Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Obama comes out in favour of gay marriage

  • 09-05-2012 7:19pm
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/north-carolina-us-politics-live
    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

    Bar the redneck and lunatic fringe of the Republican party, gay marriage is nowhere near as contentious an issue as it was even four years ago. America has changed, and public opinion with it. Despite making it look like he is making a courageous stance, in reality he is not. The people who are really opposed to this won't vote for him. Most independents either won't care or if they do, won't sway their decision to vote or not to vote for him. So in reality he is giving his liberal base some red meat to chew on. Don't let the tea party fanatics confuse you - Obama has governed as a moderate conservative. With the exception of a moderate stimulus package and a cosmetic 'tax the rich' stance, his economic policy is more like a moderate Republican (Somebody like Nixon) than Jimmy Carter. Since the Republicans nominated a moderate Republican (Or at least a pragmatic one), Obama has had to do something to get the liberals to come out on polling day. If he were facing Santorum I would greatly doubt it whether he would have made these remarks today. The Trayvon Martin thing was a calculated statement to African Americans (He needs them to show up in similar numbers to 2008) If I were one of Obama's advisors I'd engineer a new round of anti-immigration rhetoric from nativist Republicans in order to shore up the Hispanic vote. With Republicans routinely offending women, expect Obama to pick up some ground here as well.

    He is one shrewd political operator.

    Cynical? Absolutely. But at least gay marriage has now become an entrenched value within the Democratic party. Which can only be a good thing.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    I'm quite cynical about this move as well. I think this statement is in some way linked to Richard Grenell leaving the Romney campaign recently.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    It's a clever enough move. It provides a focus issue that the republicans will obsess over (Fox has already called it Obama's "War on Marriage") even though the vast majority of voters have already decided how they feel about it.

    Meanwhile less certain and more important issues like fiscal and foreign policy go ignored by the media, allowing Obama to shore up his vote.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    seamus wrote: »

    Meanwhile less certain and more important issues like fiscal and foreign policy go ignored by the media, allowing Obama to shore up his vote.

    Its not in Obama's interest to downplay his foreign policy. He is the first democrat since Lyndon Johnson who can claim to be tough on national security (Personally I don't consider this a good thing, but America is an ultra nationalist country whose military are venerated to an unhealthy degree) Consider the aerial war he has waged since taken office, which has been much more severe than his predecessor. Then there is the removal of Gadaffi from Libya (How Reagan would have loved to do that!), the assassination of Bin Laden, the increased effectiveness of the CIA... If anything he needs to be shouting this from the rooftops so that the Republicans don't steal the narrative from him.

    Ultimately Obama needs this election to be as far away from the economy as possible. If he can provoke the Republicans to vent their bigoted anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-immigrant reflexes, the election will be his. The tea partiers will be replenished and their extremism will dismay the millions of independents who didn't bother voting in the 2010 midterms. I've said it before - the best thing that could have happened for Obama was the rise of the quasi fascist reactionary wing of the Republican party since his election. They are over-represented in mid term elections as most normal people don't bother voting in those. He'll get a big turn out from blacks, hispanics, gays, a majority of women, and hopefully a huge liberal turnout should the election be about social issues, immigration, and gay rights. He'll hold his own if foreign policy comes into play. The only way Romney can win is if he convinces Americans that he will do a better job of running the economy. Obama needs to prevent that discussion from even happening, to deflect the conversation elsewhere into a bottomless pit of hatred and fury which is the Republicans specialty.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    I'm not convinced it was a political move. He was forced into it by Biden's support for it... he risked looking weak and indecisive by continuing the line that he is "evolving" on the issue.

    I know it's early in the race, but at 9 points ahead of his rival I don't see why they'd think there was a need to take risks like this. And I do think it's a risk... here in Ireland about 75% of people support same-sex marriage. In the states, it's about 50/50. And its legalisation has yet to survive a public vote. I know anyway if I were him, I probably wouldn't have done this. I would have waited until after the election. He had the lgbt vote wrapped up... he has done more for lgbt rights than all previous presidents combined. He didn't need to appeal to his liberal base on this issue, and I don't see what he has to gain from it. I think those most concerned about lgbt rights knew that he really support marriage equality, they were just annoyed that he wasn't saying that he supported marriage equality.


