Social & Domestic Issues

Obama supports same-sex marriage, cites states’ rights

Yes, President Obama finally let the nation in on secret we already knew: He supports gay marriage. “For me personally,” Obama told ABC News — a day after North Carolina voted to ban gay marriage, “it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” (Well, yes, everything you believe Mr. President, you “personally” believe.)

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

Depite his evolution on the matter, Obama contends that he still supports states’ right to decide the issue. So perhaps one day someone covering the White House can ask Jay Carney or the president why gay marriage deserves special consideration? Even Adam Sewer at the hopelessly left-wing Mother Jones correctly notes: “Obama has endorsed marriage equality federalism—not the notion that marriage for gays and lesbians is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution that can never be taken away.”

Which begs an obvious question: If Obama has endorsed federalism and believes that states have the right to define marriage, then why doesn’t he support the ability of states to extricate themselves from Obamacare? Why don’t states have the right to dictate their immigration laws? And does he “personally” believe that states should be able decide the issue of abortion? Roe v. Wade exists, but so does the Defense of Marriage Act.

We might find a clue to his thinking in this 2009 the New York Times piece, “Obama Seems to Be Open to a Broader Role for States.” In it we learn of a new theory called “progressive federalism.” This is how it works: the president allows “California and other states to set their own limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks” because, presumably, he agrees with the policies that are being implemented and there is no political price to pay. But when your state passes an immigration law that the administration disapproves of, well, the Justice Department sues. Progressive federalism. 

Whatever you think of gay marriage — and I’ve long taken the position that government should get out of the marriage business altogether – if federalism can apply here, why not elsewhere?

Sign Up
  • Borghesius

    Don’t expect consistency from a liberal.  That implies a logically arrived position.  I’m just glad that the most intelligent person ever on the face of the Earth is relying on his daughters for POLITICAL COVER.  Punk.

  • Niniane

    This is all nothing more than Obama throwing out another red herring to keep our minds off of the abysmal economy and how he has not kept any of the promises he made as candidate and later as president. I find it hilarious that Obama should have appeared in NC yesterday to tout his jobs plan but abruptly cancelled. News alert for Obama: it is becoming evident that NC will cancel the WH resident. I really don’t think the Latinos and blacks in southern states, many of whom are very religious, will take kindly to this. Can’t wait to see what tomorrow’s diversion will be and what empty promises Obama will make for after his reelection to keep our mind off what is important to all Americans.

  • Liberal Soup N Crackers

    …and I’ve long taken the position that government should get out of the marriage business altogether…

    When a citizenry take it upon themselves to change their constitution, that is not “government in the marriage business”. That is a citizenry telling their government what is acceptable and what is not.

  • deeme

    Very good point!! They like to pick and choose  what they believe, to what suits them..Poor guy must be making himself dizzy with all the pivoting ,so no one notices, how bad he is doing in the real polls, don’t much care about the fake ones..Here’s the rule if you are redefining a word and it leans to what we believe ,we support it, otherwise we will sue you…Examples we are fine with abortion, sex education in public schools, affirmative action, needle exchange programs, same sex anything, if you are against it you are racist ,a homophobe,a religious clinger and Stupid…If you want marriage to be  defined as it has always been , are for voter i.d. and border patrol  and upholding the Constitution.. you too are a racist, homophobe, religious clinger and Stupid..

  • Telescoping You

    The Occupunks support for his like-minded homosexual sisters is not surprising.  After all, it is said, of the man no one knows anything about, that he is bisexual and, therefore, having sympathy for them is to be expected (actually he’s broke and needs their money).  Incidentally, most American’s did not know that this muslum is a communist and a liar and a usurper and a double-crosser and a racist – until now.

    But what is really at issue here is that this clown is so enamored with himself that he needs deflections like homosexuals, liberal women’s vaginal breech protection paid for by taxpayers, shoving down the throats of Catholics compulsory abortion, mother’s who don’t work and on and on and on…

    Finally, what we are witnessing is a jerk that has been reduced to a fourth-rate white-lipped Al Jolson act that says, “Look at me, I’m your Mammy.”  No, you are not, schmuck!

  • endpork

    What do you think the MSM would do if WE worked to change them and got them to keep things on the economy?

    Would Obamas light start to fade more??
    Would the world stop turning??
    Would this country have a change that has not been seen before????

    The economy is abysmal.. yes.. but what can WE THE PEOPLE DO? The media counts on us to do nothing because THEY DO NOT FEAR US. They know that the average person “just wants to be entertained”. Hollywood shows are 95-96% white but they tell us multiculturalism and other B.S. Obama will have a fundraiser giving a date with an actor??..?? The media will not cover the corruptness of it– so why should Obama be scared to throw another “red herring”?
    HE HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE MEDIA… and we have allowed this control for too long. It is our fault now.

  • Rocco11

    What a flaming Douchebag Obama is…

  • BuckeyePhysicist

    It’s Barack Obama.  Did you honestly expect him to defend traditional marriage?  This guy doesn’t defend traditional ANYTHING!

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    This should have been obvious from the moment Obama refused to defend the federal DOMA…where the judge who struck it down, a Nixon appointee, cited the 10th Amendment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    The United States Constiution, however, makes no provision for regulating marriage at the federal level. No matter how popular the federal DOMA is, without an authorizing federal Marriage Amendment from which to derive authority, it cannot stand.

  • Borghesius

    But the Federal Government has designated benefits for all of their programs based often on marital status, and also listed in the tax code.  Now, it may be that none of these programs or tax codes should exist in this form, and maybe that’s what Harsanyi wants to eliminate, but I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act is simply stating what constitutes the requirements for all of these programs and tax forms for which “Spouse” is referenced.  The intent those references used to be the traditionally understood definition of spouse, unless specifically called out otherwise.  DOMA simply made that clear.  For this purpose, it CAN stand, otherwise one can redefine thousands of laws simply by redefining a term.  The Federal government does not have the ability to define marriage, as it is a natural institution rooted in religion and biology pre-dating government, it can only recognize it as such.    

    Do you believe that the Administration and Solicitor General should have the ability to determine on their own that DOMA, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, is un-constitutional and therefore they don’t have to defend it?

  • BuckeyePhysicist

    Barack Obama is simply trying to do all he can to appease his vanishing liberal base.

  • Humility or Bust

    touché!

  • MicahStone

    “OBOZO Finally Comes Out of the Closet and Endorses Gay Marriage”
    …like Americans need yet another excellent reason to vote OBOZO out of office!!!!!
    …I knew his dainty gucci shoes and all that physical contact in playing basketball meant something.

    FYI: 29 states have voted to define “marriage” as a union between a man and a woman, period !
    2004 OBOZO interview with WTTW Chicago public television:
    OBAMA: “Well, what I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman…”
    OBAMA: “Well, what I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God…”
    OBAMA: “… I think there are a whole host of things that are civil rights, and then there are other things–such as traditional marriage–that, I think, express a community”s concern and regard for a particular institution….I don’t think marriage is a civil right…”

    OK, chris matthews, now it’s your turn to come out !!!!!!!!! And you too, anderson cooper and shep (The SCHLEP) smith !!!!

    “NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT!”

  • Borghesius

    Is socialism old enough to be considered traditional?  Or maybe third world dictatorship anti-imperialism?

    Notice that even it this, he leads from behind.  He expects the States to act, in his direction only, reserves the right to heap scorn upon those who act opposite to his wishes, but will not personally propose a Gays Can Marry Amendment.    

    President: I expect you to support North Carolina’s right to decide the issue on their own.   

  • Reagan_Smash

    “I was against Gay Marriage before I was for it!”  – Barrack Obama

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QGJB6XKBWEVILASOVXE5FP65SA Dave D

    Spot on!  The founding fathers intended for the government to be used to enforce religious beliefs.

  • LUKE_SKY_WALKER

    Spot on!
    The founding fathers intended for the government to be used to enforce
    the ADL/SPLC   AGENDA

  • Dustoff

    If you kill another. I have no problem. What did a baby do too you!

    pS war is just what it is…… WAR

  • http://poorwilber.blogspot.com Poor Wilber

    Obama is executing a Soro’s strategy, to tear down religious institutions and replace them with priests of secular humanism.   Whether its forcing church’es to accept abortion coverage for employees, or open homosexuality on their staffs.    It’s to destroy all those things that resist the forward movement of socialism…..to displace and isolate those still bitterly clinging to their guns and religion.  Once isolated,  those without the mark of the beast will not be able to participate….or buy or sell in a Government run economy.

  • Stratosaurus

    Clueless Leader has admitted that one of his mentors as a child was Frank Marshall Davis, a well-known communist sympathizer and teacher, who indoctrinated brak between molestation sessions.  I don’t see how you can deny that he has communist leanings — his entire agenda is based on government control of everything, and that’s pretty much what a communist wants, at least according to any history I’ve read.

  • http://poorwilber.blogspot.com Poor Wilber

    First and foremost, can we at least reclaim the word “gay”, and call these people what they really are…{{{{{{ HOMOSEXUALs}}}}}}.    If you call them “gay”, they’ve won by relabeling an unhealthy and abnormal psycho sexual disorder.

  • http://poorwilber.blogspot.com Poor Wilber

    Why is it, that we worry about the constitutionality of it, while liberals can pass any law regardless of its constitutionality…..give me a break.    I’m sure its in there somewhere Adam,  just like when the Court found the Amendment that abortion (killing unborn children) on demand is a constitutional right.      I still somehow miss it when I read the damn thing today.   If Federal Courts would stay out of homosexual marriage, let States determine their own law, none of this would be necessary. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    A bit hairy there, because the oath does mention the Constitution and not laws.

  • Borghesius

    Not, but that is not the case here.  I don’t know a true Catholic conservative that “cheers” death penalty, war, as anything other than loathsome duties in some limited cases.  As a Catholic, the State has a right to self defense for it’s populace by judicious use of the Death penalty, but John Paul II and I are willing to give up the death penalty in exchange for life imprisonment to drive home the point, if that helps save any innocent lives.  Likewise, we are willing to stick to Just war theory as much as possible in order to maximize the good and minimize the harm.  In these limited cases, the death penalty and just war as extensions of self defense are regrettable but PRO-LIFE.  Afghanistan WAS (under Bush and Rumsfeld) the closest to a just war as we have come, since then not so much.  Iraq probably wasn’t in justification or in execution, but the US did try to minimalise civilian deaths, and no-one can deny Iraq was a sh hole before hand and sanctions don’t work if the Dictator doesn’t care about his people and profits off the black market.  Sometimes the rest of the world just doesn’t play nice.

    You’ve mistaken me for a neo-con.  I would give up all death penalty, even saving the lives of the guilty, in order to save the life of innocent aborted babies.    How consistent is it to call oneself anti-violence when in the name of unrestricted choice including factors of social standing, money, career, and transitory sex one condones the ripping to pieces of or chemically burning to death a pre-born infant with a beating heart, brain activity, and the ability to feel pain?  Even if one didn’t know (and we now do) shouldn’t we give the baby the benefit of the doubt?

    Classic Fail dude.    

  • Borghesius

    Doubt much he is a muslum.  But from his associations, church history (Liberation Theology), appointments, and occasional unguarded statement, there is enough evidence to possibly assume he believes in communism.   Who knows for sure whats in his head?

  • DyShirley

    I think Obama came out of the closet since he knew he had John Travolta’s support.  

  • globalcrap

    Amen

  • Borghesius

    I’m actually ok with it in practice, because that means people who will actually try to win the case will present the DOMA case.   But as a lawyer, one often has to represent to the best of ones ability, cases that may not fully jive with one’s personal beliefs, no?  

    I think that accusing the Obama administration of making a principled stand for the sanctity of the Constitution given his other actions is, shall we say, nuts.  In my not so humble opinion. (I have to work on that humility).  So they are both biased and unprofessional.

  • http://poorwilber.blogspot.com Poor Wilber

    Perhaps we can distinguish between innocent life, and those who’ve committed horrific crimes.    Military actions launched to defend American lives…I approve. I don’t support all military actions, nor nation building adventures.   Thats a assumption you’ve made about conservatives, which is entirely wrong.

  • America Or Obama

    That bastion of accuracy, CNN’s “John King Loves Obama Hour” reviewed Obama’s evolutionary awakening all the way back to 2004, conveniently ignoring Obama’s “For it (1996*), before he was against it (2004), before he was for it (2012)” Darwin-defying immaculate deception.

    King gleefully announced to his mislead audience that in 1994 Romney supported equal rights for homosexuals further deceiving his viewers by insisting that Romney’s today restated opposition to homosexual marriage, a reversal.

    Why in a country as vital to world stability as America, is someone as blatantly deceptive and routinely disingenuous as John King allowed access to a microphone with a reach beyond his bathroom shower?

    *(It took less than ten seconds to formulate and complete a Google search on Obama’s gay positions history)

  • http://profiles.google.com/douglynn23 Doug Lynn

    It sure seems that Obama is correct about people becoming more comfortable with same sex marriage. More and more people in the western world seem to be embracing Hedonism as superior to any other sexual morals value system. 

    Christianity, in particular, is attacked from every conceivable angle. Same say the Bible is mistranslated. Others argue that it is simply out-of-date, misunderstood or misinterpreted. And, still others say it is neither mistranslated or misunderstood, but simply a stupid book written by bigots afraid of sexual freedom. Biblical truth deniers may not agree what the Bible says, but they agree homosexual sex is both natural and moral as the good Hedonists they are. 

    Wanting votes from both sides of the issue, many Hedonists, including Presidents Clinton and Obama, still claim to be Christians while rejecting Biblical teaching in many areas. I suppose their ability to be blatantly heretical, and still gather support from others who claim to be Christians, is an indictment of the Biblical ignorance by so many of their voters.

  • http://profiles.google.com/douglynn23 Doug Lynn

    You are correct, sir. There is nothing gay about the perversion of God’s plan for human sexuality.

  • WEBIII

    Same thing Stalin did back in the 30′s and it worked.

  • WEBIII

    “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”Barack Hussein Obama, Audacity of Hope

    I can’t imagine why he would call him a muslim either.

  • gary1224

     What page is that quote on?

  • 1tomritter1

    Homosexuality is a disease. 

    One does not make fun of someone who has cancer, but neither does one pretend that cancer is a healthy condition.

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    Spot on!  The founding fathers intended for the government to be used to force the perversions of one group down the throats of the entire nation.

  • Altosackbuteer

    It’s VERY consistent.

    And if you can’t see it, then you’re too stupid to understand the explanation.  Which you already proved by asking your dumb question in the first place.

  • Altosackbuteer

    I disagree and I’ll tell you why.

    Marriage is a CONTRACT.  Both parties stipulate to certain things.  I Judaism, the contract is sealed with a “ketubah,” which comes from the word for “writing.”

    Since marriage is a contract, it falls under the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution, which says, a binding contract in one state is binding in all states.  That is why, when a (traditional) couple marries in one state and moves to another, their new state will recognize the marriage from the old state.

    Congress has a right to regulate Interstate Commerce, and when marriage contract cross interstate lines, which they do all the time, they become Interstate Commerce and hence can be regulated by the Feds.

    On occasions in American history, Congress has modified the Full Faith and Credit Clause so that a given contract binding in one state was NOT necessarily binding in all.

    It happened before the Civil War when slave-holding was regulated by deeds of ownership.  The deed of ownership was honored in all Southern states but not Northern states.

    What would have happened if a man from abolitionist Boston went to Maryland to purchase a slave legally?  Could he then expect to be able to return to Boston with his slave, expecting the Commonwealth of massachusetts to honor his contract and his deed of ownership under Full Faith & Credit?

    No, he could NOT.

    I used to think as you did — DoMA could not stand constitutional muster because it violated Full Faith & Credit.  But a constitutional attorney set me straight; DoMA was actually a very workable and elegant answer to the predicament of gay marriage. which Congress had the constitutional power to pass.

    Well, now there is no more DoMA.  That means, Full Faith & Credit is back with a VENGEANCE.  That means, NC, which has just defined marriage in the traditional way, will ultimately HAVE TO RECOGNIZE gay marriage from the People’s Commonwealth of MA.

    Thanks to the short-sighted Democrats and their STUPID repeal of DoMA, NOW a constitutional amendment is INEVITABLE.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Oh yes it would be necessary.  For what happens, under the Full Faith & Credit Clause, when someone gets a legal gay marriage in a gay state and then moves to a straight state and demands that they recognize his gay marriage?

  • Altosackbuteer

    In records from Øbamas Øsama’s Indonesian schoo, where he studied from age 7 – 11, his religion is stated as MOO-SLUM.

    And for someone who’s “not a Moo-slum,” he sure knows how to recite Ashahadu perfectly. And has been known to wax poetic about the beauty of the muezzinin who call the faithful to prayer 5 times a day.

  • eewell

    This is yet again another non news story.

  • Borghesius

    I hope you are here for the entertainment and the feeling of superiority, because with that attitude you surely aren’t attracting converts.  Maybe you should read some St. Francis DeSales.  

  • NUTN2SAY

     I’m not going to be your source for entertainment. Again, you spewed your crap at me in the past and I say it is still crap!

    I expressed my opinion. If you didn’t like it that’s your business. For you to try and turn it into your personal obsession will reveal that you have serious matters to think about! Grow up!

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    OK, so I don’t like it? Whadda YOU gonna do about it? Ab-so-freaking-lutely nothing but run your mouth, that’s what.

    And it isn’t everywhere, ya moron.
    If it was, it would be outside my house, down the street, in the Court House, on the roof tops, etc…and it’s not.

    And who said anything about punishment, let alone punishing gays more than heteros?
    Learn to read what I write. Not what you want to see, ya anal retentive liar.

    I don’t sink so low as to go to gay pride parades, but that doesn’t make it right to FLAUNT their perversion in public, but if you’re into that sort of thing…..then take your right hand on a date and go to one yourself, fruit salad.

    As far as the rest of your empty punk BS goes, you’re just a cyber big mouth, keyboard hero, and if you don’t like what I say, then take your own advice and stop reading me, ya friggin hypocrite. I’ll say what I want…..WHEN I want, got it?

  • wplum

    I do not understand why Rev. Al, Jessie, Franklin Graham,
    T.D. Jakes and other so-called Ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, do not
    allow the Bible to speak on the sin of homosexuality and lesbianism.  The liberal ministers want to continue to be liked
    and the conservative ministers apparently are more impressed with expressing
    their personal opinion versus allowing God to speak for Himself.  They are supposed to be men of God and their
    responsibility according to Jeremiah 23:1-6 is to “Feed God’s Sheep”…preach
    the Word of God to give them knowledge. 

    Congressman Barney Franks said on MSNBC the Old Testament
    does not speak to homosexuality.  I
    suggest they read Leviticus 18:22.  The
    Word of God that he chooses to accept (the Old Testament) says in the above
    text “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as womankind, it is an
    abomination.  In the New Testament for
    those who want to accept what is written, Romans 1:22-32 articulates the sin of
    lesbianism and other sins of sex. 
    Specifically, in verse 26 the Bible says, “…for this cause God
    gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural
    use into that which is against nature:” Verse 27 “And likewise also
    the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
    another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in
    themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”  In addition, because they did not like what
    God said about these sins of the flesh, God turned them over to themselves.  Finally, Jude 7 (New Testament) shares what
    happened in Sodom, Gomorrha, and the other cities that gave in to homosexuality
    and other sins of the flesh. 

    Therefore, I submit these preachers who claimed to have
    studied the Word of God refuse to share it with the masses so the people can
    become knowledgeable.  I suggest Obama
    and Romney stop speaking about what their opinion is and blame it on God. After
    all, they both claim to be Christians. 

    As an African American I am insulted when gay and lesbians compare their situation to the struggles of Black people in this country.  I had no choice in being born a Black man. I did make a choice in being a conservative.  Everytime this issue goes to the electorate it is voted down and Black Americans overwhelmingly vote against gay marriages and disapprove of this behavior. 

  • wplum

    I do not understand why Rev. Al,
    Jessie, Franklin Graham, T.D. Jakes and other so-called Ministers of the Gospel
    of Jesus Christ, do not allow the Bible to speak on the sin of homosexuality
    and lesbianism.  The liberal ministers
    want to continue to be liked and the conservative ministers apparently are more
    impressed with expressing their personal opinion versus allowing God to speak
    for Himself.  They are supposed to be men
    of God and their responsibility according to Jeremiah 23:1-6 is to “Feed
    God’s Sheep”…preach the Word of God to give them knowledge. 

    Congressman Barney Franks said on
    MSNBC the Old Testament does not speak to homosexuality.  I suggest they read Leviticus 18:22.  The Word of God that he chooses to accept
    (the Old Testament) says in the above text “Thou shalt not lie with
    mankind as womankind, it is an abomination. 
    In the New Testament for those who want to accept what is written,
    Romans 1:22-32 articulates the sin of lesbianism and other sins of sex.  Specifically, in verse 26 the Bible says,
    “…for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their
    women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:”

    Verse 27 “And likewise also
    the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
    another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in
    themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”  In addition, because they did not like what
    God said about these sins of the flesh, God turned them over to
    themselves.  Finally, Jude 7 (New
    Testament) shares what happened in Sodom, Gomorrha, and the other cities that
    gave in to homosexuality and other sins of the flesh. 

    Therefore, I submit these preachers
    who claimed to have studied the Word of God refuse to share it with the masses
    so the people can become knowledgeable. 
    I suggest Obama and Romney stop speaking about what their opinion is and
    blame it on God.  After all, they both
    claim to be Christians. 

    As an African American, I am
    insulted when gay and lesbians compare their situation to the struggles of
    Black people in this country.  I had no
    choice in being born a Black man.  I did
    make a choice in being a conservative.  No
    one can refute the fact that each time this issue goes to the electorate it is
    voted down and Black Americans overwhelmingly vote against same sex marriages.  The media does not report on this fact nor do
    they report that overwhelmingly Blacks and Browns disapprove of this behavior,
    even in liberal states like California.