Hey dgs49, Obama just called your bluff

[Guinevere]

Thank goodness he finally stood up for what is right. From the reaction I've seen so far, he has re-energized some of the left which will help in the campaign going forward. I'm thinking he will still some of the college kids back from Ron Paul, who were so important in his victory last time.

Guin--that's my concern; this just smacks of a "let's stir up the base I ignored for the last 3 years; the fools will flock to me" rather than standing up for what is right. I hate being cynical but this guy reminds me of Bill clinton--he wants to stay president far more than trying to get anything of value done while he is in office. Results count a lot more than words, and his "accomplishments" seem at odds with the platform he ran on in the last election.

I think that's an overstatement BigRR. Every President wants to stay President -- and BTW -- why does Mittens want to be CiC? Even he can't articulate a reason, but Obama certainly could and can.

As far as I can tell, the President was planning on staying the middle ground on gay marriage. Think about it, and especially the big picture -- the Democratic Convention is in NC -- he *needs* that state to stay in his column to make winning easier, and he comes out for gay marriage that day after NC makes it unconstitutional. The leftest of the lefties are already clamoring to move the convention (which we all know won't happen), but it gives them another reason to step away. Most of us know he can't make that choice, but in some ways it puts the President in a bit of a tough spot and highlights differences I think he would prefer are not highlighted right now.

Was he outmaneuvered by Biden? I don't really know, but we all do know that as harad as you try you cannot control every person all the time, especially in politics.

[Lord Jim]

The leftest of the lefties are already clamoring to move the convention

I heard that on MSNBC a little while ago...

Unbelievable...

Not only would that be a logistical impossibility with just three months to go...for starters, where would they find another city with enough hotel rooms and a large enough convention center to accommodate the in-excess of 10,000 delegates, alternates, hangers on and media people with that kind of notice?...who ever came up with this brilliant idea really hasn't thought it through...

But if they did try to pull this, I can't imagine a better way for Obama to make sure he doesn't carry North Carolina....

[Scooter]

You know we have entered the twilight zone when Bristol Palin has the chutzpah to publicly lecture anyone on the importance of kids growing up with a mother and a father, and the role a father should play in his children's lives. Uh, Bristol, considering the winner you decided would make a good father for your children, perhaps you might think again before sticking your oar into this particular debate.

[Gob]

Oh dear...

Presumptive US Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has apologised for school "pranks" after a report he bullied a classmate thought to be gay.

The Washington Post reported that in 1965 Mr Romney held down a younger student and cut off his hair.

Mr Romney said that he did not remember the incident, but apologised for "hijinks and pranks" that "may have gone too far".

A campaign spokeswoman called the report "exaggerated and off-base".

The Post interviewed five former classmates of Mr Romney about his time as a student at the Cranbrook School outside of Detroit, Michigan.

The classmates said Mr Romney objected to a younger student's bleached blond, longer hair.

According to the report the young man, John Lauber, was "perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality".

"I don't remember that incident," Mr Romney told Fox News during a radio interview.

"I certainly don't believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s, so that was not the case."

Mr Lauber died in 2004, according to the Post.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18028394

He "doesn't remember" the time he held a guy down and cut off his hair? Fuck me pink, is he fit for office with such poor memory?

Ohh, and if he doesn't remember that incident, what the fuck went down in the ones he does remember?

[Big RR]

Guin--Obama may be able to articulate reasons why he wants to remain president, but can he tell us why he should? Can he point to a list of accomplishments that even began the "change" he said he was for? This man has run from nearly all his positions he ran on, trying to court the middle while taking the left for granted. And I personally think that's a mistake. I have no idea where he stands on the issue of gay marriage, but think this "announcement" thinly disguised effort to manipulate his traditional base with something that will be as quickly forgotten as every other campaign promise he made or makes.

And I agree, every president wants to remain in office, but that's the pity. When the pomp and power of the office becomes an end in itself, when someone will say or do anything to keep it, then we have someone in office that cannot be counted on to actually do anything. And so we drift on, rudderless,led by a man who refuses to chart a course lest some disagree with him. I think we deserve a lot more, but that's what we've got.

Jim--I would think the convention could be moved to Las Vegas without tremendous difficulty, but agree with you that it won't, for the reason you stated.

edited to correct a typo

[Gob]

After Obama's shock announcement last night, his re-election crusade saw a massive spike in donations as gay donors lined up to pour money into his campaign.