    Although the above is just my view on the politics of it.... personally, I'm delighted to see Obama to be the first US President to support same-sex marriage and it has made my week.


  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    Mark200 wrote: »
    I'm not convinced it was a political move. He was forced into it by Biden's support for it... he risked looking weak and indecisive by continuing the line that he is "evolving" on the issue.

    I know it's early in the race, but at 9 points ahead of his rival I don't see why they'd think there was a need to take risks like this. And I do think it's a risk... here in Ireland about 75% of people support same-sex marriage. In the states, it's about 50/50. And its legalisation has yet to survive a public vote. I know anyway if I were him, I probably wouldn't have done this. I would have waited until after the election. He had the lgbt vote wrapped up... he has done more for lgbt rights than all previous presidents combined. He didn't need to appeal to his liberal base on this issue, and I don't see what he has to gain from it. I think those most concerned about lgbt rights knew that he really support marriage equality, they were just annoyed that he wasn't saying that he supported marriage equality.


    Although the above is just my view on the politics of it.... personally, I'm delighted to see Obama to be the first US President to support same-sex marriage and it has made my week.

    What poll is this?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx Romney 47%, Obama 44%

    On topic, this is an example of Obama leading from behind after his evolving position became untenable because of the pro-gay marriage positions taken by Mr. Biden and other members of Mr. Obama's own cabinet.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭SMASH THE UNIONS


    An unsurprising idiotic move from one of the most inexperienced Presidents ever. His advisors must have let him off the leash for 2 seconds and then he comes out with this gaffe. Homosexuals already overwhelmingly vote Democrat, so Obama doesn't stand to gain any voters from this move, only lose. He will only alienate traditional Democratic voters who oppose same-sex marriage, such as religious Catholics and Jews and certain sections of the black community.

    Future President Romney must be laughing with glee. Congrats to him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,940 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    An unsurprising idiotic move from one of the most inexperienced Presidents ever. His advisors must have let him off the leash for 2 seconds and then he comes out with this gaffe. Homosexuals already overwhelmingly vote Democrat, so Obama doesn't stand to gain any voters from this move, only lose. He will only alienate traditional Democratic voters who oppose same-sex marriage, such as religious Catholics and Jews and certain sections of the black community.

    Future President Romney must be laughing with glee. Congrats to him.

    Inexperienced ??? How can anyone have experience at a job you can only get hired for once ? He has more political experience to some previous presidents before they got the job and is also a lot more intelligent when compared to some previous presidents.

    Shockingly enough, it is not just homosexuals that care about the right for gay people to marry and to be seen as equal. A lot of people will see this as a very progressive stance that shows he wants to move America away from some of its very illogical and backward views.


  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    Inexperienced ??? How can anyone have experience at a job you can only get hired for once ? He has more political experience to some previous presidents before they got the job and is also a lot more intelligent when compared to some previous presidents.

    Shockingly enough, it is not just homosexuals that care about the right for gay people to marry and to be seen as equal. A lot of people will see this as a very progressive stance that shows he wants to move America away from some of its very illogical and backward views.

    Which previous presidents had less experience than Obama when they took office?

    Let's look at the main level of experience of the last 5 before Obama:

    Bush II - Governor of Texas
    Clinton - Governor of Arkansas
    Bush I - Many examples of executive experience (CIA Director, Chairman of RNC etc (see his bio)).
    Reagan - Governor of California
    Carter - Governor of Georgia


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,652 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    An unsurprising idiotic move from one of the most inexperienced Presidents ever. His advisors must have let him off the leash for 2 seconds and then he comes out with this gaffe. Homosexuals already overwhelmingly vote Democrat, so Obama doesn't stand to gain any voters from this move, only lose. He will only alienate traditional Democratic voters who oppose same-sex marriage, such as religious Catholics and Jews and certain sections of the black community.

    Future President Romney must be laughing with glee. Congrats to him.

    I couldn't disagree more. Overwhelmingly the people who oppose gay marriage also oppose President Obama. The net effect of this single issue will be tiny, it will neither gain nor lose him much.

    The greater effect, as Denerick pointed out, will be smoking out the ultra-right wing Republicans who will spew their anti-everything not White, Christian and Hetrosexual vitriol across the airwaves. Fingers crossed this finally pushes right minded swing voters into Obama's camp for good.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    I couldn't disagree more. Overwhelmingly the people who oppose gay marriage also oppose President Obama. The net effect of this single issue will be tiny, it will neither gain nor lose him much.

    The greater effect, as Denerick pointed out, will be smoking out the ultra-right wing Republicans who will spew their anti-everything not White, Christian and Hetrosexual vitriol across the airwaves. Fingers crossed this finally pushes right minded swing voters into Obama's camp for good.

    Such a narrow view of the right in fairness. Romney is a step in the right direction for the GOP.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    wasn't "the black vote" pretty instrumental in california and north carolina banning gay marriage?

    be interesting to see if the desire to vote for a black president is stronger than the desire to kill gay marriage in black churches across america.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,933 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    wasn't "the black vote" pretty instrumental in california and north carolina banning gay marriage?

    be interesting to see if the desire to vote for a black president is stronger than the desire to kill gay marriage in black churches across america.

    It will be interesting how this pans out.

    Here is my reading of it.

    Back in 2008 Obama got a lot of votes from young and first time voters.
    The reason being that he was, young, new , a breath of fresh air, exotic in a way.

    Now 4 years later and with a sluggish economy he is going to find it hard to hold on to those first timers from 2008 and the new first timers for 2012.
    They are not necessarily going to go and vote for Romney, they are more likely not to vote at all.
    You can only elect a black president for the first time once remember.

    This support for gay marriage is an attempt to make sure of that young vote, the younger you are the more likely you are to support gay marriage.

    On the flip he may alienate some older supporters and black supporters as the poster alludes to, and he may push some conservatives who were not going to vote for Romney (because he was not conservative enough) to get out and vote for him anyway as this support for gay marriage is the last straw for them when it comes to Obama.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,933 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Mark200 wrote: »
    I'm not convinced it was a political move. He was forced into it by Biden's support for it... he risked looking weak and indecisive by continuing the line that he is "evolving" on the issue.

    I know it's early in the race, but at 9 points ahead of his rival I don't see why they'd think there was a need to take risks like this. And I do think it's a risk... here in Ireland about 75% of people support same-sex marriage. In the states, it's about 50/50. And its legalisation has yet to survive a public vote. I know anyway if I were him, I probably wouldn't have done this. I would have waited until after the election. He had the lgbt vote wrapped up... he has done more for lgbt rights than all previous presidents combined. He didn't need to appeal to his liberal base on this issue, and I don't see what he has to gain from it. I think those most concerned about lgbt rights knew that he really support marriage equality, they were just annoyed that he wasn't saying that he supported marriage equality.


    Although the above is just my view on the politics of it.... personally, I'm delighted to see Obama to be the first US President to support same-sex marriage and it has made my week.

    And in polls 40% of people said they would vote for David Norris for president of Ireland a few months before the election


  • Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭MrMister


    jank wrote: »
    Romney is a step in the right direction for the GOP.
    Romney is a corporate robot who flounders when taken off script. He opposes everything except tax cuts for the rich. Romney and his party have time after time demonstrated that they are not capable of seeing a point of view other than their own. A Romney presidency would be disasterous for the US as he would only cater to the far right in hopes of having a second term.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    ‎"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman." Barack Obama, 2004

    "I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union." Barack Obama, 2008


    I used to be for flip flopping but now I'm against it!


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Is he not entitled to change his opinion on the matter after four years?


  • Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭MrMister


    BOHtox wrote: »
    ‎"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman." Barack Obama, 2004

    "I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union." Barack Obama, 2008


    I used to be for flip flopping but now I'm against it!
    Do you think Obama is doing the right thing in supporting Gay Marriage? Do you think he should be for or against?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    I'm for gay marriage, I'm just not too sure why Obama changed his opinion.

    I don't think some of the posters on here would welcome a U-turn of an opinion expressed just 4 years ago if done by an Irish politician. I just don't know why the change of opinion.

    I think it was just an act of populism tbh.

    edit: not the first time he changed it either.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142198/Gay-marriage-Barack-Obamas-shift-sex-marriage-nets-1m-90-minutes.html

    "Obama supported gay marriage in 1996 but later opposed it in 2004"


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,933 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    seamus wrote: »
    Is he not entitled to change his opinion on the matter after four years?

    Yes he is entitled, but I bet you that you are going to hear a lot more about Romney changing his stance of this, or any other issue, than you are Obama, this side of the world at least

    Here is an example from this morning's Morning Ireland Program on Radio 1

    http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20120510,3282055,3282055,flash,257

    Go to 3 minutes in, no mention of Obama, just Romney


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    In fairness, Romney is a far bigger flip flopper



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    BOHtox wrote: »
    edit: not the first time he changed it either.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142198/Gay-marriage-Barack-Obamas-shift-sex-marriage-nets-1m-90-minutes.html

    "Obama supported gay marriage in 1996 but later opposed it in 2004"
    I actually can't find a proper citation for the 2004 quote. This is the best I can find, which while has a lot of flustering and stepping around words, doesn't put him in opposition to gay marriage, just displays a concern on his part for "traditional" marriage in a religious setting.
    At that point he still affirms his support for civil unions between gay people.

    It's hard to say really what he's at. Even with the 2008 quote, he admitted at that stage that it's an issue he "struggles" with. So it may genuinely be that he has felt a need to constantly defend "marriage" (in the traditional man/woman sense) in spite of other personal feelings and public pressure in relation to civil unions.

    Or he has been doing his best to walk the line until he felt the country reached a point where gay marraige was inevitable and widely supported. So they will happily endorse gay rights but then the blinds go down when you mention the word "marraige".

    In the strictest sense of the word there's no actual difference between marriage and civil union, yet for many the idea of gay marriage for some reason conjurs up images of men in sailor suits walking up the aisle of their local church.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,140 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Ha,

    149435_449093948453397_205344452828349_100678244_1701245141_n.jpg


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    divorce is pretty traditional in fairness..


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,140 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    divorce is pretty traditional in fairness..
    Not really. And Christians would tell you it's not sanctimonious either way.

    Of course my other favorite analogy is "claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone eating donuts because you're on a diet".


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    BOHtox wrote: »
    ‎"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman." Barack Obama, 2004

    "I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union." Barack Obama, 2008


    I used to be for flip flopping but now I'm against it!

    The main reason he gave for the change of opinion was his children who'd have class mates from same sex relationships, they see no difference so he has reconsidered in that light. Don't see any problem with changing an opinion like that, some see it as weakness.

    It isn't that populist either as "the black vote" tends to be more anti-gay marriage.

    Could we cut out terms like redneck, does nothing to help the discussion.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    K-9 wrote: »
    The main reason he gave for the change of opinion was his children who'd have class mates from same sex relationships, they see no difference so he has reconsidered in that light. Don't see any problem with changing an opinion like that, some see it as weakness.

    It isn't that populist either as "the black vote" tends to be more anti-gay marriage.

    Could we cut out terms like redneck, does nothing to help the discussion.

    Obama will win the black vote with 90+ no matter what. He's clearly flip-flopping. He probably really supports gay marriage but pretended he didn't when it was unpopular.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,140 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    matthew8 wrote: »
    Obama will win the black vote with 90+ no matter what. He's clearly flip-flopping. He probably really supports gay marriage but pretended he didn't when it was unpopular.
    • Gay Rights
    • Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2008)
    • Hate crimes related to the immigration issue is unacceptable. (Feb 2008)
    • Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
    • Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
    • Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
    • Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
    • Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
    • We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
    • Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
    • Disentangle gay rights from the word “marriage”. (Aug 2007)
    • Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
    • Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
    • Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
    • Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation. (Mar 2007)
    • Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill. (Mar 2007)
    • Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
    • Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
    • Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
    • Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry. (Oct 2004)
    • Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
    • Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
    • Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)

    http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,179 ✭✭✭snow scorpion


    I can't help but wonder if the White House's internal polling for the election is so bad that Obama feels the need to shore up the gay vote.

    Come 7 November will we all be saying the handwriting was on the wall all the way back in May?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    I can't help but wonder if the White House's internal polling for the election is so bad that Obama feels the need to shore up the gay vote.

    Come 7 November will we all be saying the handwriting was on the wall all the way back in May?

    We won't be unless he loses and we then pretend we knew he would lose all along. Last year I almost said he was sure to lose, I've completely changed my opinion, the ball's in his court now.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    matthew8 wrote: »
    We won't be unless he loses and we then pretend we knew he would lose all along. Last year I almost said he was sure to lose, I've completely changed my opinion, the ball's in his court now.

    Is that because of Obama's strengths or Romney's weaknesses?


Advertisement