Posted on 05/09/2012 11:43:02 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
President Obama today announced that he now supports
same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure
from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.
In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president
described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place,
based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian
service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.
"I have to tell you that over the course of several
years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about
members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous
relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I
think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there
fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't
Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at
a certain point 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,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning
America” Thursday. Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World
News with Diane Sawyer.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
No one has said Mitt didn’t flip-flop when he finally decided to support the marriage protection amendment. The same one he originally called too extreme. After the damage has been done, he comes around and pretends he has always been for it, after he’s been against it.
You said, “Democrats are the spinners, not Conservative or Republicans.”
Real conservatives don’t have to spin, but we all know that Romney is not a real conservative. And when it comes to family matters like abortion and gay marriage, Mitt is always slow to arrive at the truth and will do anything to hide that fact from the unsuspecting. Attempting to hide that fact is the same play he tried four years ago last election. Four years has not made Mitt’s lie any more true.
Bingo! I’m sure that the gay contingent was holding it over his head and withholding their money until he delivered this.
He was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it. Gee, his thought processes do a lot of “evolving.”
116 posts to the photos.
Thank you!
Makes it more likely that Zer0 was to be outed if he didn't pack it in.
Thanks, much appreciated. Sounds good.
yes, all those running will be asked, “Since President Obama supports same sex marriage, do you?” They will have to answer. “How about it Mrs. Claire from Missouri, do you agree with the head of your party?”
That is indeed what Romney said. Then he made executive actions making gay marriage happen, on his own, with no vote taken or law being changed.
If I am wrong, please show me the actions of the legislature showing their action to change the law the SJC found unconstitutional.
Revolving is more like it.
May 17, 2004: Gov. Romney ordered town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as per the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling, 180 days after it was issued, without the legislative action called for by the actual ruling.
...................................
From the article you posted. Goodridge called on the legislature to act, not the governor. It was Romney’s actions and nobody elses.
The US Supreme court can strike a law down, but cannot technically change a law. The MA SJC cannot strike a law down, they can advise, which they did- they advised the legislature to act. They did not, but Romney sent his letter demanding that officials elected by the towns start issuing same sex licenses.
Romney used executive action to enforce a ruling directed at the legislature.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2006/12/romney_spoke_of.html
Here he speaks of “full equality for gays and lesbians”, and this is what he wrote to the Log Cabin Republicans:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/romneyletterbaywindows.pdf
So does “full equality” include marriage, or does “full equality” leave that out?
He’s always been lying his a** off. In 3 and a half years he has been the same chump.
Yes, it's an utter electoral miscalculation by Axelrot -- thus one presumes he had no choice -- although how the piss-poor kabuki actually unraveled smacks more of Valerie Jarrett.
On the plus side (from President Obama's standpoint), this may tend to fire up his left-leaning base. And that could be moderately helpful to him.
But the countervailing point (and this is far more important, in my opinion) is that it is likely to lose important votes for him in swing states. For instance, North Carolina, just Tuesday night, approved an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage. And the vote was not at all close. In fact, the final tally, I believe, was 61 percent to 39 percent.
Moreover, President Obama has attempted to split the baby on this matter, in a way that is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion: He is "personally" in favor of same-sex marriage; yet he believes that the decision, ultimately, should be left to the individual states. Or so he says, anyway. (Note: President Obama is hardly the first politician to attempt this Solomonic wizardry: Those who dutifully proclaim that they are "personally" opposed to the procedure of abortion, but believe it should be kept legal, are surely first cousins...)
Obama bravely waited for Romney to announce his opposition to gay marriage first. And Romney bravely waited until after the NC vote to announce his decision.
Like peas in a pod.
My view is that marriage itself is between a man and a woman,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee told reporters. He said he believes that states should be able to make decisions about whether to offer certain legal rights to same-sex couples.
So he is Against it and at the same time he is for it? He will make a great politician. Tell us WHY or STFU. iF the Mittster isn’t intelligent enough to articulate why homosexuality is wrong, maybe he should just go back to doing Olympics. Its really pretty simple Mitt, but you have to have guts to say why.
I guess we all know now who is the “First...well, you know...”
Not that there is anything wrong with that!!!
LOL
so if he is for equality then is he for a man to marry 6 women at once?
I heard yesterday one let wing fool keep repeating how the state should got be in the middle of love or marriage equality, course this is our corrupt biased media like Megyn Kelly or shep smith.
Well equality means everyone and everything, a muslim an now marry 4 women, reduce the age of consent, etc.
The pro homo’s need to be called out on their language and their talking points and need to be asked every time if they support other kinds of marriage when they use the words of civil rights,, equality. etc etc etc.
All he has done is made those on the right fired up to vote and many i have spoken to about this have now said he will not get their vote and many were blacks and hispanics.
Now the GOP needs to get out to black, hispanic, muslim, HIndu, etc communities and tell them if they vote for obama now thhen they are voting to allow homosexuals to marry which in turn lets teachers teach little kids be taught in in schools homosexuality and their unnatural sex.
talked to many blacks and hispanics here in FL and most have said infact 99% have said that they will never vote for him now and most of those have said they will stay at home, a few have said they will now vote for Romney and most hispancs have said they will not vote for him and if Rubio or the woman from NM is the VP then they will vote for Romney.
I actually thought with all of his voter fraud then we had no chance but now this and after taking to many of minorities then i sense we can now win this election
They don’t believe in democracy except as a tool to further their agenda.
The average sheeperal will try to justify what can clearly be pointed out as hypocrisy - “you believe in majority rule here where the majority clearly don’t have the right to rule, but not over here?”.
You have to pull a Prov 26:4-5 on them and point out their bias, their agenda, and then tell them we’ll discuss the merits of your agenda, not the merits of democracy.
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.