PDA

View Full Version : The Real Deal on Same Sex Marriage



onmyknees
03-25-2012, 05:38 PM
Here's one for you progressives to print and carry around in your purses like tourists carrying pocket dictionaries they consult when the need arises, or they don't understand something. Consider it required reading for hypocrites. I know it hurts. All I read from you blow hards ( are you listening RL....Ben ?) is how conservatives are like the Taliban, Neanderthals, from the dark ages when it comes to social issues. I maintain my position with respect to same sex marriage , and most others is no different that Barry and Hillary, but that don't fit the narrative you're trying to falsely paint...So here's the non partisan National Journal layin' some knowledge on you all. Here's what you voted for...Hope and Change. So now you need to ask yourselves what's inherently more distasteful....being opposed to same sex marriage because of cultural, generational, and or religious beliefs, or being opposed to it for merely political reasons? Ya see it's OK to bash conservatives, but ya think RL and his limp wristed liberal friends on here ( Blue Gass...pay attention) are going to direct any ire at the black community, or the President for their opposition to gay marriage?? LMFAO. Read it ...it's the change you believed in. So the next time you're inclined to blame conservatives....whip this out and re-read it again.



Why Obama Isn't Backing Gay Marriage (http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/03/why-obama-isnt-backing-gay-mar.php)

By Josh Kraushaar (http://www.nationaljournal.com/reporters/bio/15)

March 23, 2012 | 2:38 PM


(http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/03/why-obama-isnt-backing-gay-mar.php#)
14 (http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/03/why-obama-isnt-backing-gay-mar.php#)
http://www.nationaljournal.com/img/icons/icon-comment.png 25 Comments (http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/03/why-obama-isnt-backing-gay-mar.php#disqus_thread)
For those wanting to understand why the political deliberation over gay marriage is such a sensitive subject for this White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama-advisers-debating-gay-marriage/2012/03/23/gIQAnhI3VS_blog.html), look no further than the fact that it splits the two core constituencies that make up President Obama's base: college-aged voters and African-Americans.

Young voters are the driving force behind making gay marriage politically acceptable. But black voters, despite their overwhelming support for the president, are among the leading opponents of gay marriage.

Both groups turned out at historic levels in 2008, helping propel Obama to victory in states like Virginia and North Carolina. The president's re-election team is depending on similarly high turnout, especially among black voters, to make up for their weaknesses winning over non-college educated white voters. Indeed, the very reason they believe those Southern states are in play are directly related to expected high turnout among these demographic groups.

In 2008, African-American voters made up 20 percent of Virginia's electorate (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=VAP00p1), and voters between the ages of 18-29 made up 21 percent of the statewide vote (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=VAP00p1). Fast-forward just one year later to the closely-contested gubernatorial race (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/VA_09_exits.pdf), and African-Americans dropped to 15 percent of the electorate, with 18-29 year olds making up just 10 percent. Team Obama needs the numbers to be much closer to the 2008 figures to win the Old Dominion again.

Now look at the latest Quinnipiac poll in Virginia (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=1721), released this week. Against Mitt Romney, Obama wins only 36 percent of white voters in the state -- a weak showing. But thanks to 95 percent support among black voters, Obama leads in the general election matchup, 50 to 42 percent. But that's dependent on minority turnout being close to the ideal Obama scenario; any leveling off would make it more challenging for the president to carry the state again.

And that's where the gay marriage debate gets awfully tricky for the president's political advisers.


Public opinion on gay marriage is pretty straightforward. There's a huge generational divide - with older voters solidly opposed, and younger voters solidly supportive. Over time, support for gay marriage should increase. And if Obama came out in support of gay marriage, he would probably excite and inspire many college-aged Democrats to show up at the polls and support him -- not to mention winning back some socially-moderate independents who have been disenchanted with the president over the economy.

But college-aged voters are only part of the president's coalition. The bigger element consists of African-American voters, who are solidly opposed to gay marriage. California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage passed in 2008 thanks to overwhelming black support; 70 percent backed it, according to exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1). Recent gay marriage legislation in Maryland drew opposition from leading Democratic African-American legislators in the state. The same ministers organizing get-out-the-vote efforts in black churches for Obama are also railing against gay marriage.

Obama can't afford to even risk losing the deep enthusiasm black voters have towards him. They gave Obama a whopping 95 percent of the vote against John McCain last year and turned out at historic levels. He should get similar levels of support this year, but with the down economy disproportionately affecting the black community, he's not at all assured that they'll turn out at the same level as 2008. Backing gay marriage would virtually guarantee that some would stay home - perhaps enough to tip the balance in states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio.

The conventional wisdom has been that supporting gay marriage would alienate blue-collar whites, and that's been the main reason he's been hesitant to come out in favor before the general election. But in this case, it's a crucial element of his own base that's preventing the president from taking bolder steps to advance a cause that he seems to believe in, but hasn't publicly embraced. It's as much about politics as principle.

Silcc69
03-25-2012, 06:01 PM
http://images.wikia.com/sims/images/2/2f/Tumbleweed.gif

trish
03-26-2012, 01:54 AM
being opposed to same sex marriage because of cultural, generational, and or religious beliefs, or being opposed to it for merely political reasons?Being opposed for cultural, generational and religious reasons of course. Of course too, your phraseology is coyly misleading. The Obama administration is not opposed to same sex marriage; but it is being politically pragmatic about when and how to advance the forward the issue. Who do you think is more likely to advance the cause of same sex marriage: O'Reilly? Santorum? Gingrich? Romney? Obama? Don't be coy; be honest.

robertlouis
03-26-2012, 07:49 AM
I hardly know where to start with this latest tired and straining polemic from good old omk. His ideas and his exposition of them are like a gently deflating dirigible which is unfortunately full of methane rather than helium.

