Obama finally backs same-sex marriage

Jump to Last Post 1-36 of 36 discussions (124 posts)

75
Shanna11posted 11 years ago
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/09/ob … ?hpt=hp_t1

About time he decided on the issue. Any thoughts/comments/theories?

So now he's for it, but is he going to do anything about it, I wonder.
reply report
1. 61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He is playing for votes, nothing more. Knows where he said he had to lean on Michelle to advise them on this. Comical isn't it that a Harvard grad, constitutional law professor( doubt it) cannot search his own soul and make his own decision. Pitiful
  reply report
  87
  livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So can Obama count on your vote?
  reply report
  78
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Listening to his wife like Mitt Romney relying on his wife who drives a "couple" of Cadillacs and wears $990 t-shirts on TV and has not worked a day in her life outside of the home to advise him on American women's concerns about the economy, you mean?
  
  reply report
  61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes , but at least she pays for it with her own money, unlike the $1,000 pocketbooks Michelle walks around with, trips at taxpayers expense and calls her kids hi-level aids in order to get the taxpayers to pay for them as well.Like Michelle who has her mother living in the Whitehouse since the day her and Obama moved in, all on the taxpayers dime. Should I go on?
  reply report
2. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I am not a big Obama fan but I have to give him points for having the guts to come out with this one, I doubt it will win him votes and he is I believe the first president ever to come out in support of this stance, he got rid of don't ask don't tell as well. So on gay rights and equality I have to give him an A+.
  reply report
  89
  TheMagicianposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed very much.
  
  Although a part of me does think that at the timing for this to come out, he's definitely looking for votes. Maybe he's really all for gay rights and equality, and I'm not suggesting he isn't, but I do think he waiting to this specific time to announce it if so. With Romney in the bag as the R Candidate, it's pretty clear that most anti-gays and the right-wing community (which is usually anti-gay) will be voting for him, while the rest for Obama... still, there's lots of liberals who don't see the point in voting, or people who aren't anything but still wont vote.
  
  I think that by Obama putting the word out now rather than any other time, he's giving those people who DONT vote (but care about human rights) TO vote for him. You know? Just today I overheard "I'm against voting but Obama is for gay rights so I'll be voting for him this year." said by a good two or three people.
  
  As if Obama didn't already have this election in the bag, he just tied it shut and made it a done deal. Smart move.
  reply report
3. 86
  LauraGTposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think the jury is still out on how it will impact the election. I think it could go either way, but I do think it will help mobilize his base to get out and vote for him.
  
  I also tend to think that he is pro-gay rights. It just hasn't been politically tenable for major politicians to admit that publicly before. Perhaps this represents a shift where politicians admitting that they support gay rights isn't their demise.
  reply report
4. 0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Flip flopper.
  reply report
  61
  mikelongposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Flip-flop only refers to someone who moves one way and then another for personal gain.
  
  If anything, I guarantee that he already felt this way, but couldn't openly say so four years ago. More and more Americans, as well, who wanted to directly and indirectly support the LGBT community have been able to come out of their own closets. There were many whites in the U.S. who, before Civil Rights, couldn't understand the social norms around them, but the threat against whites fraternizing with blacks was just as bad as vise versa... Conformity was shutting them down...
  
  I am glad we are getting to the point in social evolution that we can tell conformity to take a hike..
  
  As for Romney...he has clearly shown that he moves in whatever direction the extreme/radical right moves... He is showing that he is the "best conformer" of the conservatives...
  
  Those who conform are not leaders....in any sense of the imagination. Romney will lose...and in his fall this fall, so to will fall his hopes of ever outdoing his father...
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Flip flopping for political gain. Yes Obama does it.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1 … ure=relmfu
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM-4Ys0u … re=related
  reply report
  61
  mikelongposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's one thing to progress......to move forward.... Its another to go backwards...
  
  I would have agreed with Obama many years back, as well. But I don't now... This is not a flip=flop. Obama has always shown to be on the contemplative/reflective side. His support for civil unions, as I once did, shows a transition. It also shows that he, along with I, were under a misconception that the common use of "civil union" would include equal civil rights with the "married"...but this is nowhere near the case. He has been moving in the direction that this nation, as a whole, has been going for a long time.
  
  Romney does the opposite... And this is by far not the only isolated issue we can discuss this on..and you should know this.. Where's Romney on (or rather, where all has he been) immigration reform and abortion?
  
  Regardless of your characterization, I would much rather have a flip-flopper who is coming over to my side...to the side that civil rights supports...the concept that you can do what you want to do without interference from the government or religious organizations to which I do not belong or subject myself.
  
  But, perhaps you like that good ol government regulation? You support ongoing and encroached supervision by the bureaucracy to make sure "marriage" is "sacred"?
  
  Hypocrisy at best... Civil Rights 1) never come down to popular referendum..the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act would probably fail in several states across this nation today...2) are not given/bestowed by government and 3) are not framed to fit within personal religious beliefs of members of the population.
  
  If you don't like the idea of gay marriage, then (as so many "conservatives" love to say to "those darn liberals") you can always go to some backward nation where they don't exist....like Iran, or perhaps Afghanistan. North Carolina's backwards decision-making is going to lead to a Supreme Court review, and ultimately a declaration of "unconstitutional".
  
