Obama Tells MTV He Won't Push Gay Marriage In Second Term

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

    Oct 27, 2012 2:29 AM GMT
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-ramps-media-blitz-race-tightens/story?id=17571200#.UItG2cW-izh

    During a live interview today inside the White House, President Obama told MTV viewers that when it comes to same-sex marriage and climate change, it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reforms.

    When asked if he would use his second term as a platform to overturn the federal ban on gay marriage, the president demurred, saying he viewed it as an issue for the states to decide.

    "For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go," Obama told MTV presenter Sway Calloway, who asked questions submitted by youth voters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 3:03 AM GMT
    His newly announced position isn't so different from that of Romney's.

    I'm beginning to think that a principled opponent is preferable to a feckless ally.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 27, 2012 3:23 AM GMT
    rkyjockdn saidHis newly announced position isn't so different from that of Romney's.

    I'm beginning to think that a principled opponent is preferable to a feckless ally.


    That's not true. Obama believes in gay marriage, and Romney doesn't. Obama is being pragmatic. Gay rights will be decided by the supreme court, and Obama will appoint gay friendly judges, whereas Romney appointees are bound to be homophobic.

    Obama has already done more for gay rights than any president in history. He's on dangerous ground, but he'll definitely continue to be on our side in his second term.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 4:16 AM GMT
    Pants on fire
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 5:01 AM GMT
    JOOU saidPants on fire


    Nope. He's capitulating to the right, which is the due and privilege of being liberal in approach. I think what's going to have to happen in your country, given the derisiveness present, is that a majority of States will have to have marriage for gays on the books before the Supreme count will look at it. It's the long way that I think hackneyed. If anything like our old Cretien, Obama will simply take it in hand to the court and ask if it is legal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 5:08 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    rkyjockdn saidHis newly announced position isn't so different from that of Romney's.

    I'm beginning to think that a principled opponent is preferable to a feckless ally.


    That's not true. Obama believes in gay marriage, and Romney doesn't. Obama is being pragmatic. Gay rights will be decided by the supreme court, and Obama will appoint gay friendly judges, whereas Romney appointees are bound to be homophobic.

    Obama has already done more for gay rights than any president in history. He's on dangerous ground, but he'll definitely continue to be on our side in his second term.



    But if Obama "supports" it, and has the power to "change" it, but won't, what's the point of having him in office? I'm starting to really second guess my vote for him, him and Romney seem to agree on more that I expected-- hence the third debate.

    But I guess it is better to have someone who at least supports it versus some religious freak who is against it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 5:08 AM GMT
    It's just rich that people who complain about Obama being top-down government and all, aren't commenting how pro-states rights this particular stance on gay marriage is.
    I would rather have federal recognition, but it would just be fodder for the right to complain.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 5:10 AM GMT
    Shell said
    But if Obama "supports" it, and has the power to "change" it, but won't, what's the point of having him in office?


    Does he have the power? He can push legislation, but ultimately unless there's iron-proof majorities in both chambers, it won't get past the Republicans.
    There aren't any Mark Grisanti's in Congress.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 5:12 AM GMT
    I just feel that Obama can do more with the tools that he has and if he doesn't, then it will be waste of another term.

    Gay marriage/rights are one of the biggest "social" issues in society today, and it should be looked at in further review.

    I'm sure all of us support it, since we do live the lives of the "damned." But Obama has that ultimate power, so it's up to him whether he wants to pursue it or not.

    I'm starting to think that he is a little scared to touch the issue.

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

    Oct 27, 2012 5:14 AM GMT
    Shell said
    I'm starting to think that he is a little scared to touch the issue.


    Lol, attitudes will probably change enough before 4 years is up. Without another election coming up, he's going to do the right thing.

    As opposed to a President Romney who will have to pander to the right on social issues yet again in order to get reelected in 2016.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 5:14 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    Shell said
    But if Obama "supports" it, and has the power to "change" it, but won't, what's the point of having him in office?


    Does he have the power? He can push legislation, but ultimately unless there's iron-proof majorities in both chambers, it won't get past the Republicans.
    There aren't any Mark Grisanti's in Congress.


    I would rather him make a "push" while in the White House, then sit at home and make a "push." Show us that you actually give a fuck and put yourself out there like other presidents in the past have done for various issues.

    Right about now, his effort to push the issue is about as good as mine.

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

    Oct 27, 2012 5:16 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    Shell said
    I'm starting to think that he is a little scared to touch the issue.


    Lol, attitudes will probably change enough before 4 years is up. Without another election coming up, he's going to do the right thing.

    As opposed to a President Romney who will have to pander to the right on social issues yet again in order to get reelected in 2016.


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

    Oct 27, 2012 5:58 AM GMT
    Shell saidBut if Obama "supports" it, and has the power to "change" it, but won't, what's the point of having him in office?

    No President has the power to unilaterally make law, nor rule on the Constitutionality of laws. Those powers rest with the Congress and the Supreme Court, respectively.

    What a President can do is issue Executive Orders, which have limited application. And in the case of gay marriage, that authority falls to the States under our Federal system. Much the same way you get a driver's license from your State of residence, not from Washington, DC.

    Hence DOMA may have exceeded the role of the Federal government, by attempting to regulate marriage on the national level, and to deny marriage recognition granted by individual States.

    The Obama Administration has taken the extraordinary pro-gay step of refusing to defend the DOMA law in the courts. Whereas the Republican Party, including Romney, have sworn to defend & enforce the provisions of DOMA, and even more, to outlaw all existing and future gay marriages & civil unions with a Constitutional amendment.

    When Obama says gay marriage is a State issue he is Constitutionally correct. And consistent with the arguments his Administration has brought against DOMA, as an unconstitutional act by the Federal government that violates States rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 6:53 AM GMT
    I don't know what to believe anymore... icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 6:55 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    Shell saidBut if Obama "supports" it, and has the power to "change" it, but won't, what's the point of having him in office?

    No President has the power to unilaterally make law, nor rule on the Constitutionality of laws. Those powers rest with the Congress and the Supreme Court, respectively.

    What a President can do is issue Executive Orders, which have limited application. And in the case of gay marriage, that authority falls to the States under our Federal system. Much the same way you get a driver's license from your State of residence, not from Washington, DC.

    Hence DOMA may have exceeded the role of the Federal government, by attempting to regulate marriage on the national level, and to deny marriage recognition granted by individual States.

    The Obama Administration has taken the extraordinary pro-gay step of refusing to defend the DOMA law in the courts. Whereas the Republican Party, including Romney, have sworn to defend & enforce the provisions of DOMA, and even more, to outlaw all existing and future gay marriages & civil unions with a Constitutional amendment.

    When Obama says gay marriage is a State issue he is Constitutionally correct. And consistent with the arguments his Administration has brought against DOMA, as an unconstitutional act by the Federal government that violates States rights.


    Interesting. Thanks for the insight.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Oct 27, 2012 7:37 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    rkyjockdn saidHis newly announced position isn't so different from that of Romney's.

    I'm beginning to think that a principled opponent is preferable to a feckless ally.


    That's not true. Obama believes in gay marriage, and Romney doesn't. Obama is being pragmatic. Gay rights will be decided by the supreme court, and Obama will appoint gay friendly judges, whereas Romney appointees are bound to be homophobic.

    Obama has already done more for gay rights than any president in history. He's on dangerous ground, but he'll definitely continue to be on our side in his second term.


    actually, he hasn't. congress repealed DADT when obama wouldn't even halt the military tribunals with an executive order. congress passed the hate crimes legislation.
  • santz7

    Posts: 47

    Oct 27, 2012 8:39 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    Shell saidBut if Obama "supports" it, and has the power to "change" it, but won't, what's the point of having him in office?

    No President has the power to unilaterally make law, nor rule on the Constitutionality of laws. Those powers rest with the Congress and the Supreme Court, respectively.

    What a President can do is issue Executive Orders, which have limited application. And in the case of gay marriage, that authority falls to the States under our Federal system. Much the same way you get a driver's license from your State of residence, not from Washington, DC.

    Hence DOMA may have exceeded the role of the Federal government, by attempting to regulate marriage on the national level, and to deny marriage recognition granted by individual States.

    The Obama Administration has taken the extraordinary pro-gay step of refusing to defend the DOMA law in the courts. Whereas the Republican Party, including Romney, have sworn to defend & enforce the provisions of DOMA, and even more, to outlaw all existing and future gay marriages & civil unions with a Constitutional amendment.

    When Obama says gay marriage is a State issue he is Constitutionally correct. And consistent with the arguments his Administration has brought against DOMA, as an unconstitutional act by the Federal government that violates States rights.


    YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT..THANKS..icon_smile.gif
  • santz7

    Posts: 47

    Oct 27, 2012 8:52 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-ramps-media-blitz-race-tightens/story?id=17571200#.UItG2cW-izh

    During a live interview today inside the White House, President Obama told MTV viewers that when it comes to same-sex marriage and climate change, it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reforms.

