E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The American electorate, like President Obama, is "evolving" on gay marriage. In fact, there's been a sea change among Americans when it comes to the subject across demographic groups.
Women, African Americans, independents, and suburban voters have all moved more in favor of same-sex marriage just over the last two-and-a-half years, according to the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll.
In the March poll, overall, Americans favored same-sex marriage by a 49-40% margin. That's a reversal from October 2009, when it was 41% favor, 49% oppose.
Among women, there was a 14-point shift, from 44%/47% to 51%/39%. Among black voters -- the largest shift -- from 32%/53% to 50%/41%. (That could be attributed to the president's warming on the issue.) Both constituencies have also moved more strongly in Obama's favor.
But among independents and especially suburban voters, the numbers are tighter. In March 2012, independents said they favored gay marriage by 46%/37%, a big reversal from 37%/50% in 2009.
Among suburban voters, a key electoral group, it was just a narrow plurality in favor, 45%/43%, in March. Granted, that's a 19-point shift from 37% favor, 54% opposed. But it's also a group Obama won in 2008 (50%-48%), which in the same March poll said it preferred Romney (49%-43%). And that's despite Obama leading overall in the poll (50%-44%).
People still opposed, include rural voters and those identifying as Republicans.
In other words, Obama's coalition of Democrats, black voters, women, Hispanics and urban voters (see below) are all in tact and in favor of gay marriage. But swing voters, especially suburban voters are still split -- as is Obama, apparently.
Same-sex marriage - Favor/Oppose
March 2012
All 49/40
Men 47/41
Women 51/39
White 48/42
Black 50/41
Hispanic 55/30
Suburban 45/43
Urban 60/33
Rural 31/58
Independent 46/37
Dem 67/24
GOP 31/62
Same-sex marriage - Favor/Oppose
Oct. 2009
All 41/49
Men 36/52
Women 44/47
White 40/50
Black 32/53
Hispanic 45/40
Suburban 37/54
Urban 48/40
Rural 39/52
Independent 37/50
Dem 55/35
GOP 22/70
Leave a Comment:
Of course he "evolves" but Romney "flip flops" Good objective journalism guys.
He should just go ahead and support it and get this distraction out of the way.
Just the idea of a Republican back in the White House to rubber stamp the house republican agenda should scare more to the democrats than the idea of the gay guys living together across the street.
Get back to the middle class and how we're going to get ahead and stay ahead vs. the repulican tax breaks to make the rich richer. That's what we need to keep talking about.
Should he support it because he think it will bring him more votes, because he personally is for it (which if true he would have already come out in 2008) or because his base wants it? What if Obama is personally against it as clearly his church in chicago was against it, should he still support it because part of his base does? I am personally for it but I am curious as to what you progressives think should motivate his flip flop?
Is Obama's gay marriage stance all about suburban voters?
Gee guys, you think?
BTW, exactly what is his stance?
Is "evolving" a stance?
I myself don't think of it as either, for or against.
It there, its not gonna change, so just accept it and move on.
My guess is the president feels the same way, its a non-issue so why even have an opinion on it.
Maybe Obama should come out and say he's against it so Romney would come out and be for it and completely lose his base. Didn't he say the other day that he'll just be the opposite of the president or would he flip flop on that too?
Tom, you are absolutely right that this is a non-issue.
We will spend the next 4 months wading through all the BS and come September it will be the Economy.
Nothing more and Nothing less.
Kirk,
There is a difference between an "evolving" position where you change your stance slightly over time to a "flip flop" where you are completely for it then against it.
Romney's abortion stance didn't go from "I am for it only in the case of a mother's health" to "totally against it" it went from supporting a woman's right to choose to being totally against it. BIG difference.
Tell that to voters with a uterus. They see what's happening in Virginia and they are afraid it will become the new national standard.
Frankly, if I had one I'd be a bit concerned about it being probed as well.
What a silly question... Of course his stance is about getting voters. Every decision any politician on the highest level makes is done solely to get elected or re-elected. Anybody believing otherwise would be smarter to go back to believing in the tooth-fairy.
Okay, really? We're going to compare the President's position on gay marriage to Mr. Romney's position on immigration?
Really?
Silly people, do you not understand the difference?
Illegal Immigration and Border Security (we are told) are matters of National Security. Gay Marriage is not.
Gay Marriage involves deeper philosophical questions than Immigration.
...and finally, ask yourself which is more of a "make or break" issues...Immigration or Gay Marriage?
Well, as President he's not allowed to vote present. He never gives a stance on tough, political questions until he's vetted the political fallout.
Boring. In twenty years will the immigration issue be deemed more urgent or will gay marriage?
The social conservatives attacks on gay marriage are silly. I say let them suffer like us so called straight people. Why should we be the only ones in misery?
Talk about a nontroversy...
Kirk, I support Obama, but I do have to agree with you that MSNBC clearly played that how they wanted too.
Just support it already. This is going to be another non issue in 15 years so lets get over it and move onto actual important issues that effect Americans.
TNSEvol--why do you assume that Obama's flip flop was an evolution as you describe and Romney's was politically motivated? I think most objective people will say that both, if not all politicians, flip flop and dont evolve because they choose their position based on the political winds to reelected. But I agree with everyone else as this is likely to be a non issue as immigration and the economy are far more important to base a vote on.
Obama said in the 2008 debate with Hillary that he believed marriage is between one man and one women.
So if he changes his mind...urhmmm sorry "Evolves" his stance is he then a flip flopper?
This is one of those issues, had it came up when Odumbo was a senator, would vote "present" on. The little man is too afraid to take a stand and risk alienating another one of his special interest groups. I bet Odumbo plays a mean game of Twister with Micheal, he can contort himself like no one I've ever seen before, so he can look like he's in favor of or against any given issue facing the country, depending on who he's talking to.
Enough with gay marriage. Let's talk about polygamy.
Are you a glutton for punishment? Why would you want more than one spouse other then the obvious "I have a headache" couldn't be contagious and all four or five not be in the mood. LOL
Obama will lose in november , bank on it !
Doubtful any prediction can be made right now about who is going to win in November, especially the more the "Mormon question" comes up. Other Christians feel that it is a dubious faith and not even really Christian due to some distictions about the holy trinity.
If the economy improves before November Obama will probably win in a tight race, if it doesn't improve and Romney can avoid fallout from his base because of his faith then he has a pretty good shot to take it, but again in a tight race.
Bottom line is the country is so divided right now its going to be a close race either way, my guess is it will be a lot like the 2000 elections.
The fact is that Obama is against gay marriage. It is that simple. Why gays support him is a mystery.
As for media coverage of his "evolving" thoughts on the matter, it is nothing but a hoax. No one talks like that and to say that your position is "evolving" amounts to nothing more than, "my position is what it is, but I want to pretend to support both sides and if I can get the side that I don't support to think that I'm on their side, well, that makes me a pretty good politician indeed!" Who has ever said that their position is "evolving?"
I can understand someone saying that they are looking into the facts before taking a position, especially about something which they have little knowledge. But, you are either for gay marriage or you are against it or it is of something that is of little importance that you haven't given it any thought.
"The fact is that Obama is against gay marriage. It is that simple. Why gays support him is a mystery."
Because unlike the GOP he doesn't attack, degrade, ostracize and all around dehumanize them.
I personally think that the Obama administration has thrown a 'dummy tack' at the media, which has bought in, hook line and sinker.
The Gay marriage stuff is just about headlines, and headlines that Romney can't join in, unless he would like to denoounce another set of potential voters.
This isn't 'bad' media attention for Obama. It's not the greatest but what we AREN'T talking about is the economy, which for Obama is a GOOD THING.
Instead the media has drawn us into days of "does he or doesn't he", which amounts to nothing. In the interim, Romney can't get any air space as we all discuss a topic that he cannot join in to unless he would like to say he is against Gay marriage loud and clear. And that would be the wrong kind of attention for Romney.
Dems get a subject they can talk about; Repubs get to keep quiet.
This episode underscores the 'lame stream' media title
Hit the nail on the head.
Agreed, good point.
I used to think it would take many generations for people to generally approve of gay marriage. I am surprised to see the process it is making as an issue. Youthful voters generally approve. That will only increase over time. So far I have seen no accounts of anyone saying that gay marriage in their state ruined their own heterosexual marriage, and I don't expect I ever will except for on shows like Jerry Springer. I would like to say that this is showing how we as a nation are learning to coexist, but we have to get rid of 24 hour news channels first. They are responsible for 99% of the political acrimony this nation is facing.
Wayne I agree with your 24 hour "news" channel quip, but the numbers are off, its prolly about 30% because there are no term limits on congress, 10% 24 hour "news" channels that rehash anything and everything no matter how trivial and then spin it out of control, 20% because there are so many ways to stagnate legislation (that the GOP has brilliantly exploited at every chance) and about 40% because most of the nation is deliberately misinformed from many sources and grossly undereducated in all facets of life, but more directly about the actual issues.
No one said gay marriage would ruin hetorosectual mariage, its just wrong! Civil unions, maybe? Marriage, no. The support of gay marriage is just another part of population control, and at the expense of good people who just say, live and let live. Lets face it, with gay marriage less babies will be born.
Pablo, lets get our heads in the real world. Real life is not like the Bible. Just saying something doesn't make it true. You need to stop echoing the Republican Party line that Obama has ruined the economy. Horse CRAP!!! More than 2 solid years of private sector job growth. The ONLY job growth Bush saw in 8 years was PUBLIC sector-you know GOVERNMENT JOBS!!!! GM and Chrysler are not only still alive but are breaking records. With numbers like THIS, how can you say he has been anything except amazing?
I don't care much for Bush but public sector jobs are were Obama job groth is. We need 250,000 jobs added per month, .1 percent unemployment drop will take 31 mos. to get down to 5% unemployment. When the economy was the main issue, Obama spent 1.5 years on health care! Now, to get back on subject, gay marriage is not needed as there are civil unions. Why make moral, live and let live people look bad? There is 0 reproduction with gay couples, how can it be right?
There was job groth in Bush's last 1.5 years, but I don't like Bush or Obama.
I am a moderate conservative and will say I could care less about what gays do. Its their buisness. The President is using this diversion to change the subjects on any things that would be deemed harmful to his re-election and the media is buying in hook, line, and sinker. He cannot run on any achievements that would be looked at on a positive light (except to his liberal base) that he already has the support of, so let's make this election about everything and anything to divert attention from his policies. I am not sure Mitt Romney will be any better and his rheteoric can also be confusing but I have seen what this President has done (really nothing) and I for one am willing to make a change.
