Leadership: Opposition to marriage equality hits record low after Obama support

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 5:43 PM GMT
    WaPoOverall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, hitting a high mark in support while showing a dramatic turnaround from just six years ago, when just 36 percent thought it should be legal. 39 percent, a new low, say gay marriage should be illegal.

    The poll also finds that 59 percent of African Americans say they support same-sex marriage, up from an average of 41 percent in polls leading up to Obama’s announcement of his new position on the matter.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 7:45 PM GMT
    People are finally becoming some what smarter icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 7:47 PM GMT
    If he truly felt that it was an issue he wanted to address, he should have said something two years ago...

    Anyone that sees it as anything other than a way to drum up votes is naive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 7:50 PM GMT
    I tend to believe that number is a lot higher. Those numbers make sense if your talking about Americans who are 30 years or older. People under 30 really don't care at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 7:51 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    7Famark saidIf he truly felt that it was an issue he wanted to address, he should have said something two years ago...

    Anyone that sees it as anything other than a way to drum up votes is naive.

    It wasn't about the votes, Mark. It was about two things:

    1. There was a serious movement afoot to place marriage equality on the platform at the convention. If he was seen to oppose it, this would have resulted in a serious party split which would have made it very hard for him to gin up the t troops for the election.

    2. Gay $ are very important to the Democratic party. There were signs that the big-dollar homos were getting tired of waiting for him to 'evolve'.


    I'd still bet anything that it falls to the wayside if he is re-elected;
  • vintovka

    Posts: 588

    May 23, 2012 7:52 PM GMT
    7Famark saidIf he truly felt that it was an issue he wanted to address, he should have said something two years ago...

    Anyone that sees it as anything other than a way to drum up votes is naive.


    At the same time it is simplistic to think that politicians only respond to public opinion. Savvy politicians understand that they can shape public opinion when the moment is right. Whether that was the goal or not, this announcement not only shores up gay support for Obama, it also helps to neutralize the GOP strategy of peeling off black voters opposed to gay marriage.

    It's a smart move and one that benefits gay people, irrespective of motive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 7:54 PM GMT
    7Famark saidIf he truly felt that it was an issue he wanted to address, he should have said something two years ago...

    Anyone that sees it as anything other than a way to drum up votes is naive.


    I would rather be naive than a mindless fucking tool.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 7:55 PM GMT
    credo said
    7Famark saidIf he truly felt that it was an issue he wanted to address, he should have said something two years ago...

    Anyone that sees it as anything other than a way to drum up votes is naive.


    I would rather be naive than a mindless fucking tool.


    Oh don't worry, you are definitely a major tool too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 7:56 PM GMT
    Go Romney/Paul 2012! Right?

    Vote away, hater.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 7:57 PM GMT
    Photobucket
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 7:58 PM GMT
    Gym_bull saidPeople are finally becoming some what smarter icon_smile.gif


    Somewhat...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:00 PM GMT
    7Famark said
    credo said
    7Famark saidIf he truly felt that it was an issue he wanted to address, he should have said something two years ago...

    Anyone that sees it as anything other than a way to drum up votes is naive.


    I would rather be naive than a mindless fucking tool.


    Oh don't worry, you are definitely a major tool too.


    ROFL

    Don't mind the 1960s era Democratic Party Dino$aurs. They too, are a dying breed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:04 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    7Famark said
    JPtheBITCH said
    7Famark saidIf he truly felt that it was an issue he wanted to address, he should have said something two years ago...

    Anyone that sees it as anything other than a way to drum up votes is naive.

    It wasn't about the votes, Mark. It was about two things:

    1. There was a serious movement afoot to place marriage equality on the platform at the convention. If he was seen to oppose it, this would have resulted in a serious party split which would have made it very hard for him to gin up the t troops for the election.

    2. Gay $ are very important to the Democratic party. There were signs that the big-dollar homos were getting tired of waiting for him to 'evolve'.


    I'd still bet anything that it falls to the wayside if he is re-elected;

    I won't argue. I don't think, deep down, that he really gives a shit about us.


    Above all else, he is a POLITICIAN.

    They say anything, do anything, and lie from between their teeth if that is what it takes to get re-elected.

    Very rarely in this republic... you might find actual Statesmen who truly care for the needs of the republic and her peoples first.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:04 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    AlphaTrigger said
    Don't mind the 1960s era Democratic Party Dino$aurs. They too, are a dying breed.

    Funny, you're not usually a fucking idiot. Oh well.



    You should know when I'm trolling by now, JP. The Cred-meister is very much a knee-jerk responder to anything that runs counter to his understanding of "anything not of the far left Democratic platform is of the devil".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:07 PM GMT
    For the record, both parties are largely useless pieces of shit that occasionally push up a nice looking flower or two.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:08 PM GMT
    7Famark said
    I'd still bet anything that it falls to the wayside if he is re-elected;


    You mean you think he won't try to pass a federal marriage law after all?

    Oh wait, that doesn't exist in the first place.