  Gay marriage will be completely legal in my lifetime....and though I am not gay, I am overwhelmingly happy for everyone I know who is...
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not really, he stated his opinion based on the political trends of the day, and then he changed it because the trend changed. Ie flip flop. All for votes.
  reply report
  78
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Right. He's supposed to follo trends, otherwise he will be out of touch with what the citizens he leads want.
  Another case in point, Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
  He repealed it because the public he represents changed their opinion that it was a good policy.
  reply report
  61
  mikelongposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Nonsense squared.
  
  He was already on the road to acceptance. He already backed legal unions, again, under the misguided (as many were misled to believe) concept that civil unions had the same legal ramifications of marriage. But, they don't.
  
  While dull-witted religionists trumpet the word "marriage" as if it was their creation (which it isn't) and their monopoly (which it isn't), the correct "civil marriage" term has now come to fruition.
  
  The only real flip-flopper on this issue is backwards Romney.. He's trying to stoop as low as he can to gather in the "Bible-brained" nuts who support the views that (until recently) he didn't.
  
  I am glad to see that (as it appears) the majority of self-identifying Christians support marriage equality. The brain dead Bible thumpers....well, it is too bad that they can't utilize the minds that "God" gave them to think clearly...too much "dee de dee" running around on their end.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not really. What ever direction you think the flip flopping is going, it's still flip flopping just the same. You just agree with it, so it's ok with you.
  reply report
5. 71
  Roland L Dayeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Finally! Was it really that hard, Mr. President? However, I wouldn't be surprised if American View was right and it turns out to be just a ploy to attract voters from the LGBTQ community in November.
  reply report
6. 85
  oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hopefully, the President and Congress will be representative of the people more and more in the future. We don't see that so much now..
  reply report
76
lovemychrisposted 11 years ago
He's gonna get slammed big time by the Right.
reply report
1. 75
  Shanna11posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, but he was getting criticized by the Left as well for waffling on the topic for so long. I kind of vaguely wonder if he's wholeheartedly for it, or if he was unsure and caved to pressure? Just a thought.
  reply report
87
livelongerposted 11 years ago
It's awesome, even though he holds virtually no power to change things (it will probably be decided by the SCOTUS in the next year or so). Especially ballsy considering he's headed into a reelection campaign.
reply report
1. 75
  Shanna11posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I have to say I'm glad he came out in support finally as well-- the timing is a little weird though.
  reply report
  89
  TheMagicianposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Definitely strange timing, which leads me to believe he did this on purpose as to gain an advantage over the liberals/undecided who don't vote but are for human rights. I think this will actually help him in the polls.
  reply report
2. 76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly.....here come the vitriolic smears. Can't wait.
  reply report
76
lovemychrisposted 11 years ago
http://motherjones.tumblr.com/post/2273 … uch-needed
reply report
61
eternals3ptemberposted 11 years ago
I don't think people would give Obama flack if he actually talked about things, gave stirring speeches about equality. He doesn't have speeches, he has newspaper articles, and in his aloofness people find it okay to slam him. A president should be able to command attention and respect, but the last three we've had...
reply report
1. 60
  Druid Dudeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He O.K.d same sex cause he heard about John Travolta. His kind of man, I geuss. Kidding.
  reply report
  71
  jennzieposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  reply report
64
SandyMcCollumposted 11 years ago
Personally, I think it's a campaign ploy. It's great to have a president that believes in Love and Marriage without regard to sex, but I don't feel like he means it, somehow.
reply report
1. 60
  Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You pegged it.
  reply report
77
Escobanaposted 11 years ago
From my experience in Holland, same-sex marriages shouldn't even be an issue anymore. They work the same, they're normal and they have the same rights and obligations just as anyone does.

Let's hope something will change for real. I'll be following the news from Spain closely.
reply report
83
psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago
As a campaign ploy it makes little sense. People who agree are probably already voting for him. Likely to lose more than he gains at the polls.

Maybe it's just what he really thinks.
reply report
1. 61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Psych,
  
  It makes all the sense in the world is a campaign ploy. In the first election Obama had solid support from the gay community. He made them a lot of promises of things he would do in the first term did not come through. Several months back he began to take a lot of flak from the gay community. He said to them to reelect him and he will take care of it in the first year. He said that before but did not deliver, and I don't think the gay community believed him. I'm sure that he is hoping that this move helps him recently to fight the gay vote.
  reply report
87
livelongerposted 11 years ago
Even if it's just a reflection that the Democrat/swing base is more in favor of marriage equality than it is not, then that's a wonderful statement of how far that base has come on the issue.

I think it will be a net-positive for him in the election. It might help raise enthusiasm among Democrats; the Republicans are depressed considering most of them were not a fan of Romney to begin with. Almost everyone who disagrees with Obama on this issue will be voting for the GOP candidate anyway.
reply report
79
Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago
We haven't heard from some people yet, they must be waiting for the party line to be posted...
reply report
57
feenixposted 11 years ago
I smell blackmail ... as in come right out and back it or get outted.
reply report
1. 79
  Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
62
Paul Wingertposted 11 years ago
I personally believes that be is for same sex marriage. Obama did get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and trying to get this country into the 21st Century. I think it's due to the BS of being a politician that has a lot to do with it. As a Progressive Democrat, I would like to see this country grant equal rights to all citizens and finally go with universal healthcare.
reply report
78
Mighty Momposted 11 years ago
Of course it's politically motivated.
Good for him.
No ambiguity.

Timing interesting, given North Carolina constitutionally banned same-sex marriage just yesterday.
reply report
76
lovemychrisposted 11 years ago
Yes do. And then tell us how Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Reagan and Lady Bird Johnson and Mrs. Nixon and Mrs. Kennnedy did it.

