Obama about to announce support of marriage rights for all?

**Galen Sevinne** · 05-09-2012, 12:36 PM

There are some rumors spreading that Obama is about to announce a full endorsement of marriage rights for all today during a 1:30 interview. Anything short of this would be a disappointment and coming the day after the travesty in North Carolina would be a big deal.

Let's go Obama, here is a chance to walk the walk.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

There are some rumors spreading that Obama is about to announce a full endorsement of marriage rights for all today during a 1:30 interview. Anything short of this would be a disappointment and coming the day after the travesty in North Carolina would be a big deal.

Let's go Obama, here is a chance to walk the walk.

I voted against the amendment because I don't believe the government should be in the marriage business at all. The worst part of the amendment is it does away with legal unions for any group of people.

If he comes out in full support of gay marriage it would surprise me a little, but not much, he needs to rally his base.

**CptJesus** · 05-09-2012, 01:32 PM

100 percent agree about government in marriage. However as long as tax breaks and protections ate provided, everyone should have a fair shot.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by CptJesus

100 percent agree about government in marriage. However as long as tax breaks and protections ate provided, everyone should have a fair shot.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

Pretty much.

And if you want to call it something different, fine, whatever. But the same privileges need to be given to everyone.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 02:02 PM

So he is now for gay marriage.

Good for him, just wondering, does this mean "he was against it before he was for it"

**ActualSpamBot** · 05-09-2012, 02:09 PM

NC... Did you mean to say that he IS for gay marriage?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76103.html <Article dated 3pm today.

Originally Posted by The Prez from said article

“I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

“I’ve stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community. I hestitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient, I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word ‘marriage’ evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs.”

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

NC... Did you mean to say that he IS for gay marriage?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76103.html <Article dated 3pm today.

Yes I did, sorry. I meant to say now and not "not"

**ActualSpamBot** · 05-09-2012, 02:17 PM

Word... Yea, I'm not a fan of government being involved in marriage at all. I think that everyone who wants to and is over 18 should be allowed to hitch up. My compromise is that everyone is civil unioned, and churches and synagogues, and mosques, and what have you will have the option of blessing whichever civil unions they deem appropriate as "marriages."

That way marriage stays a religious institution and civil partnership (and the civil benefits like taxes and rights to make medical decisions in an emergency) are available to everyone.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Word... Yea, I'm not a fan of government being involved in marriage at all. I think that everyone who wants to and is over 18 should be allowed to hitch up. My compromise is that everyone is civil unioned, and churches and synagogues, and mosques, and what have you will have the option of blessing whichever civil unions they deem appropriate as "marriages."

That way marriage stays a religious institution and civil partnership (and the civil benefits like taxes and rights to make medical decisions in an emergency) are available to everyone.

Pretty much where I am too. I might add that civil unions don't have to be just for same-sex couples. Not everyone is religious, and not EVERY religion won't marry same-sex couples. So if we were to take your approach (and pretty much mine) it's not a separate but equal thing, it's religion is separate, not the privileges (if any apply).

**ActualSpamBot** · 05-09-2012, 02:36 PM

Exactly! All couples get civil unions in order to be legally bound, get tax benefits, receive vet spouse benefits, etc, and then the religious folks can take their civil union papers to a church and get it turned into a marriage. Or not.

It seems so stupidly simple and obvious that I'm sure no one in power will think of it for at least a couple more election cycles.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 03:11 PM

In related news.

View the poll this. Of 5k people (at the time I voted) 69% believe he did this for political reasons.
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage/

**Galen Sevinne** · 05-09-2012, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Exactly! All couples get civil unions in order to be legally bound, get tax benefits, receive vet spouse benefits, etc, and then the religious folks can take their civil union papers to a church and get it turned into a marriage. Or not.

It seems so stupidly simple and obvious that I'm sure no one in power will think of it for at least a couple more election cycles.

I don't think it is this simple for some people. For one, not everyone recognizes the word "marriage" as church bound. I for one have no church affiliation but am married. People grow up with the understanding that they will get married not "civil unioned". When you go to the court house, you get a "marriage certificate".

I would imagine for a gay person who might have always looked forward to getting "married", it would be somewhat dehumanizing to be told be denied what others that look just like you have access. I still think the best analogy is when african americans were not allowed to ride in the front of the bus. The thinking was that you cna have the rigths to ride a bus but you have to be on the back only. This is degrading. You can be in love, committed and have civil union rights but can't use the word married. Its no different than being told you have to ride on the back of the bus. We frown upon that type of thinking just like we will eventually frown on the civil union type of thinking eventually.

Obama just showed presidential leadership.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

I don't think it is this simple for some people. For one, not everyone recognizes the word "marriage" as church bound. I for one have no church affiliation but am married. People grow up with the understanding that they will get married not "civil unioned". When you go to the court house, you get a "marriage certificate".

I would imagine for a gay person who might have always looked forward to getting "married", it would be somewhat dehumanizing to be told be denied what others that look just like you have access. I still think the best analogy is when african americans were not allowed to ride in the front of the bus. The thinking was that you cna have the rigths to ride a bus but you have to be on the back only. This is degrading. You can be in love, committed and have civil union rights but can't use the word married. Its no different than being told you have to ride on the back of the bus. We frown upon that type of thinking just like we will eventually frown on the civil union type of thinking eventually.

Obama just showed presidential leadership.

You're missing the point. He is saying no one gets married except in religious ceremony's regardless of gender, and everyone get's a civil union as far as the government is concerned.

And if you think Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper consider this:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ht_644238.html

And now we know why he changed his mind. Presidential leadership my ass.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...sl8T_blog.html

**Galen Sevinne** · 05-09-2012, 04:24 PM

You guys are wrong. You can get legally "married" by a judge without ever stepping into a church or talking with a person of god. The idea that the word "married" is somehow exclusive to church, god or anything religious is simply incorrect.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

You guys are wrong. You can get legally "married" by a judge without ever stepping into a church or talking with a person of god. The idea that the word "married" is somehow exclusive to church, god or anything religious is simply incorrect.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

We're are not saying that is how it IS, saying that is how it should be. But before governments starting issuing marriage licenses, where did you go to get married?

But how about you address the leadership of switching stances for contributions.

**Galen Sevinne** · 05-09-2012, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

We're are not saying that is how it IS, saying that is how it should be. But before governments starting issuing marriage licenses, where did you go to get married?

But how about you address the leadership of switching stances for contributions.

So you think I shouldn't be able to be married? So basically your point is that religion and in this case, christian religion, should regulate all marriages? Or should i have acted like i think there is a god for an hour and endured all the suggestions that we should act good because there is this guy up on a cloud somewhere watching? Or should i go to a judge for whom i respect, and have her marry us in a secular ceremony? Christianity doesn't have have exclusive rights to the word marriage. Truthfully, i am considering changing the wording of our union to exlude "marriage" until everyone can be married equally because I think it is wrong for me to assume a title because of some heterosexual privilege. In fact i would like to start a movement for all people who believe in equality of people to divorce and be "civilly unioned". In time the word marriage will become associated with the bigotry of the good ol christian homophobics. Then they can have the word until it fades into atrophy.

Obama risks losing votes over this. The gay community knows he has always supported marriage equality and there is nothing romney will verbalize that will be more appealing than Obama's position prior to his interview today. Obama risks losing african american vote of those who have problems with gays. It is certainly more potential to lose votes than gain. Of course, the leadership he has shown to take a controversial but correct position might work for him since romney hasnt taken a postion on anything ever that lasted for more than an election cycle.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

**HoustonRaven** · 05-09-2012, 06:22 PM

Yawn.

Marriage shouldn't even be something the government sanctions. Gay, straight or otherwise. If two consenting adults want to marry, then they should be allowed without government intrusion or approval.

It's a cheap political trick and the timing of it couldn't be more suspect.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

So you think I shouldn't be able to be married? So basically your point is that religion and in this case, christian religion, should regulate all marriages?

Nice try. Please go through where anyone is trying to turn this into a debate about Christianity other than you.

And yet again you're pretending to play stupid. You know damn well I am not saying religion should regulate marriages, but the EXACT OPPOSITE, if people wanted to be recognized in government it needs to be separate. Did you read the thread?

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Word... Yea, I'm not a fan of government being involved in marriage at all. I think that everyone who wants to and is over 18 should be allowed to hitch up. My compromise is that everyone is civil unioned, and churches and synagogues, and mosques, and what have you will have the option of blessing whichever civil unions they deem appropriate as "marriages."

That way marriage stays a religious institution and civil partnership (and the civil benefits like taxes and rights to make medical decisions in an emergency) are available to everyone.

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Pretty much where I am too. I might add that civil unions don't have to be just for same-sex couples. Not everyone is religious, and not EVERY religion won't marry same-sex couples. So if we were to take your approach (and pretty much mine) it's not a separate but equal thing, it's religion is separate, not the privileges (if any apply).

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Exactly! All couples get civil unions in order to be legally bound, get tax benefits, receive vet spouse benefits, etc, and then the religious folks can take their civil union papers to a church and get it turned into a marriage. Or not.

It seems so stupidly simple and obvious that I'm sure no one in power will think of it for at least a couple more election cycles.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-09-2012, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Yawn.

Marriage shouldn't even be something the government sanctions. Gay, straight or otherwise. If two consenting adults want to marry, then they should be allowed without government intrusion or approval.

It's a cheap political trick and the timing of it couldn't be more suspect.

Exactly!

The war on women, the dog-gate - pick anything, it's to be about anything other than his record and the economy.

**chicagoravensfan** · 05-09-2012, 07:06 PM

If it's a political trick then that implies that legal same-sex marriage has popular support, which implies that all politicians should embrace the same view. I think Republicans wasted an opportunity to get on the right side of this issue over the last 3 years while Obama "evolved".

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk