This describes exactly how I feel. Why the hell should the government be sticking it's nose in religious ceremonies? Keep it between the man, the woman, and God. Keep Uncle Sam out of the church and one day some people might be able to look at religion without it being political.
twhy: I think you're right that Obama's as pro-gay marriage/gay rights as one can be without explicitly endorsing gay marriage. Maybe his reason for not doing so is that he is conflicted in his own personal beliefs (believing both in equal treatment under the law but also having been a Christian in a black church for his entire adult life) and maybe it's political expediency. It would not surprise me to learn that he was fudging this some in order that the election not once again revolve around divisive cultural issues when we have so many other important issues to consider. And it wouldn't disappoint me. As an unequivocal supporter of gay rights I'm very comfortable with Obama as president. As a fairly vigorous opponent of equal rights for gays (I think I'm remembering your position right), you should be comfortable with McCain too. If gay rights are important to voters in this cycle, in either direction, they shouldn't have any trouble deciding who to vote for.
Maybe. Or Maybe not. Heck there's no way to tell. Let's just cut the act that he's different than every other politician. He has to be mealy mouthed and rely on slight of hand to appease the right people to get elected. I just find his statements on the issue silly. If you are pro gay rights and gay marriage then say so damnit! If not, don't issue that statement because you know its an unpopular decision.
or maybe he's a mature enough person to not let his religious beliefs impede on someone else. why do you have to be pro gay to not oppose a ban on gay marriage. this is obviously just an issue about religion, because if he was really against the gay lifestyle he would probably be "mealy mouthed" on gay adoption. I'm sure people who are anti gay will make a bigger stink about kids getting adopted than two adults getting married.
What you have to remember about Obama - and this isn't a good or bad thing - is that he's an incrementalist for the most part. You saw that with FISA, for example. He prefers middle ground solutions that progress an issue rather than making ideological stands, which may result in much bigger change or may result in no change at all. Looked at from that perspective, this fits his mold. You make a lot more actual progress on this issue by fighting for civil unions than by fighting for gay marriage. Once you have civil unions, jumping to gay marriage is a much smaller leap. Certainly, it's not as complete or as immediate a change as some people may like, but it's progress in a lot of ways, so he's going to pick that route. This approach is what is going to piss off some progressives if he gets elected, and also makes the "he's far-left" a laughable argument. For moderates, it's a good thing; for liberals, it won't be, especially given that he will have a strongly Democratic congress where he could push through some of the more strongly left agenda - but I suspect he's not going to go that route.
I'm not too worried about TJs ignorance; People who think like him and all of his "values" will be washed away in a couple generations. What worries me is how incoherent McCain came off in that interview...forget his non-existent views, I'm not even sure if he knew where he was or what he was being asked. No wonder he is being kept from the media... People seem to like the "idea" of John McCain but the more exposure he gets, the worse he looks. I'm not surprised he came back and took the nomination after being left for dead...once everyone stopped paying attention he looked pretty good again...
If he's not imposing his beliefs on other people, why would he say he's against gay marriage? There's a logical disconnect there, and his reasons are absent. I think there is more support for gay adoption than gay marriage. Some states like Massachutses threaten to take your funding away if you don't allow gay adoption from your orginization, like Catholic Charities being forced to find gay couples for adoption.
Obama's wrong on gay marriage. Simply wrong. (IMO!). Bush was OK with civil unions too....(although he deferred it to the states)...was he incremental? Obama's still the better candidate.....but if you think gay marriage is OK, then please don't defend Obama's stance here. Supporting civil unions is not that new. I don't know McCains position -- he probably doesn't either -- but if it's similar to Bush's then expect a vehement opposition to gay marriage, with a quiet acceptance of civil unions. Obama would instead speak out strongly in favour of civil unions, with a quiet denial of gay marriage.
see, this is what i mean by some people taking gay rights to far. why does he have to like the idea, if he is not willing to stand in front of it or impede it?
If Obama was imposing his beliefs, he would have voted "yes" to the federal marriage amendment. He is stating his beliefs. Although Obama does not say it, I'd wager the "logical disconnect" is a fallout of a belief in seperation of church and state. I'd find it perfectly reasonable for someone to tell me "I'm against gay marriage but it's no business of the government". If marriage is spiritual, any church can decide who to marry - the state won't care because it's a church issue. If marriage is civil - than the state should not care who they marry because they should not discriminate. My humble opinion.
Obama's wishy washy statement may just be typical political posturing, but maybe not. My feelings and opinions about gay rights have changed quite a bit since I was a young man (I am now 49 ). While I have mixed emotions about gay adoptions, I am not willing to draw any lines in the sand. It is presumptuous to assume that I might not change my mind some more in the future. An open mind is (usually) a good thing.
That's a perfectly acceptable stance. But as you say, he doesn't say that. I'm wagering he is pro gay marraige, just doesn't want to say it, doesn't want to give reasoning that can't be overturned by new guidance or easily changed in a few years. If he gives reasoning, then he has to undo that reasoning. The only policitician I've seen do that on moral issues was Romney when he gave his explination for why he was now pro life.
I'm definitely in agreement with you that it's quite pathetic of Obama to not just "come out" (haha) with a stance. I don't know when it became "un-american" or whatever to not pander to religious/bigotted weirdos.
I'm not sure what you mean PG? Obama doesn't have to be in favour of gay marriage. Lots of people aren't. I would expect that those of us who are would express disappointment in Obama's position -- especially those who've previously expressed outrage at the positions of other politicians who've held the same opinion. I can be disappointed, or outraged or whatever at his (wide) stance on this issue and still think he's a tremendous candidate.
From PG's quoting of Obama's website: I'd say he has come out with a stance. And you can be against something but still think the constitutional ammendment was hokey.