My God Dude, where do you get you information? Under Obama public sector job growth is DOWN. This comes from the Congressional Budget Office.
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201110070003
That is private v public sector job growth under Obama.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/government-jobs-bouyed-bushs-economy-and-sunk-obamas-chart.php
This is a comparison between the two Presidents. Now with charts like this available (took me 2 minutes to find these two), how can someone who claims to be interested in politics say Obama is ruining the economy and growing government?
Obama doesn't care one bit about gay marriage. He will only come out for it or against it depending on which position he perceives will garner him the most votes.
When one considers his positions on many other issues, he employs the same strategy.
MSNBC, give us a break! You and your reporters obviously think that gay marriage, or not, is of utmost importance to the election of a president. To us, in essence, it is of miniscule importance to the electibality of a leader of the nation. The pressing issues are the debt and as a result, so we are told, contributed to the discontinunance of support for education, etc., as a result of the debt. -- aka the continuing monetary support of other countries while our own backyard is suffering.
MSNBC your reporters have bought into their own limitations.
Either these "reporters" are too lazy, too stupid, or have bought into the into the belief that Americans are the sameto explore the woes of the nation
Quit going for the sensational to sell stories. What ever happended to responsible reporting
I was shut out before completely editing, but I think you get the message.
I think Democrats need to look at the polls and ask themselves "What changed that made the huge shift in opinion for gay marriage?" Answer: It wasn't just the fact that some were able to marry that caused it. As a gay veteran, I'd like to point out that some Americans have realized that if an openly gay or lesbian service member is willing to fight, bleed and die in some far off country to defend their civil rights at home then maybe it is downright UNAMERICAN to vote to limit their rights. I think this point should be brought out more and destroy the Republican talking points on this issue. As long as gays and lesbians openly serve in our armed forces then attack the cognitive dissonance of those faux patriots of conservatives. In fact, this realization is part of the reason for some to shift their opinion. Before gays and lesbians were able to openly serve it was a constant talking point of conservatives that, "Well, they can't even serve openly in the military so why should we observe their marriages?" Well, they don't have that talking point any more and they need to EXPLAIN why gay and lesbian troops shouldn't be able to protect their spouses and families with the same benefits the straight troops enjoy!
Jes ... why is it wrong? Of course the bigger laugh is those people who want to know why gays can't be happy with civil unions, when 19 states (20 counting NC) also ban civil unions. It isn't about "protecting" marriage (from what?), but about homophobia.
If your having a hard time making up your mind, watch Daniel Tosh's "It Gets Worse" Video... makes a good point...
Make no mistake about the impetus behind prop one in NC. This was pushed by Republican groups intent on the "wedge issues" they are famous for and which they trot out every election so they can distract from the real issues. Only problem is Americans are starting to see the discrimination and hatred heaped on people who have a different sexual preference than heterosexuals do and they are turning away from it. They understand hatred is not biblical. Denying equal rights is something Americans abhor and they will make the right choice on this issue as well. Looks like the Republican strategy will backfire, much like the tea party doctrine that has corrupted the Republican party, as most Americans views are evolving as well.
Unless someone is so homophobic that they can't grasp the concept of love between any two people, why are these numbers still so low?
I simply don't understand why anyone would object to the marriage of any two people regardless of their sex. I would have to ask those who continue to object to same sex marriage this very simple question: why?
Those who enjoy a heterosexual relationship and are opposed to same sex marriage should ask themselves how they would feel if they were not allowed to be legally married and enjoying their relationship and all of the benefits that it offers. In other words, try putting yourself in someone another person's shoes and see where they may lead you.
Because everyone is entitled to their own opinion on morality. Because people think for themselves and not as a group. Because there is nothing in nature (evolution) or religion to support two men being sexually attracted to each other. Because it is not a civil rights issue when a person chooses to live a certain way and then forces that lifestyle on the rest of society. Hope I answered your questions! Civil union is still an option and it gives you the legal rights you seem to want.
Brian,
I asked what I believed to be two pretty simple questions over the weekend on this issue;
Guess what?
After 100+ responses, there was not ONE coherant answer. Lot's of talk about sex with animals, the usual bible banging & plenty of 'homo' references though!
The bigotry in this country is beyond depressing...
I was married to a wonderful women for more than twenty years until her death. My life was filled with enjoyment because of her. We were able to accept and live our lives together with complete adherence to our vows without ever having to consciously think about them. It was simply a matter of loving each other completely and being able to enjoy the bonds of matrimony legally and spiritually.
You said: Because there is nothing in nature (evolution) or religion to support two men being sexually attracted to each other.
You obviously couldn't be any more incorrect about that.
Then you said: Because it is not a civil rights issue when a person chooses to live a certain way and then forces that lifestyle on the rest of society.
What exactly do you feel is being 'forced' upon the 'rest of society'? A persons love for another? A marriage between two people who love and want to support each other in the same manner as that of their heterosexual counterparts? Do you believe that gays and lesbians are not a part of our society?
Then you stated: Hope I answered your questions!
Yes, you did. It shows that you and others still refuse to open your mind to any concept other than what you believe and want others to only side with your beliefs.
The bigotry in this country is beyond depressing...
It is truly unbelievable isn't it Feisty? And congratulations on taking on such a dynamic question to so many many people (100+). While most people go through their normal routines over the weekend, you took time out to personally seek an answer to an important issue. My hat's off to you madam!
Why... thank you Brian!
