ADDED: WaPo says:
A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay. His overall list of bundlers also includes a number of gay couples who have wed in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage was legal.
“It’s a very important constituency,” said Los Angeles attorney Dana Perlman, a top Obama bundler who is helping organize a 700-person LGBT fundraiser for the president on June 6. “The community for the most part is wholeheartedly behind this man.”
पोस्ट्स
५६ टिप्पण्या:
The Bush tax cuts, along with the elimination of the marriage penalty are scheduled to end at the end of the year. In an ostensibly unrelated note, Barack Obama just dropped his opposition to gay marriage.
-FreddyB
So apparently Obama was pressured to come out and say something that everyone already knew he believed anyway.
"So apparently Obama was pressured to come out and say something that everyone already knew he believed anyway."
He was in the closet.
I bet Ann's sons are so proud that their mom provides cover for the gay hating crowd.
Romney use to be pretty good (for a Republican) on this civil rights issue. Because he fears the conservative base he has thrown his lot with the bigots. What does Ann have to say about this? Nothing, except President Obama is not perfect on this politically difficult issue.
Why do we assume he believed(s) that?
In California, for instance, Prop 8 passed in 2008, the same year Obama was elected. Clearly there is an overlap of Obama supporters and opponents of gay marriage.
What is that overlap? Could that be Obama's demographic as well?
That he believed in gay marriage is not necessarily something we can assume.
The text of his "support" is so self-serving, it makes the whole thing (dare I say it?) a joke?
Andy R. said...
So apparently Obama was pressured to come out and say something that everyone already knew he believed anyway.
If he believed in it, he wouldn't have had to be pressured.
Jay Retread said...
Romney use to be pretty good (for a Republican) on this civil rights issue.
When, exactly, was this a civil right?
For pushing him to do this, President Obama should give Joe Biden a big French kiss. Anything less would be just lip-service.
Finally Obama's white half peeks through.
Obama slept since 2008... If gays had wanted to, they could have gone all occupation on his ass, his stimulus stash and his cabinet positions.
Said the prostitute in the Secret.... I mean said the gays in the secret service deal.
Man. Contrast this with Sully's maudlin and tearful affirmation of Obama both on NPR and on his site.
I'd say we have some contrast here.
Forward! needs to be cast away, alongside Winning The Future (WTF).
Obama's new campaign motto:
Sincerity!
By the way, Andy, he's lying now. At least I think he is (and I think you'd have to be dense to belive he's sincere this time). I guess we'll never know for sure. He's lied so many times it's impossible to know.
I don't think this means anything. It's a non-story.
Where is the marriage equality bill Obama supports, which he's working on getting through Congress? What is he threatening to veto unless this issue is discussed?
Everything he's saying is nothing but empty sentiment. A desperate attempt to find something "historical" and yet new about himself for this election cycle. Last time he was the first black President, now he's going to be the first one in favor of marriage equality.
Well, I'm not buying it. I'd like to see competence. Does Obama have any of that to sell?
"For pushing him to do this, President Obama should give Joe Biden a big French kiss. Anything less would be just lip-service."
Yeah, come out of that closet too.
Ha, I knew it! Follow the $ and this is where it leads.
Poor Obama voter: your agenda will not be served, clingerh8r
Rich Obama voter: meangingless promises and personal platitudes
Really rich Obama supporter: taxes are optional
Pro-gay marriage, anti-gay marriage, whatever. Obama has an open marriage with the truth. The truth shall set your free and Obama would rather you not be free.
The truth is that he just. does. not. care. about your little issues. Not unless it helps Obama.
For some reason the black community is extremely homophobic. Obama will still get about the same percentage of their vote but there may be fewer people show up at the polls.
BTW, I guess everyone caught the HUGE gaffe Obama made when he said our servicemen and women are over there fighting "on my behalf." The royal "we" is strong in this One.
He even set-up a special interview just so that he could tell everyone his personal opinion on a subject about which he proposes no legislation and no executive orders. I guess including it in a campaign speech wasn't good enough.
And why do journalists play along with that? Why wouldn't they just listen to his opinion, say "that is nice dear", and then ask him why unemployment is at 11% when including the number of people who have given up looking for work until his happy ass is out of office? Why are they so willing to act as propaganda organs of the state when their guy is in power?
Do they not wish to have any credibility at all?
What's going to happen when NAMBLA stops contributing?
I think using "Gay for Pay" as a play on words for this bit of politics is out of line. Vulgar.
This evolution thing is awesome. So is this the 'quick jumps, fits and start all at once' kind of evolution or the slow and steady accumulative mutations kind of evolution? Because it looks like both to me, help me out over here.
Romney use to be pretty good (for a Republican) on this civil rights issue. Because he fears the conservative base he has thrown his lot with the bigots.
So basically Romney is in the same place that Obama was in just yesterday?
Now that evolution has worked its magic on Obama, is it too much to hope that it will cause Joe Biden to grow a brain?
Conservatives, viewing Obama's candidacy, have been saying that gay marriage might be a wedge issue; blacks and Latinos might not vote for him as much, or might not turn out in high numbers in November.
Liberals, viewing Romney's candidacy, have been saying that Romney's several flip-flops might be wedges; social conservatives and anti-Obamacare types might not vote for him, or turn out in high numbers.
As usual, people on the one side suck at analyzing people on the other side.
Romney by eight in November.
I watched Torchwood on BBCAM last week. That was hilarious. Both the shows I saw were. The Scottish-American guy who plays the American type, blusterous, self-assured, often wrong, points, speaks in abrupt sentences, is suddenly faced kissed by the otherwise generally quiet somewhat mysterious and dangerous right-hand guy. To shock us. See, the American is a big homo right in front of us and that's normal.
"Throw the gun on the ground." Plastic gun. "Kick it over here." As if that is how guns are knowledgeably handled by knowledgeable gun handlers. They are ridiculous, like a cartoon.
"Gay for pay."
AKA "Whore."
Figures,...
Freeman Hunt: I think using "Gay for Pay" as a play on words for this bit of politics is out of line. Vulgar.
Now go back to all of Althouse's posts about breasts and make the same type of comment.
It's the perfect post title for this topic, it even carries with it an air of falseness.
so obama finally comes out of the closet on gay marriage.
next question: what is he willing to do about it?
If he believed in it, he wouldn't have had to be pressured.
That's not true for a guy running for office. So far he's been able to have it both ways - Democrats and independents against gay marriage could tell themselves he shared their views (it's easy to believe what you want to believe), and SSM supporters could take comfort in the knowledge that was just political gruel for the rubes.
Now the anti-SSM Democrats are going to have to decide if they still want to support Obama. My guess is an almost imperceptible reduction in turnout. The problem for team Obama is that reduction may be enough to swing a key battleground state redward.
Were I Obama I'd have spent the last four years bobbing and weaving on this one as well. It's not clear to me the money is enough to make up for the political hit he takes unless he's having a cash problem.
Well, I'm not buying it. I'd like to see competence. Does Obama have any of that to sell?
Competence comes in different flavors. He has competence in all the areas you'd expect a "community organizer" to have competence.
Jason, I'm not commenting on Althouse using it. That's the name of the news story at the link.
Freeman Hunt: Jason, I'm not commenting on Althouse using it. That's the name of the news story at the link.
Considering they use a giant phallic symbol as their logo, I'd give them a pass.
I notice several sites in the Rightosphere are using the headline "President/Obama Comes Out".
You don't think there's more to this...?
I watched Torchwood on BBCAM last week.
I’m so sorry to hear that. I hope it wasn’t that awful “Miracle Day.” Rumor has it that was so terrible that Russell T. Davies swore off doing any more sci fi for the foreseeable future.
On the other hand Series 2 and “Children of Earth” were both pretty excellent.
Romney has never been in favor of same-sex marriage.
Actually, I don't think this was solely for the money. This gets the passion back. SSM is a highly de-visive issue, with people either strongly in favor or opposed to it
(there is a smaller portion that is indifferent). The president taking this position gets their passion up.
The opposition already had the passion. This won't change it. But it does energize his supporters.
The opposition already had the passion. This won't change it. But it does energize his supporters.
Sure, if his supporters are like Hat, who admitted he didn't give a damn whether Little Black Jesus lied or not, he was just sure his idol supported gay marriage, only saying nothing because he had to pander to the clinging-to-guns-and-religion rubes.
For once, the dicksmoke actually had to take a position. As someone posted, the WH must have run the numbers and presumed that they'd get a 1-for-1 replacement of precious Castro Street prancers for every black who dropped The One for this.
He wants to make this an issue for Romney, but I think it's a mistake. As we see in North Carolina, it isn't a federal issue.
My gays and I are bundling as we speak.
Bundle bundle.
Hubby and I just donated $5,000.
Mike Huckabee is asking for bundles now too.
Bundle Bundle.
tits.
. “The community for the most part is wholeheartedly behind this man.”
A quote begging for a punch line.
A quote begging for a punch line.
Writing about this topic is like walking through a minefield of mines that make Beavis and Butthead sounds instead of exploding.
The line of people we should expect to come-a-callin' after Obama fools the rubes is growing.
Ray Mulliner...a prominent donor in the gay community, said last week that many of Obama’s supporters accept that he needs some flexibility.
“We can only assume, given his educational background and former comments in support of this issue, that he will in fact be more supportive after the election,” Mulliner said at the time. “I think that we are sophisticated enough to realize that in an election year we can only expect so much from the president.”
Obama and other Dems have sucked money out of the LGBT crowd for years and returned little. These people are fools for giving so much money to an obvious carpetbagger.
I say a rainbow bumper sticker the other day the said "We didn't vote on your marriage." But, I'm sure if you research U.S. history, there were votes in every state regulating marriage. Why else would I need to get a marriage license, etc? The first time I got married you had to get a blood test to prove you were free of venereal disease. If you want my support, don't go posting dumb ass, incorrect slogans.
“The community for the most part is wholeheartedly behind this man.”
A quote begging for a punch line.
And enjoying the view.
There is no "same sex marriage.". There is queer link up. It's not sex, it's masturbation cum violence. It's not marriage, it's disgrace cum filth.
The community for the most part is wholeheartedly behind this man.
The L's and the T's can sit down and read a book.
@george: "He even set-up a special interview just so that he could tell everyone his personal opinion on a subject about which he proposes no legislation and no executive orders. I guess including it in a campaign speech wasn't good enough."
-------
Bingo! But we know why, don't we? Money, money, money, gay money, if there is such a thing. Apparently he raised 1 mil in 90 minutes after this interview.
There is no "same sex marriage.". There is queer link up. It's not sex, it's masturbation cum violence. It's not marriage, it's disgrace cum filth.
Cum, cum, cum! Have you ever had anyone cum in your face, David? You seem to have a lot of cum on your head.
If there isn't already a punk band named "disgrace cum filth", I'm damned well starting my own.
So, if Obama being "for" gay marriage makes him "gay for pay," what does that make Mitt Romney? Don't Romney's donors dictate his policies, too? Or, is Romney anti-gay simply because that's what he really believes he needs to be, deep down? I guess that makes him the better man!
(Sorry, silly of me to expect any Althouse commentary on Romney's gay marriage views.)
Before there was evolution, there was devolution: President-elect Obama's answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage 'Unequivocally'
So, if Obama being "for" gay marriage makes him "gay for pay," what does that make Mitt Romney?
Your next President.
Zachary's whole working life revolves around gay-for-pay!
I just don't get homophobia like David R. Graham's. It's just baffling and alien to me. My reaction to remarks like that is a perplexed WTF-- he might as well be shouting in ancient Mongolian.
That's why I generally don't say anything in response. Palladian, I sometimes feel bad when you're the only one who takes the time to respond to comments like that. But I hope you know-- I think it goes without saying, but I'll say the obvious anyway-- that others here, other Althouse hillbillies here (like me) are repelled by remarks like that. But what can one rationally say in response? I always find myself at a loss.
I can intellectually understand and "get" some of the social conservative arguments against SSM, though I disagree with them; these are viewpoints that allow for reasoned argument and disagreement. I can empathetically imagine myself into their worldview, though I don't share it (or only share some of it).
But this kind of thing-- this kind of visceral, deep-seated, more psychological than moral (yet couched in moral terms) obsessive loathing of homosexuals, homosexuality, homosexual relationships in any form-- how can one make a reasoned argument against that? It just seems futile to do so-- like trying to persuade an angry bear by correspondence in latin to go vegan. And alas, I'm neither confrontational nor witty. So I grimace, roll my eyes and pass those comments by. But I hope you know I always smile at your ripostes.
Nicely said, yashu.
yashu,
I just don't get homophobia like David R. Graham's. It's just baffling and alien to me. My reaction to remarks like that is a perplexed WTF-- he might as well be shouting in ancient Mongolian.
That's because you're walking around with blinders on. Revenant, too.
You know, I may not like feminism but I "get" it, and, through my understanding of it, I can also see where it goes off the rails. But this attitude about gays, where they're so cool, and have to be supported in their every utterance and ambition, shows a complete disregard for the truth of how they live their lives and what role they've chosen for themselves in society - the entire edifice is built on a lie - a lie supported by liars and fools determined not to expose anything except under the cover of darkness. David R. Graham knows that and the rest of you are determined to make him eat shit for it.
Shame on you.
It's never lost on me that I can easily "win friends and influence people" here, partially, because I'll be as harsh on blacks as anyone else. What a guy, huh?As fair as fair can be. But let me say anything about women and gays and, somehow, I'm morphed into a misogynist and a homophobe - because, as we all know, their shit don't stink, right? Sure, society's two honeydrippers are just PERFECT. To themselves.
Shit, most of you could give a shit about understanding blacks at all, except as poster children for poverty or something - but I'm not supposed to notice that either. Or, at least, not mention it, otherwise I face the blowtorch of white enlightenment thinking. YOU'LL DECIDE when you're being unfair, just as you are now with David.
Well, sorry, but I say you're being unfair, and you're not as smart as you you think, and, in truth, you don't think very much or very well, because you live in a pastel world where rose colored glasses are handed out, by and to those deemed worthy of wearing them, for the purpose of allowing others to diss, maim, and kill with a clear conscience. I've told you and told you and told you:
NewAge is Naziism - and this is a NewAge culture.
If you don't stand up, and question every aspect of what's being fed to you, you are a patsy - no better than those you despise - and it'll come back to bite you when it's over.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Winston Churchill
Be skeptical of all things, yashu, except those you can prove.
Crack,
I phrased my comment the way I did to suggest a two-way distantiation: obviously the person I see "shouting in ancient Mongolian" is just as likely to look at where I'm coming from on this issue and go "WTF". There's an incommensurability here between us: it would be just as futile for that person to try to persuade me to see homosexuality as they do, as vice-versa.
I don't think I'm making DRG "eat shit": I'm noting my frank reaction to his words. I'm pretty sure I've read other comments by him in the past on other topics that I've found in some way interesting or insightful-- I'm not making him out be a monster or a troll. I'm just saying, his view/ attitude toward homosexuality as expressed here is one I find repellent and perplexing. I frankly don't get it.
But NB I said I "get" and allow for the potential validity of other arguments against SSM. I've elsewhere said I'm "agnostic" on the issue. I've never accused all opponents of SSM or all people who may have problems with or objections to different aspects of homosexuality or a political agenda associated with it of being "homophobes." I hardly think (and I hardly think my comments show that I think) that gays "have to be supported in their every utterance and ambition." Do you think I'm dittoing Andy Hatman's comments? Yeah, no.
I am a skeptic-- which to me denotes an attitude of intellectual modesty rather than arrogance. I question things-- and don't presume to have the answers, or presume that any of my current answers are definitive or absolute or infallible.
Like you, I'm an atheist (but like I've said before: I don't think I'm an atheist like you). So my views on homosexuality are not determined by any of the tenets of Christianity or Christian morality or Christian sexual morality. Biblical truths don't have any authority for me personally. (NB that's not to say that Judeo-Christian values don't inform my world view! Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman values do inform who I am, what I hold to be good and true. But as a skeptic and humanist, ultimately, not someone with a ready-made credo.)
So I don't know what you mean by the "entire edifice built on a lie", what you mean by "the truth of how they live their lives and what role they've chosen for themselves in society." No doubt there are gays-- gay individuals-- who lead indecent or despicable lives, who've chosen an ignoble role to play in society. Just as there are heterosexuals who do and have done so. I don't think the gender of the person(s) an individual fucks or loves is determinative of whether they live a decent life or play a valuable role in society.
As far as I can tell, neither you nor I is in a heterosexual marriage with children. Do our lives-- or the role we've chosen for ourselves in society-- have no value? I know you put a very high value on the idea of loyalty and fidelity to a partner. Do you not think a gay person might value that too, and choose that for themselves, choose that as a way of life? Why deprive gay individuals of a choice (being part of a committed relationship, bonded with a vow) which you yourself consider an admirable one?
I don't see any necessary connection between homosexuality and New Age belief.
yashu, your posts are awesome.
Its a good thing they were not trying to use the words for shock value here.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा