May 13, 2012

MTP discussion on Obama's SSM evolution... beginning with an SNL sketch.



ADDED: And here's the Newsweek cover:



"The First Gay President"... like Clinton was "the first black President."

AND: That cover... what does it remind me of....



Remember the old Tinky-Winky-Is-Gay controversy? That's the kind of thing that makes me wish I started blogging earlier:

Tinky Winky started a still hinted-at controversy in 1999 because of his carrying a bag that looks much like a woman's handbag (although he was first "outed" by the academic and cultural critic Andy Medhurst in a letter of July 1997 to The Face). He aroused the interest of Jerry Falwell in 1999 when Falwell alleged that the character was a "gay role model". Falwell issued an attack in his National Liberty Journal, citing a Washington Post "In/Out" column which stated that lesbian comedian Ellen DeGeneres was "out" as the chief national gay representative, while trendy Tinky Winky was "in." He warned parents that Tinky Winky could be a covert homosexual symbol, because "he is purple, the gay pride colour, and his antenna is shaped like a triangle: the gay pride symbol."

The BBC, who co-produced the programme, made an official response, "Tinky Winky is simply a sweet, technological baby with a magic bag." Ken Viselman of Itsy-Bitsy Entertainment, who distributed the show in the USA, commented, "He's not gay. He's not straight. He's just a character in a children's series.

138 comments:

Lawyer Mom said...

Why do people say his position was "evolving"? More like revolving, if you look back a few years. http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/an-obama-gay-marriage-timeline

Tom Spaulding said...

That's MTP, not MPT no BFD, IMO. TCB, AA!

madAsHell said...

The first gay president?
I thought that was James Buchanan.

Frankly, I'd rather be sucking tit on the cover of Time magazine!

madAsHell said...

The first gay president?
I thought that was James Buchanan.

Frankly, I'd rather be sucking tit on the cover of Time magazine!

Jay said...

Hysterical.

I guess when you have your head between Obama's legs you can't see that he believes gay marriage is a question left up to the states.

Hagar said...

Oh, my!

Gary Rosen said...

"That's MTP, not MPT no BFD, IMO. TCB, AA!"

LMAO

SteveR said...

"Evolving" is hardly the case. In any case its hard to take MTP seriously with Chris Matthews involved. Is that who they use when no one else will come on?

John said...

Given the rumors that Obama IS gay, this may not be far from the truth.

Let's be careful what you say about James Buchanan. He is my great, great, great, great uncle.

NTTATWWT

(Either his being gay or my uncle)

John Henry

Andy R. said...

Given the rumors that Obama IS gay,

Is this really a thing?

harrogate said...

How hard is it to give him a little credit for being the first sitting president to make such outspoken gestures on behalf of gay rights? Does it make him Joan of Arc? Of course not. But it was definitely historic, it definitely took courage, and--and here's the most important part in case anyone has forgotten--it was the right thing to do. God, it's not going to kill you all to acknowledge that he did the right thing.

Tom Spaulding said...

God, it's not going to kill you all to acknowledge that he did the right thing.

Dick Cheney holding for you, line 1...

EDH said...

Yesterday I noted the more recent history of the "mean" Obama who pried open the sealed divorce records of his primary and general election opponents on his way to the US Senate.

Apparently, it's the same old "mean" Obama today.

Strassel: Trolling for Dirt on the President's List

First a Romney supporter was named on an Obama campaign website. That was followed by the slimy trolling into a citizen's private life.

Here's what happens when the president of the United States publicly targets a private citizen for the crime of supporting his opponent...

Three weeks ago, an Obama campaign website, "Keeping GOP Honest," took the extraordinary step of publicly naming and assailing eight private citizens backing Mr. Romney. Titled "Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney's donors," the post accused the eight of being "wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records." Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being "litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot's divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee.

Mr. Wolf sent a fax to the clerk's office—which I have obtained—listing four cases he was after. He would later send a second fax, asking for three further court cases dealing with either Melaleuca or Mr. VanderSloot. Mr. Wolf listed only his name and a private cellphone number.

Some digging revealed that Mr. Wolf was, until a few months ago, a law clerk on the Democratic side of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He's found new work. The ID written out at the top of his faxes identified them as coming from "Glenn Simpson." That's the name of a former Wall Street Journal reporter who in 2009 founded a D.C. company that performs private investigative work...

When I asked what his interest was in Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records, he hesitated, then said he didn't want to talk about that. When I asked what his relationship was with Fusion, he hesitated again and said he had "no comment." "It's a legal thing," he added.

Fusion dodged my calls, so I couldn't ask who was paying it to troll through Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. Mr. Simpson finally sent an email stating: "Frank VanderSloot is a figure of interest in the debate over civil rights for gay Americans. As his own record on gay issues amply demonstrates, he is a legitimate subject of public records research into his lengthy history of legal disputes."

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Republicans changing views = flip flopping

Obama changing views = evolving

/facepalm

Can't we focus on the REAL issues that affect the entire country? Please?

Andy R. said...

Obama changing views = evolving

Did you listen to what the woman panelist (Kathleen something?) said about "evolving"?

harrogate said...

Tom Spaulding,

Damned right. I applauded Cheney0 for his comments then, and I applaud him now for that. And I wish like hell that more people invested in gay rights, had done so.

I will say it was very very difficult for me to applaud him for it, because of the war and because of the torture issue. But I did it. It seemes like a no brainer to me.

Jay said...

and here's the most important part in case anyone has forgotten--it was the right thing to do

Um, no, no it was not.

Andy R. said...

It's kind of sad the way Republicans keep trumpeting Cheney as the one national Republican supporting gay marriage.

Is the idea that Republicans will back equality when every single one of them has a close queer family member?

holdfast said...

Well, Obama is in love with a dude, but since the dude is himself . . .

cassandra lite said...

AA says: "The First Gay President"... like Clinton was "the first black President."

Except that Obama may really be gay.

holdfast said...

So now according to Obama, if you believe today what he claimed to believe just a week ago, you're a hopeless, irredeemable bigot.

We've always been at war with East Providence.

wyo sis said...

Right side of history.
What does this even mean? History on this hasn't happened yet. For all we know future events will prove that this was the worst thing a president ever did. Or it may prove nothing at all. why worry about what history will say when we are history. Worry about what's happening now.
I think history will be much more likely to view this as fiddling while Rome burns.
We'll all know in a few years I guess.

Curious George said...

"Andy R. said...
Given the rumors that Obama IS gay,

Is this really a thing?"

Don't get your hopes up hatboy...he is definitely not a lover of the Jew.

Tom Spaulding said...

I will say it was very very difficult for me to applaud him for it, because of the war and because of the torture issue. But I did it. It seems like a no brainer to me.

Cheney did not do it for political reasons. His hand was not forced. He never lied about his views on it.

Because of the cynicism, because of the lying, because of the pandering, BHO gets no credit and no applause for admitting what he believed all along in order to get some of that sweet Gay cash in an election year.

And therefore, it's not very, very difficult for me at all to give him no credit where none is deserved.

Roger J. said...

Actually, it seems to me, Dick Cheney's views and policy suggestions have been adopted in whole cloth by Mr Obama. Obama's words were spoken by VP Cheney almost ten years ago--And, of course, Gitmo is still open, we still have military tribunals, and one suspects we still do extraordinary rendion and torture, although we might be doing on US Warships. Clearly Dick Cheney has been Mr Obama's policy role model.
And at least in the area of anti-terrorism, thats a good thing.

harrogate said...

Well at least Jay is consistent. Much better than others, who state their support for gay rights on these boards, but cannot respond to what Obama has done with much more than "heh, heh, he said 'evolve.'" Yeah, Jay certainly trumps that.

Then we come upon this quote:

"So now according to Obama, if you believe today what he claimed to believe just a week ago, you're a hopeless, irredeemable bigot."

Is that what Obama said? Forgive me if I don't remember that.

holdfast said...

Or to quote the song stylings of Miss Katy Perry:

"You're so gay and you don't even like boys"

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Did you listen to what the woman panelist (Kathleen something?) said about "evolving"

Nope. I refuse to listen to Meet the Press and I don't give a rats behind about gay marriage one way or the other.

What gay people do in their personal lives is of zero interest to me.

Why this is an issue that the President of the United States thinks he should weigh in on or that anyone should care what the President thinks about it is beyond my comprehension, since the President has zero effect on States making laws respecting marriage. It is just another colossal waste of time and distraction from what a complete and total fuckup Obama has been.

Andy R. said...

Right side of history.
What does this even mean? History on this hasn't happened yet. For all we know future events will prove that this was the worst thing a president ever did.


It's people saying that they strongly suspect marriage equality will come to America. It's just a question of how much some Christians want to cement their reputation as close-minded bigots before they also evolve on this.

Mark O said...

Crocodiles have evolved more in the 65 million years from the Cretaceous period than Obama has on gay marriage. He favored in in 1995 when it he thought it was good for him. He favors it now, when he thinks it is good for him. You see, he favors things he thinks are good for him. That’s not evolution. Give me a crocodile any day.

Tom Spaulding said...

"So now according to Obama, if you believe today what he claimed to believe just a week ago, you're a hopeless, irredeemable bigot."

Is that what Obama said? Forgive me if I don't remember that.


The Obama campaign: "President Obama made history this week by standing up for equal rights for LGBT Americans—and he has a strong record of accomplishments for the LGBT community as well. Click through the slideshow for a reminder of the ways the President has moved us forward on this civil rights issue.

Not supporting on Monday, supporting it on Tuesday = "leading us forward".


http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/friday-facts-fighting-for-equality

harrogate said...

Tom,

You're contorting to avoid the truth that it is a big deal for the President to speak so clearly on behalf of gay rights, when no President has ever done so before.

And you want to frame his movement on this question as "lying." That too is contortionism. Who knows, maybe it is true that Obama, like a lot of Americans, has struggled with the question of gay marriage over the years and changed his mind, or even --gasp--evolved on it. I know lotsa people whose minds have moved on the specific question of gay marriage. Don't you?

And even while Obama was vascillating on the question, well before this recent historic moment, he already had been a clear spokesman on behalf of gay rights.


What other candidate for Senate (2004) and then the Presidency (2008) has spoken of our "gay brothers and sisters," not with disdain, not with a desire to "change" them, but simply in the spirit of acknowledgment and inclusion. If you cannot give any credit to any of this, then that's more than a little sad.

garage mahal said...

s this really a thing?"

You should know better by now that these clowns could give a fuck if something is true or not. "let's just make shit up" has been their mantra for as long as I can remember. It seemed to really escalate after their retarded hero got exposed following the 2004 election.

Roger J. said...

Pardon me, but the cynic in me suggests Mr Obama's discovered of gay marriage is a rather tawdry political ploy to get more of his gay bundlers dollars for his reelection. Now if Mr Obama wanted to lead on the issue, he should, one would think be campaigning is states against aritrary restrictions against gay marriage. Somehow, I dont see him doing that. He is a half black Huey Long, although do think Huey Long was better principled.

greenlantern said...

@cassandra lite: Yes, that's the whole problem with the Sully article and the Newsweek cover: It's one thing to say you are the 1st black prez when you are clearly not black. But this cover will assplode in the the short-sighted faces of the Left big time. They have finally taken BO out of the closet and over the cliff.

Sorry, I could not watch more than a few seconds of the brain trust on MTP--what a great ipecac, tho--and SNL--stick a fork in those idiots as well. Once again, they are protecting Obama and missing what is really funny to the rest of America about this whole mess.

William said...

I don't have an argument with gay marriage. However, I do think that the judgement of history shows that gays have been wrong far more often than Christian conservatives. I can remember during the height of the AIDS epidemic, militant gays were argung that closing down bathhouses was an infringement on their civil liberties. In point of fact, promiscuity and not marriage was preached as the ideal life for gays not too long.

Kchiker said...

The Republican whining over the culture war...being used to defeat them in elections...will be delicious. Buttery goodness. And even though their own pollsters are telling party leaders that they had better make their party positions evolve on issues like gay marriage (and quickly)...the rank and file won’t have it.

The Southern strategy finally comes around.

Roger J. said...

