jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (21 posts)

Obama on gay marriage

  1. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    Is he for it, or against it? In 2008, he said he was against it. Now Axelrod says the POTUS is for it. I'm really curious. Have his views evolved?

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LOL.  This evolving crap is ridiculous.  He needs to just come out and be for it.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, you got your wish today smile

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe my brother will have equal rights soon!

          1. Paul Wingert profile image80
            Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            This is what sucks about politicians around election time. There's too many people out there who believe that equal rights are for everyone, unless you're gay/lesibian, Muslim, or just non-Christian and politicians have to get their votes. I personally gays and lesbian should have the same rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage. Conservatives push the family value thing and perserve the institution of marriage. The question is why? Gays and lesbians have a much successful rate of marriage and raising kids where heterolsexuals don't even come close to. Heterolsexuals made such a mockery of this so-called institution for marriage, maybe they can learn something from gay/lesbian marriages.

    2. feenix profile image61
      feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In my opinion, Obama's view concerning same-sex marriage has not "evolved." My street smarts and instincts tell me that he has been in favor of the "institution" all along.

      It is just that he started out doing a little song-and-dance act around the issue, in order to get elected back in 2008 and to keep the heat off him during his initial years in office.

      And so far as that goes, I strongly suspect that Obama had absolutely no desire to come out in favor of same-sex marriage -- not at this point in time, anyway.

      I firmly believe that it was made perfectly clear to him that if he did not "come out" in favor of the "institution," more people than just his hairdresser would come to know ...

  2. 0
    idratherbeposted 4 years ago

    He was "evolving" on same sex marriage in 2008. And today the President said he long opposed a Federal Marriage Amendment, supported the repeal of DOMA, and been clear that this was a matter that states should decide.

    1. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I pretty much agree with him on that.

  3. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    Apparently, the POTUS hasn't made up his mind:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … _headlines

  4. 0
    idratherbeposted 4 years ago

    I thought he did when he said it was a matter the states should decide

  5. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    What evolved is what he would say publicly.  This is the first time he has expressed a personal opinion on the matter. What he commented on before was hpw it should be managed or regulated--not his own views.

  6. 0
    idratherbeposted 4 years ago

    President Obama announced today it's his opinion that gay marriage should be allowed.But it's a state issue, not a federal issue.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I personally believe that civil rights should not be decided by the tyranny of the majority, but that's just me.

      1. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The Constitution agrees with you.

  7. Paul Wingert profile image80
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    I agree that gay/lesbian marriage should not be a constitional issue. The Constitution is there to provide rights. not take them away. The only amendment that took away rights was the 18th Amendment and we all seen how that went.

    1. Pamela Kinnaird W profile image87
      Pamela Kinnaird Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution verbatim:

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

      This was ratified in 1791.  The Tenth Amendment embodies the principles of Federalism in a republican form of government. The Constitution sets out the parameters of authority for the three branches of federal government: the executive, legislative, and judicial. The Tenth Amendment reserves TO THE STATES all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The EXCEPTIONS are those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden  from exercising.

      So -- there is not a place anywhere in the federal Constitution where it states Congress can and should be given authority to regulate local matters concerning the safety, morality and/or health of state residents. These are known as police powers and this authority is reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

      1. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        The states can not pass laws that abridge the rights of citizens, even if the majority doesn't like them.

        1. 69
          logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Do you honestly believe that it doesn't happen at the state and federal level?  I find it hard to believe that anyone is that naive.

          1. livelonger profile image90
            livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Do you mean is it hard to believe that laws get passed that *do* discriminate? No, not hard to believe at all. That's why we have courts. They can strike down laws that violate the Constitution. If they're doing their job right, they'll do that against DOMA and the various state constitutional bans against gay marriage.

  8. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Obama on gay marriage. Below is verbatim the text of an email I received from Barack Obama today. I think it answers the question quite well, including how his views have evolved and why.

    Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

    I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

    I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:


    I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

    But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

    What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

    Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.

    So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

    I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

    If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

    Thank you,


  9. innersmiff profile image87
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    That was really fantastic timing on his behalf - he 'evolved' to this opinion a few months away from the election when undecided-ers are turning away from him to Ron Paul and others. Handy dandy!