Noted gay-marriage supporter finally drops cynical charade

I'm all for gay marriages...

On the heels of Vice President Joe Biden‘s alleged rogue-going on gay marriage, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan‘s actual expression of support for marriage equality, President Obama has completed his long-awaited “evolution” on gay marriage by expressing support for marriage equality in an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts. Although the apparent result of intense media pressure, marriage equality advocates likely don’t care how he got here (railway, Trailways, Caravan?), just that he got here.

He said he “hesitated” on gay marriage because he felt that civil unions would be sufficient, and because the word “marriage” invokes powerful traditions and beliefs for a lot of people, but concluded that “for me personally, it is important to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

This is the culmination of a years-long “evolution” on the subject of gay marriage rights that began with an expression of support for full marriage rights on a 1996 candidate questionnaire, fell back to the more politically palatable “civil unions” in the 2000′s, and ratcheted back up with a series of declarations and actions opposing efforts to ban same-sex, but falling short of a full-throated declaration of support for marriage equality.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/prez-and ... n-roberts/

I'm all against an "evolving" president.

It appears that Obama and PrintSmith agree on states rights...

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue (gay marriage) on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/09/b ... l-charade/

PrintSmith... you have a supporter in the White House.

Marriage, from a governmental perspective, is nothing more, or less, than a legal, contractual state of existence between those who have voluntarily decided to enter into that contractual obligation. It is a perpetual (meaning without a defined end) state of union between them with regards to the civil laws. Anyone who wishes to enter into that contractual state of existence should be able to do so without regards to their sex, how many of them wish to be party to that perpetual union, or their relationship to each other. One should have the same access to that legal state of existence with their single parent sibling as they do to it when the other party to the civil contract is an amorous companion with whom they share sexual relations.

Governments at all levels should have nothing to say about defining what a marriage is or is not - their only interest is in noting the existence of the contractual state between the interested parties for the public records. Some religions allow for a person to have multiple spouses and the government telling them that they cannot be "married" because there are more than two of them violates the free exercise of their religion, which violates the 1st Amendment, applicable equally now upon the States as a result of the "interpretation" provided by SCOTUS, which says that there shall be no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If the religion of Muslims or Mormons allows for multiple wives, no level of government within any of the States, or the United States, may pass any law which prohibits that portion of their religion from being freely exercised. Government doesn't get to define what marriage is or is not and shouldn't be involved in any attempt to do so.

Obama's Cynical Charade

Obama in 2004: 'I Don't Think Marriage Is a Civil Right'

[youtube:2qyvfkje]

[/youtube:2qyvfkje]

Same old Obama

Looks like Obama owns an Etch-a-Sketch too :thumbsup:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I'm all against an "evolving" president.

I'm sure you REALLY like the last one who never changed his opinion, no matter what anyone said.

JSG wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I'm all against an "evolving" president.

I'm sure you REALLY like the last one who never changed his opinion, no matter what anyone said.

No... I was not a fan of Bush at all. I voted for him, but I was disappointed over all. The GOP has not really fielded a true conservative in many years... and for me this years choice is not much better.

So Dick Cheney supported gay marriage before Obama did? Those Neandrathal Democrats.