    So what do you think Obama won't do? He already opposes DOMA, state constitutional bans, etc. This was a personal evolution, and it carries the power of the pulpit with it, but... his admin already was doing what it could at the federal level to deal with state marriage law - which is where marriage law lies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:09 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    AlphaTrigger said
    JPtheBITCH said
    AlphaTrigger said
    Don't mind the 1960s era Democratic Party Dino$aurs. They too, are a dying breed.

    Funny, you're not usually a fucking idiot. Oh well.



    You should know when I'm trolling by now, JP. The Cred-meister is very much a knee-jerk responder to anything that runs counter to his understanding of "anything not of the far left Democratic platform is of the devil".

    Hm, must have missed the cues this time. My bad.
    Of course you know that I think the Cred-meister is one of the best guys I've met on here.


    lol, seriously?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:10 PM GMT
    credo saidGo Romney/Paul 2012! Right?

    Vote away, hater.


    Ron Paul > Obama > Romney

    If Romney were the only name on the ballot, I'd not vote for him (maybe pencil in a "none of the above"...)

    Ron Paul is quite different than the Bully from Bain Capital.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:11 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    7Famark said
    JPtheBITCH said
    AlphaTrigger said
    JPtheBITCH said
    AlphaTrigger said
    Don't mind the 1960s era Democratic Party Dino$aurs. They too, are a dying breed.

    Funny, you're not usually a fucking idiot. Oh well.



    You should know when I'm trolling by now, JP. The Cred-meister is very much a knee-jerk responder to anything that runs counter to his understanding of "anything not of the far left Democratic platform is of the devil".

    Hm, must have missed the cues this time. My bad.
    Of course you know that I think the Cred-meister is one of the best guys I've met on here.


    lol, seriously?

    Get to know him, Mark. He is a great guy.


    Now that is a funny joke.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:17 PM GMT
    torrentprime said
    7Famark said
    I'd still bet anything that it falls to the wayside if he is re-elected;


    You mean you think he won't try to pass a federal marriage law after all?

    Oh wait, that doesn't exist in the first place.

    So what do you think Obama won't do? He already opposes DOMA, state constitutional bans, etc. This was a personal evolution, and it carries the power of the pulpit with it, but... his admin already was doing what it could at the federal level to deal with state marriage law - which is where marriage law lies.


    Just as a refresher - Obama cannot pass a law in the sense of legislating new laws. He can sign bills passed by Congress though.

    That particular ball is in Congress's ballpark.

    Now he could try something shady like writing an executive order to grant SSM privileges at a federal level and try to skirt DOMA, but that might incur SCOTUS review which might not work out favourably.

    What he could have done would have been to really push for marriage equality in the first year of his office, when there was a solid Senate majority and a very strong Congressional Democratic presence, along with some liberal coastal state GOP'ers who might have crossed the aisle.

    But Obama was also trying to read the pattern to see how he should tack for the general election - by seeing the way the national GOP went nuts tripping over their own dicks to speak against SSM and other idiotic social conservative issues - he made a calculated gamble to more vocally support marriage equality (the social conservatives would not vote for him anyway, but once he knew that the moderates largely DGAF about SSM...)

    I think he's made the right choice, and this should help him more than hinder in the months ahead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:20 PM GMT
    Gym_bull saidPeople are finally becoming some what smarter icon_smile.gif


    It's called a conscience.

    I am troubled that Mitt Scissorhands seems to lack one and instead wants to amend the Constitution to deny freedom and equality to gay couples.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:23 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    7Famark said
    JPtheBITCH said
    7Famark saidIf he truly felt that it was an issue he wanted to address, he should have said something two years ago...

    Anyone that sees it as anything other than a way to drum up votes is naive.

    It wasn't about the votes, Mark. It was about two things:

    1. There was a serious movement afoot to place marriage equality on the platform at the convention. If he was seen to oppose it, this would have resulted in a serious party split which would have made it very hard for him to gin up the t troops for the election.

    2. Gay $ are very important to the Democratic party. There were signs that the big-dollar homos were getting tired of waiting for him to 'evolve'.


    I'd still bet anything that it falls to the wayside if he is re-elected;

    I won't argue. I don't think, deep down, that he really gives a shit about us.


    The value in the president's support is not so much in what he can do legislatively (which is not a hell of a lot), but in having a sitting president take a position of leadership on the issue. It unquestionably helps the cause.

    That said, this issue frankly does not "move the needle" for most voters. They are dialed in on economic issues, and the future fiscal health of the country.

    That's why I think JP is right when he says Obama doesn't give a shit in the big picture. It's just not a huge issue anymore for most voters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 8:23 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Gym_bull saidPeople are finally becoming some what smarter icon_smile.gif


    It's called a conscience.

    I am trouble that Mitt Scissorhands seems to lack one and instead wants to amend the Constitution to deny freedom and equality to gay couples.


    I think Willard Mittenhands would work better as a moniker, given his ham-handed, robotic way of relating to people and squashing them into tiny bits if they happen to be in his way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 9:23 PM GMT
    mitten.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 9:45 PM GMT
    The ball is rolling.. it isnt gonna stop.