Does Barack Obama really oppose gay marriage

[Grumps]

No, of course not. He used to support it before he became prominent. What I do not get is why he feels that he cannot endorse it, when a growing not really a majority yet of Americans support it.

So it's not safe to be FOR it........Leadership, in my view, isn't as high as I'd like to be in Obama's skill set.

[Lulz]

I think Obama like most people of African descent is not in favor of gay marriage.

At the same time I'm sure he knows plenty of gay people and he doesn't want to see them mistreated.  I'm sure he would be fine with civil unions, but a federal blessing of two gay people getting married is a bridge too far.

[Ogre Mage]

No.  He is watching the polls and what happens at the state level.  He covers this by saying his position is "evolving," which is the same terminology Bill Clinton used.  At some point, he will decide that openly supporting marriage equality is worth it politically.  If we are lucky, this may actually happen sometime during his second term.  As a side note, I would look for Hillary Clinton to undergo a similar "evolution" after she finishes her term as SOS and no longer has to follow the White House script.

[Hotblack Desiato]

Yes he does. The only reason Obama can't openly admit he dislikes gay people and opposes it, is because he knows they wouldn't turn out for 2012.

Obama is probably more anti-gay in practice and in personal opinions than all of the potential 2012 GOP candidates besides Santorum.

[There Are Some Remedies Worse Than The Disease]

Yes he does. The only reason Obama can't openly admit he dislikes gay people and opposes it, is because he knows they wouldn't turn out for 2012.

Obama is probably more anti-gay in practice and in personal opinions than all of the potential 2012 GOP candidates besides Santorum.

That's a far bigger assumption than assuming that he really doesn't oppose it.

[Badger]

Yes he does. The only reason Obama can't openly admit he dislikes gay people and opposes it, is because he knows they wouldn't turn out for 2012.

Obama is probably more anti-gay in practice and in personal opinions than all of the potential 2012 GOP candidates besides Santorum.

What this is I don't even......

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Yes he does. The only reason Obama can't openly admit he dislikes gay people and opposes it, is because he knows they wouldn't turn out for 2012.

Obama is probably more anti-gay in practice and in personal opinions than all of the potential 2012 GOP candidates besides Santorum.

What this is I don't even......

One of our newer posters, who thoughtfully showed his true colors early so he got on my ignore list quickly.

[Sibboleth]

Actually he's an older timer.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

It's time for Obama to come out in favor of gay marriage, what he desperately needs is a wedge issue to push moderates to his side against Romney. Gay marriage would also energize young voters who don't really have a federal issue to motivate them at this point.

The more issues Obama has to distract voters from the economy, the better. Another important thing to remember: gay marriage polls well among white swing voters. A large chunk of people that are against gay marriage are stalwart minority Democrats who will never vote against Obama. Do you really think Jose Rodriguez cares about gays getting married when Republicans want to take away his unemployment benefits and deport some of his family members? Nope.

[There Are Some Remedies Worse Than The Disease]

Here's a pretty good article which explains just how illogical his "official" position is: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/prop_8_ruling_reminds_everyone.html

If I believed he sincerely held it, I would probably be bothered. But as it is it just proves that there is no possible way he could hold such a position, as basically no one in existence does besides politicians.

[specific_name]

Obama's public stance is probably the right one, for sake of political strategy - everyone that really cares (in the sense of wanting legal gay marriage) would choose Obama over most of the Republicans; even Huntsman if it came down to it. Young voters are inherently unreliable. But the old baby boomers will vote and Obama has to keep pretending to be on the same page as them.

Of course this strategy is going backfire when it comes to the debt - where he's now accepted the right's rhetoric over the "family budget" of the nation. Which is just unspeakably disappointing to me. Now that he's shown willingness to cut SS and medicare, he has no high ground - that was the wedge issue that the Obama needed. Not gay marriage.

[Senator Snowstalker]

He seems to claim support for state's rights on the issue, which is ironic considering he's black.

[ChairmanSanchez]

He seems to claim support for state's rights on the issue, which is ironic considering he's black.

How is States Rights a racist issue? States are automatically racist just because of the likes of Strom Thurmond.

[The Mikado]

He seems to claim support for state's rights on the issue, which is ironic considering he's black.

How is States Rights a racist issue? States are automatically racist just because of the likes of Strom Thurmond.

Human Rights trump those of States, which are not, in fact, living entities.

[ChairmanSanchez]

He seems to claim support for state's rights on the issue, which is ironic considering he's black.

How is States Rights a racist issue? States are automatically racist just because of the likes of Strom Thurmond.

Human Rights trump those of States, which are not, in fact, living entities.

Yes, they do. But the States are not trampling human rights anymore..besides, Gay Marridge is not a human right.

[Communists For McCain]

He seems to claim support for state's rights on the issue, which is ironic considering he's black.

How is States Rights a racist issue? States are automatically racist just because of the likes of Strom Thurmond.

I have to agree with Sanchez on this.
Sure, I would love a world where the gays are equal but equating state's rights with equaling anti-black is illogical.  It is quite possible to be pro-federalist on some issues and not on others.  For example I could easily see Obama supporting nation wide Civil Rights but being against say nation wide legalization of marijuana.
Arguing that State's Rights=racism is the height of intellectual dishonesty.  By that argument states implementing their own income taxes are anti-black, so Obama should be against states implementing their own income tax because doing so is hateful to black people.
I mean for god's sake man, think before you talk.

[memphis]

First off, the term "states rights" has long since been a code word for racist segregational laws. You may not like it, but that's the connotation it has. If you want to avoid thte race trap, use different words. Second, because of the way federal laws are structured, the US gov't has to take a stand and either recognize or not recognize same-sex marriages. For the purposes of taxation, SS benefits, etc. the US has to see two gays in Iowa as either married or not married. Of course Obama is just trying to defuse the situation by playing moderate hero. I find it unlikely that he really has any objections to same-sex marriage, but it's just not a fight he wants to have right now with so many other problems needing his attention.

[Holmes]

Yes, they do. But the States are not trampling human rights anymore..besides, Gay Marridge is not a human right.

Cool, your opinions on queer and human rights issues are as pertinent as my opinions on local Floridian issues.

[Communists For McCain]

First off, the term "states rights" has long since been a code word for racist segregational laws. You may not like it, but that's the connotation it has. If you want to avoid thte race trap, use different words. Second, because of the way federal laws are structured, the US gov't has to take a stand and either recognize or not recognize same-sex marriages. For the purposes of taxation, SS benefits, etc. the US has to see two gays in Iowa as either married or not married. Of course Obama is just trying to defuse the situation by playing moderate hero. I find it unlikely that he really has any objections to same-sex marriage, but it's just not a fight he wants to have right now with so many other problems needing his attention.

Connotation maybe mate, but I'm arguing technical details and honest debate here.
I will not allow this sort of dishonest debate where any and all uses of the words "state's rights" automatically equals racism.  I believe in equal rights for gay people, I believe in equal rights for people in wheel chairs, I even believe in equal rights for those damned furries.
However, what I don't support is using dishonest debate tactics to make a point.  What the hell am I supposed to refer to state's rights issues like marijuana, gay marriage, vehicle laws, environmental legislation, lawn mower laws, etc. etc. etc. if I can't call it state's rights because "OMG so racist!!!!!"?
I mean really?

[memphis]

First off, the term "states rights" has long since been a code word for racist segregational laws. You may not like it, but that's the connotation it has. If you want to avoid thte race trap, use different words. Second, because of the way federal laws are structured, the US gov't has to take a stand and either recognize or not recognize same-sex marriages. For the purposes of taxation, SS benefits, etc. the US has to see two gays in Iowa as either married or not married. Of course Obama is just trying to defuse the situation by playing moderate hero. I find it unlikely that he really has any objections to same-sex marriage, but it's just not a fight he wants to have right now with so many other problems needing his attention.

Connotation maybe mate, but I'm arguing technical details and honest debate here.
I will not allow this sort of dishonest debate where any and all uses of the words "state's rights" automatically equals racism.  I believe in equal rights for gay people, I believe in equal rights for people in wheel chairs, I even believe in equal rights for those damned furries.
However, what I don't support is using dishonest debate tactics to make a point.  What the hell am I supposed to refer to state's rights issues like marijuana, gay marriage, vehicle laws, environmental legislation, lawn mower laws, etc. etc. etc. if I can't call it state's rights because "OMG so racist!!!!!"?
I mean really?

Federalism is a perfectly good word. Terms have connotations. Accept it and move on.

[ChairmanSanchez]

Yes, they do. But the States are not trampling human rights anymore..besides, Gay Marridge is not a human right.

Cool, your opinions on queer and human rights issues are as pertinent as my opinions on local Floridian issues.

Your right-every single person on this forum combined couldnt change a thing, but we can always express our opinions anyway.

[There Are Some Remedies Worse Than The Disease]

Well I think the answer now is pretty obvious.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

I love how this is right next to the "Obama endorses gay marriage" thread.

[ChairmanSanchez]

I'd like to express my horror at both my views on gay marriage and my grammer. The latter of which hasn't gotten any better. I still support States Rights, of course, but my brash and hateful tone is what embarrasses me.

[Simfan34]

I love it when people spell grammar with an e.

But he never did, just playing the political game.