Bond James Bond wrote: If he was a total coward he would have waited until he either won or lost the 2012 election to voice his support.
Why? The polling is on his side at this point and gets stronger with every day. Even the tone of the conversation favors the socially liberal position. Gay marriage has flipped from a wedge issue that Republicans can use in their favor to drive votes to a borderline wedge issue Democrats can use in their favor. Anyone paying attention to analysis of the demography has known that this was going to flip around this time - and it did. It's a milkbone to toss liberals that is no longer a politically dangerous position to stake out. It absolutely was cowardice to wait until that point.
Point absorbed. I think it's basically a politically calculated instead of a moral move.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
Bond James Bond wrote: Point absorbed and agreed. I think it's basically a political calculated instead of a moral move.
Obama isn't exactly known for getting out in front of controversial political issues. Love him or hate him, that's who he is. I'm just saying it was an act of moral cowardice to not vocally support gay marriage a few years ago - when you know Obama totally did - because it was more politically risky to do so then. It's not like it would've been political suicide then. Gay marriage had a solid minority support base that clearly would become the majority sooner rather than later. But it was risky.
Bond James Bond wrote: Point absorbed and agreed. I think it's basically a political calculated instead of a moral move.
Obama isn't exactly known for getting out in front of controversial political issues. Love him or hate him, that's who he is. I'm just saying it was an act of moral cowardice to not vocally support gay marriage a few years ago - when you know Obama totally did - because it was more politically risky to do so then. It's not like it would've been political suicide then. Gay marriage had a solid minority support base that clearly would become the majority sooner rather than later. But it was risky.
But but but but he's always been such a radical.
This is something I totally agree on. He's a cautious bland moderate. He probably eats peanut butter and forgoes the jelly on his sandwich because PBnJ is too flashy.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
For thousands of years marriage has been the purview of the church. A rite sanctioned, controlled and, in some cases, arranged by the church. That's all well and good BUT... somewhere along the way of America becoming what it is today, the government started giving cetrian benifits to those that are married.
These benifits include special tax rates, survivor benifits for social security, defacto power of attorney, inheritance rights, as well as specific responsibilities and obligations toward children and debts created as a result of the act of marriage.
This creates a special class of people recognized by the government known as "married".
Now, lets leave sexual orientation completely out of the discussion for a moment. Our constitution, as well as several federal, state and local laws make it clear that if the government offers benifits, rights, and privledges to one class of people, it cannot deny those benifits to any other people based on race, creed, color, age, or SEX.
This means that, by default, gay marriage is already legal in the united states. The government doesn't have the authority to prevent such a union.
The only way the government would be able to stop same sex marriage would be to stop recognizing marriage of any kind. Cancel all the benifits and rights assigned to straight couples, then marriage would revert back to the church and they could decide who deserves to experience such religious rights (rites?).
Until that happens, I don't see any legitimate reason to ban same sex couples from getting married and recieving the same rights and benifits as opposite sex couples.
If you have a legitmate argument against that I would love to listen to it. Otherwise I think it's time to admit that gays getting married was never the problem. The problem is the government usurping religious rites and practices and then being obligated to provide those same benifits to all citizens."
- VRDRC
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
EAllusion wrote:Just in time for an election and only after polling numbers strongly favor the position. Yay for moral cowardice.
I'm not so sure.
The poll numbers have finally made it above 50% nationally, but do you have any indication that it's the same for likely voters in the states that will decide the election? Ohio? North Carolina? The geezers in Florida?
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
krose wrote: The poll numbers have finally made it above 50% nationally, but do you have any indication that it's the same for likely voters in the states that will decide the election? Ohio? North Carolina? The geezers in Florida?
It's not an issue that is going to drive voter behavior against him* nearly to the extent that he'll benefit from throwing a bone to his main backers and erasing the image of being weak and duplicitous on the subject in their minds. It's a wedge issue that has tilted in favor of the liberals.
*People who would be influenced against Obama for this to any significant degree are highly likely to not vote for Obama anyway and their enthusiasm likely will not shift much.
EAllusion wrote:It's not an issue that is going to drive voter behavior against him* nearly to the extent that he'll benefit from throwing a bone to his main backers and erasing the image of being weak and duplicitous on the subject in their minds. It's a wedge issue that has tilted in favor of the liberals.
*People who would be influenced against Obama for this to any significant degree are highly likely to not vote for Obama anyway and their enthusiasm likely will not shift much.
As a supporter of re-election, I do hope that's the case (I've advanced that opinion myself to some extent), but I would have to see the poll numbers in the individual states I mentioned to be convinced. I know the religious right is very enthusiastic today. Who knows whether that will hold up.
I just think it was not quite as easy a decision for him as you imply.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Now, lets leave sexual orientation completely out of the discussion for a moment. Our constitution, as well as several federal, state and local laws make it clear that if the government offers benifits, rights, and privledges to one class of people, it cannot deny those benifits to any other people based on race, creed, color, age, or SEX.
This means that, by default, gay marriage is already legal in the united states. The government doesn't have the authority to prevent such a union.
Why is this an argument that gay marriage should be legal and not an argument that polygamy should be legal? How does this reasoning apply any less to polygamy than it does to gay marriage?
On other threads I've stated that if a law were proposed that made it legal for two or three people of any gender combination to get married, I would support that law. I don't know how that lines up with the official LDS position, but it definitely is how I feel about the issue.