Let me guess....they spent their own money while in office did they? Wow...and none of those men took a salary either huh? And none had kids and family living there....I seem to remember all the little "brown colored" Bush grandkids, and Mrs. Reagan's fancy spending habits.

And the Camelot years....bringing grandeur to the white house....all done on their own private funds. well Gee, my kids were taught wrong in school.

Must be all those teacher cuts...not learning like they used to.

"kids....only the Obama's use tax payer money. All other presidents and first ladies spent their own money. I mean...Why do you think she's called Moochelle?"
reply report
1. 61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LMC,
  
  Well, tell us how Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Reagan and Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Kennedy spent all the tax payers money.I especially look forward to you showing me how Mrs. Clinton book all kinds of expensive lavish gifts on the taxpayers dime. Out of the list that you tossed up there, there is definitely one possibly two that while the life of grandeur. Both Bush wives, Hillary Clinton, Pat Nixon,and Claudia Johnson were down-to-earth and not interested in frivolous items.In fact, you can add Rosalyn Carter to that list.
  
  I am curious, I wonder why all those Presidents taking their salary has to do with Michelle Obama spending tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers money on her personal wardrobe and accessories. Of course, that doesn't include the trips( vacations) that she took on our dime.
  
  As for families living in the White House, of course all the Presidents have had their young children live with them.No President would live it down if he did not have his children living with him while in office. And of course we can all guarantee that family would come and visit them in the White House and some they have stayed for several days. But none of them that moved in after Inauguration Day brought their extended families to move in on the same day and stay for the entire term in office. Or do you think that Michelle's mom living in the White House is a trial program for a future entitlement, one in which we will all live in the White House rent-free, all meals included, free transportation such as the limousine and a driver, all at taxpayers expense. Then again if we are all living in the White House, who would be the taxpayers?
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Didn't Miss Lillian live at the White House on occasion?
  
  Yes, I remember...Pat Nixon had a plain cloth coat... Do you know for a fact that every penny Michelle Obama has spent while in the White House is on tax payers money? I'd love to see the proof.
  
  I guess you'd rather the Obama's stick her mother in a home...
  
  Anyway, back to the topic of the thread... wtg President Obama. The US may catch up with the rest of the civilized world eventually.
  reply report
  61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  UN,
  
  I guess you missed the part where I said family would visit from time to time. Even in your own sentence you said" Ms. Lillian live at the White House on occasion". Notice the keyword occasion, Michele's mom is not visiting on occasion she moved in. Reminds me of the old joke that the mother-in-law was coming for the holidays. She came for New Year's and stayed till Christmas. Nobody is saying stick Michelle's mom in a nursing home, which is what I thought you're insinuating that you said home, but why is she not living in her own home or apartment? She's not sickly, she's not handicapped, she's not incapable of taking care of herself. I bet you $50 that when the Obama's leave the White House that Michelle's mom will no longer be living with them, just like before they got to the White House.
  
  As for the proof just Google it. There have been several government reports about the first lady spending. One recent report showed that on her trip, in order to get the children paid for at tax payers expense she labeled them as high-ranking aides.
  
  "Mrs. Obama also brought along her mother, her daughters and two of their cousins – the children of her brother Craig Robinson"
  
  http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/0 … s-500000/.
  
  http://www.topix.com/forum/city/london- … JF0OINJUBS
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … tions.html
  reply report
  61
  mikelongposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Come out to the Reagan Library here in Los Angeles, and look at all the glamorous dresses that were made for Nancy...
  
  She didn't pay for them......you did.
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Bingo.
  reply report
  61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Mike,
  
  The discussion is not on those gorgeous dresses that all first ladies wear to events like the inaugural ball and other black tie affairs. Just like in Hollywood those gowns were donated by the designers to show off their product line. I do not fault Michelle Obama for wearing those. It is all the other stuff that she has purchased on taxpayer money that we are talking about. Things like the trip to Spain where she brought her mother and half the family all at taxpayers expense.
  reply report
  61
  mikelongposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Your complaint is ridiculous. Come to the Reagan Library and you will find a whole lot of other items that your tax money paid for...far beyond dresses...
  
  I wonder how much Ronald's Air Force One cost....it's down there at the Library, too..
  reply report
  61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No Mike, it is not. Have you been to any other Presidential library?, I have, been to 5 of them. Each one has everything from the limos to gowns, tuxedos and even books they have read. I guess you believe only Michelle gets her gowns and dresses donated by designers.
  
  Are you aware how many Air Force ones there are? Do you think that plane was built only for Reagan? Come on man.
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I love the fact that her mom lives there....what do you object to, the x-tra meals? How much can one woman eat?
  And they have 5 in their family....Gerald Ford had 6...so technically, he spent more.
  
  I never heard anyone complain before....except for Nancy Reagan and her spend-thrift ways....how many plane trips to Montecito did they take? Once a week? Secret Service, planes for their staff, fuel, must have been expensive...
  
  Give it a rest....this is a political issue just like the lune's have made everything...from what he eats to supporting college for gods sakes...you people and your Obama Derangement Syndrome take the cake...vanilla, I'm sure
  reply report
  61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LMC,
  
  If it was only free meals I don't think many would complain except of course all those out of work homeless, starving children and elderly who go to bed hungry every evening. But what you don't understand is that it does not and and a free meal. Is all the extra labor throughout the Whitehouse that is paid for because of her, her use of the Whitehouse doctors staff, having the limousine and a driver at her beck and call, going on all the trips with Michelle overseas that all the expense that goes with it. It's much more than just a couple of plates of food.
  