William: at least given advanceds in treatments of AIDS, we are no longer subected to the "dying queer" genre of movies from 20 years ago. Aids has has pretty much been reduced to a chronic condition.

holdfast said...

Gay marriage is certainly not the worst thing to happen to the institution of marriage.

The three worst things to happen to marriage would be (1) No Fault Divorce, (2) the rise of the Julia-centric welfare state edifice which provides a surrogate husband for all the Julias out there by taxing the snot out of the hard-working, productive normal families, and (3) the demise of the concept of shame. Of course, all that stuff was brought to you by the same coalition of Lib/Progs who are now touting the absolute moral imperative of "Marriage Equality".

Hagar said...

That you are in love with yourself does not necessarily mean that you are "gay."

And on this issue, it looks like Mr. Obama's position at any one time is based on David Axelrod's polling calculations and campaign advice.

Roger J. said...

Holdfast: I for one welcome the issues that gay couples will confront when they divorce--that community property stuff is a real bear. Welcome, my gay friends, to the divorce court and community property. Enjoy

edutcher said...

That cover alone will cost him the election.

Andy R. said...

Right side of history.
What does this even mean? History on this hasn't happened yet. For all we know future events will prove that this was the worst thing a president ever did.


It's people saying that they strongly suspect marriage equality will come to America. It's just a question of how much some Christians want to cement their reputation as close-minded bigots before they also evolve on this.


Since this happened, Rasmussen has shown the Romster opening first a 7, then an 8, point lead over Zero as of yesterday (rolling 3 day average). It also has Zero's approval index at -22 (-23 is the lowest he's been; Yet).

This is evolving like the dinosaurs. The same sex endorsement, which, if it was going to happen at all this year was supposed to happen much later until Halo Joe opened his mouth and his brain fell out, will be the final nail in the coffin.

PS The last guy to talk about the wrong side of history was the Friend of Angelo, Christopher Dodd, who said that, in opposing Communism in Africa, we were on the wrong side of history.

Roger J. said...

Edutcher: that cover will not be seen by many voters given the news weeklies anemic circulation. You may, howver have to look at it the dentist's office when you are awaiting a root canal.

Andy R. said...

By the way, I've been meaning to thank all the Christians here that have helped to associate Christianity with close-minded anti-gay bigotry among an entire generation.

eddie willers said...

Given Obama's vacillating views depending on the direction of the political winds, I'd say it was less Evolution and more Intelligent Design.

Joe said...

You're nuts Kchiker. Most Americans have no problem with civil unions, what they do have a problem with is homosexual couples calling what they want "marriage."

(This is why many of us advocate getting government out of the "marriage" business. Civil unions for everyone!)

Frankly, I think the gays made a tactical mistake by using the courts. By pushing so fast and appearing to make an end run around democracy, they alienated a lot of people who reacted in a knee jerk reaction.

Again, the entanglement of government and marriage/family has gone way to far. In many ways, this knee jerk reaction has entrenched this even more and actually made it worse for all sexual orientations, not better.

I'm quite confident that within my lifetime, as people learn that gay couples aren't destroying marriage, this will become an issue only to a fringe.

SteveR said...

Andy R If you are basing your knowledge of Christians, or anything else for that matter, on what you see from blog commenters, you are both intellectually lazy and stupid.

Kchiker said...

"I'm quite confident that within my lifetime, as people learn that gay couples aren't destroying marriage, this will become an issue only to a fringe.”

I agree. That ‘fringe’ will be called the Republican party.

Andy R. said...

Andy R If you are basing your knowledge of Christians, or anything else for that matter, on what you see from blog commenters, you are both intellectually lazy and stupid.

I'm not talking about my own knowledge, but the views of people around my age.

"When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers."

Almost certainly, some of the anti-gay commenters here are partly responsible for this, although not necessarily because of their comments on this blog.

Joe said...

BTW, when is the backlash going to start, and how intense will it be, when gays realize that Obama intends to do absolutely nothing about his new "evolved" position?

ndspinelli said...

RogerJ, I have believed for a long time gay marriage is pushed by the legal community for the cynical reason you state..gay divorce, more billable hours.

jacksonjay said...

SSM is Ying&Ying or Yang&Yang!
Traditional Marriange is Ying&Yang!
Got it! Not Christianity!

Alex said...

Has Obama been outed? Not that there's any shame in being "that way" mind you. Obama was always a bit light in the loafers.

Alex said...

Honestly why are we talking about the gays, when Appalachia is being destroyed for coal?

Roger J. said...

Alex: I think the answer is straightforward--Obama need funding support from his constituencies and West Virginia can be written off--its all about the political path to relection.

Alex said...

So lefty Christians are bashing Leviticus all the time, saying it's irrelevant to our times. As an atheist, I have to laugh at how people can pick & choose which parts of the Bible they will abide by. Either you abide by every single passage or you don't. How can you call yourself a Christian and be pro-homosexuality? Obviously I think any pro-gay Christian is a hypocrite and should simply renounce their faith once and for all.

jacksonjay said...

According to Salon

http://www.salon.com/2004/05/25/christian_pirates/

80 percent of Christian teens don't see illegal file sharing as immoral!

Andy R. said...

Obviously I think any pro-gay Christian is a hypocrite and should simply renounce their faith once and for all.

Agreed! But don't worry, bigoted anti-gay Christians will drive all the non-hateful ones away.

edutcher said...

Roger J. said...

Edutcher: that cover will not be seen by many voters given the news weeklies anemic circulation. You may, howver have to look at it the dentist's office when you are awaiting a root canal.

Roger, hate to disagree, but that cover will go viral on the Electric Internet and make Little Zero a laughingstock.

I think you're right about the hard copy, but this is the age of electronic media and I see a bright future for it.

Andy R. said...

Andy R If you are basing your knowledge of Christians, or anything else for that matter, on what you see from blog commenters, you are both intellectually lazy and stupid.

I'm not talking about my own knowledge, but the views of people around my age.

"When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers."


Riiight.

The first word that pops into anyone's mind when asked their opinion on any subject is, "antihomosexual".

Follow the link and you find Hatbrain is quoting a homosexual blog quoting a group nobody ever heard of.

If he wants to quote somebody, he should trade up to Gallup, Pew, QPac, or at least someone who people have heard of.

Better yet, quote Rasmussen. His stuff is honest.

Alex said...

Maybe liberal Christians should create a new Bible with all the offending passages removed. That way the can be liberal and Christian!

Roger J. said...

AndyR--you may be overstating your case--from an historical perspective you might want to look at how christian demoninations handled the issue of slavery--As far as the book of Leviticus goes? I always ignore their proscription about eating shellfish. But, of course, I am not the exemplar of christianity.

edutcher said...

PS FWIW, I think the real split is probably somewhere around 60 - 40 against among those who have an opinion, the way these referenda seem to go.

A lot of people who are probably similar to some in the commentariat here, are going to take the view, "I've got real problems, like finding a job and who's screwing who isn't even on my radar", and should be counted as No Opinion, but get added into the For column.

Alex said...

edtucher - OTOH, yet a good amount of Americans really do obsess about who is screwing whom above everything else. For the evangelical bloc it's all about abortion and gays, 100% of the time. Economics are secondary, after all they're playing for heaven.

Andy R. said...

I have believed for a long time gay marriage is pushed by the legal community for the cynical reason you state..gay divorce, more billable hours.

You can't understand modern conservatism without understanding the conspiracy theories that motivate many of their beliefs.

damikesc said...

"When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers."

When asked by damikesc, 100% of people who didn't personally know Andy R outside of his posting referred to him as an "insufferable douchebag".

Roger J. said...

AndyR--I take your point about conspiracy theorists among the true believers; but I would submit that the lefties are equally into conspiracy theories--for true believers, conspiracy theories, on either the right or left, are the the theories that underlie their beliefs. It perhaps may be the way they handle the cognitive dissonance the informs their world views.

ndspinelli said...

AndyR, I have worked in the legal community for my entire adult life. What the fuck do you do for a living? And, I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative..a libertarian. If you're going to talk out of your ass, take off that hat and stand on your head. And, then put the hat on your ass and make that your photo.

Finally, how conspiratorial would it be to believe attorneys are greedy. The reverse maybe

Joe said...

I'm now thinking of write-in voting for Tinky-Winky.

Roger J. said...

My default position on politics is to follow the money--except perhaps, for Ron Paul, and Adali Stevenson. principles are not much in evidence. that is my cynical view, That said, we do the best we can with the candidates we have.

Dave said...

So if you base support of gay marraige on it being a civil rights issue, why is not polygamy the same situation?
Some cultures are much more accepting of polygamy than ours. Based on the logic of gay marraige as a civil right, proponents of polygamy can use the exact same argument to get judges to accept polygamy and require companies to provide benefits to all spouses equally. They can accuse anyone who doesn't accept the minority culture view of polygamy as out of the norm of being just as bigoted as those who will not accept gay marraige. And thus the Gramscian attack on another of the Wests bourgouisie social institutions is complete.

Pookie Number 2 said...

You can't understand modern conservatism without understanding the conspiracy theories that motivate many of their beliefs.

Well, certainly you can't, because, as you've repeatedly demonstrated, you lack the curiosity and integrity to ever venture beyond the conventional wisdom of the popular culture.

Look, we are blessed to live in a free country, and I support the right of people who are burdened with a psychological disorder compelling them to force their penises into others' anuses to do so, so long as the other party is of age and similarly disturbed, by which I mean consenting. If they choose to formalize their relationship, good for them.

That doesn't mean that there won't be adverse social consequences as such penis-forcing becomes more popular - it's difficult to imagine to imagine nothing negative ensuing from the ridiculous pretense that illness is healthy. But the role of government is to protect life and liberty, not to protect individuals from themselves. so force away.

On the other hand, Obama clearly does believe in aggressive, expanding government, so it's difficult to give him credit for coming to the right decision when it was clearly a craven political gesture.

Gary Rosen said...

"You should know better by now that these clowns could give a fuck if something is true or not. "let's just make shit up" has been their mantra for as long as I can remember. It seemed to really escalate after their retarded hero got exposed following the 2004 election"

Totally agree with garage here. I'm sure that 2004 was just a typo for 2008.

Darrell said...

"The New York Times noted that it was an article in the National Liberty Journal, which Falwell published, that touched off the Teletubbies ruckus. But the article failed to mention that the Liberty Journal piece quoted The Washington Post's outing of Tinky Winky, and that the gay press and several other mainstream outlets had cheered openly for a year that the boy in the purple suit, carrying a purse and bearing the homosexual symbol, an upside down triangle, on his head, was clearly the first openly "gay" character in a children's program.

I recall faxing The Washington Post article to the National Liberty Journal back in February 1999. I had also faxed an article from a gay newspaper in which one of Teletubbies' creators boasted openly that Tinky Winky's character, which combines a deep daddy's voice and mommy's
handbag, was a deliberate attempt to make children think differently about gender. The Liberty Journal editors decided to stick with The Washington Post as the main source, which seems like a wise thing to do. But in the end, it didn't"


http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26646

At the time the story broke, I recall hearing one of the creators of the Teletubbies being interviewed on a local (Chicago) radio talk show. He openly stated that the character was meant to be a role model for "gay boys," talking about how hard it was for him growing up lacking such role models or anyone he could identify with. He then laughed at Falwell for commenting about it. One mouth. Two sides. Falwell's position? Sex is off the table for young children. Yes, let's mock that.

Joe said...

Polygamy is an issue because of the welfare state built around the mid-twentieth century state of marriage where the man worked and the woman stayed home. Social security is still stuck in this model. Spousal support and child support laws are changing from this, but family courts are generally stuck in this model as well.

From a civil liberties viewpoint, there is no difference. If two or more fully consenting adults wish to do something with each other, it's rarely the government's business. (And no straw man counter arguments please; I clearly stated "fully consenting adults". But then again, it shows how the embrace of limited government ends when moral sensitivities are offended.)

el polacko said...

i've been yapping for what seems like ages about how weary i am of hearing about some folk's definition of "sin" being used as an argument against marriage equality since i find no reference to "sin" in the constitution.
...and then what does newsweek do? they slap a religious symbol, a rainbow-hued halo, over their messiah's head...UGH.

Roger J. said...

el polako--on the positive side, no one any more reads the weekly news magazines unless waiting for a root canal. I dont think the influence anyone any more.

Roger J. said...

el polacko--apologies for missspelling your handle.

Alex said...

I think conservative Christians have a really hard time reconciling themselves to the Constitution. They always have and always will. After all the word of GOD is paramount.

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

I have believed for a long time gay marriage is pushed by the legal community for the cynical reason you state..gay divorce, more billable hours.

You can't understand modern conservatism without understanding the conspiracy theories that motivate many of their beliefs.


Sorry, compadre, but even the Lefties were saying that after Cuomo bought the necessary votes. Homosexual relationships being notoriously unstable.

chickenlittle said...

Obama shall forever be on the left side of history. I'm certain that he wants it way.

Dr Weevil said...

Anyone who follows Andy R's link to where the data comes from will find that:

1. It is simply false to say that "for a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, [antihomosexual] was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith". That would imply that all other responses would add up to less than 9%, but they are all much higher than that. The 91% is the percentage who agree (strongly or not) with the characterization when asked. If the poll had said "anti-homosexual acts", it should have been 100%, since that is a true description of Christian belief. "Antihomosexual" is a weasel word designed to elide the distinction between hating the sinner (unChristian) and hating the sin (Christian).

Of course, if they had actually asked people to come up with a single-word characterization of Christianity without any prompting, the number who would have replied with a 7-syllable word like "antihomosexual" would have been less than one percent.

2. The same poll has 76% of respondents agreeing that Christianity "has good values and principles". If I have the logic right, that means that at least 67% of the people polled (76% - (100%- 91%)) think that "antihomosexual" is included under the category of "good values and principles". Ooops.

Dave said...

Joe, your post is excellent except for the final sentence. The libertarian social ideal of limited government is no longer possible barring revolution or breakup of the United States into pieces through other means. The Utopian socialist ideal does requires the destruction of the model of individual self reliance. Over time it becomes more and more difficult for individuals to raise their children without support from the state. You want your children educated for free, come to the state. You want free health care, come to the state. It is no longer economically possible for the bourgeoisie to leave one spouse at home to care for and indoctrinate the children. You want support from the state, leave your bigoted and obsolete religious beliefs behind. This is the provence of the state. When the institution of marriage is eliminated much of the role of raising and indoctrinating children is taken up by the state.

ricpic said...

Say something complimentary about Christians, hatboy, show just once that you're not a windup toy.

Tom Spaulding said...

If you cannot give any credit to any of this, then that's more than a little sad.

Don't be sad if I don't applaud when Barack Obama panders to the latest holdout coalition that might help him get elected. He wants credit for simply stating his "new and improved" personal opinion, and makes a point of saying that it's not a policy position, leaving us with...his personal opinion.

Message: "I care". Asking that we all give him a rousing cheer for that is what's truly sad.

No participation trophies in November 2012, only merit.

Fred Broder said...

Not gay .. what did the WaPo call it .. "presumptively gay" ...

CWJ said...

OMG, that cover. That cover!! I'm not going to wade into the gay marriage subject again. My views are known. But who - who - after 3 1/2 years of this administration, would still literally put a halo over this man's head. The messiah image was both disturbing while simultaneously treaclely enough in 2008. But to resurrect it in 2012 sends more than a whiff of yearning for the strong man on the white horse. Napoleon on his way from First Consul to Emperor would understand.

PatCA said...

That Newsweek totally unserious cover is not going to do Barack any good. It looks like a parody of straight ideas about gayness! Yeah, Barack is a "flamer"!

Completely ignoring great guys who happen to be gay, like Mark Bingham, for one.

edutcher said...

Well, apparently, all those Lefty Demo Senators up for re-election are feeling vulnerable enough they're distancing themselves from this.

PS Roger, I've seen the cover on 10 blogs, counting here, not to mention the fact the cover was tweeted (twitted?, twatted?) and the issue is on iTunes.

Oh, yeah, everybody's going to see that cover.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

By the way, I've been meaning to thank all the Christians here that have helped to associate Christianity with close-minded anti-gay bigotry among an entire generation.


I thank you and your bigoted, ignorant ilk, for the 30 states that have voted against gay marriage.

Jay said...

harrogate said...

Well at least Jay is consistent. Much better than others, who state their support for gay rights on these boards, but cannot respond to what Obama has done with much more than "heh, heh, he said 'evolve.'" Yeah, Jay certainly trumps that.


Yes, I am consistent.

You no more have the "right" to a gay marriage than you have the "right" to drive a car.

Further, since homosexuality is hazardous to your health, the state should be discouraging it.

Finally, to give Obama "credit" for something that was done entirely for political expedience is silly & frankly, obscene.

walter said...

Found Capeheart's leap to describe Obama's statement as clearly framing this as a constitutional matter interesting. I thought he very clearly framed this as a personal ("best for me") stand and one for states to decide.

Matthew's jump to frame the bullying as factually homophobic was another leap..though someone called him on it. I do wonder if he had that thrill run up his leg again when he saw the prez lean so forward back to the right side of history.

Since we are injecting this into entertainment, let's have Bert and Ernie weigh in.

Maybe there will be an alternative "Julia" strip. Perhaps "Julio".

Will Larry Sinclair get airtime?

Ann Althouse said...

"At the time the story broke, I recall hearing one of the creators of the Teletubbies being interviewed on a local (Chicago) radio talk show. He openly stated that the character was meant to be a role model for "gay boys," talking about how hard it was for him growing up lacking such role models or anyone he could identify with."

Since when do gay men carry lady's handbag?

Tom Spaulding said...

Since when do gay men carry lady's handbag?

My nephew walked around in women's shoes with purses as a toddler. He's gay... and awesome, btw.

Does that count?

JAL said...

@ Andy "When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers."

So did they gain this knowledge from the media? From the kewl TV shows they follow? From the extensive MSM coverage (cough)of the rebuilding following ______ [fill in the blank for whatever disaster one remembers]?

I just find it curious that with everything going on in the "church" and everything the "Christians" are involved in, that the younger people are focused on "anti-homosexual" as being the mark. One would think the RC Church sex abuse stuff would be more prominent.

Almost like someone is feeding the pigeons. Or something.

B said...

Andy,
Gays have the same civil rights as any one else does. They have and should take advantage of the right to engage in civil unions. But gay marriage is nothing more than an attempt to artificially create a patina of normalcy and legitimacy for a lifestyle choice that is neither. It is not biologically normal. It is a dead end. It is not and will never be a legitimate marriage in the American culture.

It is a joke. I recall you in a thread here saying - I'm paraphrasing but have the gist correct - that the future will look back on this era as an immature phase before the universal acceptance of gay relationships by both society as a whole and specifically any religions, if any, that still exist in your posited utopia.

That presupposes right from the start that it is the correct and inevitable direction human society must take to mature. That's the arrogance of a college sophomore talking. As long as your predictions and opinions are validated by your peers, those predictions and opinions will trump all the accumulated wisdom and life experience of people who cast off the same know-it-all attitude long before you were born.

In other words, you argue in the face of common sense.

Here's my prediction. I think it'll be the other way around. I think that society is mature enough to weather this nonsense for a time, then will react by treating gay relationships as a valid lifestyle choice for a small minority but with no particular demand on special legal consideration - including the right to redefine marriage.

I have 30 states and counting backing my prediction.

yashu said...

That cover: wow.

Put aside whatever you think about gay marriage and O's "personal" support of it. Or, let's postulate hypothetically that both are good things.

That cover is not beneficial to Obama.

For a number of reasons, some having nothing to do with gayness. (Other than perhaps in a slang sense.) That halo! That halo.

It makes all too explicit so much about the MSM depiction of Obama. Distilled to its essence and hypostatized into a grotesque hilarious cartoon. The staggering silliness of it!

You've got Obama making that most Obama of faces-- straining to look oh so serious, earnest, heroic, resolute, presidential. Topped by: that Tinky Winky halo. That hula hoop halo.

It's like a Newsweek cover as done by Iowahawk.

caseym54 said...

I thought that was James Buchanan.

Also the worst President. Obama comes second again.

garage mahal said...

Jaybird is your go to guy whenever you need to know what's going in the gay world, gay culture, gay sub-culture, gay health, and hell, even the gay underworld. He must have done some heavy research into the subject, if ya know what I'm saying!

Whenever I ask myself "could I ever be a conservative"?, it always starts with "no, otherwise you couldn't stop thinking about gay sex".

B said...

Dr Weevi,

I don't myself invest the time to follow links to information that some fool claims will support a position and numbers that are both nonsensical by simple inspection.

Nonetheless, kudos for taking the time to debunk Andy's cite. If he is remotely as smart as he is convinced he is, maybe the take down will make him a bit more careful about selling his snake oil here.

edutcher said...

caseym54 said...

I thought that was James Buchanan.

Also the worst President. Obama comes second again.


No, I think he'll be worst first.

B said...

Sorry, Dr 'Weevil'

Elle said...

I sincerely thought that cover was a mock up. No problem with his stance, but a halo? Blasphemous to say the least.

Boy, are the guys at Time Magazine going to be pissed their boob cover is now so last week.

walter said...

Wow..I honestly thought that Newsweak cover was via the Onion or similar.

Christopher said...

I would just like to thank Andy R. for once again providing a perfect example of just how full of shit he is.

He makes an assertion which he backs up by linking to a blog that doesn't actually provide a link to said study (done by a group nobody has heard of) but merely provides a quote from an obviously biased source.

As such we don't know the internals of the poll, we don't know the exact wording of the questions, we don't know the sample size, and we don't know when or where it was taken. Instead we are supposed to take the word of obviously biased sources that this is legitimate.

But what can you expect from a man who celebrates the deaths of those he disagrees with.

Old Dad said...

Garage,

Your latest is stupider than normal.
Thanks for bringing your A game.

Old Dad said...

Garage,

Your latest is stupider than normal.
Thanks for bringing your A game.

walter said...

from et hSullivan text "I was in the room long before the 2008 primaries when Obama spoke to the mother of a gay son about marriage equality. He said he was for equality, but not marriage. Five years later, he sees--as we all see--that you cannot have one without the other. But even then, you knew he saw that woman's son as his equal as a citizen. "

Hmmm... is he presuming Obama was unique in seeing gays equals as citizens? And of course, Andrew skips over the fact that O's position for it before he was against it. That just doesn't adhere to the brave evolution narrative.

somefeller said...

B says: Gays have the same civil rights as any one else does. They have and should take advantage of the right to engage in civil unions.

Maybe gays should have the right to engage in civil unions, but in most states they don't and it's a falsehood to claim that they have such rights. Furthermore, most of the states that have passed anti-gay marriage amendments to their state constitutions (like North Carolina just did) also forbid gay civil unions under such amendments. That's not an accident. The social conservatives who draft such amendments use the bait of gay marriage to also forbid state recognition of civil unions and by doing so in constitutional amendments, prevent the state legislatures from passing pro-civil unions laws. It's nice to hear that you support civil unions, but you're wrong when you say gays generally have the right to engage in them. It's also incorrect to say that gays have the same civil rights as others (for example, gays and lesbians aren't covered by employment nondiscrimination statutes that cover other minorities), but that's a separate point.

Roger J. said...

My friend eductcher raises an interesting point re visibility of a magazine cover--Since I am a bit technology challenged (no TV and no twitter, but a blogophile) I am curious as to what percentage of the attentive public sees these contretemps. I suspect it is a relatively small percentage of the "attentive public." if anyone can enlighten me, I would genuinely appreciate it. I continue to believe that the demographic is age driven.

somefeller said...

And that Newsweek cover is stupid and unhelpful. The people who came up with that need to get out of the NYC-Gawker bubble.

Roger J. said...

and please assume I spelled edutcher's name correctly! apologies edutcher--as an old guy, I seldom use preview either :)

Revenant said...

It was mildly surprised at the lack of reaction from my gay and left-wing friends and associates. Literally none of them has mentioned Obama's statement.

A few expressed agreement with a libertarian friend's comment that Obama was obviously trying to drum up votes and money.

The thing is, pretty much everybody on the left and in the gay community ALREADY figured Obama was for gay marriage. They just figured he wasn't willing to do anything about it, at least not yet.

So when Obama came out and said, in essence, "I am personally for gay marriage but I'm not going to do anything about it", the general reaction was, basically "so what else is new?".

B said...

I wonder how Andy would deal with the obvious conundrum here if he had the intellectual honesty to confront it.

Here's a pampered and smug college sophomore who has manufactured a narrative out of whole cloth of being victimized by organized religion. He invests time visiting this blog incessantly in a pathetic attempt to assign convenient viewpoints and positions to conservatives people of faith. Convenient because he sees them as validating his sense of victimhood. He has no direct experience with the real convictions and practices of either targeted group, but is sublimely convinced that his assumptions are correct.

So he sets up his strawmen - makes the assumptions, assigns the viewpoints, establishes the positions - and then oh so reasonably asks his targets to respond to his contention, and only on his terms mind you. His contention is that he bears the burden of being hated for being gay in this society and that it is the bigotry of religion that is the problem. He arrives at this conclusion not because he has personally sampled this bigotry - he disdains religion as the opiate of the masses and is personally far above any such need for the belief that we are more than the sum of our appetites. But because that's what he reads.

And the solution for Andy, the condition that will bring about this great sea change in society where gays can live in America without fear of being stoned and/or beheaded....is casting religion onto the trash.

And then what happens? Obama is given a halo, a religious icon, the signature stamp of the lightbringer, for taking a purely political and meaningless stance on SSM - one of Andy's burdens.

Someone, either Andy or Obama, missed the memo and fell behind in updating the narrative.

B said...

Maybe gays should have the right to engage in civil unions, but in most states they don't and it's a falsehood to claim that they have such rights.

You're right. I was unclear. They have the right to a civil union in some but not all states. It is my contention that that is a civil right, but not yet accepted.

B said...

But...

gays and lesbians aren't covered by employment nondiscrimination statutes that cover other minorities

Gays and lesbians are a small percentage of the polity, but they aren't minorities with any special legal considerations due their lifestyle choice.

Unless you want to contend that being gay is a medical condition? That is a very slippery slope you don't want to navigate.

JAL said...

It's like a Newsweek cover as done by Iowahawk.

LOL. That!

CWJ said...

That several others including somefeller went after the cover photo is reassuring that this was a bridge too far on Newsweek's part. Think about it, they had at least two other routes to travel to the same destination; both using the same photo. They could have photo shopped a rainbow lapel pin onto his suit; oversized if need be. Or they could have put the rainbow over and around his head which would have still implied his beatification. But no, they had to go with a literal halo.

This can't be laid at the feet of an overworked headline writer rushing against deadline. Covers are discussed, reviewed and debated extensively before anything goes to press. That THIS hit the stands means that the mask is off, not just that it slipped.

Phil 3:14 said...

re:Andy's link. The Barna group is a major polling firm regarding Christian/church matters.

As regards the perception of the under 30's, several surveys were summarized in the book You lost me. Other key points pertinent to this thread:

-"Many younger Christians are cognizant that their peers are increasingly unfriendly or indifferent toward Christian beliefs and commitment.

-A second reason that young people depart church as young adults is that something is lacking in their experience of church. One-third said “church is boring” (31%). One-quarter of these young adults said that “faith is not relevant to my career or interests” (24%) or that “the Bible is not taught clearly or often enough” (23%). Sadly, one-fifth of these young adults who attended a church as a teenager said that “God seems missing from my experience of church” (20%).

-The issue of sexuality is particularly salient among 18- to 29-year-old Catholics, among whom two out of five (40%) said the church’s “teachings on sexuality and birth control are out of date.”

Phil 3:14 said...

What I find terribly under-covered is the disconnect between public polling on attitudes toward SSM and state referenda. You'd expect a lot more referenda to pass.

Is the man on the street hiding his true opinion when polled?

Most Americans are not go-to-church-every-Sunday Christians; so why do the referenda so often fall in line with the conservative Christian stance?

Is this like inter-racial marriage (as many so often suggest)? Will we "get over it" over time?

Or is it like tolerance for media displays of sexuality? Something that exceeds our personal tastes but which we eventually resign ourselves to?

Ralph L said...

Since when do gay men carry lady's handbag?
Perhaps the Queens of England, Britain's Stately Homos.
(h/t Q Crisp)
Obama ain't gonna like you riffing on his big ears.

Ralph L said...

That THIS hit the stands means that the mask is off, not just that it slipped.
When was the last time you or anyone thought about Newsweek?
Mission Accomplished by Tina Brown.

Nora said...

In Obama case:
leading from behind = evolved

He moves nothing and nobody forward except himself, precisely because he follows the trends and public opinion, rather than creates them, never mind what his spin machine claims. Brave he is certainly not.

His new campaign moto "Forward" is a big lie. Unfortunately: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." - Mark Twain

edutcher said...

Roger J. said...

My friend eductcher raises an interesting point re visibility of a magazine cover--Since I am a bit technology challenged (no TV and no twitter, but a blogophile) I am curious as to what percentage of the attentive public sees these contretemps. I suspect it is a relatively small percentage of the "attentive public." if anyone can enlighten me, I would genuinely appreciate it. I continue to believe that the demographic is age driven.

Your point isn't without merit, but keep this in mind: more and more people get their news off the Internet. IIRC, it was better than half the people following the '10 elections and also remember the 'Net is replacing TV to a great degree so, if it's on YouTube or iTunes or Twitter, it's exposed to a great many people than just the blogosphere.

The other thing is that, if something is "liked", it can be passed along to like-minded people from the original person who saw it. Social media will also be a mover in this.

Bottom line is everyone is online one way or another and the word "viral" has entered our lexicon for a reason. People are already talking about the Photoshops of this that will come out - they may be only second to Hitler videos as a source of Internet humor.

And don't worry about the spelling. You'd be amazed at not only the spellings, but the pronunciations I've encountered.

PS I Preview a lot largely because I need to get the HTML right, especially when I link.

CWJ said...

Ralph L @6:22

I take your point but at best then its a desperate move. Where's the second act. How does this broaden Newsweek's readership? Who will subscribe that has not already done so?

A person can be noticed running naked down the street. Doesn't mean they'll be taken seriously. Or that anyone will care the next time they run naked down the street.

Cedarford said...

Curious George said...
"Andy R. said...
Given the rumors that Obama IS gay,

Is this really a thing?"

Don't get your hopes up hatboy...he is definitely not a lover of the Jew.

=====================
Of course he is! Progressive, even outright Leftist Jews - just not the Zionist type. And progressive and pomo commie Jews LOVE Obama back. He is their Black Messiah.

Jews comprise the core of Obama's media machine inside and outside the White House, and up to half his large donors.

The Crack Emcee said...

Wait - this is supposed to be worse than posing him naked with a unicorn?

O.K.,...

Jane said...

Google Obama + "down low club" -- the conspiracy theories may be of the "birther" variety (supposed sex partners mysteriously killed just before the election) but they're out there.

edutcher said...

Congrats, Crack, see you're back up.

Gary Rosen said...

Fudd, Obama is once again pushing Samantha Power, who you would be in love with if you were straight since she hates Israel as much as you do. By the way, you still pimping out the pederasts like Polanski and Sandusky?

Janette Kok said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael McNeil said...

So lefty Christians are bashing Leviticus all the time, saying it's irrelevant to our times. As an atheist, I have to laugh at how people can pick & choose which parts of the Bible they will abide by. Either you abide by every single passage or you don't. How can you call yourself a Christian and be pro-homosexuality? Obviously I think any pro-gay Christian is a hypocrite and should simply renounce their faith once and for all.

It's laughable when atheists presume to teach Christians their own religion. Christians are centered in the New Testament which provides a “New Covenant” between God and Man — explicitly superseding the Old Testament (Old Covenant).

Thus, Christian converts are not required to be circumcised, for instance, and for the same reason are not subject to the strictures of (Old Testament) Leviticus or the ban therein on images and sculptures of God not to speak of Christ. This is very basic stuff in Christianity, Alex. I suggest you take your jocularity as to Christian mysteries and stuff it.

Your points in this regard would be more pertinently aimed at Jews, by the way.

yashu said...

Just want to second edutcher and say congrats, Crack! Happy to see you're up and running.

And thank you, Michael McNeil, for making that point, which handily spotlights Andy's ignorance re Christianity. I'm an atheist myself, but even I know that much of the gist, the point, crux of Christianity, one of the very keys of it, is the relation of New Testament to Old, and the essential distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law.

This goes further back, but to garage:

Whenever I ask myself "could I ever be a conservative"?, it always starts with "no, otherwise you couldn't stop thinking about gay sex".

In a way I find this a hopeful and heartening remark. The fact that you'd even idly conceive of the possibility of ever becoming a conservative, to me indicates that you don't see us as the equivalent of, I don't know, serial killers. You don't see our humanity as that distant from yours.

I say "hopeful" not so much because you might someday cross over to the dark side, but because the fact that you think of it (remotely) conceivable means we're not an absolute "other" to you. You're open to dialogue.

(I remember long ago, you attended a Tea Party rally, and actually said nice things about it-- or at least, refuted the awful stereotypes about it. Your comments at Althouse almost always aggravate me, but that bit of integrity meant a lot to me, and virtually got you a lifetime pass as far as I'm concerned. You may be pigheaded and often engage in (what seems to me) bad faith, but you're certainly not a troll.)

Anyway, I understand the rhetorical point of your generalization, but I assume you don't seriously, literally believe it. I would think your experience at the Althouse blog especially-- and the diversity of perspectives here that might be termed "conservative"-- would have long ago shattered the stereotype that you're relying on there. E.g., me (and I'm only one of many "conservatives" here that don't fit into your pigeonhole, and in fact very obviously controvert it).

Rusty said...

Jews comprise the core of Obama's media machine inside and outside the White House, and up to half his large donors






That wasn't supposed to get out. The Elders must have slipped up somehow. I'll have to consult the Protocols and see who I contact over this error of judgement.
Oy!

Clyde said...

JOBS! ECONOMY! JOBS! ECONOMY!

JOBS!! ECONOMY!!

Pay no attention to the squirrel behind the curtain!

Keep your eyes on the ball!

RebeccaH said...

Even though Joe Biden forced Obama's hand prematurely, he probably would have come out in support of gay marriage before the election anyway. It was a calculated (and, pardon me, completely cynical) political move. His gay donors (who have the money) were threatening to withhold their campaign cash, and Obama counts on black voters (who don't have the money) to stick with him no matter what.

In any case, he's trying to gull gay voters. Haven't they noticed he said the issue would be left up to the states (and that over 30 states have banned it)? He knows it won't happen, just like there will be no immigration reform (wake up, Latino voters). He tells each group what they want to hear, when he knows perfectly well he can't provide any of it.

Every Obama promise comes with an expiration date. Every single one.

Andy R. said...

And thank you, Michael McNeil, for making that point, which handily spotlights Andy's ignorance re Christianity. I'm an atheist myself, but even I know that much of the gist, the point, crux of Christianity, one of the very keys of it, is the relation of New Testament to Old, and the essential distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law.

Did you mean to direct this comment at Alex's ignorance? That was who Michael was quoting. I don't want to write something long-winded about how I'm also well aware of the relation of the New and Old Testaments if you didn't intend your jab at me.

yashu said...

Sorry, Andy R., for confusing you and Alex and calling you "ignorant" for that reason.

If I'd realized it was Alex, I probably wouldn't have said anything-- since I never take anything Alex says seriously anyway. I may disagree with much of what you say, Andy, but I know you (unlike Alex) mean what you say. So I do apologize.

Thorley Winston said...

Furthermore, most of the states that have passed anti-gay marriage amendments to their state constitutions (like North Carolina just did) also forbid gay civil unions under such amendments. That's not an accident.

You’re right – it’s a direct response to the actions of State courts like California who have told their residents that because they had previously created civil unions through their legislature, they are now required to redefine civil marriage to include SSM. That’s the problem with adopting an “all or nothing” approach – sometimes you end up with nothing.