Firstly, I did not vote for change and hope - I'm a British citizen. Would I have voted for Obama over McCain? Pragmatically yes. His message was broadly positive and everything about him was infinitely preferable to the alternative. Would I vote for him in 2012? Again, pragmatically yes, but with markedly less enthusiasm for him, and this time much moreso to ensure that the sinister and crazy right-wing opposition coalition doesn't get in. The present bunch of fruit loops almost make one hanker after the halcyon gentle days of Bush/Cheney.

As for gay marriage, I would criticise anyone of any faith, colour or creed who opposed it on the basis of hate and fear, which, let's face it, is where most of it lies. Reason and logic play next to no part in opposition rhetoric. Religions opposed to it clearly see it as infinitely more threatening than the endless kiddy-fucking of minors by their priests. Hypocrite bastards. The issue was brilliantly summed up by Ben Summerskill, a spokesperson for Stonewall in the UK who suggested that if Catholics are opposed to same sex marriage then they just need to be careful not to get married to someone of the same sex. Any suggestion that its introduction somehow threatens or undermines heterosexual marriage is speaking pure prejudice, whatever they may profess it to be. Many of the most joyous "weddings" that I've attended in recent years have been those of gay and lesbian friends happy at last to consolidate publicly their relationships of 20+ years and proclaim their love to the world - because that is what it is about, at the end of the day, love. Why should anyone in their right mind oppose that?

In much of Africa laws against homosexual practice and relationships are becoming stronger rather than more liberal, often with local Church support. In black communities generally it is dismissed and hated, and I heartily disapprove of it. If you want me to sign something to that effect, omk, happy to oblige.

While I deplore many of David Cameron's myopic and regressive economic policies, I do wholeheartedly applaud his bold stance on gay marriage, which flies in the face of a strong and openly anti-gay constituency within his party. What it shows, nonetheless, is that the social climate in the UK is now broadly ready to accept what even 20 years ago would have been seen as difficult if not impossible. That's because all parties take a generally liberal line on social policy.

It is, however, not the case in the USA where every candidate for the GOP nomination (with the honourable exception of Ron Paul, a principled and admirable maverick, who is obviously doomed as a result) seems set on peddling a consistent message of opposition to any progress on social policy and just as determined to turn the clock back as much as possible. The only difference between them in this regard is one of degree, as to how much bile and scorn they can pour on women's and gay rights. Santorum in particular is a disgrace, whose views should not be part of the discourse of any enlightened and civilised nation. To see him maintaining such a level of support genuinely saddens and worries me. I wonder what his views are on eugenics?

Given all of the public opposition and the drive to maintain its message of hate and fear through its media cheerleaders, it is hardly surprising that the incumbent president feels the need to proceed with caution. Fact is, omk, your chosen political constituency in the US makes it virtually impossible to advance any policy of social enlightenment. I hope you're proud of that achievement.

onmyknees
03-27-2012, 01:23 AM
Being opposed for cultural, generational and religious reasons of course. Of course too, your phraseology is coyly misleading. The Obama administration is not opposed to same sex marriage; but it is being politically pragmatic about when and how to advance the forward the issue. Who do you think is more likely to advance the cause of same sex marriage: O'Reilly? Santorum? Gingrich? Romney? Obama? Don't be coy; be honest.



LMFAO......

Politically Pragmatic????? Oh that's classic. What about courage of convictions? Or is it that he's just waiting until after the election because he'll have more "flexibility"?? lol I think we can safely classify you as a sycophant....in fact please move to the head of the class miss. lol

trish
03-27-2012, 02:58 AM
So I should look to Santorum to protect my rights as a transgender American? To Gingrich?? To Romney??? We all play our cards pragmatically and wait for the right moments to make our moves. I'll take the strategist any day over the self-righteous prigs who believe with all their heart and soul that my sexuality is sin worthy of eternal damnation in hellfire. That's not being a sycophant, that IS being practical. And yes, your laughing fucked ass has once again been fucked completely off; you might like to keep your pants pulled up next time.

hippifried
03-27-2012, 06:49 AM
It must be nice to be able to laugh at your own lies. Or is that just crazy?

Anyway: The premise of the opening post is completely false. The ability of States to refuse acceptance of marriage licences from other States was dependant on DOMA. That's gone. DOMA faded into the dustbin of history via a quick shrug of the shoulders by the Obama administration. The whole purpose of DOMA was to create a special exception to circumvent Article IV section 1 of the US Constitution. That won't work anymore. If George & Steve get married in Vermont, they're still married if they move to South Carolina, whether SC allows same sex marriage or not. SC can still keep people from getting a marriage licence if they're the same sex, for now, but they can't negate the legal licence from another state. No State can cherry pick wich US citizens may move to that State either. Josh Kraushaar is wrong. So's OMK. There's nothing to argue here.

BluegrassCat
03-31-2012, 08:26 AM
And BTW....it seems at least so far, this thread is a snoozer.....The only response is mockingly from everyone.... It's that hateful thing again.
:iagree::iagree:

Pretty much spot on. I mean what a joke of a thread. The guy who wants to deny civil rights to gays and lesbians tries to project his hate onto others. Classic evasion. What a shit.