  You are right this is a political issue. The man occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is in charge of this country. Part of his job is to show fiscal responsibility. If he can't do so outside of the walls of that one building how could he possibly have any clue as to how to be fiscally responsible with our country.
  
  And just for informational purposes am partial to marble cake with fudge icing.
  reply report
78
Mighty Momposted 11 years ago
Hubby and I were just watching the movie "Nixon" with a stellar cast including Anthony Hopkins in the title role.

Love whole story of a president so intent on his own personal power trip and (perceived) competition with Jack and Bobby Kennedy. Yes, let's not forgot those golden presidential years.

Oh,yes. And Tricia Nixon Eisenhower's lavish wedding in the White House with Vietnam War protesters outside.Fits right in with this conversation.
Like W was going to have Jenna's at the WH but then thought better of it.

I suppose some Americans preferred Carter and Clinton because they only had one rather small daughter each living in the WH with them. I bet Michelle's mom eats a heckuva lot more than Amy and Chelsea combined.
reply report
57
Billjordanposted 11 years ago
As the president comes out in support of same sex marriages the question Christians that support the president must ask themselves is do we count or matter to the liberals in Washington. The president said he based his decision on the feelings of those around him who were being left out by decisions that make such unions illegal. As a Christian I feel as if the president of the United States of America has made a declaration against every god fearing married couple in America his beliefs are anti God and that’s his choice. But God fearing people have to understand his choice and break ties with such an evil God hating individual known as President Obama
reply report
1. 87
  livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It was a politically incorrect move to admit that he supports marriage equality, because there are so many people exactly like you. Fortunately, your numbers are diminishing, and you weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.
  reply report
  57
  Billjordanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I was and have supported Obama to some degree but he is to liberal as a Christian I have to draw the line as an African American I am torn by his liberal views which go against my beliefs.
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You mean, you were going to vote for Obama before yesterday?
  reply report
  57
  Billjordanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I was leaning that way
  reply report
  87
  livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So you're a conservative. Why did you support Obama in 2008? He was liberal then, too.
  reply report
2. 79
  Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thankfully your constitution calls for separation of church and state. It's none of your business who is allowed to get married.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is no mention of the separation of church and state in our Constitution, UW.
  reply report
  87
  livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  *sigh*
  reply report
  61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You can sigh, but he is right. There needs to be an amendment to make the issue crystal clear and not cite a letter that Jefferson wrote
  reply report
  87
  livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The letter isn't necessary. Josak quoted the First Amendment.
  reply report
  61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He mentioned,not quoted. Again the First Amendment on its own backed by the Supreme Court decisions does not create separation of church and state. The Supreme Court relies on Thomas Jefferson's letter as the base to their decisions in cases that involve church and state.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Here's the actual Amendment, not just someone's mention or opinion.
  
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  My body is my temple....says so in the Bible. So who are the religios to tell us what to do with our god-given temples?
  
  But they do it all the time
  
  Or does their religion trump our personal temples?
  
  The church of LMC. Constitutionally guarenteed
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't matter what the religious people tell you, LMC. I will only suggest you seek your own answers in your Holy Book.
  
  I, personally, will stick to what the Bible says.
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It does if they're making the laws...and they are.
  reply report
  61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LMC,
  
  being somebody who does not believe in faith, have no clue what the Bible says. If you believe your body is your temple who are we to question you. But just as you question who the religious are to tell you what to do with your God-given temple, why is it that you do not question the government who tells you what to do with your God-given temple?
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I know quite a lot about the Bible....3 different ones as a matter of fact. My teachers' favorite book was the Book of Job. Got a lot out of that one.
  
  and Macabees......we think WE are brutal? Oy vey!
  reply report
  61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LMC,
  
  I apologize,I just realized the typo in my last response to you. In the sentence have no clue what the Bible says, it was supposed to say
  "I have no clue what the Bible says". I did not mean to imply that you did not know the Bible for that I'm sorry..
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No P McGee!
  report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You can sigh all you want, LL. Hell, you can hyperventilate if you'd like. It won't change the fact the separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
  
  Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
  
  That is how the supreme court has interpreted it as a separation of church and state.
  reply report
  61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]
  
  However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate."
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation … ted_States
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah we are not disagreeing here.
  reply report
3. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Plenty of Christians support marriage equality for everyone and separation of church and state.
  reply report
0
Longhunterposted 11 years ago
Obama was forced to take a stand due to yet another one of Biden's gaffes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ … story.html

Now that Obams's been "outed" on the gay marriage issue, he's pandering for votes.

He would probably like to give Biden a good, ole fashion, Chicago ass-whoopin' right about now.
reply report
79
Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago
This is an interesting read

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

And another
http://onespiritproject.com/Shelly/marriagehistory.html
reply report
78
Mighty Momposted 11 years ago
We are really venturing into kookooland with railing about Michelle Obama's mother living in the White House.

Is the woman on the WH payroll? Because maybe she's performing a service that other administrations have paid nannies to perform, namely being there with the Obama girls when both POTUS and FLOTUS are traveling or busy. Which is often.

Much ado about absolutely nothing.
Please tell me this is not going to be the birther replacement rant of 2012!
reply report
1. 76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It may be that she wears the wrong kind of panty hose.....OH the horror and shame!
  reply report
56
traslochimilanoposted 11 years ago
This is only for votes..
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Come on guys we are all adults here are any of us really naive enough to think that politicians do anything at all without counting the votes first? The results are real enough regardless.
  reply report
52
Ms harmonyposted 11 years ago
I have a problem with a president that is always apologizing for our country to the Taliban, terrorists, the mexican president, everyone but the people of this country for not being fair and honest about his real agendas. And his agenda does not seem to be for Christians, our armed forces , drilling, the hard working people and all whites
reply report
1. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's Rush Limbaugh baloney.
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 11 years ago
No. This just shows how ridiculous the entire line of argumentation is...

That was my point..

And you just backed it up.

The wife of the president and the first family are national symbols abroad. Wherever they go they are "on the job" representing "American values and ideals" to the world. And she/they are paid no salary.

Now, if you are really worried about "fiscal responsibility" you should, rather, be concerned about the money that taxpayers have doled out to regimes like Syria...who's money pays for the lifestyle of the dictator's wife? Who pays for the weapons that he is using on his own people?

There are so many ACTUAL expenses of concern that you and others like you fail to mention (either intentionally or otherwise) that are of far more significance in terms of cost and harmful impact on society domestically and abroad.

I guarantee our budget for the School of the Americas...oh, I'm sorry, the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation" (the American training camp for the likes of the Zeta Cartel leadership and Manuel Noreiga) far outweighs any costs incurred by the First family...and their extensions.

http://soaw.org/about-the-soawhinsec/so … ious-grads

The entire line of criticism concerning the First Lady is a sham...
reply report
1. 52
  Ms harmonyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well, since you brought up the first lady. I have a problem with her and her entourage taking all these vacations on our dime while many of the people are hoping they have a home to live in and or food to eat.The first family shows no empathy for the suffering of the masses.
  reply report
  78
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are absolutely right.
  The First Family are a bunch of Harvard elitist snobs who have never worked a day in their lives and all they do is party abroad on the taxpayers' dime.
  
  Neither one has done one blessed thing to help anyone in America.
  
  I don't know about you, but I'm really mad that they refuse to do anything about all the citizens who have no health insurance.
  And all the people who's homes are worth less than they paid for them and who can no longer afford their mortgage payments?
  What have the Obamas done?
  
  Zip. Zero.
  
  Oh. And let's not forget that Michelle Obama's mother is living in the White House. And their dog. Another freeloading Obama.
  
  THey're terrible and really need to be replaced with a First Family that underestands how horribly we masses really suffer. Yessir.
  reply report
  61
  mikelongposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Nonsense.
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 11 years ago
No...not at all.
reply report
61
mikelongposted 11 years ago
I once opposed gay marriage and civil unions.

I didn't flip flop...I realized I was wrong..

"Flip flop" communicates that one doesn't have beliefs of their own, and that they change their opinions to suit others....

Your use of the term is completely incorrect.
reply report
1. 0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Right, politicians do that. You aren't a politician, hence you can make that change in opinion based on your own feelings. You allow Obama to have a "change of heart" because you like him. The truth is, he's a plain old flip flopper.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Romney has flip-flopped ten times more than Obama based on his political calculation of the moment. I'm sure we'll see all of them on television as the campaign progresses.
  reply report
  60
  Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I love you liberals. Your only response to an Obama flip flop is Romney did it,Romney did it.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Obama's still an official flip flopper, and he has not delivered on any of his campaign promises. Instead he renewed the patriot act, and added NDAA on top of it. And he continues to spend money like a drunken sailor/politician, and blames rich people for the nation's debt crisis.
  
  The gay marriage thing is just a smoke screen to make you forget about the real problems.
  
  reply report
  61
  mikelongposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't "allow" anyone to have a change of heart...
  
  They can do it all on their own...without me.
  
  You can do it too..
  
  Just realize, on this issue, you are completely wrong if you believe that denying equality is correct.
  
  I am glad that Americans are increasingly showing the courage that Obama did...and saying openly what has, until now, been largely "tabooed" away..
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 11 years ago
So, all politicians are the same?

(That is only the initial rebuttal that I will make...I'm pressed for time.
reply report
60
Jen Smeriglioposted 11 years ago
There is a post that says, "Romney has flip-flopped then time more than Obama...". Obama never changed positions, he just never came out to fully back the cause. He believed gays should have equal right just like every other American.

In his interview he literally said, "I thought civil unions would be enough". He was proved wrong and it changed his view. Don't compare him to that fool, Romney.
reply report
60
Jen Smeriglioposted 11 years ago
ah typo - "Romney has flip-flopped ten more times than Obama".
reply report
1. 61
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Please, Romney has not flip-flopped on this issue. He has been steady, he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. No ifs, no ands, no buts.
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 11 years ago
Nonsense..

The GOP has a long, storied track record on this.

They have always used "traditional marriage" and the "gay threat" to get people off their knees in church and out to the ballot box.

Now that this is not working, or working against them, they want to focus "on the economy stupid."

But, it has been shown over, and over, and over again, that as soon as they get into power, they try to shove a bill like the "Defense of Marriage Act" down our throats...

Please Onus, you write as if you live in a vacuum while believing that everyone around you does too...

This isn't true.

The debt crisis is more manufactured than marriage equality....
reply report
1. 0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What ever you say. he hasn't accomplished squat in 3.5 years and now he realizes he has nothing to go on for re-election. 15.6 trillion and counting.
  
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 11 years ago
Accomplishes squat?

The Dream Act would have been accomplished....but for who? Conservatives in the GOP and Southern Democrats....

