Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The NYT describes that:
[T]he dread over the same-sex marriage issue was almost palpable as Mr. Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod tried to explain on MSNBC on Thursday that Mr. Obama opposed same-sex marriage, “But he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control.”
पोस्ट्स
३४ टिप्पण्या:
Obama wants to be reelected, so get thee gheys, under thee bus...
What a shocker.....like his boss, Axelshaft voted present.
Axelrod is always squirming but this is way above average. Yet another campaign platform inconveniently facing reality.
He opposes same sex marriage but supports civil unions. What's the issue? Do gays really think he HATES gays? No, he values both marriage as it stands ,but also wants gays to have a relationship that affords them rights equivalent to marriage. Is that concept too hard for people to understand?
Actually, that is a defense of being for marriage but also allowing for civil unions and it not meaning that you hate gays. However, in Obama's particular case he's playing politics with this, and should be hammered for his hypocricy. He really wants gay marriage, hence his need to say any proposition that says marriage is between a man and a woman is "divisive" but also wants to maintain his popularity amongst the majority who think that marriage should be defined as it already is defined. So he's trying to walk a very thin line that makes him look like a hypocrite on both sides. If he had balls, he would say he supports gay marriage and win over the left but lose the center. If he doesn't he loses the left and the center thinks he's wishy washy and isn't really supporting marriage.
Hope and change!
Sounds like President Obama is voicing his support for civil unions and California Prop 8. Axlerod probably just ran out of time or he'd have gone into the whole "activist judges" thing on the President's behalf....
The Party says 2+2=5. Get with the program, proles!
Oh, God!
Another 300 comment gay marriage post!
The recession must be over. We have nothing better to do than to fight endlessly over baubles for spoiled brats.
But, remember: They're just like blacks under Jim Crow! What suffering!
And, as Ann saw when she ventured into the wilds of small town Wisconsin, the bodies of lynched gays hung from every lampost in town!
And, don't forget: Ronald Reagan really caused the AIDS epidemic!
What a farce.
I'm ready for WWIII. We need something important to focus our attention.
Liberals oppose DOMA then say that the SSM is a state matter.
Then when states legislate against SSM, liberals say that opposing SSM is unconstitutional (Federal).
Who you going to believe, Obama or your lying eyes.
No, he values both marriage as it stands ,but also wants gays to have a relationship that affords them rights equivalent to marriage. Is that concept too hard for people to understand?
Evidently it IS to hard to understand, since that is the exact position that the voters in California took.
Preserve marriage and CONTINUE to have Civil Unions in the State that confer all the rights of marriage to gays.
If it is good enough for Obama, why can't it be good enough for the voters in California.
The Chicago Way.
Obama deserves this. He's trying to play up to both sides without taking a courageous stand. I'm sure he thought he could get away with it - because he has gotten away with so much.
Now he is seen as just how he is:
blatantly political and disingenuous
Typical Democrat. Cout the gay vote; throw the gays under the bus once elected.
The Human Rights Campaign bumper sticker ought to have tire tracks on it.
These idiots were never smart enough to be in government. Those who put them in office were never smart enough to vote. This shit is over:
Viva la Revolucion!
Crack: You have it exactly right. And the racism that got Obama elected was the racism that assumed that a clean black guy who could make a subject and verb agree was the smartest guy ever.
Biden appeared on "The Ellen Degeneres Show" during the campaign and said that he and Obama opposed Proposition 8. They wanted to take both sides.
I agree with Obama's sort-of-stated position - civil unions with all legal rights, and keep the traditional definition of marriage.
Of course, I really don't think that's Obama's true position, it's just what he says so that Dems don't get annihilated in the South. I am almost sure that he actually supports full-on gay marriage, just like every other left-liberal in the country - frankly my only doubt on this is because blacks, even otherwise lefty ones, are not usually down with teh gheys (except on the DL). So there is a chance, just a small one, that Obama doesn't favor actual gay marriage. Of course, now that it is going to be blessed by Cardinal Kennedy of the immaculate robes, he won't have to take a position, and his minions can keep fund raising in SF and Chelsea without fear.
The Zero clearly knows too many Americans don't believe in the nonsense known as homosexual rights - which usually translates to giving the public group sex crowd or NAMBLA anything it wants at that nanosecond.
Then again, there are those who think he's one of them and doesn't want to give the game away.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more! say no more! you know what I mean, huh? you know what I mean?
Shoutingthomas wrote:
And, don't forget: Ronald Reagan really caused the AIDS epidemic!
Well that's certainly what Obama's preacher believed and preached about. Maybe he didn't use Reagan by name, but certainly it was the govt that was involved, be it for killing blacks or gays.
Which is another reason that perhaps Wright's story should have been looked into further and his association with Obama should have been more of an issue. But then again, is it any wonder that lefties didn't take objection to that and said it was a non issue. Because that's been a lefty talking point for a long time. So, why would it be objectionable when Obama's preacher said it. In fact if you look at most of what Wright said, it would be perfectly in keeping with anything you'd hear at any black studies course in college. Amerikkka is the source of all evil in the world, white europeans are singled out for their role in history, and men in general (but usually white) are singled out for their patriarchy. And throw some communism in for good measure. That's the lefts paybook. Granted, as a preacher he can't single out christianity, but since he's black and speaking ill of the US, and otherwise passes on the lefty rhetoric, his christianity gets a pass. It's the OTHER christians, that are evil.
I really don't think it is fair to judge Obama harshly on his attitudes on gay rights. After all the practice of homosexuality is strictly against his religion. As a Moslem he has gone about as far as he can go.
I am proud of him for being so open minded.
Remember, a nods as good as a wink to a blind bat.
"Civil unions with all legal rights, and keep the traditional definition of marriage."
That's my position. We know what a marriage is. It ain't two guys or whatever other permutations are trying to be forced on us. Second marriages don't exist, either, except in the case of death. You've got to call it something else, because, since you already said your life-long vows to someone, the idea of of a second marriage is totally illogical.
Hehe Trooper,
I've been meaning to ask. When did you shorten that last name from Yorke ?
Hey I misspelled it to begin with so I had to go with it Sarge.
Never appolgize. It's a sign of weakness.
Also.
Never homogenize. It's a sign of Wisconsin.
Effectuated sounds like a gay word.
I don't know why Alexrod is squirming. I think it's going to go 5-4 in favor of gay marriage, and if so then two of the five votes will come from Obama appointees. But I don't think that this issue will sway more than a handful of votes in 2010 or 2012 for that matter. To be sure, the votes that are swayed will all go away from Democrats in general and Obama in particular, but as a practical political matter it won't be a major issue.
I'm fine with his position.
blatantly political and disingenuous
Squeeze from the left
But its the Republican Party that's in disarray!
He looks like a fatter Josef Mengele in that still shot.
Just a random observation, not a Godwin's Law asschuffer, so all the usual eggshell-skulled offendees kindly 'offndie.
But I don't think that this issue will sway more than a handful of votes in 2010 or 2012 for that matter.
Perhaps not on the substance of the case, but you can bet that the specter of one 'elitists' judge overturning the will of the people will be shouted to high heavens.
Axelrod is such a dill doughboy; his boss really got himself into a pickle this time.
I don't care who wins, I want fiscal responsibility to be central. Keep hammering away at deficits and just how much bank Obama's got us in for. Sunlight.
Tax and spend, tax and spend.
But I don't think that this issue will sway more than a handful of votes in 2010 or 2012 for that matter.
It could have a big impact on the Hispanic vote. That demographic is extremely homophobic to begin with, and has been hit hard by the recession.
Yuck! Is there anything more grotesque than the sight of a politician trying to slither out from under the plain meaning of something they said before?
"What I said was blah, blah, blah...what I meant was blah, blah, blah...we love gays! (i.e., need their votes)...but marriage is between a man and a woman (i.e., we need Christians' votes too!)...Prop 8 was divisive, even though it agreed precisely with my own pronouncements on the issue, but what I said was not divisive!"
Axelrod appears to be an enthusiastic proponent of "don't ask, don't tell" when it comes to the Obama administration's position on same sex marriage.
wv: phobis!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा