He supported it as far back as 1996 but the MSM didn't want him to lose in '08 so they didn't bother looking for it.
Obama backed same-sex marriage in 1996 - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
The latter.
Biden’s gay-marriage gaffe is mess for White House
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Obama backed same-sex marriage in 1996 - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
"Flip flopping" is often not only acceptable but can also be wise, only an idiot stubbornly hangs on to the same stance as situations change. I just wish when politicians make promises they would add the words.............."conditions remaining the same". They'd save themselves a lot of grief and clear things up for the electorate.
Probably, it's not a subject (to me) worth studying in depth. U.S. has about 400 more important issues to run an election on. I'm also not convinced there is a correct answer regarding gay marriages.
Probably, it's not a subject (to me) worth studying in depth. U.S. has about 400 more important issues to run an election on. I'm also not convinced there is a correct answer regarding gay marriages.
But let's call it what it is... flip flopping not evolving.
I don't think the situation has changed IMO.
I agree on the first part. The second part I say let them marry.
Wow... he's flipping like a pancake!
I've never understood the objection to gay marriage - why should what someone else does, that has nothing to do with you, be any of your business?
In the last decade, I'm sure a lot people have changed their views on gay marriage.
I'm sure there is a bit of politicking involved, but it doesn't bother me personally that Obama evolved. It would be nice if he evolved some more.
Anyway, he's actually taking a pretty big risk in revealing his personal beliefs considering they contrast with some parts of the nation. Has Romney evolved yet?
Me either. What about multiple wives or husbands? Just for discussion.
He flip flopped or lied. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Walter just pointed out he was for it in 1996, against it in 2008, and now is for it again in 2012. Is that evolution?
That is an interesting question. Personally, I don't like the idea, but logically....well, hard to come up with a rational argument against it.
Let's ask Mitt...
I personally feel 1 wife is hard enough to deal with. Why I would want more is puzzling.
Obama must be one biggest disappointments, in the list of mediocrities, WITHOUT exception that has inhabited the Oval Office for at least 40 years. Thrown into a crisis brimming with potential of re-imposing rational supervision on the world economic system and markets.. he did NOTHING.. and has left the momentum of an on going collapse, which will be characterised by a series of ever greater shocks to an untenable system, in place.
On top of that he has proven himself a liar, a man without a moral centre, who is demanding full complicity and affirmation of religious organizations in his program of the New Age Culture of Death.. abortion, unfettered contraception, euthenasia, homosexuality.. despite previous promises to respect their integrity. Essentially this profoundly undermines the foundational pillars of our civilization.
We are dealing with a moral imbecile here, and a complete incompetent in administering the financial and industrial welfare of the American people. I thought he was a shoe in for election.. but he's such a nitwit that he might hand his second term.. to a Wall Street con artist and shill in Romney.. like Carter did with Reagan.
On top of that he has proven himself a liar, a man without a moral centre, who is demanding full complicity and affirmation of religious organizations in his program of the New Age Culture of Death.. abortion, unfettered contraception, euthenasia, homosexuality.. despite previous promises to respect their integrity. Essentially this profoundly undermines the foundational pillars of our civilization.
We are dealing with a moral imbecile here, and a complete incompetent in administering the financial and industrial welfare of the American people. I thought he was a shoe in for election.. but he's such a nitwit that he might hand his second term.. to a Wall Street con artist and shill in Romney.. like Carter did with Reagan.
Either way, I don't see why people in the U.S. care so much about this if it won't have any effect on policy.
The supreme court of BC decided on that. They claimed that criminalizing polyamory was unconstitutional but that the government had a legitimate democratic/social reason for banning it: the reason being the protection of women. I think most women's rights groups recommend simply having it not be legal, as opposed to criminalizing it.
I have no problems with polyamory between unsheltered consenting individuals. I think the courts probably made the right decision, given the current culture.
It's a wedge issue. It divides neatly into two camps, draws attention away from other issues, and inflames people on either gender equality or religious freedom issues.
Here's another embarrassing item that the Bamster doesn't want Americans to think about so he brings out the homosexual marriage strawman.
Silence on Dissident’s Pro-Life Activism « Commentary Magazine
Silence on Dissident’s Pro-Life Activism « Commentary Magazine
If I understand Canada's law as decided in BC, people can live in communal groups, they just can't be married. So people in these relationships are now better protected from harm, by having no recognized rights regarding children and communal property.
Indeed. Incidentally, many marital rights can be granted through notarized contracts anyways. Power of attorney, rights to visit in hospitals, communal property, etc.
So when the siblings of a baby adopted by same sex parents finds them (or the other way around) does DNA make them legal heirs in that they are the living relatives of the couple's 'only child'?
Is there any protection for the child that they can never be written out of the will and only 'natural children' get the spoils?
Is there any protection for the child that they can never be written out of the will and only 'natural children' get the spoils?