Honorary president of the BSA comes out in favor of gay marriage

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obamas-gay-marriage-stance-revealed-in-conversational-way/2012/05/09/gIQAPej8DU_story.html

[shortridge]

Ha! In all the coverage of this today, that was one angle that slipped my mind. Thanks, Merlyn.

[Trevorum]

Hooray for the Bully Pulpit!

[Nike]

Somehow I don't think he makes many decisions based on what BSA thinks. How many registered voters do we represent in Ohio?

 

PS: Took him long enough. Must be a nightmare waiting for this guy to choose between the menu and the daily special.(This message has been edited by Nike)

[moosetracker]

Love all the comments about it, from the conservatives.. Many similar to :

 

"He will fry in hell!!!"..

 

Really so now you not only go to hell for being a homosexual, and also you will go to hell for having an opinion different then that of a conservative? So when did God or Jesus tell us we were sinners to treat others with respect, even those you have judged to be a sinner? What page is that on in the Bible?

 

So he has an opinion.. He also stated that it is up to each state to decide for themselves.. So he did not state he was for a sweeping reform that this country. What does it matter?..

 

Will you vote or not vote for him due to how he has run this country so far, and his proposals for the next 4 years?.. Or will you vote for him based on if he wore a tie that you disapproved of?

 

I know I felt more respect for him because I pretty much knew what his view were with that "evolving" crap, but he was to frightened to say one way or the other due to votes.. His VP was on TV last week saying he was in favor of gay marriage, and this before he was chosen to be running as VP this campaign or not.. I felt I had more respect for him for his bravery at that, then I did with the president for his "evovling" comment..

 

So good for him.. He is being honest.. But, it will not help or hurt the platform he is running on, since he has no intention of forcing the country to abide by his veiwpoint. This opinion is not part of his platform.

[DLChris71]

Well everyone knew his position, nice for him to finally admit it. Really clears things up for the election.

[Papadaddy]

POliticians don't say anything unless it is carefully vetted by staff to assess the political capital it will gain. Except for Joe Biden and Ron Paul, of course. The NC referendum didn't change anything...there was already a ban on gay marriage on the books. Since my church has come out allowing gay clergy who are "in a committed relationship", I am frankly conflicted. Some of my best friends are gay and I have no question about their morality or integrity and would trust them implicitly with my life and the life of my kids. Then there's the Bible...

[packsaddle]

Moosetracker, I've been told that by Baptists and Presbyterians for years. I've gotten used to it. Even Rooster7, in these forums, intimated as much once. He's probably right.

(Note that I didn't use the 'M'-word.)

 

I'm glad Obama took the plunge. It took courage on his part.

I doubt that it will persuade racist homophobes to change their minds about him. One of them recently told me that he is glad that he has 'the economy' to use for his opposition...he's "still afraid that the 'n******' are going take over."

What a guy!

[Tampa Turtle]

Obama is very wishy-washy; I am surprised he took a position. While I would like to believe it was the courage of hos convictions I suspect it was only after much analysis. I don't think he ever had the support of those really opposed to it. He was in danger of losing the support of those in favor.

 

Frankly I am pretty tired of the whole subject.

[BS-87]

Pandering to your base to diminish a shellacking reminiscent of Nov. 2010 is not taking a plunge, and it is not gutsy. It is a distraction.

 

His position is pure for the statist mind. What I think is funny is the social conservatives strinking back saying first we should have less government and then in the next sentence say the government should tell us who we can marry.

 

Same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the Federal Government.

 

But that's because no marriages should be recognized by any government. Any two adults of the age of majority should be able to enter a contract recognizing a partnership or civil union that would be legally recognized. When it comes to marriage, marriage is spiritual and appointing some legal status to it bastardizes the institution.

 

So in short, the President shouldn't be out there clamoring for gay marriage because it's not the government's place to tell any religious institution how they should be carrying out business. The first amendment protects a church from what BHO said yesterday.

 

BHO is being unconstitutional and wrong. The social conservative stance on this wrong and philosophically impure. The Libertarian answer to this is constitutional and right. The Federal government should have no role in marriage because no marriage should be recognized at all.

[Eagledad]

>>"He will fry in hell!!!"..

[Peregrinator]

"Really so now you not only go to hell for being a homosexual, and also you will go to hell for having an opinion different then that of a conservative?"

 

If one believes that homosexuality is a sin, then is it not reasonable to hold that those who seek to give it legal sanction are accomplices in that sin? The point isn't that he has an opinion different from that of (most) conservatives, the point is that he is using his position to encourage others to commit sin. Whether Obama or anyone else will "fry in hell" (by the way, if you think that comment is ridiculous, you should see the comments from "liberals" urging bigoted, redneck North Carolinians to kill themselves) is not for me to judge. Coming out in favor of gay unions is encouraging (or, at least, enabling) people to enter into them and participating in their sin.

[moosetracker]

I am talking about comments that are made by the hundreds by the general public after a story is posted.. Are you sure you read every single one of them?.. On the MSN site they had a "make comments through facebook" section..

 

I only read a small section, maybe 20 of them.. Half were "Yeah..! A president with guts", "Or proud of the president" type of comments.. But the ones in opposition either were "He will fry in Hell".. or .. "Just one more reason not to vote for the guy."..

 

So the "one more reason not to vote" comments, are reasonable.. but the "Fry in Hell" are not in my opinion.. As this just shows the type of "judging" those conservative religious types feel they are entitled to do..

 

That is all I am saying.. No breaking story on "Frying in Hell" yet.. Give it a week or two for the Catholics to come up with a new commercial on it.. Sort of a sequal to their original commercial "Test of Fire"

 

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/04/11/test-of-fire-catholic-2012-political-ad-goes-viral/

 

It will be titled "Burn baby Burn".. And will show a bunch of religious officials throwing Obama into the fire pit.. (And yes.. Now I am making this up.."

 

 

[JoeBob]

BS-87: Totally agree with your analysis above.

 

The 'Gay Rights' movement has become the 'Gay In Your Face' movement.

 

Don't you love our un-biased media?

For Obama to change his position is a 'thoughtful evolution'.

For Romney to change his position is a 'flip-flop'.

[Beavah]

Yah, let's all be sure to point with alarm at the whacky individual citizens on the other side (with the implication that they are representative of mainstream views on the other side). Moosetracker points to one side (with her continuous anti-Catholic bigotry), SeattlePioneer points to another with his set of brown-shirt rioters.

 

Enough already!

 

Obama's personal position probably lost him a few million votes from independents and gained him at least as many millions of dollars from energized supporters. It was rolled out professionally by a media team, carefully letting white-working class-Catholic Joe Biden take point to set up the interview. It was an election year tactic.

 

Here I agree with BS-87. Marriage recognized by the government is at its heart a government endorsement/appropriation/subsidy of a Judeo/Christian religious practice. The easiest way out here is to simply stop the government from being involved. Let the Churches trademark the term "marriage" and just get on with it.

 

Besides, the furball it would make of family and probate and tax law would be a windfall for attorneys for a decade or more, eh? There might even be real employment available for ambulance chasers.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)