Wednesday, May 09, 2012

The Good Guys Win - For Now

The President of The United States has come out in favor of Marriage Equality.

This is the big one - second only to the killing of Bin Laden in terms of "things Obama will be remembered for." It's been widely assumed that he supported equality all along, but was holding back on outright support in order to not anger certain voting-blocs (churchgoing African-Americans/Latinos and Catholic-descended blue-collar Union laborers mainly) known to be reflexively-Democrat voters but socially conservative. Whether this was planned via Biden's "trial-balloon" admission of support or whether that really was a "gaffe" that forced the President's hand is for the pundits to decide.

I am a supporter of same-sex marriage and the President overall, so this is pretty elating... but I won't lie and say I'm not a little bit worried. I was with everyone else in assuming Obama was trying to feign the middle-ground until after the election, and I was always fine with it - politics for grownups are about results, not idealism - because I'd rather have him fake-right, win and give me four more years of progressive judicial nominations (the most important thing ANY president can do long-term) than be "true" and lose, saddling me with 4 to 8 years of backwards-looking right-wing governance. So yeah, I'm happy... but I hope he knows what he's doing.

If nothing else, this is the clearest signal yet that the Democrats "get" what the GOP has "gotten" for a year now, that with neither party having the kind of record you can really "run" on, this is going to be a base-versus-base election - re: "swing voters" are being written off in favor of "who can fire up turnout among the already-decided base." This is the gauntlet being thrown and the notion of "changing minds" being back-burnered - it's Culture War time: Thinkers versus Believers, Red versus Blue, Past versus Future, Backwards versus Forwards, Regression versus Evolution, Reason versus "It's In The Magic Book."

I'm excited. I enjoy the relative-clarity of times like these; and it'll be a rare pleasure to actually vote for a candidate instead of just for his likely-politicies (or "against" the other guy.) I just hope there actually are enough Good Guys to win...

64 comments:

JUSTINtimeforalaugh said...

Just remember, when everyone starts lumping people into groups, not everyone who is Christian or in the South is a backwards thinking hypocrite. I, and most of the people I surround myself with, are fully in support of Gay Rights. It's seems like something that should be an obvious in this day and age, not a topic for discussion. That's all my opinion of course.

Just make sure (and this goes to everyone, no matter what religious views or politics), when you start lumping people into a group and labeling them, you become as terrible a person as many of the people you scorn. Not that there aren't many people who do think that way (that RIDICULOUS way... in my opinion), but that we are not ALL that way.

R said...

This can only be a good thing. It gives the LGBT community knowledge that they have an ally in the highest position in the US government and shows that teh President is indeed progressive at heart. Hopefully, the USA will now vote in a way that shows you are all willing to move forward and be able to accomodate equal rights for all.

Zeno said...

"Past versus Future, Backwards versus Forwards, Regression versus Evolution"
The only difference between any of those is the measure of entropy.

"Reason versus "It's In The Magic Book.""
What about THE BOOK?

James said...

Just FYI, Gary Johnson supported gay marriage rights long before Obama did.

Daniel said...

@JUSTINtimforalaugh

Unfortunately, in presidential politics, it doesn't matter what the minority thinks, because the way the electoral college is set up is as a winner-takes-all. Even if some southerners support gay marriage, the majority do not (as demonstrated most recently in North Carolina, where just this week a constitutional amendment was added to ban same sex marriages and civil unions, the first amendment to their constitution regarding marriage since their ban on interracial marriages), which means that ALL of the electoral votes will go to Romney.

There were plenty of (evidence based) generalizations in that last paragraph, but remember that this only applies to presidential politics. If an individual introduces themselves to me as having been born and raised in North Carolina, I am not going to assume that particular individual is opposed to gay marriage, because generalizations and statistics are meaningless when your sample size is n=1.

jmiddle3 said...

JUSTINtimeforalaugh,

As a North Carolinian who voted against amendment one yesterday, I am right there with you. I am saddened by the attitudes of many in our state, but glad to have seen so many outraged by the results. And I am THRILLED at Obama choice to make a stand on this issue.

Bob, I hear you on being concerned about what this does for him electorally, but I think he needed to run this risk to galvanize his supporters so that we have not only someone to vote against, but someone we feel good about voting for.

Anonymous said...

Finally. It's good to know the President has finally come out swinging for us. I'm still more likely to move to Brazil with my boyfriend someday, but hopefully this will happen for others.

James said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bolongo said...

@ Zeno

THE BOOK? You mean The Necronomicon?

Zeno said...

@Bolongo

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/849043/The-Book

Paul Kingtiger said...

It's a sad state of affairs for democracy that campaigns are fought on the strategy in getting people to vote.

Requiring people to vote is not IMO as clear cut as it sounds. However I'd be a lot happier over all if it was a legal requirement to vote, as long as 'none of the above' was an option.

If for nothing else than I would be very interested to see how it effects the turn out (people who still don't vote vs. people who vote for a candidate vs. people who vote none of the above)

Paul KT

Zeno said...

@Paul Kingtiger
"However I'd be a lot happier over all if it was a legal requirement to vote, as long as 'none of the above' was an option."

That still implies that there is some option other than the above that is appropriate, which doesn't do justice by those who think there isn't.

The Offender said...

I am glad he said this. The cynical part of me thinks he did this just to win the gay vote, but either way I approve of the message.

Personally, I think gays should have the right to marriage, and all the tax incentives that come with it.

Elessar said...

Of all the things Obama is, for good or ill, he is the best 'politician' President since Clinton. Therefore, I trust he knows what he's doing. I have to assume that people who are THAT insane about Gay Marriage that it would cause them not to vote for him are probably not gonna vote for him anyway.

Gotta say, if he loses I will be...unhappy, to say the least.

James said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I thought these comments were being moderated now. So why is James still being allowed to post the same stalker-like garbage he has been posting for at least a month now.

MovieBob said...

Moderated doesn't mean "moderated constantly."

That said, James? You'll please note that I left your FIRST post alone. That's what you get. If you keep posting with nothing new to add, it all gets deleted. That's how it works from now on. No more threadjacking, no more repetition. Get new material, or stop it.

James said...

Okay, you want something new to add, I've got something new - while Obama said he supports same sex marriage, he says he believes it should be handled by the states. How does that gel with your philosophy that individual states aren't "intelligent" enough to handle the matter. This is just a way for Obama to rake in LGBT votes while doing nothing.

Anonymous said...

@MovieBob

I completely understand Bob that you can't moderate constantly. I was just surprised at how fast James was posting again. Thanks though for deleting his comments.

Keep up the good fight Bob! (Probably should register a name here soon).

Anonymous said...

Hey Movieboob, what did you think of the bigoted Barack Obama of two days ago in comparison to the Barack Obama of today, who now holds the same position as Dick Cheney and the late Andrew Breitbart?

Jake said...

@anonymous
Dick Cheney supports Gay marriage now.

Anonymous said...

I have no problem with gay rights, but I think marriage should be illegal.

Jake said...

Disregard that last comment, I misread Anon's comment. Sorry.

Mack said...

too bad the good guys also lose today since north carolina passed a law banning gay marriages and civil unions...

Megabyte said...

Ever think maybe everyone is being god damn unbelievably retarded over this issue? Seriously...

On the one side you have idiots who kick and scream if someone else gets something, and on the other similar idiots who kick and scream if they don't get it right now... (and a number if everyone doesn't give them it regardless of if being a member of them is optional).

Meanwhile, the best answer that would work for EVERYONE simply needs time.

1) You change the legal term from marriage to... something else. This has to be done across the board and for everyone. The ONLY exception I would make is to grandfather people already married, and that's because the paperwork involved there would be a royal pain in the ass.

2) With this done, NOW you give it to everyone with the term for legal marriage and the term for religious marriage being different terms.

This would both give the rights of gay marriage that should be AND prevent the idiocy of "well they have the same name so they are the same thing" thereby also protecting the rights of a church to follow it's own rules.

Everybody wins.

Oh and Bob... way to show your true colors.... you want your politicians to fake who they are so long as you get your way? And those who dissagree aren't in "adult" politics? And if they want different then you or even think different politically they are backwards thinking?

Way to be a typical condescending liberal douche who would rather insult those you disagree with over actually having a debate of any kind.

Jake said...

"Reason vs. It's in The Magic Book",
That's unbelievably condescending.

Billy said...

@Megabyte

most of your comment was impossible to read, but I'm going to try and respond to it regardless. Calling both sides of an issue "idiots" doesn't make you sound smarter, it's just annoying; this is especially true when the position you suggest afterwards isn't expressed very clearly.

There's no way around the fact that the Religious Right in the US believe that people who follow the societal norms of their religion/ culture deserve more rights than people with a different view. Which is both a breach in equality and a separation of church and state issue.

Also, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on how people have been trying to handle this issue. first of all, many in the Religious Right- this includes Mitt Romney's most recent comments- view the advocation for Gay Rights as a "War on marriage". They believe that having policies that are supportive to a lifestyle that scares them is "social engineering" (Rick S's responce to Obama). They are against, again Romney specifically has said this, Gay people even having the exact same legal rights and having it be called something else. This mostly is a result of their irrational fear that gay people cannot raise children.

I also think a plan sort of similar to what I think you were describing would be ideal, but there's no way around the political impracticality of it. It's not that nobody has thought of it. I'm okay with the government helping out people who are raising kids, whether that's two people or just one, but in general Marriage is at best a fanciful old tradition and at worst an archaic social constriction we've sort of outgrown. It really shouldn't be part of our government. But having it at least be a benefit anybody can access regardless of orientation, is pretty good.

also, saying Gay people are "idiots who kick and scream if they don't get [what they want] now" is an incredibly short-sighted and offensive thing to say. The only reason this issue is even something people debate now is because of the people who have been extremely vocal about inequality. They HAVE to kick and scream, and they should be admired for their tenacity.

Smashmatt202 said...

I hate people who oppose same-sex marriage. What they do together is their own damn business. Besides, making it so that they CAN'T be together kind of goes AGAINST the freedoms this country is known for.

My mom mentioned something about Health insurance or something like that, and THAT'S the root of this whole problem, which I GUESS would be a nice justification for homophobia, but still...

Yeah, go Obama, he's still got my vote.

Wendy said...

Bob, hate to bust your bubble, but there's three VERY good reasons why Obama did this today:

1: Richard Lugar, Obama's favorite Republican--got his ass handed to him by the Tea party candidate in a primay

2: The Union backed candidate in the Wisconson recall election lost in spite of MILLIONS of union and out of state funds going to them.

3: A fucking PRISON INMATE got 40% of the Democrat vote in the Democrat primaries in West Viriginia.

All of this spells out one very important thing: Obama and his party are not NEARLY as popular as they keep telling themselves in the Washington echo chamber.

Bob, i know you live in a blue state, but you have GOT to pull your head out of your ass. Right now, people do NOT like this president and every day that goes by he or his administration says or does something that only further enrages people.

I don't really have an issue with Gay marriage, but lets not pretend this is something it isn't. This is political expediency and its not just to bury the news of these election results, but also to pander money out of gay rights groups. Obama wants their cash, nothing more.

Zeno said...

"3: A fucking PRISON INMATE got 40% of the Democrat vote in the Democrat primaries in West Viriginia."

What do you have against Solzhenitsyn?

Megabyte said...

1) How was it hard to read? I think you did quite well if you got the points I was making.

2) I wasn't trying to sound smarter. Im convinced most of the loud mouths on both sides have disengaged their brains to engage their vocal cords. In short, they are all being retarded. And since they pretty much own this debate... well... *shrugs*

3) I think you missed how much Im after the Religious Right on this as well... Please see point #2.

4) I honestly dont care how people have been trying to handle this. It has failed and for fairly obvious reasons to me... namely that no one is coming to the table to actually talk and get past the issue. Everyone's just screaming at each other. Again, see point #2.

5) Thank you for listening to what Im saying. Basically, I want equal rights for all, but I see serious idiocy around the corner if it isn't handled in this way or something similar. It isn't too hard for me to imagine someone deciding since religious and legal marriage are both called marriage, that they are the same thing and suing a church who doesn't practice gay marriage over it. Further more it takes even less for me to imagine a bunch of people hearing that one moron talk and agreeing... how long before that suit or legal action would force it? This is what I mean when I call people retarded.

And the only point I have for government being involved is it's an easy way to keep family units organized together. Other then that, Im inclined to agree with you about them butting out.

and 6) Good. That was supposed to be offensive... actually to everyone. Because really, we need level heads to come together and hit a solution... not the spoiled brats I pretty much see on both sides. But I guess that's politics today.... so...

Wendy said...

Actually, i don't have anything against him. Just saying, this unknown prision inmate stole 40% of Obama's thunder. And that was in a Democratic primary. That's Obama's own people voting against him. That's a joke!

Anonymous said...

"3: A fucking PRISON INMATE got 40% of the Democrat vote in the Democrat primaries in West Viriginia."

Wait, there's a Democratic vote in West Virginia? *Is surprised*

Anonymous said...

@Megabyte:

Not all of your points support your argument.

1. Richard Lugar was a moderate Republican... which usually suggests a moderate electorate. Though I don't have the specifics on this particular seat, it's quite likely that him losing his primary will result in the Democrats taking the seat.

2. First off, you're being misleading. You're talking about the primary, not the recall election. So it was a contested primary. Big whoop. I'm also distinctly skeptical about your money claims - all the articles I can find tell me that Scott Walker's raised more than all the Democratic primary candidates put together.

3. Obama does not care about West Virginia. He lost by more than ten points there last time. He wasn't going to win there this year, either. In a state with two in ten voters reporting that they won't vote for a black man, why would he expect to?

The general contention that gay rights groups can put together enough money and influence to outweigh the conservative spin machine is also quite humorous. If he wanted to pander, he would have kept being vague until after the election. The gay rights activists were gonna vote for him anyways.

Anonymous said...

Crap, meant to say @Wendy. My mistake.

biomechanical923 said...

@Megabyte
"on the other similar idiots who kick and scream if they don't get it right now... (and a number if everyone doesn't give them it regardless of if being a member of them is optional)."
Considering that the topic at hand is gay marriage, I certainly hope you aren't implying that being gay is optional. Your sentence was difficult to read and unnatural-sounding, so that's my interpretation.

Megabyte:
"Meanwhile, the best answer that would work for EVERYONE simply needs time."
People should demand their rights as loudly as they damn well please. That's why they're called rights. I'm getting a little tired of well-meaning apologists saying that civil rights advocates look antagonistic because they didn't ask for their rights nicely enough.

"Excuse me religious conservatives, we would really like to have our basic human rights now. When it's not too much trouble of course. No, no, take your time, there's no rush. We understand you need time to convince your entire base. Just get back to us in the next 20 years or so with your official statement"

Fuck that nonsense. People should be entitled to their rights. right. fucking. now. Not waiting until all of the opposition feels good about it.

I consider myself a pretty abnormal guy. I'm think of myself as socially progressive, but I cannot for the life of me understand why men and women would enjoy shoving objects up their shitboxes. However, I still think people have the right to do what they please without waiting around for me to reconcile my own cognitive dissonance about their behavior. That's my problem, not theirs.

Dave from canada said...

I will never stop being fascinated with US politics.

It perplexes me that it took till 2012 for a president to come out in favour of this. It perplexes me even more that much of the liberal blogosphere seems even more dedicated to attacking obama for this than fox.

And honestly I did not see this coming. i was under the impression most marriage equality advocates understood that the strategy was a quiet attrition. Seems politically risky to me for him to make a definitive statement in this regard. You know this cost him a few million votes.

Smashmatt202 said...

US politics always distracts from the point and contradicts itself, it's almost embarrassing to be associated with it.

biomechanical923 said...

@Dave from Canada
"It perplexes me even more that much of the liberal blogosphere seems even more dedicated to attacking obama for this than fox."
"i sic was under the impression most marriage equality advocates understood that the strategy was a quiet attrition. Seems politically risky to me for him to make a definitive statement in this regard.
What? You're perplexed that some of the liberal base came to the same conclusion that you did about Obama taking unnecessary risks?

Megabyte said...

@biomechanical923:

1) Your interpretation is wrong... and it sounds more to me like you are reading what you want to in it. You can CHOOSE to be a member of a church... that is optional. Think about it.

2) People should demand their rights, but taking time to do it right beats out rushing into unforeseen consequences every damn time... although I laid out my theory on what will happen if we just barreled forward without a plan, so I guess foreseen is actually the word here.

That does NOT mean wait forever. Yes, get change going here. But move with a plan, not stomping like a child.

3) This is a talk about marriage, not sexual behaviors. While one normally goes with the other, they are really not the same issue at all... so I don't even understand why you bring it up.

Goku50k said...

I think this is awesome that President Obama has come out and fully supported Gay marriage. He's always supported gay rights and I'm glad that he has gone the entire way now. I am not sure how much of the base he will win back since so much of it is disillusioned but I think he might win back a good amount. I agree with Bob on this one like I usually do on political issues it is time to start evolving as a country and start fully supporting Civil rights issues. It is also nice to see a Democratic president come out and just fully state his opinion instead of just dodging the question.

biomechanical923 said...

@Megabyte
"This is a talk about marriage, not sexual behaviors. While one normally goes with the other, they are really not the same issue at all... so I don't even understand why you bring it up."

I posted that information for two reasons.

First, it is my un-professional opinion that a significant portion of conservative moderates are opposed to homosexuality for more than just religious reasons. While many conservatives may be opposed to homosexuality because "God says no", I believe that conservative moderates may oppose homosexuality in some capacity because, for lack of a better explanation, "because buttsex is gross and I don't want to advocate tax incentives for it". I'll be the first person to admit that I have no physical evidence of this belief, but I think it's one of those shameful little biases that a lot of people have that they don't talk about.

Second, I posted an example of my own cognitive dissonance over people ramming things in their shitters to prove that it's possible for people to compartmentalize their feelings, and accept that people have the right to participate in a lifestyle that I many not choose including all the associated rights and recognitions (tax breaks, health insurance, etc). I may have picked a very sideways, stream-of-consciousness way of explaining that, but there you go.
Like I said, I'm strange.

biomechanical923 said...

One more thing:

@Megabyte
"Your interpretation is wrong... and it sounds more to me like you are reading what you want to in it. You can CHOOSE to be a member of a church... that is optional. Think about it."
That doesn't make any sense. The original sentence I was replying to was:
"idiots who kick and scream if they don't get it right now... (and a number if everyone doesn't give them it regardless of if being a member of them is optional)"
What rights are religious groups trying to fight for right now? The right to prevent other people from getting rights?

Anonymous said...

"Way to be a typical condescending liberal douche who would rather insult those you disagree with over actually having a debate of any kind."

As far as this specific issue goes, there's no reasonable debate to be had. One group is in favor of taking away the civil rights of a minority, and the other side is in support of those rights. No debate necessary.

Megabyte said...

Im not. Im saying that it's no one's right to assume a group you can choose if you want to be a member of will adapt to you. This includes churches and religions. Basically, that was aimed at the people in the movement who believe equal rights means forcing any given church to marry gay people regardless of their own beliefs. (And I have actually met and argued with people who believe this.)

Anonymous said...

Is anyone here actually arguing that LGBT marriage equality is a bad thing? Or is everyone just throwing a shitfit about timing and hypocrisy and voting and tactics and herp derp election year durrrrr?

Support of LGBT marriage equality is an absolute good, no matter the political ramifications.

JeffBergeron said...

Not to take anything away from the rational position Obama has (finally) taken... but I think I'll reserve my respect for people who don't bear the responsibility for the deaths of children.

James said...

Obama says marriage should be decided on the state level. Bob has said in the past that it shouldn't. So why does he give Obama a free pass for supporting a view that he disagrees with?

biomechanical923 said...

@ James

Do you even read the entire blog post before you comment? Bob was saying Obama should have kept his mouth shut and appeared as more of a centrist for the moderates. How is that a free pass??

Edjemaster said...

As a Canadian and an outside observer of the United States, what baffles me about this news is not the fact that Obama came out and admitted it, it's the fact that it's so controversial in this day and age. Welcome in the 21st century, USA!

But, really, I know that a lot of you "Americans" are much more open-minded than others...

Thorbs said...

I think there is an issue relating to same-sex marriage that a lot of people don't consider, or have never thought about.

The major reason that Christians give for opposing same-sex marriage is that it devalues the notion of "traditional marriage", and they are correct.

In a Christian marriage the husband is considered above the wife. There is all many of scripture pertaining to this, in fact the Bible pretty much treats the act of marriage as an exchange of goods between the father of the bride and the groom. The marriage vows and the act of the bride's father "giver her away" still allude to this. While many Christians may not treat their marriages this way, and things have definitely softened from how they were in the past, it is still pretty implicit.

With that in mind, consider a marriage between two members of the same sex. Here you essentially have a marriage of two equals. Once you've set a precedent for that, how long will it be before people are expecting heterosexual marriage to also become a marriage of equals? That's what they mean when they talk about an erosion of the traditions of marriage.

biomechanical923 said...

@Thorbs
Despite the old joke, people are not actually angry that gays "discovered a loophole" to traditional marriage. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of ending traditional institutions, but your post just doesn't make a lot of sense.

The opposition to gay marriage has little to do with trying to continue the subjugation of women. This is not some huge conspiracy run by evil overlords (unless you are drinking the Andrea Dworkin kool-aid and you think every social construct is a form of rape or some such nonsensical bullshit).
Using strawmen to make a caricature of your opposition does nothing to help you counter their actual points, and "gay marriage prevents us from enslaving women" is not one of those points.

Thorbs said...

@biomechanical923

Oh, I'm not argueing that most Christians think this way, I'm pretty sure it'd only be a small minority. But I do believe it's the way some religious leaders think. Otherwise the line about gay marriage eroding the foundations of "traditional marriage" really makes little sense.

I also don't think it can be considered a strawman when the Christian-Right really is advocating against women's rights at the same time as opposing gay marriage. I may be wrong in linking the two, but I'm certainly not misrepresenting the Christian-Right's treatment of women.

As for the evil overlords schtick... I rather think you're constructing strawmen of your own there.

Jakob said...

You are not The Good Guys. You are just guys. You are not more important than your fellow citizens, you are not superior to them and you should not lead them any more than they should lead you.

Thinkers versus Believers? Both sides have their fringe wackos. The Republicans could easily place a contingent of secular hard-working small business owners against a minority of lazy Gaia-worshiping Democrats and then you'll see the Thinker vs Believer dichotomy gets turned around unpleasantly.

Past versus Future? The more vocal progressives (not all!) hold the Rousseau-ean Noble-Savage as their Ideal. They fawn over the Na'vi and block industry at almost every turn. Only the worst of both political parties wish to return to some idealized past but the better groups of each side see a promising future.

Regression versus Evolution? Surely you understand that evolution is not teleological, right? And perhaps mistaking that it is betrays just as faulty a belief as intelligent design?

My overall point is that both sides have their faults. You are not The Good Guys and you will not save us.

James said...

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-criticizes-obama-for-throwing-gay-marriage-to-the-states

May 10, 2012, New York, NY – Libertarian nominee for President and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson today said he’s “disappointed” with President Obama’s position on gay marriage. Obama told ABC Wednesday he would let each individual state decide the gay marriage question instead of seeking federal protection of the right to marry. Johnson noted that more than 30 states already ban same sex marriage in one way or another.

In a statement, Johnson said, “Instead of insisting on equality as a U.S. Constitutional guarantee, the President has thrown this question back to the states. When the smoke clears, Gay Americans will realize the President’s words have gained them nothing today, and that millions of Americans in most states will continue to be denied true marriage equality . I guess the President is still more worried about losing Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia than he is in doing the right thing. What is the President saying — that he would eat a piece of cake at a gay wedding if the state the happy couple lives in allows it ?. Where is the leadership? While I commend him for supporting the concept of gay marriage equality, I am profoundly disappointed in the President.”

Thorbs said...

@Jakob

I doubt any of us would argue that all Democrats are good, and all Republicans are bad. I would certainly agree there is good and bad on both sides.

However, at the moment it certainly seems to be the case that the more extreme members of the Republican party are holding the reins. The good is becoming increasingly hard to see behind the worst stereotypes of the Republican party that are leading the charge. Even if I believed they could do a better job of handling the economy than Obama, I wouldn't want to risk the untold damage they could do to education, science funding and civil rights.

James said...

Delete my comment if you want for being "repetitive", Bobby, but this bears stating again because it is the truth.

Obama says marriage equality is a states rights issue. Gary Johnson says it's a matter of national importance. Therefore, you must admit that Johnson has a more progressive stance on gay rights than Obama does.

Face it, Bob; Johnson is LEAGUES better than Obama in almost every aspect. You want a more progressive America? Vote Johnson, vote Libertarian.

Laserkid said...

I don't see why this stuff is a big deal to either side. Obama goes fromn not supporting gay marriage to not supporting gay marriage at a federal level, but at a state level.

It's word gymnastics at best, pandering at worst. It does nothing but stir up the extremes (which you can see a microcosm of right here on this very blog), rather than try to solve the issue at hand.

In short, it does what this president usually does, divide and elvate tensions.

As for gay marriage itself, as someone who has lived in predominantly "red" or "purple{" states (but also spent a significasnt time in California, my birth state and thus have seen the differences) - MOST peopple who are against gay marriage don't want the government forcing churches to perform gay marriages but don't give a flying fuck about what the government does with it. I therefore have to agree with Megabyte on this one - remove marriage as a governmental thing - leave it as a religious rite (as opposed to right, haha I made a funny), and leave the governmental form as civil unions or whatever other happy term people want that acts as a governmental license of any two individuals to be considered together governmentally that comes with any riughts associated with doing so. The action of marriage would be left as a religious deal, and the act of civil unions would act as a governmental deal.

The reason this does not happen is the extreme crazies opn both sides want to metephorically piss on eachother. TYhe extreme right want to keep gays from being govenrmentally recognized because TEH GAYS ARE TEH EVALS. Where the extremes on the other side, incensed to extremes by the other extremes (and ironically through their actions making more right wing extremes which then makes more left wing extremes creating an annoying self perpetuating cycle of annoyance) actually DO want to force churches to perform gay marriages.

Don't believe me? Then why do gay rights advocates send gay couples all glammed up into a church demanding a wedding if the issue is about rights? To those of us caught somewhere in the middle it is - to the ever growing cycle of extremes its about a pissing match, which is the only real reason this hasn't been solved yet.

To note: I AM NOT saying all people who support gay marriage are extremes, nor all who oppose it are. Those who are more interested in arguing with eachother rather than finding a way to make everyone happy (which there is a fairly easy way to at leeas tmake MSOT people happy), are the people I am talking about.

*exhale* I hope that all makes some degree of sense.

biomechanical923 said...

@ James
If Johnson thinks that gays rights is a national issue, then I don't think he's much of a Libertarian

biomechanical923 said...

