It actually says more about the American people that he was able to change his position without paying an electoral price for it. I bet that Obama probably didn't care about gay marriage when he ran in 2008, but he made the decision that it wasn't a winning issue at the time, especially as the first major black candidate running four years after Bush used gay marriage as a successful wedge issue. Americans moved remarkably fast toward acceptance and tolerance on the gay marriage issue. That's why dissenting opinions from two justices make people uneasy: a determined, religious minority wants to undo something the vast majority of us support.
Obama has a view that represents many Americans as they evolve toward supporting Gay Marriage. Personally, I didn't see strong religious views against gay marriage as bigoted. But that was then. Today is different. In the early days, child marriage and child sex were accepted but are no longer accepted today. Not only are you called all kinds of names, but you also face jail time for such behaviors. Gay marriage is not yet at that point, but we as a society have evolved well past accepting it, and it's a right guaranteed in the Constitution as ruled by the USSC for years now. Taking that away is going backward. I have much less sympathy for those being called bigoted for their religious views against homosexuality today than a decade ago. PolitiFact | President Barack Obama's shifting stance on gay marriage As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. ..." He described his hesitation to endorse same-sex marriage as strategic and political. "What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. … I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. … Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game." When he wrote his 2006 memoir, The Audacity of Hope, he offered a religious explanation for his definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. But he left the door open for yet another shift. "I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. …" he said. "(But) it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history." He said his doubts didn't make him a bad Christian — but human, limited in his understanding of God’s purpose and therefore "prone to sin." "When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must continually be open to new revelations — whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion." Still, in a 2007 Democratic primary debate sponsored by a gay rights group and a gay-oriented cable TV channel, he spoke instead about his support for civil unions with "all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage" — but not for legal recognition of "marriage" between same-sex couples. It should be up to religious denominations to determine whether they wanted to recognize that as marriage or not, he said. In August 2008, he told Southern California megachurch Pastor Rick Warren his definition of marriage: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix." He later added: "I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions." In November 2008, he said much the same thing to a rather different audience: MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." By October 2010, almost two years into his presidency, he acknowledged his views were evolving. But he wasn’t prepared to reverse himself, he said. He told a group of liberal bloggers, "I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine." He offered an explanation that would presage his 2012 shift: "I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents. And I care about them deeply. And so while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about. That’s probably the best you’ll do out of me today." A year and a half later, he announced the result of that wrestling and thinking. Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts asked him on Wednesday, "Mr. President, are you still opposed to same-sex marriage?" He answered: Well, you know, I have to tell you, as I've said, 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. And that's why in addition to everything we've done in this administration, rolling back Don't Ask, Don't Tell — so that, you know, outstanding Americans can serve our country. Whether it's no longer defending the Defense Against Marriage Act, which tried to federalize what has historically been state law. I've stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community. And I had hesitated on gay marriage — in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient. That that was something that would give people hospital visitation rights and other elements that we take for granted. And I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, you know, the word marriage was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs, and so forth. ...
As you read Obama's thinking, you can see that he doesn't harbor hate against gay people. He wants them to have all the rights as in a union but was against gay marriage for political, strategic, and religious reasons. Being against gay marriage itself isn't bigotry at the time, IMO. I think it crosses over to that when you have strong intolerance against gay people or harbor hatred towards them (then and now). And again, in today's time, gay marriage is generally accepted, so rolling that clock back shows strong intolerance or hatred.
2008 was 16 years ago. Obama came out in support of same sex marriage in 2012 at 50 years old. Hillary Clinton came out in support of same sex marriage in 2013 at 66 years old. They were, at age 50 and 66, just suddenly struck by the notion same-sex marriage is correct? I'm sure they had a legitimate change of heart. Yea, sure.
Don't remember many in the Democratic establishment calling Obama or Clinton out for their bigotry at that time. Did you have a problem with it? Did you consider them bigots?
I'd be interested to know when being opposed to same-sex marriage went from being a normal mainstream and non-bigoted belief into a bigoted belief. What is the equivalent of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month which ended WWI? Was it like November 11:00 A.M. on November 11, 2013?
Depends. If they show they've learned from their ignorance and moved forward then they don't need to be shunned. If they continue to propagate the ignorance even after being shown, then perhaps shunning would be okay. It is up to everyone to make their own decision.
16 years ago. Again, people grow, people evolve, and as they do their positions can change. People like you go backwards I guess. Probably why you support trump.
Spare me the BS. You and I both know that every major Democratic politician, people mostly in their 40s/50/60s, did not go from opposing same-sex marriage their entire political careers, to supporting same-sex marriage all within 1-2 election cycles of each other based on genuine reflection and "personal growth/evolution" - it was a political expedience and that's it. btw when did you grow/evolve out of bigotry?
It happened gradually largely thanks to courageous homosexuals demanding that they be viewed not as depraved sexual deviants, but as normal humans who were arbitrarily being denied equal rights based upon who they were. I was raised by someone who hates homosexuals to this day. Genuine "they're all mentally ill" hatred. I internalized a lot of that as a young kid. It took actually meeting gay people and getting to know them as humans during my teenage years to overcome the prejudice I'd been taught. I think a lot of Americans had a similar experience. Where beliefs become bigoted is when a minority of people want to impose their religiously grounded beliefs on others in a pluralistic society (another driver toward acceptance: the erosion of church affiliation, even social membership in lieu of outright belief. There was less cost to accepting gay friends if you didn't fear social ostracisation among your peers if you didn't attend church). I think religious organizations should be protected from performing marriages they disagree with. I don't think that they should impose their beliefs on civil marriage.
What's your point @HTM ? So Obama / Clinton changed their minds, who gives a **** for the reason. The fact is they became supporters, for whatever the reason, and it benefitted the community. You want to call them bigots, fine. Who cares. Things have changed over time. A lot of opinions have shifted over time. We as humans have evolved over time. Grow up man, you were given the answer you were looking for. Yes they were bigots. I at one point was a bigot and opposed gay marriage. I changed my mind over time. I evolved as a human due to life experiences. **** isn't complicated man. I swear, sometimes you need to just separate politics from whatever your agenda is. Politics is ****ing toxic as ****.
There actually were many in the Left who criticized Obama’s position and many more who criticized Don’t ask Don’t tell. That said I’ll make sure not to vote for Obama and Bill Clinton next time they run for president.
I mean, I understand that alito is trying to do here (support his right wing political friends), but is he really comparing a government imprisoning someone for opposing the government with a private business's action? Doesn't he understand the difference between government and private business?