    When asked if he would use his second term as a platform to overturn the federal ban on gay marriage, the president demurred, saying he viewed it as an issue for the states to decide.

    "For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go," Obama told MTV presenter Sway Calloway, who asked questions submitted by youth voters.


    PLEASE SEE (Art_Deco) HE HAS THE RIGHT RESPONSE..THANKS..icon_biggrin.gif
  • booboolv

    Posts: 203

    Oct 27, 2012 9:19 AM GMT
    The president wasn't a gay marriage supporter in 2008. He isn't now. He made a brief statement pandering to the gay community and now, under election pressure he is backing off. Too bad he doesn't have the fortitude to stand for something substantial, whether it be in social justice, or any other subject. Romney may be a step backward socially, but he has a better foreign policy, better tax policy, and better business sense than Obama. I know I'll probably get blasted for making such a statement, but I generally keep quiet when I disagree with what others post and just let people voice their opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 9:59 AM GMT
    I don't blame him, it's not his job to change the mindset of the country. What goes by well in one state may not so well in another, just because of that I think it won't be as easy as, for example, in Spain, where it happened almost too fast.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 27, 2012 1:45 PM GMT
    Shell saidI just feel that Obama can do more with the tools that he has and if he doesn't, then it will be waste of another term.

    Gay marriage/rights are one of the biggest "social" issues in society today, and it should be looked at in further review.

    I'm sure all of us support it, since we do live the lives of the "damned." But Obama has that ultimate power, so it's up to him whether he wants to pursue it or not.

    I'm starting to think that he is a little scared to touch the issue.



    I'm in your corner, Shell, but you're wrong about how much power he has. He's fighting for his job in a dirty election, and he will lose if independents think he's too radical.... You have to see the bigger picture, and then you'll realize that Obama supports us personally, morally, and politically, whereas Romney is dead set against us having equality.


    PS half the closet cases on RJ are "scared of this issue." Obama has already bravely spoken up for us on numerous occasions. He's definitely still a friend to the gay community.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 1:59 PM GMT
    LOL, the democrat joke is on liberal gays who want nanny state benefits.

    Within 10 years there will be a prenatal test to determine if a woman will have a gay baby.

    Who do you think will abort their gay babies:

    Democrats who support abortion

    or

    Republicans who are prolife.

    Lets look at what already happens with Down Syndrome babies:

    In the United States a number of studies have examined the abortion rate of fetuses with Down syndrome. Three studies estimated the termination rates at 95%, 98%, and 87% respectively.

    In the future, the % of the population that is gay will likely decrease.

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

    Oct 27, 2012 2:07 PM GMT
    Thank God, there is at least one person on here who has EDUCATED HIMSELF on this issue. Facts and information are your friends.

    ART_DECO said
    Shell saidBut if Obama "supports" it, and has the power to "change" it, but won't, what's the point of having him in office?

    No President has the power to unilaterally make law, nor rule on the Constitutionality of laws. Those powers rest with the Congress and the Supreme Court, respectively.

    What a President can do is issue Executive Orders, which have limited application. And in the case of gay marriage, that authority falls to the States under our Federal system. Much the same way you get a driver's license from your State of residence, not from Washington, DC.

    Hence DOMA may have exceeded the role of the Federal government, by attempting to regulate marriage on the national level, and to deny marriage recognition granted by individual States.

    The Obama Administration has taken the extraordinary pro-gay step of refusing to defend the DOMA law in the courts. Whereas the Republican Party, including Romney, have sworn to defend & enforce the provisions of DOMA, and even more, to outlaw all existing and future gay marriages & civil unions with a Constitutional amendment.

    When Obama says gay marriage is a State issue he is Constitutionally correct. And consistent with the arguments his Administration has brought against DOMA, as an unconstitutional act by the Federal government that violates States rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 2:16 PM GMT
    Can't believe people actually are rethinking about their support for Obama over this.

    It would be political suicide for Obama to say otherwise. You could even argue that he lost NC in the electoral college calculation because of his support of gay marriage back in May.

    At any rate, I would be more surprised if Obama can get ANYTHING done next term (assuming gets it) with the Republicans foreseeably going control at least the House next year. Forget a legislative proposal for gay marriage - you either missed out on Intro to Government class or slept through it, apparently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2012 2:16 PM GMT
    lol, well which would you rather have? A President that is pro marriage for gays, and will whatever is in his LIMITED reach to have that happen, or one that has declared once in office he will pass a federal law to prevent its occurrence, even on the State level?