is he avoiding the issue? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/white-house-punts-same-sex-marriage-again_644234.html White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked aboard Air Force One about President Obama's position on same sex marriage. He punted. Again. From today's pool report: On whether the White House feels the need to clarify the president's gay marriage stance, Carney said he had no updates. He said he's sure POTUS will be asked about the topic in future interviews and press conferences and will discuss his views then. As the Washington Post reports, Carney had the same problem yesterday, when reporters ask about the president's position on same sex marriage: Carney tried to parry the same-sex-marriage questions, gamely at first and then testily as reporters began to laugh at his answers. He grew uncharacteristically flustered. When an unrelated question came about whether Obama would support the reelection of scandal-plagued Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), Carney answered: “I mean — well, yes, sure. I just don’t — I haven’t — I haven’t been asked it before so I. . . . The president — I’ll have to — I’ll have to get back to you.” The president is currently against same sex marriage, though he's claimed to be "evolving" on the position. And the White House canceled its planned North Carolina trip, which coincided with the ballot initiative there to ban same sex marriage. The News Observer reports: President Barack Obama was scheduled, albeit briefly, to visit North Carolina on Election Day to make an speech in Asheville about the economy. But the White House sent the notice Wednesday last week but reversed course about five hours later, saying the trip wasn't taking place, according to a North Carolina congressional office notified about the trip. The false alarm isn't unprecedented -- but the fact the White House even considered visiting the state on primary election day is interesting. A controversial vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions is on today's ballot. Obama issued a statement against the amendment earlier this year -- but polls show it is likely to win by a solid margin.
Because he needs to wait until he wins 2012, then he has a nice mandate to do whatever he wants (including converting America into a post-Keynesian social democratic, egalitarian, feminist, vegan collective)
Because the country is full of bigoted people such as yourself who would not vote for someone who is pro gay marriage. Thankfully we are progressing as a nation and soon that will not be the correct stance to take.
why should he have to? he's the CEO of the executive branch and commander in chief, he's not some omnipresent god like figure.
If he was ducking the issue, he would say nothing at all.... He is trying to play both sides of the issue.... Having said that, in 20-30 years Republicans will be surprised their party ever hated homosexuals.
I doubt it. A 20 yo Young Republican who first voted for Reagan will be 72 in 20 years. A 20 yo Young Republican who first voted for W. will be 52 in 20 years. They may not be as overt about it as they have been recently, but the prejudices will still linger.
I am pleased to see that bigtexxx has been steadily examining his choices in life, and is now concerned with the delay on legalizing gay marriage across the United States. It's clear, from his posting of this article, that he is concerned.
In 30 years, the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed overwhelmingly by both houses, will be 46 years old. The Civil Rights Act is now 48 years old, and was barely passed with bipartisan opposition; now it would be inconceivable that anyone who voted against it didn't get blown out in the next election.
It's incredibly disrespectful to those (MLK, Rosa Parks, etc) who put in so much effort to champion rights for blacks, to compare that to gay marriage. Two different topics. Many blacks (most?) oppose gay marriage...
haha, look at the political correctness policeman here. It's not even a comparison of the causes though (and even if it was, so the f**k what? Gay rights are just as legitimate of an issue as civil rights were, your blinders are just on), just a note on how fast values and attitudes can change, and how that corresponds in the judicial and legislative record. From Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board. Mhmm. Don't worry texxx, I'm sure your grandkids, if not your kids, will not openly wonder why you were so badly on the wrong side of history for so many issues.
