Althouse: Obama's opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage isn't what evolved.

May 9, 2012

Obama's opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage isn't what evolved.

"I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

What evolved was his opinion about whether it was worthwhile to admit what he really has thought all along (which you had to be a bit dense not to know).

164 comments:

Mark O said...: This "gutsy" call was just like the other one. He was forced into it.

This cannot rationally be described as a principled decision. He's on his way to see Ricky Martin and live la vida loca.; 5/9/12, 2:41 PM
Matt Sablan said...: I wonder if this will be viewed like when a Republican gives in to his radical base and changes his position, or if this is going to be viewed as something beautiful, the end of a bigoted age.; 5/9/12, 2:43 PM
Matt said...: Agreed, I always thought he supported gay marriage but was reluctant for political reasons to say so. Glad he finally has made it public.; 5/9/12, 2:44 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: When will he admit that he is also a socialist?

The guy is a massive liar. Everyone knew he was lying about gay marriage from the beginning. We also know he is lying about "being for the middle class" and things like that.

Every Obama promise has a time limit.; 5/9/12, 2:44 PM
TWM said...: Doesn't surprise me. I always thought Michelle was a guy anyway . . .; 5/9/12, 2:45 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "Agreed, I always thought he supported gay marriage but was reluctant for political reasons to say so. Glad he finally has made it public."

-- He didn't always support it, as he explained. He just now came to that determination. Unless you think he's a liar. It's important to him personally now, he doesn't care about rights. Just what is good for him.; 5/9/12, 2:46 PM
garage mahal said...: I just want to know what yahoo subscribed me to Breitbart News. I know it from giving Curious George my email address here.; 5/9/12, 2:48 PM
edutcher said...: Oh, yeah, they really are that scared.

Consider how he narrowly edged out a Texas convict 60 - 40 in WV and beat "No preference" 80 - 20 in NC.

PS On what may be an unrelated note, all the flags around here are suddenly at half mast.

Anybody know why?; 5/9/12, 2:49 PM
traditionalguy said...: Wow! He is showing leadership skill again. His campaign skills are very good.

I just wish this guy would use his skills for America and not against it.; 5/9/12, 2:49 PM
yashu said...: And in passing, a typically revealing use of the first person: “when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf…”; 5/9/12, 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: "But according to the transcript posted by ABC News, Mr. Obama stressed that his was a personal position and that he still supports the idea of states deciding the issue on their own."; 5/9/12, 2:51 PM
MayBee said...: I bet the gay people of NC are thanking him a lot for his timing.; 5/9/12, 2:51 PM
chuck b. said...: It's always a shock when our religious leaders play politics.; 5/9/12, 2:52 PM
Matt said...: Matthew Sablan

I think he was lying before. Politically he felt it would not have been wise to take the stand he is taking now. That's my opinion, yes. But it's also Althouse's opinion. As she noted: you had to be a bit dense not to know.; 5/9/12, 2:52 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Well, I agree with Obama. It's good to hear him speaking clearly on it.; 5/9/12, 2:53 PM
Matt Sablan said...: I am a bit dense, but I also like scoring cheap points.; 5/9/12, 2:53 PM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: It's important to bear in mind that a marriage license is a license to have legal sexual intercourse.; 5/9/12, 2:54 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/9/12, 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: This was as risky and daring as ordering OBL killed.; 5/9/12, 2:55 PM
Titus said...: So both Romney and Obama have "evolved" on the issue.

Romney was going to be better for gays than Kennedy you know...when he was running for senate. Now he is for a federal amendment.; 5/9/12, 2:56 PM
Bender said...: How do reason and logic -- truth -- evolve?

What was his reasoned basis for opposing "same-sex marriage" in the first place? And how has that reason changed?; 5/9/12, 2:56 PM
Matt said...: Mitchell
It's important to bear in mind that a marriage license is a license to have legal sexual intercourse.

Yes, because we all know marriage is only about sex. Or maybe that's just gay marriage....; 5/9/12, 2:56 PM
Scott M said...: This "gutsy" call was just like the other one. He was forced into it.

What more needs to be said? Although, I wonder if he was photoshopped into this interview or if Hillary is gasping, er, coughing in the background.

How big is his head in this interview?; 5/9/12, 2:57 PM
BarrySanders20 said...: I think he's lying now and he really does not support SSM. But O's a liberal and knows he's supposed to, and now that his political fortunes have changed, he has to cave in to the gay libs to shore up that support. He'll worry about the socially conservative blacks later.

What's changed is the short-term political calculus. This shows that Axlrod and company are very worried.

Personally, I am pleased that O says he has evolved to where I have been for years on the issue. Even if he is lying.; 5/9/12, 2:58 PM
Harsh Pencil said...: Mitchell said

It's important to bear in mind that a marriage license is a license to have legal sexual intercourse.

Which for same sex couples is impossible (at least with each other).; 5/9/12, 3:00 PM
Scott M said...: when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf…

Please tell me that's not actually in the interview. Please.; 5/9/12, 3:00 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "What was his reasoned basis for opposing "same-sex marriage" in the first place? And how has that reason changed?"

-- In 1996 he was for it; his reasoned basis for opposing it was sweet, sweet votes. He knew the people who were for it had nowhere else to go.; 5/9/12, 3:00 PM
edutcher said...: Matt said...

It's important to bear in mind that a marriage license is a license to have legal sexual intercourse.

Yes, because we all know marriage is only about sex. Or maybe that's just gay marriage....

Actually, it's about insurance, but, if this new AIDS/HIV preventative really works, I expect same sex marriage to go the route of 8 track tapes.; 5/9/12, 3:01 PM
Thorley Winston said...: "But according to the transcript posted by ABC News, Mr. Obama stressed that his was a personal position and that he still supports the idea of states deciding the issue on their own."

His refusal to defend DOMA which protects the power of each State to decide this on their own suggests that he does not in fact support this in practice.; 5/9/12, 3:03 PM
yashu said...: Leadership? Once again, it's a "gutsy call" arrived at after much arm-twisting, a "decision" arrived at by sheer political calculation.

It's so admirable of him now to admit (forced by political expediency) that he's been lying all this time (forced by political expediency). Obama had to re-etch the sketch.; 5/9/12, 3:05 PM
MadisonMan said...: Did he say Let me be clear when he nuanced his way to this position?

I think it's the right position to take. IF the government is going to care that two of its citizens are married (I think the world would get on just fine if the Govt did not so care), I don't see why it cares about the gender of those two citizens.

If people want to protect marraige, then divorce should be made considerably more difficult to get. But again, that's only if Government is keeping tabs on things. And again: Why should it?; 5/9/12, 3:06 PM
dreams said...: I predict that a lot of dense people who voted for Obama in 2008 will be less dense come Nov.; 5/9/12, 3:06 PM
Roger J. said...: Thank you Joe (motor mouth) biden for boxing your craven boss into a corner. Good job dude--now what are your employment prospects after november.; 5/9/12, 3:08 PM
yashu said...: Scott M, that is a direct quote.; 5/9/12, 3:08 PM
Bender said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/9/12, 3:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Doubt this makes much difference at the polls, may suppress black turnout a bit.; 5/9/12, 3:13 PM
Cincinnatus said...: This is the kind of leadership from behind that Obama specializes in.; 5/9/12, 3:13 PM
Dan in Philly said...: I wonder what his justification will be for changing his mind. I remember when W. said he thought based on his faith that marriage should be between one man and one woman some criticized him for basing his opinion on something as primitive and irrational as the bible and faith in God.; 5/9/12, 3:14 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Arbitrary and capricious are *kinds* of reasons.; 5/9/12, 3:14 PM
Bender said...: his reasoned basis for opposing it was sweet, sweet votes

Of course, that is not a "reasoned" basis. That is an arbitrary and capricious basis for opposition for purposes of crass politics.

Likewise, his current position in support is not grounded in a "reasoned" basis. There is no reason or logic involved. Here too we see a wholly arbitrary, crass, political decision.; 5/9/12, 3:15 PM
Rabel said...: I see this one got the "lying" tag.; 5/9/12, 3:18 PM
Dan in Philly said...: Bender, as Jim Hacker once said, there's nothing crass to a politician about grubbing for votes!; 5/9/12, 3:18 PM
Andy said...: You know how I always say that gay marriage in America has already won and it's just a question of how long the cranky old bigots can hold things off?

I wonder if the Republican Party can flip on this fast enough to prevent a future electoral diaster. I give them 4 years for their presidential candidate to get right about the gays.

What is the Christianist right going to do when the Republican Party abandons them over the gays?; 5/9/12, 3:18 PM
Saint Croix said...: I just want to know what yahoo subscribed me to Breitbart News.

LOL. I didn't do it.

I just realized your T-shirt is "I heart White Indians."; 5/9/12, 3:18 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: Obama's opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage isn't what evolved.

Sure it is--it's evolved from "Eeeeeewwwww!!" to "Oh, well, if it'll help me get reelected...."; 5/9/12, 3:19 PM
Anonymous said...: We all know that this "evolution" was timed just perfectly, he's a politician. I don't trust him any more than Romney, but it WAS the right thing to do.; 5/9/12, 3:19 PM
Scott M said...: What is the Christianist right going to do when the Republican Party abandons them over the gays?

Andy hasn't been paying much attention to the Tea Party, which pretty much doesn't give a shit about the social issues while we continue to be stuck in this ditch. Didn't Obama get the keys a couple of years back?; 5/9/12, 3:21 PM
RiverRat said...: What is important here is to understand this is not about liberty or "legal equality". "Marriage" is a social and regligous construct. Extremely important to lasting societies but not an issue which should be subject federal or even state jurisdiction.

Forget "marriage licenses", treat everyone equally, and subject "couples" to traditional partnership law.; 5/9/12, 3:21 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Was it also right when he changed from tolerance in 1996 to bigotry just in time for his big elections?

There's no deep, secret strategy to this. Biden and his staff just made it impossible for him to maintain the lie, what with Tapper calling Carney onto the carpet about it during questions. He failed to keep the lie; it is just another feather in political incompetence by his campaign.; 5/9/12, 3:21 PM
paul a'barge said...: Look! It's Evo-man.

Barack Hussein Obama (aka "Barry Soetero") is Evo-man!!; 5/9/12, 3:23 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: or if this is going to be viewed as something beautiful, the end of a bigoted age

Just like diversity training increases racial tension and racism, this is just the beginning of a more bigoted age. Just the bigots on the left don't admit or recognize it anymore than they do their racism.

Just notice how quickly the usual suspects use the fulfillment of their dreams to bash religious organizations acting on sincere beliefs and rock-solid justifications.; 5/9/12, 3:24 PM
Patrick said...: Allie & Andy,

He supports the states right to not recognize such marriages. Is it really the right thing? How is he less bigoted than Mitt Romney? I'd say he's worse, because he doesn't believe homosexual behavior is wrong, he believes that gay marriage is right, but he would allow discrimination. Not only inconsistent, but politically craven as well. If this assuages the GLBT folks, they're stupid.

(FWIW, my state has this on the ballot this fall, I'm voting in favor of gay marriage); 5/9/12, 3:25 PM
edutcher said...: Andy R. said...

You know how I always say that gay marriage in America has already won and it's just a question of how long the cranky old bigots can hold things off?

You know how Hatman is always wrong?

I wonder if the Republican Party can flip on this fast enough to prevent a future electoral diaster. I give them 4 years for their presidential candidate to get right about the gays.

What is the Christianist right going to do when the Republican Party abandons them over the gays?

It won't. The more I hear this, "We're winning and you can't stop us", nonsense, the more I remember how the science was settled and the ERA was inevitable.; 5/9/12, 3:26 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: You know how I always say that gay marriage in America has already won and it's just a question of how long the cranky old bigots can hold things off?

I wonder if the Republican Party can flip on this fast enough to prevent a future electoral diaster. I give them 4 years for their presidential candidate to get right about the gays.

What is the Christianist right going to do when the Republican Party abandons them over the gays?
None of this is realistic or true.

SSM is a winner only among people who care what readers of the NYT/Boston Globe/WaPo and watchers of CNN think.

Check the circulation/viewership of those corporations.

The backlash is coming. But you won't care, because you'll have your HVI-blocking vaccine, right?; 5/9/12, 3:27 PM
roesch/voltaire said...: As an announcer on Fox News put it-- this puts the Republicans on the wrong side of history.; 5/9/12, 3:27 PM
MnMark said...: @MadisonMan:
I think it's the right position to take. IF the government is going to care that two of its citizens are married (I think the world would get on just fine if the Govt did not so care), I don't see why it cares about the gender of those two citizens.

Why do we care about gender? For one thing, it matters whether a child is being adopted by a normal married couple - a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman, providing the different and complementary kinds of support that children crave from a father and a mother - or a pair of homosexuals, neither of whom can provide a normal gender role model. If society gives homosexual "marriage" equal status with real marriage, there will be no basis for proteting adopted children from that situation.

In addition, the reason for caring about the genders of the people getting married is that society has no business sanctifying sexual perversion.

But of course, as far as liberals are concerned there's no such thing as sexual perversion.; 5/9/12, 3:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Patrick, who knows what will be done Federally from now until the election. If Obama is simply giving this issue lip service, he will be in trouble.; 5/9/12, 3:29 PM
MayBee said...: Obama: "You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.” "
==========

For this he invokes Sasha and Malia. For the 'Romney is out of touch because he grew up privileged' stuff? Not so much.; 5/9/12, 3:30 PM
Scott M said...: We all know that this "evolution" was timed just perfectly, he's a politician. I don't trust him any more than Romney, but it WAS the right thing to do.

That is a completely unsupportable assumption that requires two things to be pass muster.

1) That Joe Biden can stick to a complicated plan - (fail...Joe Biden can't follow anything more complicated than shampoo instructions and he needs to have the bottle in front of him for that)
2) That Carney planned on going in front of the White House press corp and feign getting flustered after rapid-fire "oh-come-on-for-fuck's-sake" questions from all corners - (fail...watch the video)

That the Obama campaign scheduled a trip to North Carolina, and all the logistics of moving the POTUS around that entails, only to cancel it at the last minute in order for this huge master plan to look "pefect". It was scheduled for about five hours before someone on the staff realized a) what ELSE was on the ballot in NC and b) what the polls were showing about the probable outcome.

Face it. He was forced into it and looks bad because of it.; 5/9/12, 3:30 PM
BarrySanders20 said...: "Likewise, his current position in support is not grounded in a "reasoned" basis. There is no reason or logic involved. Here too we see a wholly arbitrary, crass, political decision."

Exactly. If he said, for example, 'I support limiting government power and its influence over people's lives, and therefore believe that the government has no legitimate basis for deciding who an individual can marry,' then supporting SSM has a reasoned basis. Even if you then create limitations that seem hypocritical(one at a time, and no close relations, please).

Of course, Obama cannot support his new-found evolution using this basis, because he truly belives with every fiber of his being that government should predominate your life -- just see Julia.

Speaking of Julia, have they updated her bio to include her lesbian partner? NTTAWWT, because if I was a woman, I'd be a lesbian and want to marry one.; 5/9/12, 3:31 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "If Obama is simply giving this issue lip service, he will be in trouble."

-- No, he won't. You know how we know? Because in 2008, even when he gave the issue even less lip service, everyone knew which way his opinion really fell. By taking a more bigoted position than many Republicans, and on the same page with most small government conservatives (let the states decide), a stance that if taken by an R- would be heralded as being on the wrong side of history and deeply bigoted, he's getting a pass. Because we all know he's lying. Much like his counter-terrorism policies; the right doesn't care what lies he trots out, so long as he keeps using Bush's tactics and isn't interfered with by leaks and Congress. We can ignore his lies, so long as the truth is convenient for us.; 5/9/12, 3:32 PM
Andy said...: how long the cranky old bigots can hold things off?

Nathan Alexander said...
edutcher said...

Oh, hey guys!; 5/9/12, 3:32 PM
MayBee said...: He has to say it's up to states to decide it to cover for the fact that he did not go to bat for the gay people of NC.; 5/9/12, 3:32 PM
Roger J. said...: I gotta tell you--I have to wonder what the conversation Mr Obama had with Sasha and Malia about this. That is right up there with Jimmah Carter discussing nuclear weapons with Miss Amy--The Obama dude is the biggest fraud that ever came down the pike.

Seems to me his relection team looked at contributions, polling data and said, "Boss, Boss--you got to do something..."; 5/9/12, 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: The unveiling of this transparent lie highlights another Obama lie: the claim that he is a Christian.; 5/9/12, 3:34 PM
Bill said...: How unfortunate that the older, intolerant generation see things this way. Hardly any of the younger generation (20s and younger) are against gay marriage. Why? Because we don't believe in denying a class of people equal rights.

In a few decades, when today's generation is old enough to assume office, we will look back on these laws the way we look back on the Jim Crow laws of the 50s banning interracial marriage. We will be disgusted. Until then, though, the intolerant bigotry by so many people in this country will continue to run rampant.

Denying gays equal rights for marriage is wrong. It's a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment. Should this ever reach the Supreme Court, gay marriage will be legalized. There is no doubt at all about this. Kennedy will be the swing vote, and his previous positions have made his vote on gay marriage clear and obvious.; 5/9/12, 3:35 PM
Patrick said...: Right, Allie. But you don't believe this is anything other than lip service, do you?; 5/9/12, 3:35 PM
Scott M said...: Seems to me his relection team looked at contributions, polling data and said, "Boss, Boss--you got to do something..."

...while they are prudently trying to get out of their DC condos and freshening up their resumes.; 5/9/12, 3:35 PM
chickelit said...: AllieOop said...
If Obama is simply giving this issue lip service, he will be in trouble.

Someone please give Allie (and Andy R) bigger megaphones. I like where they're going with this. Amp-up marriage equality as the number one issue.; 5/9/12, 3:37 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: What a slimy little weasel Obama is!!

Romney should completely avoid getting caught up in this new distraction.

His position should be: This is a State's rights issue and not an issue that the President should be intruding into; 5/9/12, 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: I can't see this helping his electoral chances much. I expect it'll be a small net loss with increased LGBT turn out mostly compensating for modestly decreased AA turn out.; 5/9/12, 3:41 PM
Roger J. said...: Bill: your characterization is at best inept. Many in this "older generation" have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. You fatuous statement says more about your preconceptions than it does about reality. Get over yourself and your self perception of your "enlightened" views.; 5/9/12, 3:41 PM
Scott M said...: His position should be: This is a State's rights issue and not an issue that the President should be intruding into

Followed right away by batting it back to the economy. Every time Romney gets asked to comment on something coming from the Obama camp, he needs to wrap it around and come right back to the economy.; 5/9/12, 3:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Patrick, time will tell, and it better happen before the election.; 5/9/12, 3:43 PM
MnMark said...: @Bill:

Hardly any of the younger generation (20s and younger) are against gay marriage. Why? Because we don't believe in denying a class of people equal rights.

Do you believe in denying an adoptive child the chance to be raised by a normal father and mother, providing what a father and a mother provide?

Before you get too sanctimonious about how enlightened and wonderful you younger generation are, you may want to consider the history of other generations of idealists and how they looked upon their youthful passions when they had a few decades of life experience under their belt. The author of this blog used to be more or less a typical 60s left-winger, for instance. The French Revolution generation lived to regret their passions, as did those who supported other egalitarian movements in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, etc.

The inexperience and passion of youth often leads young people to simplistic conclusions, such as that equality is an obviously good thing. It isn't always. There are differences in life between human beings that matter, and you don't always get to choose them. That's one of the things you learn as you get older.

Normalizing homosexuality, sanctifying it as equal to normal human sexual relationships, is naive and will lead to subversions of healthy society that you can't yet recognize. The toll on innocent adoptive children is just one of them.; 5/9/12, 3:46 PM
Roger J. said...: Dave: my take. The LGBT community already has Mr Obama figured out. This "too little too late" evolution is not going to win him any votes with the attentive LBGT folks, and will probably lose him black and hispanic votes--remind me how that California proposition went.; 5/9/12, 3:46 PM
Bill said...: Roger--

In comparison with people my age, it's not even close. The vast majority of people in their 20s and late teens--GOP, DEM, IND--support gay marriage.

What's going on now is disgusting. And to those who think it's a states' rights issue--it's not. The second you deny a class of people equal rights, it becomes a federal issue under the 14th Amdendment.

I suspect Althouse is pro-gay marriage, but won't come right out and say it--because she doesn't want to upset her looney commenters.; 5/9/12, 3:46 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: How painfully embarrassing for Obama that for about 72 hours his vice president was cooler than him.

Luckily for us, order has been restored.; 5/9/12, 3:47 PM
Michael said...: Allie Opp. Do you really think Obama's opinion is going to be backed by action? Surely you read or heard what he said. He just has an opinion. Like you or me. He is only going to talk and then only when he calculates it safe.

Remember you are dealing with a man here who often thinks that saying something is the same as having it done.; 5/9/12, 3:47 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "I suspect Althouse is pro-gay marriage, but won't come right out and say it--because she doesn't want to upset her looney commenters."

-- Which is why she never said who she voted for in 2008. Oh, wait.; 5/9/12, 3:48 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Followed right away by batting it back to the economy. Every time Romney gets asked to comment on something coming from the Obama camp, he needs to wrap it around and come right back to the economy.

Right-O. Because even Gay people may need jobs, buy groceries, gasoline and have investments that are tanking because of the Obama economic policies.; 5/9/12, 3:48 PM
dreams said...: "How unfortunate that the older, intolerant generation see things this way. Hardly any of the younger generation (20s and younger) are against gay marriage. Why? Because we don't believe in denying a class of people equal rights."

Because you're so much wiser than the older generation and of course you'll go to the voting booths to vote for Obama come Nov. I don't think so.; 5/9/12, 3:48 PM
yashu said...: Denying gays equal rights for marriage is wrong.

My sense is most Republicans have no problem with civil unions/ domestic partnerships. And wouldn't that provide most of the relevant "rights" you're talking about? The sticking point-- for both sides-- is the word/ concept "marriage".

Anyway, this should and probably will be worked out through the states. What Obama or Romney "personally" think about gay marriage is pretty much irrelevant.; 5/9/12, 3:48 PM
Bill said...: MnMark--

You're an ignorant moron. Until you can prove that a child being raised by a homosexual couple is going to be faced with some sort disadvantage, then you need to shut your mouth. Seriously.

Homosexuals can raise children. Realistically, they probably do a better job than a lot of heterosexual parents. Your ignorance is astonishing. In Perry v. Brown, the 9th Circuit did away with the idea that a child of a homosexual couple is somehow not receiving adequate care. I know this may require you to actually do some reading, but you should try it. Until then, remain ignorant, my friend.; 5/9/12, 3:49 PM
John Stodder said...: Before I start hating on him again for his unending vanity, I do want to say Congratulations President Obama, that was a brave thing to do.; 5/9/12, 3:50 PM
BarrySanders20 said...: Bill-

You're right about the yoots being cool with SSM.

Better condemn Obama for his anti-equality message today, leaving the issue up to the states. Why, that's akin to supporting slavery!

My new manta: More enlightened than Obama.; 5/9/12, 3:50 PM
Matt said...: Scott M
Face it. He was forced into it and looks bad because of it.

About 1% of voters out there think like you do. Although, maybe I should not say 'think' but rather 'react in a curious politically conservative way.'

How exactly does this make him look bad in the eyes of anyone other than those who already don't like him - such as yourself.; 5/9/12, 3:51 PM
Bender said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/9/12, 3:52 PM
Michael said...: Bill. I am all in favor of gay marriage. Understand that it wont be marriage marriage, but it will have to do. Marriage marriage will continue to be between men and women with procreation a major objective of the sacrament. The lgbt cohort can marry, divorce, drive carpool, coach little league and have all the rights of marriage conferred vy the state but they wont be married married.; 5/9/12, 3:54 PM
Rabel said...: edutcher asked:

"PS On what may be an unrelated note, all the flags around here are suddenly at half mast.

Anybody know why?"

Vidal Sassoon, RIP.

Oddly, I just ordered a new hair dryer minutes ago. Seriously.

I used Insty's link though. Sorry.; 5/9/12, 3:55 PM
Roger J. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/9/12, 3:55 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: I suspect Althouse is pro-gay marriage, but won't come right out and say it--because she doesn't want to upset her looney commenters

@ Bill

I could give a flying fuck if two gay people get married. In California, and many other states, the gay couple would have all of the rights that a STATE could and does confer upon married people. Many other things are achieved by proper financial planning and legal means. Insurance coverage, property ownership titles, inheritances, wills, trusts.

The Federal level is another issue. IRS rules, SS assumption etc. NONE of those issues would be changed one iota if NC had chosen to legalize SSM. NONE. Until things are changed at the FEDERAL level through an amendment to the Constitution (not in a million years will that happen)...nothing changes.

So I don't give a single thought to gay marriage.

I DO care about State's rights. If the residents State of Texas or North Carolina want to define marriage....that is their right.

If you don't like it move to someplace else.; 5/9/12, 3:55 PM
Bender said...: "If Obama is simply giving this issue lip service, he will be in trouble."
-- No, he won't. You know how we know? Because in 2008, even when he gave the issue even less lip service, everyone knew which way his opinion really fell.

Yes, everyone knew that Obama was lying.

And those who advocate "same-sex marriage" have absolutely no problems with embracing a lie. Things like reason and truth are irrelevant.; 5/9/12, 3:56 PM
edutcher said...: Rabel, I saw that, too.

And, no, I don't think Ann will mind. She and Insta are buds.; 5/9/12, 3:58 PM
pm317 said...: "I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

In how many ways can he couch it? Gutsy guy, what a nice guy?! NOT. If he is he would be signing an executive order.

This is just another trumped controversy, a la contraception. Watch out Romney.; 5/9/12, 3:59 PM
chickelit said...: Bill said: I suspect Althouse is pro-gay marriage, but won't come right out and say it--because she doesn't want to upset her looney commenters.

If that's true this post needs an "Althouse is like Obama: tag.; 5/9/12, 3:59 PM
yashu said...: I think Althouse has explicitly expressed support for gay marriage, no?

I know Instapundit has.; 5/9/12, 4:00 PM
Matt said...: Bender said...
...those who advocate "same-sex marriage" have absolutely no problems with embracing a lie. Things like reason and truth are irrelevant.

The first sentence is wipped out by the second one. People who understand 'truth' and 'reason' also understand that ALL policians play politics with hot button issues that could lose them an election. But given a choice between McCain and Obama the advocates and Democrats and liberals et al were smart enough to know that a lying Obama [on this one subject] was a lot better than a truth telling McCain [on just about any subject]. Not to say McCain never told a lie.

Also you have to assume Obama was lying. There is no way to prove it at this point. BTW lies by politicians only matter if you don't like the politician. ;^); 5/9/12, 4:01 PM
Roger J. said...: Bill--this may surprise you but I am 70, a conservative white male, ex army officer, with impeccable conservative credentials--I absolutely support the right of loving couples, irrespective of gender, to marry and share in the same legal benefits that come from marriage. As you rightly point out: its an equal rights issue.

My admonition would be: do not pigeon hole generations according your to beliefs--that may lead to stunningly wrong outcomes.; 5/9/12, 4:02 PM
X said...: Why? Because we don't believe in denying a class of people equal rights.

actually, you do. you just want to get on the denying side.; 5/9/12, 4:04 PM
Bender said...: Bill -- the state laws concerning marriage already apply equally to everyone, whether an individual is heterosexual or homosexual. No gay person is denied being able to enter into marriage anywhere.

That a gay man might not wish to enter into a marital union with a woman does not mean that he is denied that equal right to do so.

What you advocate is not equal rights, but the arbitrary creation by fiat of a brand new legal union. But the moment that "marriage" is changed to something that it is not, then by every tenet of logic, it no longer is what it was, marriage, but is instead something else entirely.; 5/9/12, 4:05 PM
Andy said...: I suspect Althouse is pro-gay marriage

She has repeatedly mocked the commenters here that are opposed to same sex marriage. Her position is not a secret.; 5/9/12, 4:06 PM
Brian Brown said...: AllieOop said...
Patrick, who knows what will be done Federally from now until the election.

Nothing "will be done federally" because there is nothing to do. This issue is one where Obama has no power, and he of course proves himself gutless.; 5/9/12, 4:06 PM
Curious George said...: "garage mahal said...
I just want to know what yahoo subscribed me to Breitbart News. I know it from giving Curious George my email address here."

Seriously dude?; 5/9/12, 4:08 PM
Roger J. said...: IMO, this whole episode says nothing about marriage rights, but reflects badly on the craven coward who is masquerading as president of the united states. Mr Obama constinues to lead from behind, from the most blatent of political considerations. The words of Oliver Cromwell come to mind.; 5/9/12, 4:09 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: "I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Translation.. I was playing it safe asking the question why risk further alienating people who may have voted for me in 2008 and are now on the sidelines by committing to people who are mostly in the tank with me?

But now with North Carolina and Biden's meander off the reservation, threatening to make me look bad, I have no alternative but to nip this in the butt... I mean bud.; 5/9/12, 4:10 PM
Michael K said...: I don't think I am the only one whose attitude about gay marriage is solely based on a concern that, once it is accepted by all states, the gay power movement will then attack the churches, as the Muslims have in Canada, to prevent any residence to performing the ceremonies. It's a bit like the contraception thing. It's about religious freedom. Aside from that, I don't care.; 5/9/12, 4:10 PM
Brian Brown said...: Andy R. said...
You know how I always say that gay marriage in America has already won and it's just a question of how long the cranky old bigots can hold things off?

I wonder if the Republican Party can flip on this fast enough to prevent a future electoral diaster.

Laugh out loud funny.

Note: In 2006, in Virginia, with a similarly worded marriage amendment, the people approved it by a vote of 57 percent to 42 percent. Six years later, in a similar southern swing state, the people approved it by an even larger margin 61 to 39 percent.

To you that is "winning"

Idiot.; 5/9/12, 4:11 PM
chickelit said...: yashu said...
I think Althouse has explicitly expressed support for gay marriage, no?

I know it's true--I was trying to mock Bill.

I think marriage equality is the sine qua non for personal Althouse support. I could easily see her voting again for Obama over it.; 5/9/12, 4:13 PM
Roger J. said...: welcome to the wonderful world of divorce and community property laws, my fellow GLBT citizens. Marriage is fine as long as you keep it together; then when divorce hits you will find out another reality. My advice: stay together. And look for a really good divorce attorney.; 5/9/12, 4:14 PM
Scott M said...: About 1% of voters out there think like you do.

Cite please, or admit you made that up.

How exactly does this make him look bad in the eyes of anyone other than those who already don't like him - such as yourself.

Go watch the press conference with a very flustered Carney and see if the WH press corp doesn't think the administration was handling it poorly.

Biden screwed up, went off the reservation and forced POTUS into this hurry-up interview. Otherwise, you have to believe that it was all a "perfectly-timed" scheme as AO suggested and to which I was replying.

As to my disliking him, well, I really can't say personally. I have severe issues with a great many of the things he has said and done, kudos for a scant few. However, given his less unguarded comments and his propensity to be self-absorbed, I can see where I wouldn't want to sit down and have a beer with the guy.; 5/9/12, 4:14 PM
Michael K said...: "Bill: your characterization is at best inept. Many in this "older generation" have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. You fatuous statement says more about your preconceptions than it does about reality. Get over yourself and your self perception of your "enlightened" views."

He is a nice example of the self righteous fools of the immature left.; 5/9/12, 4:14 PM
chickelit said...: garage mahal said...
I just want to know what yahoo subscribed me to Breitbart News. I know it from giving Curious George my email address here.

I didn't do it. I wouldn't do that. We're still meeting up in June?; 5/9/12, 4:15 PM
Harsh Pencil said...: So hat boy and Bill: Is the Dalai Lama a hateful bigot?

http://nihilobstat.info/2009/08/10/the-dalai-lama-is-not-gay-friendly/

“A gay couple came to see me,” he said during an interview, “seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife – astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong.”

“A Western friend asked me what harm there could be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it,” the Dalai Lama continued, warming to his theme. “But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don’t create life. I don’t mind – but I can’t condone this way of life.”

Although he says that no real love between people can be condemned and that any discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation must end, the Dalai Lama nevertheless persists in considering the natural expressions of gay and lesbian physical love as “wrong,” “unwholesome,” a “bad action,” and as “vices.”

In an interview with the French magazine Dimanche, the Dalai Lama says of gay and lesbian sexuality:

“It’s part of what we Buddhists call “bad sexual conduct. Sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and the female element–and everything that deviates from that is not acceptable from a Buddhist point of view.”; 5/9/12, 4:16 PM
Blue@9 said...: I suspect Althouse is pro-gay marriage, but won't come right out and say it--because she doesn't want to upset her looney commenters.

Wow, walked right into that one, eh? Not only is Althouse openly pro-gay marriage, so are many of us "looney" commenters.

Heck, Obama just caught up to Dick Cheney and Ted Olson on this issue, so maybe you should open your eyes before firing off your righteous indignation.; 5/9/12, 4:16 PM
Bender said...: She has repeatedly mocked the commenters here that are opposed to same sex marriage. Her position is not a secret

Yes, we have seen quite a display of reason in support of SSM -- (a) the mockery argument, (b) the equality fallacy, (c) the "you need to shut your mouth" thuggery argument, and, of course, (d) merely sliming opponents as anti-gay (usually with anti-Christian bigotry thrown in, e.g. Andy the Hat).; 5/9/12, 4:16 PM
garage mahal said...: Seriously dude?

Haha. Thought it was funny though.; 5/9/12, 4:16 PM
Scott M said...: I could easily see her voting again for Obama over it.

At this point, I would honestly be surprised if that happens.; 5/9/12, 4:17 PM
Brian Brown said...: How exactly does this make him look bad in the eyes of anyone other than those who already don't like him - such as yourself.

Um, because he's a flip flopper, maybe?

Or how about the fact he said the thinks it is ok for states to ban gay marriage?

Do you even know what Obama said?

PS: “The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it."
-White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer June 17, 2011; 5/9/12, 4:19 PM
Blue@9 said...: IMO, this whole episode says nothing about marriage rights, but reflects badly on the craven coward

That's my feeling. I'm glad he finally came out in support of it (rather than the ridiculous whisper campaign of the last few years: "Well, he actually does support it, he just can't say it."), but am I supposed to get all excited about this tepid support? The libs are going nuts on Facebook and Twitter, like he's some goddamn saint.; 5/9/12, 4:21 PM
Blue@9 said...: Yes, we have seen quite a display of reason in support of SSM -- (a) the mockery argument, (b) the equality fallacy, (c) the "you need to shut your mouth" thuggery argument, and, of course, (d) merely sliming opponents as anti-gay (usually with anti-Christian bigotry thrown in, e.g. Andy the Hat).

As opposed to the wonderfully-reasoned arguments on the anti side? Gems like (a) the Bible says NO!, (b) marriage is for babies!, (c) the govt should stay out of marriage!, (d) it'll ruin marriage! or (e) gay is GROSS! What are the actual policy reasons for opposing gay marriage?; 5/9/12, 4:25 PM
Matt said...: Scott M

If you don't think Obama has balls in an election year to come out in favor of a hot button issue like gay marriage then I don't know what to tell you.

Go out and read the left leaning blogs out there and you'll see very very few are upset that Obama has taken this stance. Why would they? They MAY be looking at it as something the Administration handled poorly. But in a GOOD way. Yes, Biden may have made a 'gaffe' but there is nothing wrong with a gaffe that may lead to an advance in civil rights.

Common sense will tell you that he won't win conservatives no matter where he stands on the issue but he could lose some independent voters. Taking that chance is no small thing.

What you seem to be saying is people will see the gaffe or the handling of the issue poorly. No. Most will see the opinion on gay marriage. That's what matters most.; 5/9/12, 4:25 PM
Rabel said...: Ah, young Bill. Flush with the certainty of adolescence.

"Young people are arrogant because they always associate with their own peers, those who are all really nothing but who would like to be very important.”
F. Nietzsche; 5/9/12, 4:25 PM
Amartel said...: 3:27: "As an announcer* on Fox News put it-- this puts the Republicans on the wrong side of history."

It's only "Faux News" when they're reporting news that progressives don't want to hear.

*Let me guess: Shep Smith?; 5/9/12, 4:28 PM
pm317 said...: So his AA base is captive voterbase. He could not care less what they think. I am actually surprised he went there. But let us also understand he is only proclaiming his personal thinking. He is not going to act on it.; 5/9/12, 4:32 PM
chickelit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/9/12, 4:34 PM
Scott M said...: If you don't think Obama has balls in an election year to come out in favor of a hot button issue like gay marriage then I don't know what to tell you.

So...about that 1% statement. Where the cite? Did you just make it up?

Did you bother to read a transcript of the Carney press conference? No?

It doesn't take balls to come out for something like this when you've been forced to do it. All that requires is political calculus.

Go out and read the left leaning blogs out there and you'll see very very few are upset that Obama has taken this stance. Why would they?

They should be very upset that he said this was a state's issue. How many states have voted against SSM?

What you seem to be saying is people will see the gaffe or the handling of the issue poorly. No. Most will see the opinion on gay marriage. That's what matters most.

What I "exactly" think is that leaders should lead from the front, not from behind. Nothing looks worse than a leader who does so while reacting to events instead of directing them.

And don't say this is a civil rights issue too loudly. A lot of black activists are insulted by that. POTUS himself said SSM isn't a civil rights issue. But, I don't know. Maybe he's evolved to a pay grade high enough to have changed that opinion.; 5/9/12, 4:34 PM
Roger J. said...: IMO Mr Obama has only thrown up yet another smoke screed with more loop holes than can be imagined. He remains a man without any core principles, as this pathetic incident demonstrates--its all about reelection prospects and determining which base he needs more for his reelection and funding prospects. He's a weasel; 5/9/12, 4:36 PM
chickelit said...: Common sense will tell you that he won't win conservatives no matter where he stands on the issue but he could lose some independent voters. Taking that chance is no small thing.

But so long as there is an active vocal contingent of Andy Rs shouting down religion (not just here but elsewhere) another subset of independent voters is put off for your side. I should call it the "loud mouth effect." It’s not original though: toot toot; 5/9/12, 4:38 PM
MadisonMan said...: Do you believe in denying an adoptive child the chance to be raised by a normal father and mother, providing what a father and a mother provide?

Do you believe that Adoptive parents divorce?; 5/9/12, 4:41 PM
MadisonMan said...: his AA base

Ann Althouse? Affirmative Action?

??

(Temporarily dense, will get it when I submit, I'm sure)_; 5/9/12, 4:42 PM
Andy said...: By the way, we're already seeing some of that conflict within the Republican Party that I was alluding to earlier in this very thread.

There are plenty of Republicans who don't hold bigoted views toward gay people. And increasingly, we're going to see those cranky old bigots having internal fights with the people in their own party who don't hate the gays. What to do, what to do?; 5/9/12, 4:42 PM
yashu said...: I don't know what the political-electoral fallout of this is, if any.

Though it helps Romney with social conservative/ traditional voters (including from possibly unexpected, typically Dem quarters), Romney wants to keep his focus on the economy, so he'll do his best to avoid being baited into this topic, a distraction on a par with "war on women" and "war on dogs". And it seems to me that, even if this helps Obama with part of his base (who are either assuaged or excited by this), it's still politically sensitive enough (risky with other parts of his base and the general electorate) that he may ultimately not make much of it in his campaign. But I don't know.

Selfishly, I hope so. Not because I'm thinking of what may help or hurt Romney or Obama, but because the obsessive political focus on this topic bores me. And because the political sites I visit tend to be right of center, the tiresomeness I experience comes from the right. I don't make a habit of reading e.g. Andrew Sullivan; so what makes me roll my eyes with exasperation is e.g. Maggie Gallagher. Talk about tedious obsessive fixation on a single topic-- IMO one of the least relevant and least important to the 2012 election or the state of the nation.

If the Obama-Romney debate is all about abortion and contraception and gay marriage, I'll scream.; 5/9/12, 4:43 PM
Bender said...: Yes, thank you Blue for another common example of the supposed reasoning of those who push for "same-sex marriage" -- totally ignoring what those who defend marriage have said a thousand times before, in favor of mischaracterizing what they have actually said (although, actually, this is repeating somewhat the mockery tactic).; 5/9/12, 4:43 PM
Ann Althouse said...: If you want to see what I've said on the blog about same-sex marriage, go ahead and click the "same-sex marriage" tag. It's probably the legal issue I've discussed more than any other on this blog, going back to the beginning of the blog in Jan. 2004 (when it was a hot issue in the news). I've always been openly and strongly for gay marriage, going back much further, back to when I first heard of the idea in, I think, the 1980s.

I think conservatives are making a big mistake not drawing gay people into the realm of traditional family life with households and shared responsibilities based on love and commitment. Why you would want to estrange these people from ordinary life and push them into a rebel or alternative lifestyle, I don't know.

I'm tolerant (to a point) of those who have a religious compunction, but I think they ought to be discreet about it, like they way they're discreet about all the other reasons so many of us are supposedly going to hell.; 5/9/12, 4:51 PM
Blue@9 said...: Yes, thank you Blue for another common example of the supposed reasoning of those who push for "same-sex marriage" -- totally ignoring what those who defend marriage have said a thousand times before, in favor of mischaracterizing what they have actually said (although, actually, this is repeating somewhat the mockery tactic).

What are you talking about? You listed some of the dumb arguments from my side, I listed some of the dumb ones from your side. Or is this one of those Don't-You-Dare-Throw-Stones-At-MY-Glass-House arguments?

I did ask for actual policy reasons, because despite the "thousand times" before, I've yet to see a real policy argument put forth.; 5/9/12, 5:00 PM
Brian Brown said...: The most unpopular president in modern memory endorses an idea that the voting public has squarely rejected and Andy R, another 20 something brain dead commenter, and Matt are cheering.

I'm 100% convinced Obama has walked into a disaster.; 5/9/12, 5:05 PM
Roger J. said...: Professor A has always been a proponent of SSM--and I as well--it is, IMO, a fundamental human rights issue--others, will, of course disagree.; 5/9/12, 5:06 PM
Bender said...: Blue, don't start playing dumb, as if you were 36. You've been hanging around here for several months, at least.

The matter of the logical and ontological impossibility of "same-sex marriage" has been discussed countless times.; 5/9/12, 5:07 PM
Blue@9 said...: Blue, don't start playing dumb, as if you were 36.

I just had a birthday, so I'm 37, but no, I'm not playing dumb. I've yet to see a well-thought out policy argument against gay marriage. So far I've seen a definitional argument ("Marriage = man + woman"), the breakdown of public morality argument, the children argument, the marriage is derived from religion argument, and the polygamy/bestiality argument. Really, these arguments are terribly sad and unconvincing.; 5/9/12, 5:21 PM
David said...: "I've just concluded that for me, personally, I should finally tell the truth about what I actually believe.

"As to all the other issues I'm ducking or lying about, I'll announce the truth when for me, personally, it's best for me, personally. Likely after the election. When I have more flexibility."; 5/9/12, 5:25 PM
Rabel said...: The pressure from the left was getting pretty intense.

Some of them even pulled their sheets out of the closet.

Shame Shame Shame; 5/9/12, 5:26 PM
Matt said...: Scott M

You're thinking into this way too much. That is what I meant by 1%.

Most people do not think into things that much. Or they only do when they don't like the politician or they don't like the opinion. You are taking a glass half full approach to this.

Do you really think the a majority of people in the gay community will think, "well this is all calculated bullshit and he is letting events directing him?" LOL. No!

Instead they are happy because they see a President standing up for their rights. And even if they DO see it as politics they are not about to throw a gift back at him.

And, yes, no actual laws changed because of this opinion but it is great PR and moves us all forward.

Again, don't overthink this. Very few who support Obama are.; 5/9/12, 5:28 PM
Bender said...: I was referring to the intentionally obtuse commenter who goes by the name of 36fsfiend.

And, yes, we had this dance before, here and elsewhere. And like with the commenter-36, I'm not going to play.; 5/9/12, 5:31 PM
Blue@9 said...: I'm not going to play

Oh, that was you in that thread. I like how you hightailed it out of that one too (you know, after accusing me of making up stuff about the paterfamilias and marriage in the way-back-when).; 5/9/12, 5:44 PM
Bender said...: Again with the reckless disregard for the truth. What is it with you? I did not "hightail" it out of there. If I stopped commenting, shortly after you started whining about being attacked, it was because, at 6:07 my time, I went and did something else (presumably went and had dinner). But let's try to stay on topic, shall we, and without having to repeat everything that has been said multiple times every occasion that this issue has been raised. You want to know what I said before here, go google it.; 5/9/12, 5:52 PM
MarkD said...: Black vote, gay vote. Blacks aren't going to vote for Romney, gays might. That's evolution, folks.; 5/9/12, 5:53 PM
Blue@9 said...: shortly after you started whining about being attacked

Whining? What a tool you are. You accused me of pulling out arguments from women's studies courses. You know, after failing to actually address my arguments.

But let's try to stay on topic

Says the guy who threw down the "dumb arguments by SSM supporters" post.

I did not "hightail" it out of there.

Sure. That's why you succinctly addressed all my arguments and rebuttals. Oh, wait, no, you didn't. You threw some insults at me and failed to make a single substantive argument. And then you disappeared. Hightailed.; 5/9/12, 6:04 PM
Brian Brown said...: Blue@9 said...
Really, these arguments are terribly sad and unconvincing.

Why don't you enlighten us and make a policy argument for gay marriage?; 5/9/12, 6:09 PM
Brian Brown said...: Instead they are happy because they see a President standing up for their rights

How?
Where?

The President said today states should decide this issue.

How many lies do you tell yourself each day in order to justify your silly political beliefs?; 5/9/12, 6:10 PM
yashu said...: Black vote, gay vote. Blacks aren't going to vote for Romney, gays might.

I agree this was likely a factor in O's decision to evolve.; 5/9/12, 6:19 PM
Blue@9 said...: Why don't you enlighten us and make a policy argument for gay marriage?

Okay, here's mine: Liberty.

I believe in a limited government that doesn't try to prescribe a public morality. The general philosophy is that it should be legal as long as it's consensual and doesn't harm others. To the extent that gov't is going to recognize civil marriage, it should do so in a non-discriminatory manner-- unless there is some vital state interest at stake. And I don't see a vital state interest in discriminating against gay people.

The marriage we're talking about is a civil institution, so religious arguments don't sway me here. The children argument doesn't sway me because straight marriage isn't conditioned on childbearing either (unless you can point out to me a state that only issues marriage licenses to couples of childbearing age). Public morality doesn't sway me insofar as (1) I don't think homosexuality is immoral, and (2) long-term deleterious effects are only speculative. This last one is probably the closest to a real policy argument against gay marriage, but again, are we going to accept a discriminatory policy based on speculative long-term effects? I don't see that as a good trade-off.; 5/9/12, 6:22 PM
Brian Brown said...: unless there is some vital state interest at stake.

Well, I'd say repopulating the country is a vital state interest.

And the entire premise of the institution of marriage is to create a stable environment for child rearing. Your reference to couples who don't procreate is a Non-Sequitur in that regard. Further, since being gay is abnormal, the state should not be encouraging abnormal behavior. Married opposite sex couples set a good example for society.

Finally, being gay is hazardous to your health. Gays have higher incidences of HIV, STD's, eating disorders, drug & alcohol abuse, and suicide than the population at large. Not to mention the are more promiscuous. So please don't tell me they create a good model for raising children.

The state should no more encourage gay behavior by normalizing it through marriage recognition than it should encourage smoking, obesity, and drunk driving.; 5/9/12, 6:32 PM
Scott M said...: You're thinking into this way too much.

I'm not really thinking about it at all. The timeline of the past few days and Obama's previous statements on the issue make my conclusion unbelievably obvious. That you don't see it is telling.

Do you really think the a majority of people in the gay community will think, "well this is all calculated bullshit and he is letting events directing him?" LOL. No!

LOL, YES! Those with even an ounce of political knowledge will. They will think that and be grateful that THIS time a cold, calculating politician has buttered THEIR bread. To think otherwise is to be willfully unaware or lacking even minimal observation skills.

By the way. What exactly did he support today? States rights. You didn't answer my question. How many states have voted in favor of some form a of DOMA?

For the record, I could care less if Steve plugs Stan or if they want to make it official. What I have a problem with is that it's also painfully obvious that as soon as the gay/lesbian bulwark makes it through the door, they're going to slam it closed on everyone else. It's utterly predictable.; 5/9/12, 6:47 PM
Blue@9 said...: And the entire premise of the institution of marriage is to create a stable environment for child rearing.

I think that's a questionable assumption. The gov't isn't really doing anything to create a "stable environment for child rearing" when issuing marriage licenses, any more than it's destroying such stable environments by issuing divorces.

Your reference to couples who don't procreate is a Non-Sequitur in that regard.

Why? If marriage was really about repopulating the country, why allow octogenarians to get married? Or infertile women or impotent men? Show me the marriage certificate that requires you check off "Intends To Have Kids" before it becomes valid. It doesn't exist. Marriage exists for more reasons that childbearing, and that's the entire point of my argument. Right to inherit, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse, communal property, etc. -- marriage encompasses all those things, and they exist even for childless couples.

Further, since being gay is abnormal, the state should not be encouraging abnormal behavior.

Abnormal?

Finally, being gay is hazardous to your health.

So is being male. Or young. Or black. So what?

Not to mention the are more promiscuous.

Right, so clearly we should incentivize them to stay out of stable, long-term relationships.

So please don't tell me they create a good model for raising children.

I've never said it because I'm not the one making a marriage = childraising argument.

The state should no more encourage gay behavior by normalizing it through marriage recognition than it should encourage smoking, obesity, and drunk driving.

How is permitting them to marry encouraging gay behavior? Gays are going to exist whether you encourage them or not. What we should be doing is discouraging bad behaviors period, like promiscuous unprotected sex. Strange, but I would think marriage might be a nice vehicle to encourage responsible behavior. What's the alternative, call them deviants and then get surprised because they act like deviants?; 5/9/12, 6:50 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: "Liberty"
So gays cannot have a loving, monogamous relationship unless they are allowed to have a marriage license?

Slapping the word "marriage" on a relationship somehow normalizes behavior?

Creating an inherently inequal series of rights while accepting the eradication of the on'y bright line definition of marriage on the basis of a subjective claim of "love" is a legally-sound idea?

For those who claim to have never seen a reasons argument against gay marriage, the truth is you don't recognize what a reasoned argument is. Especially when the supposedly reasoned arguments for gay marriage consist of arbritrary rejections of time-tested principles in favor of unreasoning/unreasonable clichés, mindlessly repeated.; 5/9/12, 7:42 PM
rcommal said...: With regard to Jay's 6:32 list of things which occur at higher incidences, it's worth considering whether, as Althouse put it in her 4:51, "drawing gay people into the realm of traditional family life [etc.]," might ameliorate these problems.

Think about it for a moment, maybe?; 5/9/12, 7:56 PM
Revenant said...: And the entire premise of the institution of marriage is to create a stable environment for child rearing.

So can we dissolve the childless marriages? I'm sick of them getting tax breaks and special treatment denied single people.; 5/9/12, 9:23 PM
traditionalguy said...: Gay relationships can be for life and be mostly monogamous. I have seen that in an uncle who was a genuinely nice guy and an excellent writer. He also did translations for French and Italian literature. He and his life partner lived on Central Park west in NYC for 70 years until he died a year ago. Maybe calling themselves married would have help gays like them. I don't know.

But this news is about political chess. That is all Obama cares about.

Obama has made a bold opening move that makes him seem kind and open while the Social Conservatives with church theology are being backed into a corner and will seem to be uptight when mention is made of this. What counter move can Romney make?

I predict that Romney will only talk about the economy and refuse discussions about gay marriage. And Obama will weave his professed compassion for Gays and women into every answer he makes no matter what the question being asked.; 5/9/12, 9:28 PM
wyo sis said...: Obama is a brave, principled man.
Romney is a cowardly flip-flopper.
What did each of them do? They changed their mind. Nuance.; 5/9/12, 9:52 PM
Pastafarian said...: "... the polygamy/bestiality argument. Really, these arguments are terribly sad and unconvincing..."

Blue, you must have missed the post about Egyptians legalizing the abuse of a wife's corpse. Althouse, and many of these libertarian commenters, vigorously defended the notion that cadaver buggery should be legal.

It doesn't hurt anyone, was their argument.

So who's hurt by polygamy among consenting adults? You can bet your ass that's next. And who is harmed if I want to marry my stapler? And who's to say that this goat doesn't actually enjoy a good sound throttling?

I don't know how they can defend sodomizing a corpse, and then dismiss the polygamy argument as absurd, insulting, not worthy of a response.

In for a penny, in for a pound.; 5/9/12, 10:25 PM
Methadras said...: The line that "it's important for me to go ahead and affirm..." is the most telling what a horrid and dangerous liar he is.; 5/10/12, 2:50 AM
Methadras said...: The Prof said...

but I think they ought to be discreet about it,

Oh, you mean like how people who think that homosexuals should be discreet about it too? But you'd rather the anti-homosexual marriage just talk about it amongst themselves and keep it in the closet.; 5/10/12, 2:53 AM
Brian Brown said...: The gov't isn't really doing anything to create a "stable environment for child rearing" when issuing marriage licenses

Um, the government incentivizes marriage. And there is a reason for that.

If marriage was really about repopulating the country, why allow octogenarians to get married?

I already answered that.

Show me the marriage certificate that requires you check off "Intends To Have Kids" before it becomes valid.

This was already answered, you can stop with the straw man.

Abnormal?

Yes, being gay is abnormal. You may want to look up the definition.

So is being male. Or young. Or black. So what?

This isn't responsive. I've answered the "so what"

Right, so clearly we should incentivize them to stay out of stable, long-term relationships.

There is no evidence, anywhere at all, that marriage stabilizes gay promiscuity.

How is permitting them to marry encouraging gay behavior?

I've already answereed this.

At least now we can say you've been given a policy argument against gay marriage. Now you'll 'evolve' to saying you don't like the argument...; 5/10/12, 7:44 AM