I think the President did the right thing to come out in support of gay marriage but will it cost him the election? In my opinion it will definitely cost him votes in November as just about every referandum on this issue has been defeated. Still equal rights issues have never been popular causes.
The President and gay marriage
- Thread starter Piratefan1
- Start date
Bravo to The President with an assist to Joe Biden. Yes, it will cost him, but it was long overdue.
It will really not cost him much at all, and if anything will rally the base which had kind of cooled on him lately.
The issues fails every referendum because they people who are opposed to gay marriage are much more passionate about their opinion than people who support it (in general).
For the first time, the majority of our country supports gay marriage and I am proud of Obama for doing the right.
It was a political move, and all about timing. When your opponent supports civil unions, it is much harder to differentiate yourself as someone supporting marriage equality because in essence they are equal except for the word defining them so you get into a debate about semantics where civil unions actually sound acceptable.
When your opponent is against civil unions, it is basically gift-wrapping the issue to Obama allowing him to openly support gay marriage which he was likely for the entire time.
The issues fails every referendum because they people who are opposed to gay marriage are much more passionate about their opinion than people who support it (in general).
For the first time, the majority of our country supports gay marriage and I am proud of Obama for doing the right.
It was a political move, and all about timing. When your opponent supports civil unions, it is much harder to differentiate yourself as someone supporting marriage equality because in essence they are equal except for the word defining them so you get into a debate about semantics where civil unions actually sound acceptable.
When your opponent is against civil unions, it is basically gift-wrapping the issue to Obama allowing him to openly support gay marriage which he was likely for the entire time.
IMHO it is just that passion on the traditional marriage side that might have made Obama's announcement counterproductive politically.
IMHO his declaration will not impact choices but it will almost certainly impact mobilization---see Ohio 2000.
IMHO this has little to do with equal rights and much to do with religion, as anachronistic as the latter might seem to many.
Based on thread position I assume that this is addressed to me.
Please explain why you state this. Please show me in this thread where I argued the lack of merit in same sex 'marriage'? I tried stridently not to hijack this thread since there already are two other long threads dealing with the merits or lack thereof----BTW neither of which has rebuttted my position.
If you are trying to address my statement that this question is not about civil rights but about religious freedom, that was definitional and specifically addressed Piratefan1's earlier assertion that ''equal rights issues have never been popular causes.'' I do not argue with Piratefan1's 'premise' in that statement but I do take issue with how it applies to same sex 'marriage', i.e. his definition.
I would be happy to respond yet again to Tom's question about 'imposing...religious beliefs' if he chooses to repeat it in either of the other threads.
I still like the approach of civil unions for all, and let religious institutions deal with marriage. Just take the word marriage out of any official documents from the states and towns etc. That would satisfy the controversy for many in my opinion.
I would have no problem with this as long as everyone is treated equally. Either call all such relationships Legal Unions or Marriages but not two separate categories. As to the religions aspects of it, each religion can do as they please. There are religions that do perform same sex marriages just there are those that won't. It's really no different than the fact that some religions will not perform marriages where both party's are not of their religion yet other religions do perform mixed religious marriage ceremonies.
Tom K
Where I do agree with Old Alum & with Piratefan is that this position will cost the President votes. While I agree with piratefan that it was the right thing to do it is not an issue that many people will base their vote on as it does not affect their everyday life. However I think it will motivate the religious fundamentalists to come out to vote in greater numbers than normal. This is what happened in 2004 in Ohio when gay marriage was a referandum on the ballot. It probably cost John Kerry the election.
Tom K
Tom K
Old Alum: Sorry but if you say that you oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds and for this reason it should not be allowed then you are trying to impose your religious values upon others. It is as simple as black and white and there is no rationalization that can change this.
TK
TK
Apples and oranges.
In THIS particular thread I had not defended same sex marriage. In the other two threads I went to significant lengths to explain my positions.
In this thread I contended that ''marriage'' was not a ''right'' per se. I would argue that the IRS and insurance companies retroactively had hung onto the term ''marriage'' some civil contracts --- like preferred tax rates and covered beneficiaries --- which are not intrinsic to marriage per se. Therefore, I was arguing that one might be able to make the case that certain same sex individuals might demand ''equal treatment'' for those civil contracts, but this is NOT the same as a ''right'' to declare that circles are squares, that same sex couples can marry.
Again, IMHO this thread was meant to discuss ''political'' implications of Obama's 'evolution'. I was arguing the definition of terms on how that political move might be couched.
This post was edited on 5/14 5:46 PM by Old_alum