I had high hopes of maybe getting a better understanding why people feel threatened, unfortunately, it didn't come even close to fruition... ;o(
Feisty, isn't it funny no one cries when you are not the first poster? I guess they don't care about gay people.
Why... thank you Brian!
It was my pleasure Feisty. I have to leave for the day. Great to visit and share thoughts with you and my other FR friends here today. Looking forward to conversing with everyone here again tomorrow.
I'm hoping that in President Obama's second term the Justice Department gets involved with this issue in which a persons civil and equal rights are being violated.
Lukewarm I respect your opinion but I fail to see how same sex couples wanting to have their relationship recognized via a marriage is forcing their lifestyle down your throat. People get married everyday in this nation and unless I'm invited I have no idea it is going. Same sex couples aren't asking you to attend their weddings they are asking for the same rights a heterosexual couple has.. the right to marry the one they love. It should be a non-issue and shouldn't be up for discussion. If allowed to marry I garuntee your personal life will not suffer. You will not be forced to particpate. You won't even know when it is happening. (unless you happen to drive by the ceremony and see it) It'll be just like every other day that people get married. You'll go about your business and be clueless.
Because it is a sick sick thing and you would know that if you are not gay
For starters I am not gay - my aunt who is in her early 70's is!
She has been in a warm & loving relationship with my other 'auntie' since before I was born!
There is nothing 'sick sick' about either of them - you won't meet two more beautiful caring people!
I ♥ them both to death!
I pity you for the hatred which flows through your veins so freely!
nomoresameo, # 3.3, you reply that nothing could be further from the truth that nothing in nature or religion supports sexual attraction between two men. And then you proceed to provide exactly zero points to support your contention. I would like to hear some support for that "nothing further from truth" concept. So here is an opening for you.
First off, I cannot speak for any particular religion because it is just magical mumbo-jumbo incantations and cannot be rationally discussed.
However, the prime function of natural life is to propagate itself. This certainly cannot be accomplished via the sexual attraction of two men. For that reason there is certainly a case that sexual attraction between men does not provide an evolutionary advantage to a species.
How can a trait that threatens a species with extinction be considered to be anything BUT non supportive of nature's function of self-propagation?
Please don't get sidetracked on cultural issues like love or marriage, because I happen to feel that differences are part of life. I just want to hear an explanation of the natural support.
Hey Feisty-the world is about to end-I agree with all you wrote about same-sex marriages and/or relationships.
As Ever,
Barbara
Hey Feisty. First of all, you've made plenty of hatred posts so enough of the "holier than thou" hatred runs through your veins remarks. Second of all, 2 "aunties" does not a representative sample make. Thirdly,
<After 100+ responses, there was not ONE coherant answer. Lot's of talk about sex with animals, the usual bible banging & plenty of 'homo' references though!>
Homo behavior, orientation, lifestyle is simply against the preaching of the leftylibdem's icon, Darwin. Homos may occur randomly but certainly are not "naturally" selected. I'll leave it to you to correctly apply Darwinian theory to arrive at the conclusion that homos cannot have "evolved". Instead, homos necessarily must recruit (enlist, hijack) from heterosexuals. Since the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals do not choose (select, endorse, volunteer, gravitate toward) homo, the power of the state, social pressure, and widespread distortions are employed to assist (coerce, ram-down-throats) in the "reaping". Homos historically and evolutionarily have always been an insignificant phenomena in numbers that are not surprising from randomness. And they will necessarily continue to be an insignificant manifestation of homo sapien behavior unless artificially propped up by the radical leftylibdem agenda of coercion and power. So, from a Darwinian and scientific perspective, the question of homo marriage should be mute.
Is that coherent enough for you?
ps: Your mispelling of coherant (sic) roughly parallels your main activity - RANT! Ha, ha. It's ok to laugh Feisty, even at yourself because from many people's perspective, you are hilarious! Now let us see if leftylibdem MSNBC will post my response despite the use of the word "homo".
Actually, the "prime function of life" is to propagate the genetic pattern, and there is more than one way to do that.
There are many instances in nature of certain individuals of a species forgoing sexual reproduction, and instead devoting their efforts to raising their siblings - the most notable being social insects like honeybees, but it has also been found to occur in other social mammals like mole rats and wolves. In these cases, caring for siblings means improving the survival rate of the genetic patterns they share with those siblings.
But even in those instances, not all individuals forego reproduction, whether it is the "queen bee" or the "alpha female", the species continues to reproduce. Similarly in humans, a majority of people will still choose opposite sex partners and have children, even if "gay marriage" is allowed - or even if homosexuality was encouraged.
Moreover, some same-sex couples do have children, either from a previous relationship, or artificial insemination, or surrogates, or even adopting an orphaned family member. Those children are a powerful argument in favor of same-sex marriage, it would give them certain legal protections that children of unmarried couples don't have.
Finally, assuming sex is for reproduction only is simply wrong. Just like certain body parts have more than one function - a mouth can be used to eat, breathe, speak, whistle, smile, kiss, or bite - certain behaviors can have more than one function, too. Even married heterosexuals have sex a lot more frequently than is required for reproduction, and often have sex when impregnation isn't possible (or in ways that render impregnation impossible). That's because sex also serves to form a pleasure bond between the participants, which in turn promotes social harmony, which improves the survival odds of the members of that society.
Barbara - there may be hope for us yet! ;o)
Stevie;
Try using faggot next time - it appears to be much more suited to your homophobic rant!
This is all you got? lmfao!
A half assed insult?
Get back to me rookie... when you're feisty worthy!
I refuse to have a battle of the wits with an unarmed person!
"I simply don't understand why anyone would object to the marriage of any two people regardless of their sex. I would have to ask those who continue to object to same sex marriage this very simple question: why?"
It has a lot to do with this 2000 year old fairy tale that was plagiarized from the ancient Egyptian story of Horus and Osirus.
Funny how so many people will focus on one little verse in Leviticus and completely ignore the dozens of "live and let live", "love them as I have loved you" and "judge not lest ye be judged" fables that permiate the New Testament.
@ lukewarm
"Because there is nothing in nature (evolution) or religion to support two men being sexually attracted to each other"
I absoloutely love it when people who are not scientifically educated make scientific claims because 99% of the time they are wrong.
Homosexuality has been documented in more than 450 species of vertebrates signaling that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals. One of the more famous examples is a pair of male penguins at the Central Park Zoo.
For some reason it does not allow me to post links so I have altered the ones below with some tactically placed spaces :P Take a look at any scientific paper on the subject, it has not only been observed in captivity but in the wild.
http: // www. livescience .com/16138-gay-animals-bonobos-dolphins.html
http: // www. scientificamerican .com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution
"Take a look at any scientific paper on the subject, it has not only been observed in captivity but in the wild."
I should clarify - peer reviewed scientific paper - there are plenty of special interest "scientists" who work for places like the discovery institute that have a christian ideal they are trying to insert into actual science.
Steve - What is your problem? Why do you hate homosexuals so much? Do you have a personal, really bad experience you would like to share? You do realize that there is no gay agenda...you can't catch gay...no one can make you become gay no matter how much they torture you...there is no gay army out there waiting to attack you. I feel sorry for you. How do you live with so much hate and paranoia?
And your evidence for that hysterical "Oh-my-god-the-world-is-ending" claim is? (cue crickets)
Nope, not one single case of "gay reaping" going on (except for the pedophile priests, but that's "pedophilia" not "gay recruitment", duh.)
It's equally absurd to think the Government is somehow promoting this imaginary "recruitment scheme". "Civil rights" are not the same as "promotion".
CM, thanks for your reply # 3.15. You've identified some interesting rebuttals to the concept that nature is unsupportive of sexual attraction between men.
Your make a good outline of nature's many ways of propagating the "genetic pattern" that is different from our own species. I don't think any of them specifically use sexual attraction between men as a technigue, but they do present a wide range of techniques, not to even mention asexual propagation of many fungi.
You make a strong case for the cultural advantages that can accrue from same sex pairing, and I agree with them. It certainly seems as though homo sapiens can support same sex pairings without extinction.
Is it fair to say that taken to the extreme, that sexual attraction between men would lead to extinction? I don't know. The very existence of that attraction could mean that homo sapiens actually derived an evolutionary benefit from such attraction. If no benefit has derived from sexual attraction between men, and the genetic pattern cannot propagate via such attraction, how can that attraction be maintained in the gene pool? Maybe there are enough instances of such genes being propagated through male-femaile pairings to keep the genes viable and maybe even beneficial.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. It good to get the old gray matter stirring once in a while. Peace
Steve D-514317 Before you start paraphrasing Darwin, you might want to actually READ Darwin. There are more than 400 species of animals on earth the regularly engage in homosexual behavior, yet only ONE that reads both the Bible and Fox news, sort of like shooting heroin and cocaine at the same time.
But honestly, none of that matters. Religion OR science doe NOT MATTER. If you don't have to "prove" that insane crap that is causing all the freaking WARS on the planet, then the Gay community does not have to "prove" that their sexual orientation is "natural". Plainly put: It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what two consenting adults do. Christianity does not own marriage, it doesn't own sex and it CERTAINLY has no right to tell ANYONE how to live. PERIOD!!!
The United States needs to treat religion, ALL religions, the same way China does. If Christians cannot act in a civilized manner then restrict all religious worship TO INSIDE THE CHURCHES!!!!
Stick his what, were? Rub her what against what? That makes me a homophobe? Thats me!
I personally do not care if two people of the same sex love each other and want a civil union, or if they belong to a church have some type church ceremony. We need to discuss what rights that go along with this civil union. Are we going to include health insurance? The marriage tax credit? Social security payments? Basically all the rights that a marriage between a man and woman has. I think that it should include all the same rights. I also agree that 15-20 years from now it will be a non issue.
One of the reasons that homosexuality is documented in other species, is that in the natural world, only the fittest actually have opposite sex partners to mate with. This insures the health of the offspring. If we are to take that data literally, then we are also suggesting that those who might engage in homosexuality are not as 'fit", "strong", "intelligent", or "healthy" and that is the reason that they cannot find an opposite sex partner, and I would hate to think that anyone felt themselves to be superior to another human being due to sexual preference. We also would have to concede that those who fall into the "virile" and "desirable" traits classification in terms of the opposite sex, should be allowed polygamy or multiple mating partners as that is the situation with herding animals such as deer, antelope, cows, even hippos-one male may be responsible for many females giving birth to offspring. It would also suggest that the practice in domestic herding animals of castrating all those who are not desirable to reproduce is acceptable......I would caution everyone who wants to draw direct comparison to the animal world that it can ricochet back in very unintended and undesirable ways that would inhibit personal rights and freedoms rather than enhance them.
Fiesty ... Steve just reinforced your statement that you haven't received a single coherent rebuttal. And, you won't. Count on it. I've asked the same questions countless times and have yet to receive a logical response. How could you? Even in the trial to defend Prop 8 in California, its backers were unable to produce even one witness who could explain how same-sex marriage would damage society, or even a witness who contended that it could damage society.
Of course, Obama will check the polls, study the results and THEN decide what his policy ALWAYS HAS BEEN ... as long as it gets him the most voters ! LOL !!
He is a typical wind sock.
and Romney is a "well-oiled weather vane".
Romney has to wait to make sure he has his marching orders from right wing talk radio before he dares to say anything. Real macho leader you "teabaggers" picked!
Go USA and TNSEVOL, it seems you are both correct on multiple levels. They both try to make the appearance of going with the flow of popular opinion.
Also, Obama seems to be a droopy sock, while Romney sure seems oily....
Just add this to Obama's long list of flip flops.
And this is different from just about every other - elected - politician... how?
The gay community has misread the support for their marriage. While many of us have evolved to recognise that tax paying citizens deserve the same rights as any other citizen because we do have a sence of fair play we are still uncomfortable with gay marriage. When they point to statistics that say 52% are in favor and interpret that as a majority they fail to understand that realistically 48% is still basically half opposed. Everyone who is trying to push those of us who are will to recognise their civil rights (incuding the President) must understand that that does not mean we buy into their entire agenda
Perhaps it's time to realize that it is not quite time to go for gay "marriage". There are still millions of ppl who are VERY uncomfortable with that terminology and just like the millions of ppl scared about the other changes coming at them, they take a stand. What we really need to be careful of at this time is a repeat of many past elections when the right brought up wedge issues to get the faithful to the polls and it ended in defeat for more progressive issues-and candidates. My personal beliefs are that why do we argue over semantics? Why not just get the government OUT of the "marriage" business? Since most ppl are not actually evangelical Christians, why does the government insist on relating rights to marriage? Perhaps we should just let the government have civil unions-with all rights and priviledges-and let the church have marriage-exactly the way they want it? Why is this so hard to figure out? Basically, this is just a ploy from the right to divide the democratic base...and it is working again. We are sooo stupid sometimes.
Why must it be called marriage....we have other legalized and recognized terms for personal alliances....Palimony, common law....It is the usage of the term that seems to create the resistance to the issue, because for many, the term is closely associated with a religious moral code prohibitting such behavior.
How about what Mit Romney and the Republican think about Same Sex Marriage. Clearly last week when Mit Romney failed to Stand Up for his Gay Foreign Policy Leader who he just hired, the Media is completely Silent.
This is a personal decision. The President is a Christian what about that is it the Media doesn't understand. How about the Person who wrote this article. Are you Christian" Do you believe in Same Sex Marriage if you are Christian?
Well even so most Christian if not all don't believe in Same Sex Marriage, but fully support Civil Unions with all benefits of any other American. isn't that really the issue.
Catholic cause an up-roar when some violate their Religious Beliefs, and they don't believe in Same Sex Marriage, that's not the Church's teaching nor any other Church in this country.
We have families who cannot put food on the table for their kids, no Jobs, no transporation, homeless and you think this is an issue worth pursuing.
Every media Distraction from our Most serious Issues is hurting the American People and this country. We want a discussion of Real Issues, that's how we end up with Presidents and people in office that don't care about "We The People"
I and others Challenge the media and blogs such as this to address the Issues affecting and crippling our Country and stop the distractions
If any American cast a Vote purely based on Whether the President Supports Same Sex Marriage then something is wrong with them and don't care about this country or their neighbors.
Stop the none-sense, and the one up the Media, the 24 hour news cycly for Making News and address the Issues, you will find more people will indulge in conversation.
VP Biden's actual statement on meet the press was not what it's being made out to be. Here's exactly what he said and it's consistent with the PResident.
JOE BIDEN: As more and more Americans become to
understand,
what this is all about is a simple proposition: who do you love? Who do you
love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that's what people are
finding out is what, what all marriages at their root are about. Whether
they're marriages of lesbians, or gay men, or heterosexuals.
DAVID
GREGORY: Is that what you believe now?
JOE
BIDEN: That's what I believe.
DAVID
GREGORY: And you're comfortable with same-sex marriage now?
JOE BIDEN: I, I, look. I am vice president of the United States of
America. Um. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with
the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and
women marrying one another are entitled to the same, exact rights, all the
civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don;t see much of a
distinction beyond that
not much of a man of conviction, he is a weasel and a liar! Wilson was right he just shouldn't said it when he did, this guy lies all the time! Worthless leader of the so called free world! Our press needs some help!
Where does NBC get there data people don't change that fast somebody is isn't telling the truth!
It only takes an instant to change ones mind.
Well since you have all the answers such as the base; why ask a silly question?
Nice try, MSNBC. America is not going "buy" your polls, nor your bill of goods!
Ummm its not NBC's poll.
The only time President Obama should support gay marriage is when he has no qualms with his children being gay and marrying a same sex partner.
Otherwise, he is a hypocrite.
Actually most people who have children who are gay change their stance on gay marriage and acccept it.
So what's the big deal? People like Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, and Britney Spears have done more to destroy the "sanctity of marriage" than any gay marriage could ever do.
You left out the Kardashian bimbo
Re: the gay marriage "issue"
There is a very simple answer to all of this and it goes along with the expression " you can't have your cake and eat it too."
Mr Obama doesn't adhere to that expression in this situation. He wants to continue to garner the full support of the gay and lesbian community, but he can not, for once, stray from his own personal beliefs. So what does he do? He sends out a bunch of surrogates to make it sound like he is in favor of gay marriage, while he himself does not change his position. That way he tries to make the gay and lesbian community think he is fully in their court and continues to garner cash and votes from them, while letting everyone else believe that he is not for gay marriage.
He needs every dollar and vote he can get. And he will do everything and anything to secure both. It has been his standard operating procedure to talk out of both sides of his mouth at once. The only difference here is that he is letting Joe Biden and Arne Duncan act as the other side of his mouth for him on this issue..
Seems to be that the gay/lesbian community should be outraged at being used by Obama in this way. They deserve to know Mr Obama's position from Mr Obama. As do all of the other voters as well.
Lastly, every day that goes by without the public focusing in on the real issues, the economy, jobs, debt and deficit, is one less day that Obama's favorable numbers shrink a little less quickly. What else can he do? He can't win on the central issues, so why not try to avoid them via distraction.. Better to wage a campaign of division and distraction than to address the real concerns of the nation and have your campaign go down in flames..
First off, Joe Biden and Arne Duncan are not clones of Obama, they have their own personalities and their own opinions, while they agree with Obama on most issues, there are some areas where they go their own was. That's how it should be.
Second, while Obama may not support "same sex marriage", he's done more for the Gay community and is much more supportive than any of the Republicans. Obama repealed "Don't ask don't tell", and has been advocating for civil rights for Gays in everything except marriage - and he does support civil unions. For the Gay community, that's far far better than the active hostility from the Religious Republicans, who want to re-instate "Don't ask" or even call for an outright Military service ban, who want to deny even civil unions, who want to deny any sort of protection from discrimination, and who even want to re-criminalize any private consensual activity if it can't result in a pregnancy.
In a land of religious freedom, calling for persecution of sinners isn't very appealing.
so who they gonna vote for...Romney? Bwaahaahaa! This is a false issue-a wedge issue- only useful for division and acrimony and to make the fearful masses feel better about themselves and their lives.
Don't ask don't tell was the brain child of Bill Clinton, not Republicans
Will you @!$%#ing idiots get over same-sex marriage for christs sakes. It doesn't affect you in any way what two loving, same-sex couples do. Live at let live and get over your sad, pathetic selves.
Thumbs up to you. I am sick and tired of reading the same old rhetoric against it.
Sit down with a family of two dads or moms with their kids talk about what worries you both the most and you'll see its probably the same boring stuff.
Then look at their kids and tell them why you don't want their parents to marry and give them the stability every American has a right to.
I don't believe in same sex marrage and if people would just use their common sense they wouldn't either. i also DO NOT believe the poll #s.
Do you have some sort of evidence to base this belief on, or is it completely faith based? By evidence I mean actual credible, reproducable, testable and peer reviewed evidence that didn't come from a religious "authority" or collection of fairy tales like the bible.
If not then by the same logic you could say that a giant lives in a castle up in the clouds and all you need is some magic beans to get there.
Hmm, I applied common sense, and found that there wasn't a single rational argument against it, but simple fairness and justice called for it.
Oh, there were plenty of of irrational arguments against, but they defy common sense:
"They can't have children" - but we don't deny marriage to those way past childbearing age, or those who are sterile, or those who don't want to have children. Besides, some same-sex couples have children, either through previous relationships, or surrogates, or artificial insemination.
"It's a sin" - But we've never limited marriage only to those free of sin, indeed it would be silly to do so. We allow prostitutes, pimps, and pornographers to get married, and those surely counts as "sinful". Besides, this is a nation of religious freedom, while you may freely choose to follow the rules of your religion, others outside your religion are free to ignore those rules.
"It's un-natural" - But same-sex relationships are common in nature, and extremely common in social species. If it occurs naturally, it's natural.
"The parts don't fit" - except they do. Gays wouldn't have a sex life if they didn't fit.
"It threatens traditional marriage" - Except it doesn't. People can still choose "traditional marriage", and other peoples marriages, straight or gay", do not effect your marriage or any other traditional marriage.
"It threatens the sanctity of marriage" - That implies some sort of religious "holy rite", but no religious ritual is required for marriage, and plenty of atheists get married with nary a peep of protest from any religion. No "Holy Matrimony" has ever been threatened by the multitude of non-religious non-believer marriages, so why should any "sinner marriage" present any threat? It doesn't.
Gee, maybe Barry will "evolve" and go the way of the dinosaurs. That would be REAL "hope and change."
It is 3 PM in the East...is Obama still "evolving"?
Support for gay marriage is growing generally. But in states such as North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, taking a stand will hurt Obama among independents and centrists. So Obama waffles....
And they say Romney is a flip flopper? At least Romney did a full flip on abortion...
On an issue of supposed deep moral conviction, Obama does a half flip, waiting to see the polls move...
Obama does a h
THE DEFICIT is only an issue because the repukes ran up our deficit with idiotic tax cuts bring the taxes back to what they were under clinton period end of story, oh and get rid of capital gains tax as a seperate tax it's income and should be taxed at the same rate, as for gay/lesbian marriage anyone against it should move to Iran America is NOT a theocracy I have NO patience with social conservatives. Social conservatives have NEVER ONCE in the history of the world ever done anything good for anyone ever. Social conservatives all need to disappear like the dinasours they are they have no place in a modern society.
Please stop the nonsense President Obama will not say anything because he does not want to loose the Black vote (me). You, of all people should have found this on the President.
Barack Obama on Gay and Lesbian Rights - Where does Barack Obama ...
lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
"Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian."
You girlfriend Beisty, sorry Feisty, and all your Chicago Mob full of wind on this here left, in the tank site would not last one second out of this septic tank of brainless tape recorders.
Both President Obama and Romney are playing the odds, and by the way they both stand for Civil Union and so do I. When it all gets said and done it will be the ECONOMY STUPID and the DEBT. And now you are going to discredit the source.
lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
one thing I am positive about, Obama's decision on gay marriage will be the one that he feels will get him the most votes. Same as every other decision he makes.
and same as every descision any politian makes.
Message to Real Democrats - Put your fingers in your ears when you hear these fake Liberals(??) who are really Republicans in disguise when they start to whine about the President.
Their constant complaining drove down the President's numbers in the 2010 elections and demoralized the Democrats so much that they stayed home.
Negativity Works!! That is the lesson from 2010. Fool me once shame on you - fool me twice shame on me.
The press concerns itself with the political implications of the way the White House lawn is mowed. No doubt the laces in the president's shoes signal something of political significance.
Ever since Dick Cheney came out in favor of same sex marriage and even campaigned for it in Maryland - it's a topic that is becoming more of a non-issue.
Maybe Romney should have had Cheney stand up to Bryan Fischer and his ilk for him.
Many people say things from anger, political rhetoric etc., they don't mean. It doesn't change the fact that they've spoken the truth. The following impassion speech explains what is going on in Congress. It should be mandatory reading for all Americans as it is just as pertinent today as when it was spoken.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit
is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t
pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial
assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal
policies.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the
Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities
and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and
levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in
education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and
health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to
investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a
significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to
talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country,
we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible
fiscal policies.
Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.
Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting
the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and
grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt
limit.
Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., (Senate – March 16, 2006)
Billy bob Philly
It truly saddens me that you don't comprehend what is being said in this speech. For some reason you don't get it or the dangers to our country this speech warns about.
Here it is 6 years later and the warnings spoken about have come true. States, cities, counties, townships, villages and school districts are having financial difficulty. Infrastructures aren't getting repaired, etc..
The debt crises Obama created is growing by leaps and bounds and as it does, the problems and warnings in this speech will worsen.
You can ignore or make fun of it, and you can even ignore what is happening to this country, but if the things in this speech aren't reversed, we won't have a country.
That is what this speech is all about.
Unfortunately for the country, all of President Obama's stances are about voting blocs.
Yeah, but the pro-equal rights voting bloc is pretty big.
oh..
i get it..
indecision..
he has not evolved from evolution..
mark of a leader..
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney has emerged unscathed from a nasty GOP primary fight and already has President Obama locked in tight race, a national poll revealed yesterday.
Romney not only took a 48 percent to 47 percent lead over Obama among all voters, but also scored a 10-point advantage among independent voters, who are a key group that often decides elections.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee beat Obama among independents, 48 percent to 38 percent, in the national Battleground Poll conducted for Politico and George Washington University.
Romney is a centrist. His appeal is that he offers compromise to those near the political center and that is why Reagan defeated Carter in all 50 states in the 1980 election. He had a moderate position on most issues, he expressed a vision for America and he could lead. Romney has the same appeal without the flair that reagan possessed but America does not need a showboat. We need a leader who understands the economy and believes in the very singular nature of the United States. Romney is that leader and Barack Obama is
TO: bfitz who wrote:
That's NOT what Romney told the Teabaggers, which is why Romney cannot win, he's already lied too much to too many people about where he stands on the issues and has promised to provide everyone with everything, and it just can't be done.
Once Romney got their vote, he changed his mind about everything he promised and started making new promises to others in order to get THEIR votes.
We, in the middle, or even left of center, and even some who are right-of-center, have already made our choice in re-electing President Obama.
Now Romney has to explain to the Teabaggers and those who are right wing wackos, WHY he lied to them.
Obama/Biden 2012
Romney will win, and that is not wishful thinking. Obama has tried his divisive tactics for over two years and his numbers have been slowly falling. If you want a portent of things to come, look at his "likeability" rating in 2010 and look at it now. It has dropped 15 points and that will not be good for him. He is strident, abrasive and condescending which alienates the very people who put him in office. It wasn't his base, it was independents near the political middle that put Barack Obama in the Whitehouse. Obama has lost them.
Several polls show Obama 45-47 Romney or 47 45 Obama BUT the uncommitted vote NEVER goes to the incumbents and, the latest Rasmussen poll shows 47 Romney 43 Obama with 10% uncommitted. That will lead to a 57-43 victory for Romney which will be a worse drubbing than jimmy Carter got from Reagan.
Those "Tea Baggers" that you like to deride are that same block of voters that stood up in 1967...LBJ called them "The Silent Majority" because they don't act out much but when they unite against a candidate that candidate loses by a huge margin. It was so bad for LBJ he stood aside. Jimmy Carter did not listen and he did not carry a single state in 1980.
The HNIC is next.