@Laserkid
Because a lot of people, both gay and straight, are dumb as shit, and they literally think that a church is where you get officially married, and because they can't make as much of a scene if they just went to the county and filed for a marriage license.
On the other hand, it's a little known fact that state employees have the right to refuse performing any services that may violate their own code of ethics.
I've seen states where gay marriage is legal, but a county clerk refuses to approve any marriage license applications because he said it's against his personal ethics.

Anonymous said...

@biomechanical923:

"If Johnson thinks that gays rights is a national issue, then I don't think he's much of a Libertarian"

Any real libertarian would tell you individual rights trump state rights every time.

Megabyte said...

@biomechanical923

"Because a lot of people, both gay and straight, are dumb as shit, and they literally think that a church is where you get officially married, and because they can't make as much of a scene if they just went to the county and filed for a marriage license."

And this is EXACTLY why I put out the plan I did. Hell I had this argument with a friend, and when I told him this difference, he explained to me how this wasn't the case for him and he was only allowed to marry in a church when he just wanted a non-religious one. He didn't like being told he was screwed by the JOP, and started to get nasty at about that point since he "believed the church was at fault." I wish I was kidding. Looking at this, I really can't see gay marriage being allowed WITHOUT a name change for the legal term of marriage without seeing someone shortly after trying to sue to make a church that doesn't believe in it have a gay marriage. Their reason will be because "well it's the same term, so it must be the same" and still going for it after being proven wrong because "well I believe it so it must be true even though you proved it's false." This mindset exists, and is frighteningly common... and is exactly what Im trying to counter.

Add to this the extremes on both sides of the spectrum and HOLY SHIT! Lazer is right about them, who would of course, latch onto this like a 2 year old who stumbled on the halloween candy stash with as much of a fit if their side loses/doesn't get far enough on a win. Really.. the plan I put up would be to use a little brain power and preserve everyone's rights from the psycho extremes that seem to dominate politics today. (And they are FUCKING MENTAL!)

"I've seen states where gay marriage is legal, but a county clerk refuses to approve any marriage license applications because he said it's against his personal ethics."

And THAT should not be allowed. Applying the exact same set of rules I would to private (or any organization), I would be telling this guy that if he doesn't like the way his boss wants things done (like marriage licenses for gay couples) he can quit and find another job.

But perhaps here, where the boss is the government, it should go even further. After all, unlike churches (or any other organization just about) where we can choose to be a member or not, we have no choice but to have THIS government as our government as CITIZENS OF THE US (and state we are in). That means their rules have be held to much higher scrutiny... the guy who refuses to enforce the laws he has been charged to should seriously either quit, and/or face felony charges.

Joey said...

This could either do two things.

1). Mr. Obama receives massive support from the LGBT community/Gay rights sympathizers and beats out Mr. Romney, because the people who were going to be pissed off by this weren't going to vote for him anyway.

2). Southern Rednecks who were not going to vote in the elections PERIOD now have a reason to vote for Mr. Romney.

Please let it be the former, and please let the governments of the world endorse Mr. Obama for this!

Anon1 said...

"Delete my comment if you want for being "repetitive", Bobby, but this bears stating again because it is the truth.

Obama says marriage equality is a states rights issue. Gary Johnson says it's a matter of national importance. Therefore, you must admit that Johnson has a more progressive stance on gay rights than Obama does.

Face it, Bob; Johnson is LEAGUES better than Obama in almost every aspect. You want a more progressive America? Vote Johnson, vote Libertarian."
@James or Jimmy if I want to be passive aggressive.
The reason that people are making a big deal of out this announcement is that B.O. was the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. Bob nor is anyone else saying his is the first politician or candidate to have this stance. Nor did anyone say that B.O. is the most progressive person, simply that this is a step towards the right direction. Bob also didn't say that he supported the presidents decision to leave it up to states rights or anything about how feels about Gary Johnson.
Your outrage seems to be made up of false arguments or assumptions that you have made up.