The Employee Free Choice Act would be benefiting currently marginalized working populations....temp workers for example... or rather, the permanent, full time workers kept in "temporary" status via third party employers contracted by larger companies (like Walmart, for example) to 1) shield the corporation from taking responsibility as they would actual employees and 2) to quash any ability for workers to organize...

But, who killed the bill?

The Health Care law was a great accomplishment, but it could have been even better if the same politicians who engineered and previously supported the plan showed real commitment to the future of the nation, and not petty concern for their immediate political well-beings....they are cowards..

They, sign pledges to obstruct...and then try to play the finger pointing game....

Your views don't work when weighed in the balance of reality. But, the larger issue you don't see is the perpetuation of divisiveness that does nothing but damage us individually while perpetuating the flawed logic that political machines should act only in a manner to keep themselves alive, as opposed to reflecting the views of the constituencies.

The economy is better, and it will continue to improve. It may be a "long hard slog", but the lies of the GOP....the lies of "conservatives" in name (but big spenders in reality) mired us in Iraq....with our wealth....(redirected to the bank accounts of the same political cronies via stock investments and other unsavory profiteering).....so the economy should work out fine. We need a new wave of entrepreneurial spirit....but not the "I want to get rich right now and I don't care what low standards I have to stoop to to get it" mentality that has polluted our American capitalism right back to indentured servitude and slavery... The same people/class who took their wealth via headright now try to claim that government has no hand in business and needs to back off....

Nonsense.... Without the privilege bestowed by a traditionally bigoted system of government (or rather, populations of bigots using the mechanizations of government) the white middle class would have never existed. Our industrial might would have never been.. The landed gentry of ante-bellum would have never been, and our "founding fathers" would have been small plot farmers somewhere too busy trying to feed their families to think about revolution, let alone reading the Classics and writing Constitutions....

You want headrights for the few.....I want them for all..

This is where we differ....
reply report
1. 0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The Dream act is an incentive plan for foreigners to come to America illegally and suck up free money.
  
  Obamacare is going to cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars on top of the trillions that we already owe. And in case you weren't paying attention to the other bankrupt countries in the world, socialized medicine is always a bad idea, and much much much more people die. (Michael Moore didn't do his homework)
  
  And if you think that the economy is doing better think again.
  
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 11 years ago
No..... The Dream Act is a way for people in the United States to gain rights...

Back in my early Republican days, I was a big fan of Governor Pete Wilson and Proposition 187.

On paper, it sounded like it took care of this "illegal alien" business once and for all...

For, as the logic went (flawed logic), the undocumented were coming here to sign up for social services and suck off our system...

I had a friend back in those days. We would listen and watch our Limbaugh...and agree with him and those who thought/think like him.

My friend's family is very conservative (and very financially well off...the father and now son are both lawyers)...

But when I went to their home and got to know them I found out that they employed and housed an undocumented woman (in her mid-40's in terms of age) to cook and clean for them. She lived with them during the week in a little room, and she was able to visit her family on the weekends...

What the heck was this? Modern day indentured servitude/slavery? I couldn't believe it. I came from a middle-middle class family, and we had no money to hire maids. I could never look at them the same way or take their arguments seriously. Father and son would talk about "those illegals"...."get them out!" "fences on the border!!" "kick them out of our schools"...."put machine guns and guard dogs on the border"...but then to their maid, "Make sure your back Sunday night!"

Liars...deceivers....and Meg Whitman is only one of a plethora of hypocrites who reflect the reality of our "immigration" problem..

The problem is we have a caste of people with lots of money who want to feel superior to others...

You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to immigration issues, that is quite clear...

"Obama-care"/"Romney-Care"/"GOP-Care" before Obama/Congressional Democrats championed it/"success story in Switzerland", if fully implemented would actually save money.

http://maggiemae.hubpages.com/hub/Prosa … Healthcare

http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/V … fault.aspx
reply report
1. 0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Nope it's an incentive program for illegal criminals to take their families to America with them without having to worry about being prosecuted. We're not talking about people who come over here legally to start a new life.
  
  I lived in Phoenix and I can't tell you how many people I saw walk into the store I worked in who didn't speak a lick of English, but they paid for their food with quest cards.
  That's free money from the people who have spent their lives paying into a system that the illegals never have paid into. Giving them free money and other accommodations when they don't put a dime into the system is completely backwards.
  
  There are dangerous people who come across that border on a daily basis, who commit crimes and destroy peoples property. And when the people try to prevent it they are called racists. I'd like to see what you would do if people were destroying your property.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Onusonus, something tells me Mike would singing a different tune if friends or family of his were killed by an illegal driving drunk.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No doubt.
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 11 years ago
I lived in Sierra Vista....right on the border.

I have seen plenty....and plenty enough to know that you are mistaken.

Thanks for generalizing about people who don't speak English (having worked with immigrants for almost a decade now, I, at least, have figured out that not speaking English is also not directly tied to legal immigration status... That is just generalized garbage that people who enjoy stereotyping like to make.

Unless you have some proof that the individuals you refer to were ACTUALLY undocumented you have nothing but flawed innuendo.

Those who fight against the DREAM Act don't understand what is going on..
reply report
1. 0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's the gang bangers dude. It's a bunch of low lives that come over, steal cars, and drive them across the boarder to chop shops, and deal drugs to American children.
  49 decapitated bodies were recently found over there because of their out of control drug cartels, and you want those same people to have the right to come over here and do the same thing.
  reply report
  61
  mikelongposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Both are being stereotyped and marginalized, are they not Cags?
  
  With respect, I didn't realize that you were controlling the conversation here...
  
  If someone comments in this thread, others have the right to respond to said comments. You know this.
  
  If someone wishes to redirect back, that is fine.
  
  But that does not negate nor minimize what is being discussed.
  
  Onus, if you are worried about the out of control cartels you can thank your own government for that...we trained, armed, and incentivized their behavior...
  The U.S. has done a good job of destroying Mexico, from the inside and out.
  
  In terms of the "illegal drunk driver", 1) I would be upset with the driver being drunk...that persons immigration status has no bearing on dui... 2) I think some one elses tune would change if they actually knew people who were undocumented, or took the time to realize the real issues of the "undocumented"..
  
  But, they are just a generalization to you...just as homosexuals are...
  
  As long as you are not one of them, as long as you can stand on the outside and view them as "others" and as long as you can live with false pride and a sense of entitlement that is all that matters, eh?
  
  Wake up.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "In terms of the "illegal drunk driver", 1) I would be upset with the driver being drunk...that persons immigration status has no bearing on dui..."
  
  What if that illegal was a 9 time DUI offender still drunk from the night before at 8:00 a.m.?
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We sure did arm them. Ever heard of operation fast and furious? You can thank Obama and Eric Holder for that one. Me, well, I didn't vote for that bunch of liberal loonies.
  
  By the way, good job making the connection to gay marriage...
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 11 years ago
The person's citizenship matters not.

Drunk drivers are a problem, regardless. The punishment for the crime of DUI will suffice.

Drunk driving is a problem that is far and beyond illegal immigration. Using your logic, however, I should be more upset with alcohol manufacturers and those who sell them....right?

That makes no sense.

The majority of undocumented, half of the undocumented, 30 percent of the undocumented, what minescule percentage of undocumented people are driving drunk and causing these accidents?

Does one person become them all?

No. Maybe you wish to think this way, but I am glad that I do not. If a Muslim flies a plane in a terrorist attack do I then go after Muslims themselves?

No... But, I'd wager if I'd spoken to you after 9/11 I'd find much more unmitigated hate-speak along the lines that I am seeing here..

Your arguments are irrational.
reply report
1. 87
  livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I'm not sure where this idea that illegals guilty of DUI are somehow treated better than citizens guilty of the same crime came from.
  
  Since most DUI accidents/fatalities are committed by citizens, should we boot out all US citizens?
  reply report
2. 0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I had a feeling that would be your answer but, by all means, lets not eliminate at least part of the problem by keeping out and kicking out the Illegals.
  
  They may not be a problem in your town, Mike, but they are here. Obviously we're miles apart in our thinking and geographically.
  
  Illegal is Illegal. Stone cold sober or drunk on their ass. It matters not to me. They should all be sent packing or jailed.
  
  As for Muslims, as long as they're peaceful, I have no problem with them. That also goes for the Jew down the street, the Atheist next door, or the Baptist in my own church.
  
  As for right after 9/11, I unfortunately had a conversation about Muslims with a co-worker (he was young and stupid) and I had to point out we shouldn't judge all people of a faith because of the actions of a few fanatics. I do know the difference, Mike.
  reply report
61
mikelongposted 11 years ago
I live in Los Angeles.

We have more undocumented here than, arguably, you have people in your city/state.

Why do you think I argue the way I do. I see the diversity, I see the reality, while you see a small little corner...

You, obviously, didn't read anything I wrote regarding this: (so I will repost)

"My friend's family is very conservative (and very financially well off...the father and now son are both lawyers)...

But when I went to their home and got to know them I found out that they employed and housed an undocumented woman (in her mid-40's in terms of age) to cook and clean for them. She lived with them during the week in a little room, and she was able to visit her family on the weekends...

What the heck was this? Modern day indentured servitude/slavery? I couldn't believe it. I came from a middle-middle class family, and we had no money to hire maids. I could never look at them the same way or take their arguments seriously. Father and son would talk about "those illegals"...."get them out!" "fences on the border!!" "kick them out of our schools"...."put machine guns and guard dogs on the border"...but then to their maid, "Make sure your back Sunday night!"

Liars...deceivers....and Meg Whitman is only one of a plethora of hypocrites who reflect the reality of our "immigration" problem.."

-Longhunter, I am watching businesses win "business of the year" while building their financial empires on the undocumented. I am buying clothes made by the same "Cheap labor"-minded companies at the store that are also being unpacked in warehouses manned by undocumented. I am looking at "made in China" tags on products that are made here in sweatshops by undocumented who are tricked into coming here, taken advantage of, and trapped in suburban-based prisons...

I see more in terms of the issues of the undocumented than Arizona, let alone Phoenix, can begin to shake a stick at...

And, again, the issue isn't the undocumented, but rather the hypocrites in politics who are trying to control them. The same people creating the environment of fear are the same people profiting from their presence... You can keep arguing ideals, but all you are doing is being their little tool.

Think for yourself.

We may be miles apart in terms of thinking and geography, but at least I have lived in your geography, and am able to weigh the true "threat" based on my multiple experiences...

If I based everything on what I saw while in Cochise County, I would be living in a flawed place...

Your "kicking out the illegals" is a non-solution.

First you have to understand what is going on that is bringing people here...

Look at the correlation between illegal migration of Mexicans from Chiapas and Oaxaca with Mexican government actions in those areas....look at what the American-driven Mexican Government has been up to in these areas....and then realize that colonization...the imperialism of Europeans over indigenous peoples in the Americas, is far from over....

All someone needs to do is realize that your community is living on top of an oil field....or gold (as in Haiti....that country will only go further down hill now..and illegal immigration from there will increase too)...and then what happens to your home?

When your own government decides that you are valueless, what do you do?

Of course, perhaps you don't understand what it is like to be a second-or even third class citizen in your own nation......

When I was living in a farming village in a remote area many hours north of the Durango state capital in Mexico, the long arm of the United States was there.....and still is there....and it is leaving nothing but destruction in its wake socially, economically, and culturally, while directly and indirectly driving more people northward...and it is a long way from Durango... But Chiapas and Oaxaca are even farther away.... I know a young man who's parents illegally immigrated from Peru... They walked the whole way.... What was going on in Peru that was making people do this, and what was the U.S. doing there? Was the U.S. doing something? Yes.....and it was far worse than DUI....

Your ideals are lost when it comes to the issues of reality.

Americans want to be able to do what they want in others' countries without ramifications, but they also like to live in denial, even when those ramifications are slamming them in the face...
reply report
1. 0
  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Points taken, Mike.
  
  I've been to LA several times. My mother tried to get me to move out there years ago. They finally moved back to TN to get away from the taxes and crime.
  reply report
66
SparklingJewelposted 11 years ago
Maybe I have missed a posting of it, but has anyone mentioned the "fact" that many blacks are religious/pro-family/marriage...not just republicans, either(from what I have read). Obama may have lost a good portion of his base promoting gay marriage. His own minister was having second thoughts on voting for him because of it. (not talking of Jermiah Wright either)
reply report
1. 87
  livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That seems to be a common belief among the right nowadays (NOM in fact tried to pit gay and black people against each other).
  
  I'm glad you put "fact" in quotes since it really isn't one. In reality, polls show that African Americans support marriage equality in similar percentages to every other ethnic group.
  reply report
  57
  Billjordanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The naked truth is that many blacks do not believe Obama spoke from the heart about gay marriages. I had a conversation with a group of blacks today who feel this strongly, I can only hope this is true.
  reply report
  87
  livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's fine. The people you talked to, and you, don't represent all African Americans, or even a majority, for that matter. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
  reply report
0
screamingposted 11 years ago
I believe President Obama, being a Christian,realized people should treat people the way they would treat themselves and not judge. He did however leave the decision up to the individual states whether to allow it or not.
reply report
61
mikelongposted 11 years ago
Just for Cags, and those who are thinking similarly, the issues of immigration and gender intersect...

And it is the same political camp opposing much needed reform.

If freedom is inalienable, if the pursuit of such is human...part of our essence, regardless of from whence it derives, then for those who are from other nations, the yearning to be free, even if this means becoming American, is also human....

If someone living in Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Iran, Haiti, or another nation are hopelessly mired in a state they cannot overcome, isn't the U.S. that shining beacon calling to them?

That has always been part of our imagery....and we have done a good job of spreading our culture (whether real or not), our success (whether real or not), and freedom (whether real or not) around the world that we have "seeded" well....

I wonder what it must be like to live under Pinochet....to know the U.S. exists..to also know that my nation is broken beyond repair...that my own life can also be in jeopardy because of this...and to see a way out.

Getting through our immigration system is not only flawed and broken on our end...but to only look at our part denies the other part....the home nation who is now analyzing what their citizen is doing and what it would mean...

To deny this second component exists is fallacy...

Pinochet......who supported him? Who stood by him?

The same nation calling to the oppressed people... So, think about it, even someone seeking to change their nation will be directly kept out, because it would upset the American order, and the only other option would be an American style revolution against an oppressive regime...or to leave..if you can make it out of your own state first...let alone get into others..

But, even in revolution, you will not get America's help....for they are financing the existing government...training its troops, providing lucrative arms and defense technology packages...providing the financing to keep your power going, and enabling access to the worlds largest, wealthiest market...

In Los Angeles, we have more Salvadorians than there are in El Salvador.... Have you learned for yourself about U.S. domination and subjugation of Central America? You argue elsewhere about "our debt" but then turn a blind eye to the driver of that debt...

What impact did U.S. Fruit have on "Latin" America (as if that was ever a rational/real/non-bigoted generalization), and what does its offspring still do?

Shall we start discussing the role of shipping companies and, say, the energy industry?

So, even if I was yearning for the same freedom that American citizens consider universal concepts (for Jefferson is writing about universal rights, inalienable rights...not solely American rights or man's rights, or Christianity's rights), my ability to create (as the "Founding Fathers" did) a new nation will be undermined...

Look into Chiapas.....what has been going on there...

What were the French doing in Indo-China after World War II, and who was supplying them? Why?

Colonialism is still alive and well.... The U.S. spends so much physical and political capital abroad, but is more focused on moving weapons and its corporate conglomerates while enriching those who are dividing and destroying their own people....

Mubarrak....Our man...

Hussein.....Our man..

Noriega... Our guy..

Pinochet....Our guy....

Bautista... Our favorite..

We have to solve some more serious issues before we even imagine that we can stop "illegal immigration"... This can be halted, but we have to change the way we use our power abroad..and it starts right next door with Mexico..

The implications of "Free Trade" laws on the ability so smuggle contraband (of all types) back and forth across the border need to be realized and acted upon.
Their economic impact in terms of small producers (whether agricultural, manufacturing, or otherwise) also needs to be analyzed further.

To simplify all of this is lunacy.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Obama finally backs same-sex marriage

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Obama finally backs same-sex marriage

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies