Posted on 05/15/2012 10:22:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Suze Orman, personal finance guru and Chancellor Of Extremely Tough Love, stopped by The View today for a wide-ranging discussion that included, unsurprisingly, a conversation about President Obama’s recent announcement in support of gay marriage. Orman, herself openly gay and happily married, shared her reaction to Obama’s statement — and gave an emotional plea for more support for gay marriage.
The segment, of course, was not without some awkward moments. The worst of which, perhaps, was when Barbara Walters choked out the sentence “you are married to your [insert 5-second pause here] wife?” with the same tone with which someone might ask “you own… 58 pet iguanas?”
“Is that hard to say?” Orman responded, somewhat stunned. Can’t say we blame her for wondering.
“No, I had to think of the right word,” Walters explained.
Mmm. Moving on.
And what did Orman think when she heard the president announce his support for same-sex marriage?
“I thought I was going to die of happiness on the spot. You know, I’m going to be 61 in June. And in my entire life I never thought — during my lifetime — that I would see that this even beginning to be a possibility.”
Of course, when View co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck noted that Obama sort of, well, put same-sex marriage back on the states to figure it out for themselves, Orman didn’t mince words, arguing that “It has to go to the federal level. It absolutely has to.”
And then, the kicker:
“It’s an emotional issue, it’s a financial issue. And it’s an issue that I really hope — if you know a gay person, if they’re your mother your children, your cousin, your employee, your employer, I don’t care, your dog walker — I’m asking you all to vote for President Obama and make this a reality.”
Watch the segment here:
(VIDEO AT LINK)
They’re coming out of the woodwork.
They’re desperate and are going to get crazier than they normally do.
Suze Orman urged her fans to vote for Algore, too. At that time she said his environmental ideas would be good for the economy.
I know several gay people...all of them pathetic.
Ain’t gonna vote for zero or zero 2.0.
Solyndra writ large, I imagine.
So, just because I know a queer, I should vote for Obama? BS My vote is based totally on policy not on sexual orientation.
Huh? That’s as sensible as saying “If you have ever known a Mormon or anyone who drove a Rambler, vote for Romney”.
Obama’s “All queers all the time” approach is really working. /s
NO to sanctioning deviant unions.
Exactly.
What is “marriage,” and why did society create it in the first place?
What business is it of society to interfere with people’s wants, needs or whims?
First of all, we should realize marriage is not a contract to benefit either the man or the woman, (or as in current vogue) parties who choose to become “participants.” It is the state’s contract to guarantee offspring some basic security against the outside world.
Marriage was for the children!
Therefore it became a matter for the state to determine that little children were able to get the security of a family, without which society would have no basis and the state would have no foundation.
Since it is impossible for same-sex marriage to produce such offspring, using the term marriage for such a union is detrimental to the very meaning of the word and corrupts the purpose of the state’s right or responsibility for such a contract.
If so-called gays wish to pledge some sort of allegiance of fealty to one another, let them write their own contracts (much as corporations do when they merge), but to allow the marriage contract to be used for every willy-nilly union that anyone can imagine is corrupting the initial intent of the contract and can only hurt the very ones it was created to protect.
If government can deny multiple marriages and marriage to one’s cow or dog or rosebush or whatever else comes along, then why should it be the right of some minority or even some majority to destroy a tradition that has fared society well since the beginning of history?
Liberalism and homosexuality are both mental disorders.
To some extent, I feel for them. They actually believe this will solve all their problems.
It’s like women who abort their children, thinking afterwards they will feel happy and free. The baby isn’t the problem. Their defiance of God’s way is.
Indeed. When it came time for the people in my state to vote on the constitutional definition of marriage, one of the higher ups at my office sent out an emotional, psychotic email to everyone saying it was “unChristian” to vote for marriage being the union of a man and a woman. :? Had this dude ever read Matthew 19:4-6? If Christ Himself said marriage consists of a man and a woman how can it be “unChristian” to agree with Him about it? :?
Excellent comment.
Do you ever watch the marriage shows on TV? It’s amazing how a wedding is all about a “happy” bride.
I keep thinking, of course marriage is in trouble. People have forgotten what it is. It really has nothing to do with romantic love or happiness. Those are simply fortunate byproducts of correct choices.
And when it doesn’t, somehow they will still scream “it’s all the Christians’ or Jerry Falwell’s or George W. Bush’s fault!”
one of the higher ups at my office sent out an emotional, psychotic email to everyone saying it was “unChristian” to vote for marriage being the union of a man and a woman. :?
They actually believe nensense like that because they have been conditioned so well.
did anyone ever read the “pink swastika”?
OMG! it should be the follow up to the producers. Hi-larious! two snaps up!
it’s all about how the gays got HITLER into POWER!
Does Suze Orman know why a marriage is between a man and a woman? Orman being a lesbian, I doubt she even has a clue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.