you that homosexuality is wrong. GMAFB. People have beliefs about moral and ethical issues and it's rare for them to change without some sort of personal reason to. You don't get to a point of believing that homosexuality is wrong or abortion is wrong or whatever without having a pretty solid conviction that your belief is the right one (and why you think that way). Otherwise you'd let people know up front that you're not 100% sure. But Obama didn't appear to believe that homosexuality was morally wrong, he just believed in an ahistorical "one man, one woman" definition of marriage. He still ended DOMA and DADT, hired a transgendered staff member and never expressed any antagonism or derision towards the LGBT community.

Doing the Right Thing Was the Right Thing We all seem to be in agreement here: SSM should be fully legalized. So Obama took the policy we'd all like to see and set up a stark contrast with his opponent, who reiterated his anti-SSM law stance. Why should he be attacked for that?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) Next, by this same logic, you all should love you some Dick Cheney. But you hate him. He supports you on this issue, so why isn't he the saint of all saints? Oh, because he doesn't have a (d) behind his name. Sheeple. I like Dick Cheney's stance on gay marriage. I hate his stance on just about every other possible issue. Why would I treat him like a saint, and why does disliking him make me a "sheeple?" Remember my first two posts, which came before your first post, that were a) happy he came out in favor but b) critical that it took him this long? And the several people who agreed? Is that the mark of someone being treated as a "saint of all saints?" Just about any progressive position out there is going to be supported by some Republican somewhere. So what. Though, perhaps notably, it's very difficult to find any currently holding elected office who support SSM.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:17 PM) You can't draw that conclusion from my post. Maybe he really did support civil unions over marriage rights back in 2008. But my point was that he wasn't antagonistic towards homosexuality in the same way that groups like the FRC are. He supported and implemented pro-LGBT policies like ending DADT over the objections of the anti-gay Republicans in Congress. So while he wasn't an ideal supporter of gay rights, he was almost there. Shifting from the position of supporting civil unions to supporting full and equal marriage doesn't necessarily represent changing a deeply held conviction. That doesn't mean that he was selling out his beliefs then or now but that his beliefs legitimately changed. I'm going to criticize Obama for taking this long to come out in support of gay marriage as I did in the first couple of responses to this news item, which people seemed to be ignoring to pretend that there was uncritical praise for this move. But I will applaud him for changing his stance because it will only help the LGBT community. Even if it's a completely political ploy, they will still have one of the two candidates for President openly advocating for gay marriage. That is huge. Why shouldn't people who support gay marriage be happy that Obama is taking this position? This article captures this sentiment:

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) Opinions about what you personally believe is right or wrong, unless you're young, don't get swayed by arguments. It takes a personal experience IMO to change that view. Especially for a guy who is what, 50? and makes his living telling other people what he believes and why on a daily basis. Or thought and introspection and talking to people effected by these policies, as I'm sure Obama has done.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) So fine, he didn't believe what he said before, which just means he was, again, selling out on his beliefs to get votes. Still reflects poorly on him and it's ridiculous that people are applauding what he's just done (even while agreeing that the end result is what they want). You can't draw that conclusion from my post. Maybe he really did support civil unions over marriage rights back in 2008. But my point was that he wasn't antagonistic towards homosexuality in the same way that groups like the FRC are. He supported and implemented pro-LGBT policies like ending DADT over the objections of the anti-gay Republicans in Congress. So while he wasn't an ideal supporter of gay rights, he was almost there. Shifting from the position of supporting civil unions to supporting full and equal marriage doesn't necessarily represent changing a deeply held conviction. That doesn't mean that he was selling out his beliefs then or now but that his beliefs legitimately changed. I'm going to criticize Obama for taking this long to come out in support of gay marriage as I did in the first couple of responses to this news item, which people seemed to be ignoring to pretend that there was uncritical praise for this move. But I will applaud him for changing his stance because it will only help the LGBT community. Even if it's a completely political ploy, they will still have one of the two candidates for President openly advocating for gay marriage. That is huge. Why shouldn't people who support gay marriage be happy that Obama is taking this position?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) If you firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, unless you have some personal experience, why would that view change? He could be (and appears to be) pro civil unions, but not marriage. I don't see a logical reason for that opinion to change except to get some votes, especially in the time frame we're talking about here. You realize it's a s***ty position to hold that violates equality before the law, something you're pretty concerned with based on your past history of community organizing? The thing is judging on how "firmly" someone held a certain position in the past. The FRC reversing their opinion on gay marriage would represent a complete ideological shift on homosexuality in general. Moving from ending DADT, abandoning DOMA and supporting civil unions to supporting gay marriage isn't some tectonic shift.

Thanks, that's more accurate. Do you know if other bans have had similar provisions, and how many were legislative instead of amendments?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:55 PM) the first 29 states didn't do that? It just happened to be the 30th. Yeah, not buying that either. I don't know that the other ones stripped civil unions from those that had them. The NC amendment goes further than a simple ban on SSM. It bans any legal recognition of SS couples. It is truly a disgrace for the country.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) So, if Amendment 1 in NC never happened, Obama would never have said this? Because, if that's the case, maybe I should THANK the voters of NC for passing such a horrifying amendment. It's also possible that such a callous act finally convinced some people (maybe even Obama!) how awful reality actually can be for some people.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) More like new political opportunities in this case. There is no possible way you will ever believe Obama actually supports SSM, right?

And neo-Confederacy circles!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:39 PM) The problem in this case is nothing has changed but Obama's need to fill his war chest. Different story if one of his daughters turned out to be gay and he decided it was acceptable (hey, like Cheney in 2009!). But this is just "oh, yeah I should probably make that statement to help my campaign." Edit: And not to derail the thread, but SB, you've said this libertarian stance on gov't intrusion before, yet a lot of your viewpoints from what I can remember are pretty pro-government intervention. The gun issue from the Trayvon Martin stuff comes to mind. You don't have to have one of your family members come out gay to be in favor of same-sex marriage. Yeah, personal experiences are the greatest motivators, but they aren't the only ones.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) And there you go...a religious person says it this way. A non-religious person leaves out God. End of story. I'll quote from Graeber's Debt here: Graeber is using this example to expound on the morality of debt, but I really like the sentiment expressed by the Inuit here. To help each other is human. To say "thank you" to someone for that help suggests that he or she might not have acted that way, at least in some cultures.

People change their personal core beliefs over the course of their life thanks to new evidence/experiences and introspection.

Greene County (Va.) Republican Committee Newsletter Editor Calls for Armed Revolution if the President Is Re-Elected

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) I am not convinced of all of the validity of that, but if convinced, I would discard Paul as well. I have never been a true supporter, but voted for him mostly because he holds some of the same philosophies. I am not committed to Paul for President by any stretch. My main point was that I would not vote for the guy who is going to be the GOP nominee because of who he is. Picking at the Ron Paul thing is meaningless. He does not deny that they were published in his newsletter and under his name, only that he personally did not write or approve them. He will not say who wrote them, but many believe it was likely Lew Rockwell. Still, he allowed these racist screeds to be published under his name to garner support and campaign contributions. It's not like the right-wing libertarian political strategy of the 80's isn't known; Paul was not the only one to cater to the Stormfront/neo-nazi/militia-survivalist crowd with racist overtones. Fostering racism for political gain is surely much worse than supporting gay marriage for political gain. You voted someone who cynically exploited racism for political advantage at best, and yet you're castigating others who believe Obama's move is good for the LGBT community.

Interesting post on the incoherence of Obama's statement on gay marriage and leaving it to the states and his administration's constitutionality argument regarding DOMA: If DOMA is unconstitutional thanks to equal protection, state laws banning same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional as well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:03 PM) Global warming isn't religion. What about his incredibly racist newsletters that he now disowns?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) Thanks for making my point. There is no way of knowing what he actually stands for. I don't think I've disagreed with this? But I do think the balance of the evidence is in favor of him coming around to actually supporting gay marriage. That's to be expected from everyday people as something continues to gain support and acceptance in society--they will gradually change their own positions as long as it isn't a core, strongly held belief. Even if Obama did legitimately believe man-woman before, it never seemed to be an especially important issue for him. Again, that's open for criticism (an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere), but it doesn't mean he's cynically abandoned a core belief.

Not all religions have a hell or even an afterlife at all.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:57 PM) And that is Democrats own fault for supporting these type of candidates. LGBT's aren't a unified, one-issue voter block.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) Great, you want me to prove the impossible. I will not vote for someone who has changed a core belief. I will not vote for Mitt Romney for example. I voted for Ron Paul in our Primary on Tuesday even though there was no real reason to do so. Ron Paul repudiated the extreme racism he endorsed in his news letters.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) You say this like you don't think that a politician could ever have a change of mind or change of heart on an issue. That's a pretty high bar to live up to. People do change and their views do too. I don't doubt that a big part of his views are shaped by polling numbers. You could argue that's pandering. And its true if the views change with every audience. Something candidates like Mitt Romney, and to a lesser extent, John Kerry were very good at - as well as Abraham Lincoln, actually. However, if your views change because society changes, and your governance reflects the people you represent - that's not pandering, that's properly representing the people who elected you. I don't know why we have to assume that his mid-90's and 2012 positions are the dishonest ones and the 2008 position is his true feelings anyway.