From 
Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
By Carol E LeePresident Barack Obama said Wednesday he supported gay marriage, reversing his position on a controversial social issue just six months before the November election and adopting a stance fraught with uncertain political implications.
Mr. Obama had been under intense pressure this week to lay out a clear stance on same-sex marriage after Vice President Joe Biden and other top advisers endorsed it. Mr. Obama said that after years of lengthy discussions with friends and family, including his wife and two young daughters, he now “personally” believes gays and lesbians should have the right to marry.
“I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue. I’ve always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally,” Mr. Obama said in a television interview with ABC. “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.”
More at the link.
Your Editor wonders: if President Obama has changed his mind on same-sex “marriage,” why did he wait until the day after the North Carolina primary election, in which Amendment One, a provision to amend the state constitution in a manner which states that the Tarheel State will recognize only legal marriages between one man and one woman as a domestic unit, a provision which would also exclude any sort of civil unions statute, to speak his mind? The voters approved Amendment One by a landslide margin, making this the 32nd time that same-sex “marriage” has been put before the voters for their approval, and the supporters of such “marriages” are 0-32.
Politico came up with probably the most biased headline imaginable:
Black voters remain divided on gay marriage
By Joseph Williams | 9 May 2012 6:39 PM EDTAfrican-Americans voted 2-1 in favor of the North Carolina amendment banning gay marriage Tuesday, but the White House is betting that black voters there and beyond will stick with the president, despite broad resistance to legalization.
Your Editor wonders just how another editor could approve a headline saying that black voters “remain divided” on a topic in which they just voted by a two-to-one margin for one particular position. No actually responsible editor should approve such a misleading headline.
The article continued:
While there’s faith that African-Americans will turn out strong at the polls to protect Obama’s legacy, pollsters point out that while opposition to same-sex marriages has fallen in the black community, it’s still just a point shy of 50 percent — enough to affect black turnout, at least theoretically, in an election where every vote will matter.
Really? Though the article cited (but did not link) a Pew Center poll which said that blacks have “softened” their opposition to same-sex “marriage,” and that opposition in the black community had dropped to 49%, that hasn’t been how blacks have actually voted:
Obama’s statement rocked the political world. But it also underscored a widely-held belief that African-American voters are closer to Republicans than Democrats when it comes to gay marriage.
“A lot of the people that I have spoken to that are self-identified Democrats are completely and totally against gay marriage – they believe it’s a sin,” said Michelle Bernard, president of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics and Public Policy.
In the 2008 general election, Proposition 8, banning same-sex “marriage,” was on the ballot in very liberal California. Barack Obama defeated John McCain by a huge margin in the Pyrite State, 60.9% to 37.3%, but Proposition 8 passed, 52.2% to 47.8%. The Los Angeles Times noted that “black voters, traditionally among the most reliably liberal in the state, voted overwhelmingly to ban same-sex marriage.”
Although many of the state’s black political leaders spoke out against Proposition 8, an exit poll of California voters showed that black voters favored the measure by a ratio of more than 2 to 1. Not only was the black vote weighted heavily in favor of Proposition 8, but black turnout — spurred by Barack Obama’s historic campaign for president — was unusually large, with African Americans making up roughly 10% of the state electorate.
There have been various polls which suggest that the majority now approve of allowing same-sex couples to marry, but your Editor has to ask the obvious questions: if the majority approve, why has every single state which has voted on the subject voted against recognizing same-sex unions as marriages?
The supporters will try again, in November, with four states having such referenda on the ballot; supporters think that they have a chance to eke out a victory in the reliably blue state of Maryland. Your Editor will be amused if they fail there as well.
I have wondered that same thing. According to the results of the actual voting, one would think the polls should be the other way around.
When you get right down to it, the only states where homosexual marriage is legal are states where the courts have stepped in and performed judicial activism. When it’s left up to the voters, they overwhelmingly reject the notion that two men or two women should be able to be married.
A day late, but not half a dollar short. He raised $1,000,000 in 90 minutes off of this little scheme his team pulled to distract us all from the dismal economy.
I don’t agree with the President on this one. I think civil unions meet the need for same gender couples to have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. But it makes no sense to change the traditional practice of marriage.
I also think that the President has made a political mistake. It stretches credibility to think that today was the day he evolved to accept same gender marriage, therefore I think that he will lose votes, especially some black votes, because blacks tend to be single-issue voters when it comes to same gender marriage, i.e., they vote against the person who supports it. In NC, blacks voted 2-1 in support of the ban on same gender marriage. Moreover, the Episcopalian Church has split over the issue several years ago. Many Latino voters who are predominately Roman Catholic also oppose same gender marriage.
On traditional moral grounds as well political, President Obama has made a mistake on this issue, in my opinion.
Meet Barack O Pandering Bear, and if he had a son he would look like this. Tonight’s Pandering Canpaign speech was for pandering for votes from the Gay and Lesbian Community. It was if a Bolt of lightening struck the Pandering Bear and a new position was found after bearly beating a Federal Inmate from Texas in the WV Primary yesterday. Or was it Joltin Joe Biden getting the jump on the Pandering Bear.
Barack Obama, back in 1996, filled out his questionnaire when he was running for Illinois State Senate and declared he was in favor of same-sex marriage. In his 2008 Presidential bid, he said he was not. Now he says he is, again. And he falsely invoked Jesus as a backing for his support of something the Bible declares an abomination, a sin, a rejection of that which is natural for that which is unnatural, a choice.
So, no, Barack didn’t just come up with this or change his mind after countless nanoseconds of soul-searching. The whole thing is a ploy, a pander, a way to suck in money, a way to get more white voters. He has the black vote locked up, despite the fact they’re 2-1 in opposition to what he just publicly claimed to espouse. And, as my black co-worker friend who admitted she never votes said, Barack Obama got elected because he’s black. No other reason in her mind. And she was disgusted by the reason he got elected.
Blacks, who will again vote up around 90 percent or higher for Obama, are 2-to-1 against what Obama just put forward.
Hispanics are a strong majority against what Obama just put forward, Hispanics being predominantly Catholic (and guess what else they would be against that the Obama administration recently mandated).
Whites, on the other hand, are more amenable to the homosexual perversion and agenda. So it was a ploy, a vote-grabbing misdirection with the intent of getting more whites to vote for him since he has the blacks locked up. And he gets to distract from his abysmal economic record.
Wagonwheel wrote:
Thud! < —- [Sound made when the Editor has passed out and hit the floor.]
Quick, someone call 911!
It’s obvious why Obama supports gay marriage, he’s gay and he’s married.
Mr Jackson gets it:
Perhaps that was somewhat on his mind, but every election has extraneous distractions. The President’s statement will certainly get the social-issues conservative bloggers talking about this, but it won’t last all that long; by election day it will have faded away again. The President’s statement has forced Governor Romney to note that he disagrees, but that’s really to Governor Romney’s advantage: with most Americans opposed to homosexual “marriage,” Mr Romney’s position doesn’t cost him votes, and can only help him with the more conservative Republicans who supported other candidates. Perhaps it loosened up some donation money from homosexual activists for the President, but the people who support the notion and to whom it is important were going to vote to re-elect the President anyway.
It’s still all about the economy. If the public see a noticeable improvement in the economy by October, an improvement which is real to them, and not just meaningless numbers on paper, then President Obama will be re-elected; if they don’t see that, he will not be re-elected.
Anyone who believes that Joe Biden’s praise for same-sex marriage on Meet the Press was an inadvertent Bidenism hasn’t been paying close attention to the news. The timing couldn’t have been more programmed or rehearsed.
Biden mentioned his support of same-sex marriage…conversation ensued (detracting from the real issues like Obama’s horrendous handling of the economy)…Within days, Obama’s evolution from “marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman” to “I <3 the idea of marriage for all–including gay and lesbian military folks who serve ME" is announced.
On the heels of Obama's toothy grin as he contemplated a gal/gal honeymoon video, WaPo's news that 47 Years Ago Romney Cut Some (now dead, but we can’t yet prove that Romney is responsible for that death–yet)Classmate’s Hair hit the newsstands, closely followed by a fundraiser at George Clooney’s house, where the crowd gave Obama ovations and dollars in honor of gay, dead, but not forgotten, Rock Hudson who was forced to marry a (oh-the-horror!)female to protect his image, because he died before the “evolutionary” Barack Obama had made his stunning endorsement of guy/guy, gal/gal, transgender/whatever marriage.
What will be next week’s Axelrod-staged event to divert the public’s attention from the REAL issues of the day? Any guesses?
It matters not what Obama does, righties will never be satisfied even in the least!
That’s not true Wagonwheel. I’ll be satisfied when he’s not in the White House. If he just leaves, I’ll be satisfied.
I was satisfied that he offed OBL.
So — SINP lies yet again.
Here’s ometing to satisfy even Wagonwheel.
Where are Jim, Tim, and Franklin now?
Here’s a quick look into the three former Fannie Mae executives who brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines – was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae’s accounting activities. Raines left with a “golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear.
Tim Howard – was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard “was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a “stable pattern of earnings” at Fannie. Investigations by federal regulators and the company’s board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard’s Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson – A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson’s 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million.” Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson’s Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines is living well and works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor.
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also living well and also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines.
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson living the high life as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama’s Vice Presidential Search Committee.
Kinda makes you sick to your stomach.
Our current government seems to be rotten to the core! Satisfied yet?
Hoagie says:
May 11, 2012 at 10:33
It’s the Democrat party that is rotten to the core, even placing aside these particular examples. It’s that moral relativism thingie they’ve got going.
No wonder then that the only moral value they recognize is “inclusion”. Or, as they grandly call it when they wax philosophical, “solidarity”. It basically means that you should neither complain as they try and fasten their teeth on your neck nor attempt to push them away.
They appear to sincerely believe that that’s the true measure of your humanity: being a willing victim. It comes complete with a theology of “constitutional redemption” wherein the ever-living and ever-evolving Constitution is perpetually refashioned and reinterpreted as a body of progressive dogma which will properly applied, reshape the human stuff within its power into something more worthy of existing, while purging it of its past sins. What that something will be, and where it will ultimately be led we do not know and cannot know … The important thing is that we go there together as self-sacrificing penitents; humble, tractable, useful, and uncomplainingly grateful to even be considered as supporting material for this great experiment in secular worship and evolutionary Redemption..
On the other hand of course you can view it as a Darwinian scam run by less than highly sexually dimorphic men, who have to figure out some way to survive; since they are too weak to dig and too proud to beg and would surely lose in any personal confrontation they engaged in. Kind of stands to reason that if they can fill their bowls by cynically mouthing platitudes and gaining life and death leverage over others through political gaming, they will try that.
So, according to that scenario, some become Democrat politicians and party members, and others become television evangelists, and together they thereby perpetuate their kind within the – figuratively speaking – body of the host.
If true, what else would anyone have to know in order to conclude that Obama and the Democrats in general are enemies of good government and liberty?