BuzzFeed reported that Obama's campaign collected an astonishing $1million within 90 minutes after the ABC News interview aired.

[Guinevere]

Guin--Obama may be able to articulate reasons why he wants to remain president, but can he tell us why he should? Can he point to a list of accomplishments that even began the "change" he said he was for? This man has run from nearly all his positions he ran on, trying to court the middle while taking the left for granted. And I personally think that's a mistake. I have no idea where he stands on the issue of gay marriage, but think this "announcement" thinly disguised effort to manipulate his traditional base with something that will be as quickly forgotten as every other campaign promise he made or makes.

And I agree, every president wants to remain in office, but that's the pity. When the pomp and power of the office becomes an end in itself, when someone will say or do anything to keep it, then we have someone in office that cannot be counted on to actually do anything. And so we drift on, rudderless,led by a man who refuses to chart a course lest some disagree with him. I think we deserve a lot more, but that's what we've got.

BigRR, they're politicans, what do you expect?

The more I read and hear, the more I think the President's announcement was a savvy political decision. According to Nate Silver of 538.com, public support of gay marriage has moved to 55 for and 45 against (I've since seen/heard variations on those numbers from different pollsters, but it is clear more approve than oppose). Support for gay marriage has moved more quickly than any other social issue -- about 2-3% per year over the last decade (contrast abortion or gun control, where generally public opinion has not budged in decades). That means when Obama was elected in 2008, support for gay marriage was still a firmly minority position, and it would not help really help him beyond his core liberal base to come out in support. In the 3 1/2 years since his election, opinion has flipped to the other side and perhaps he can find additional support from moderates or independants. As I said above, clearly, he is trying to win back many of his younger supporters ---- 2/3 of those under 35 support gay marriage, while 2/3 of those over 65 oppose it.

[dgs49]

The polling on public support for gay marriage is totally meaningless. It is one thing to respond to a telephone call and quite another to cast a secret ballot. In EVERY state - including CALI-FUCKING-FORNIA - where there has been a ballot question about gay marriage, GAY MARRIAGE HAS LOST! In NONE of the states where it is legal has the question been put to the voters.

There's your poll for you. The only one that counts.

[Guinevere]

Look, there is no question a national poll is different than a state by state analysis. I wasn't suggesting that they were the same, but clearly opinion is changing, and changing rapidly. I'd bet some of those state propositions will be reversed in the next decade.

I'd also look carefully before I would declare NC any bellweather. Only 30% turnout hardly makes a state-wide mandate, and those vificerously opposed to gay marriage did a better job of turning out the vote. I also think that putting the rights of a minority up for a public vote has questionable validity.

[Big RR]

Guin--Obama may be able to articulate reasons why he wants to remain president, but can he tell us why he should? Can he point to a list of accomplishments that even began the "change" he said he was for? This man has run from nearly all his positions he ran on, trying to court the middle while taking the left for granted. And I personally think that's a mistake. I have no idea where he stands on the issue of gay marriage, but think this "announcement" thinly disguised effort to manipulate his traditional base with something that will be as quickly forgotten as every other campaign promise he made or makes.

And I agree, every president wants to remain in office, but that's the pity. When the pomp and power of the office becomes an end in itself, when someone will say or do anything to keep it, then we have someone in office that cannot be counted on to actually do anything. And so we drift on, rudderless,led by a man who refuses to chart a course lest some disagree with him. I think we deserve a lot more, but that's what we've got.

BigRR, they're politicans, what do you expect?

The more I read and hear, the more I think the President's announcement was a savvy political decision. According to Nate Silver of 538.com, public support of gay marriage has moved to 55 for and 45 against (I've since seen/heard variations on those numbers from different pollsters, but it is clear more approve than oppose). Support for gay marriage has moved more quickly than any other social issue -- about 2-3% per year over the last decade (contrast abortion or gun control, where generally public opinion has not budged in decades). That means when Obama was elected in 2008, support for gay marriage was still a firmly minority position, and it would not help really help him beyond his core liberal base to come out in support. In the 3 1/2 years since his election, opinion has flipped to the other side and perhaps he can find additional support from moderates or independants. As I said above, clearly, he is trying to win back many of his younger supporters ---- 2/3 of those under 35 support gay marriage, while 2/3 of those over 65 oppose it.

What do I expect? Action rather than words. Maybe it's silly of me to expect Obama to try and effect some of the "change" he campaigned for rather than run from it, but that seems par for the course for democratic presidents (at least since Carter). But tell me, do you really expect this "major announcement" to result in any real change in federal law--do you expect him to lobby for repeal of the DOMA or to try and get around it and provide federal benefits to gay married couples? I don't.

Talk is cheap, and I'm pretty sick of politicians saying one thing to try and get my support, and then running from that position as soon as they're elected. Again, maybe It's silly of me to expect more; but isn't it silly of the rest of us to pretend someone represents them when their actions say clearly the opposite.

[Scooter]

I'd also look carefully before I would declare NC any bellweather. Only 30% turnout hardly makes a state-wide mandate, and those vificerously opposed to gay marriage did a better job of turning out the vote.

The vote was also purposely timed to occur during primaries, when Republicans would greatly outnumber Democrats at the polls, rather than in November.

[rubato]

" ---- 2/3 of those under 35 support gay marriage, while 2/3 of those over 65 oppose it. "

That is the only poll that counts. That is the future.

All of the Republicans of today will be lying about their willingness to persecute homosexuals for mere political advantage.

All of them.

Scum

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The more I read and hear, the more I think the President's announcement was a savvy political decision.

Well, maybe not so savvy:

Six in ten Americans say President Barack Obama's historic shift to embrace same-sex marriage won't affect how they vote in November, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll. Still, more independents said the move made them "less likely" to vote for him than "more likely," Gallup said, making the decision a "net minus" for the president.

The survey found that 51 percent approve of the president's new position, while 45 percent said they disapproved. Among independents, his move won out by a margin of 53 percent to 44 percent.

Overall, 26 percent of respondents said they're were now less likely to vote for Obama, while 13 percent said they were more likely to do so. Among independents, 11 percent said they were more likely to vote for him, 63 percent said it made no difference, and 23 percent said they were less likely to do so.

"Those figures suggest Obama's gay marriage position is likely to cost him more independent and Democratic votes than he would gain in independent and Republican votes, clearly indicating that his new position is more of a net minus than a net plus for him," Gallup said.

"However, those figures also underscore that it is a relatively limited group of voters--about one in three independents and fewer than one in 10 Republicans or Democrats--whose votes may change as a result of Obama's new stance on gay marriage," the organization's Jeffrey M. Jones said in his write-up of the survey.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obam ... 34061.html

Frankly I was surprised that the number who said it could affect their vote one way or the other is as high as it is...

If, in an election as likely to be as tight as this one, by a two to one margin Obama lost the votes of one third of the independents, over this, it would be enormously damaging for him....

But I suspect the number who, in the immediate aftermath of this announcement, say this could affect their vote is likely to be much higher a those who actually will have had their vote changed by this on election day.

Plus, just because someone says a given factor makes them "more likely" or "less likely" doesn't mean the issue will be determinative for their vote.

[Crackpot]

it also doesn't say if they were likely to vote for him in the first place

[Econoline]

The vote was also purposely timed to occur during primaries, when Republicans would greatly outnumber Democrats at the polls, rather than in November.

Good point.

[Lord Jim]

The fact that this referendum was held at primary time may have contributed to the margin, (though at this point the GOP race for the nomination is just as over as the Democratic one) but the fact is that these votes have been held in states on both primary and general election ballots, and the pro-gay marriage side has lost more than 30 of them. (The one in California was held under what should have been the most positive circumstances possible for the pro-gay marriage side; the 2008 general election ballot with Obama at the top of the ticket.)

I think there are two things that can be said about public support for gay marriage; First it has been growing over the past decade.

Second it's impossible to know how much it has grown, but it probably has not grown as much as the polls would indicate, because at the same time something else has been growing:

The propensity for voters to lie to pollsters about their position on this issue.

I haven't examined every single one of the 30 plus referendums where gay marriage has gone down to defeat, but in the ones I have looked at (the votes in California and Maine being the most striking) the pro-gay marriage position consistently under performs election eve polls by a wider margin than the margin of error, usually somewhere between 5-8 points. You don't see this kind of consistent gap on any other issue, or in head to head candidate races.

I have a theory about this:

For some years now, the bulk of the mainstream news media has taken a more unabashed advocacy position on this than on any other public policy issue I can remember. There really isn't even any pretense of objectivity about it.

And this drumbeat of advocacy isn't just supportive of gay marriage; it seeks to de-legitimatize opposition to gay marriage. To paint those opposed to it as though they were the moral equivalent of racists in the Jim Crow south...

(There's a lot of resentment towards this analogy; including among many African Americans; though most white liberals seem to think it fits like a glove)

I believe this effort to paint folks who are opposed to gay marriage as not just wrong, but somehow immoral, has taken a toll in terms of getting honest responses from a percentage of people to poll questions on this issue.

When someone from a polling outfit calls, the person responding would probably not like to have that person think they are the moral equivalent of Bull Connor.... (Now why would anyone care what a complete stranger, who they will never meet, thinks of them? Ya got me, but plenty of studies show that lots of folks do)

So what you have is a percentage of the population that is opposed to gay marriage, but that has been so affected by the media campaign to try and get gay marriage opponents to feel, not just mistaken, but "guilty" about their opposition, that they won't be honest about how they feel when asked about it.

The ironic thing about this phenomena is that it has made it very difficult for the pro-gay marriage side to know where they really stand going into the vote on a referendum in a state, because the very strategy that has been employed to try and build support for gay marriage has undermined the ability to gauge popular support.

[MajGenl.Meade]

pho·bi·a (fb-)
n.
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the things I dislike and have a strong aversion to, is the manner in which in South African media (in particular) and elswhere in the world, opposition to homosexual marriage and/or societal acceptance is deemed "homophobic".

By this, the person who uses the word does not mean sense 2 above (dislike or aversion) but sense 1 - that any person who does so oppose homosexual marriage etc. is "abnormal" and has an "irrational fear" because that person does not accept the other side of the argument's "reassurance" (and wilfully ignores their own "awareness" of the truth of it) that it is "not dangerous".

So because I say without reservation that homosexuality is a sin against God - neither worse than nor better than my own sins, which are many - and that homosexual marriage should not be accepted as a 'norm', I am abnormal and irrational. Any and all normal and rational people are on the other side of the argument.

OTOH, those who do support that side of the argument would not classify themselves as "homophiles" - at least one supposes not - because that carries the opposite connotation. That their "liking" or "affinity" or "support of" etyc. +is also irrational and abnormal.

Why is that I wonder?


Meade

[Grim Reaper]

Probably because -phobia and -philia represent polar opposites.

The human mind is capable of more than just those two extremes. Not everybody is scared of spiders. That doesn't mean that they all love spiders.

Same deal with homosexuality. I don't have to be homosexual in order to accept homosexuality.

And I would call it irrational to focus on opposing same-sex marriages so much, especially when a multitude of other minor sins washes over people every day. The Bible even a little passage to consider.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well you did rather miss the point, I'd say.

The question is: why is opposition to the societal normalisation of homosexuality ALWAYS regarded (and spoken of) as homophobia? But support for the societal normalisation of homosexuality NEVER is regarded (or spoken of) as homophilia?

The first belief on a moral issue is media-spun as irrational and abnormal. The second belief on a moral issue is media-spun as rational and perfectly correct. Why? Because opposition to homosexual normalisation must be demonised rather than permitted voice.

My belief is rational. The opposite belief is also rational. To demonise either position is have planks while protesting motes.

Re Matt 7:5, thanks for emphasising my statement that

homosexuality is a sin against God - neither worse than nor better than my own sins, which are many

.

I of course am not agitating that society give legal standing to "Meade's Sins" - whatever they may be - and therefore there is no need for any segment of society to express opposition to such a political initiative.

It is facile to argue that opposition to a political position should be devalued and ruled inadmissible on the grounds that those who oppose that position are not themselves perfect human beings. Motes and beams work both ways.

Meade

[Grim Reaper]

It's not regarded as the exact opposite, because it's not the exact opposite. Just because I don't have an irrational hatred of something doesn't mean I love it to irrationality either.

And you want to prevent same-sex marriages because of the Bible saying so, while at the same time ignoring large chunks of the rest of the Bible. A book that's been edited and translated several times over the past two thousand years. Everything in it should be taken with a fairly large grain of salt.