NY Times wrote:WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday ended nearly two years of “evolving” on the issue of same-sex marriage by publicly endorsing it in a television interview, taking a definitive stand on one of the most contentious and politically charged social issues of the day.

“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Mr. Obama told ABC News in an interview that came after the president faced mounting pressure to clarify his position.

In an election that is all but certain to turn on the slowly recovering economy and its persistently high jobless rate, Mr. Obama’s stand nonetheless injects a volatile social issue into the campaign debate and puts him at even sharper odds with his presumptive Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage and favors an amendment to the United States Constitution to forbid it.

Hours before the president’s announcement, Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, restated his opposition to same-sex marriage in an interview with KDVR-TV, a Fox News affiliate in Colorado.

“When these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” Mr. Romney said. “My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate, but that the others are not.”

Public support for same-sex marriage is growing at a pace that surprises even professional pollsters as older generations of voters who tend to be strongly opposed are supplanted by younger ones who are just as strongly in favor. Same-sex couples are featured in some of the most popular shows on television, without controversy.

Yet time after time, when the issue is put to voters in states, they have chosen to ban unions between people of the same gender or to defeat measures that would legalize same-sex unions. Just Tuesday, North Carolinians voted overwhelmingly to add a ban to their state constitution, and Republican leaders in the Colorado House blocked a vote on legislation to allow civil unions; North Carolina and Colorado are considered swing states in presidential politics.

Nationwide, according to the pollster Andrew Kohut of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, a plurality of swing voters favors same-sex marriage, 47 percent to 39 percent, and outside the South the margin widens to a majority of 53 percent in favor and 35 percent opposed; in the South, a plurality of 48 percent opposes same-sex marriage. Swing voters generally do not have strong opinions on the subject, Mr. Kohut said, though in the South 30 percent of swing voters say they are strongly opposed.

Supporters of same-sex marriage were quick to praise the president’s decision to speak out.

“President Obama’s words today will be celebrated by generations to come,” said Chad Griffin, the incoming president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group. “For the millions of young gay and lesbian Americans across this nation, President Obama’s words provide genuine hope that they will be the first generation to grow up with the freedom to fully pursue the American dream. Marriage — the promise of love, companionship, and family — is basic to the pursuit of that dream.”

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, called the president’s statement “a watershed moment in American history” that would aid efforts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York said, “No American president has ever supported a major expansion of civil rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people, and I have no doubt that this will be no exception.”

Some supporters saw the president’s announcement in more political terms.

Frazzled wrote:Good thing Biden trapped him into it by going off the reservation. On the other hand who cares? Its a state issue.

Corpsesarefun wrote:Why this is even a point of contention I'll never know.

Frazzled wrote:Obama's in the pocket of Halliburton!

rubiksnoob wrote:It is an issue because religious nutjobs can't seem to come to grips with the fact that the word of their god isn't the word of everyone else's.

Melissia wrote:Of course, if you paid attention to his actions, this support he publicly announced wasn't exactly hidden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:It is an issue because religious nutjobs can't seem to come to grips with the fact that the word of their god isn't the word of everyone else's.

Or that not everyone agrees with what their god says to begin with.

mattyrm wrote: I don't know many gay people, and I don't much care about gay people, I don't go to gay bars (although, I would happily go in one if the beer was cheap!) and I am not affected in any way by gay people.

That said, without sounding like a hippy or anything, considering what a fething awful selfish species we are, the only good thing to come out of our lives seems to be love. Be it love for a dog, love for a child, love for a spouse, its the only instance where people put others first, and care about another as much as they do for themselves.

For this reason, gay people should be allowed to marry each other. Love is one of the few redeeming qualities for our species, and I think it should be encouraged.

Also, good on him for finally coming out and saying it. In this day and age, I think it will help more than hinder..

But then, America keeps on surprising me.

Melissia wrote:I have no problem with polygamy, although I have no intention of participating. But what about Polyandry?

Melissia wrote:Although if polygamy and/or polyandry are legalized, they'd have to make it illegal to NOT reveal your marital status to potential dates or something..

Melissia wrote:Polyandry = women having multiple husbands, as a counterpoint to Polygamy, which is where men have multiple wives.
Although if polygamy and/or polyandry are legalized, they'd have to make it illegal to NOT reveal your marital status to potential dates or something..

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Although if polygamy and/or polyandry are legalized, they'd have to make it illegal to NOT reveal your marital status to potential dates or something..

That would be what you call...fraud.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Although if polygamy and/or polyandry are legalized, they'd have to make it illegal to NOT reveal your marital status to potential dates or something..

That would be what you call...fraud.

I suspect a number of men (and women) already go on dates without disclosing their marital status.

Pretty sure it's not fraud.

CptJake wrote:Why the heck would you want a law to cover that for a specific set of people?

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:Pretty sure it's not fraud.

Tell their spouse that. Be sure to duck first.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:Pretty sure it's not fraud.

Tell their spouse that. Be sure to duck first.

That's not fraud. There's no communication between the cheating and innocent spouses.

Still wrong, but not fraud.

Melissia wrote:Polyandry = women having multiple husbands, as a counterpoint to Polygamy, which is where men have multiple wives.

Ahtman wrote:

Melissia wrote:Polyandry = women having multiple husbands, as a counterpoint to Polygamy, which is where men have multiple wives.

That isn't correct, at all.

Polygamy (Greek: often married)= generic term to describe having multiple spouses without regard to gender.
Polyandry (Greek: multiple men) = One wife, multiple husbands
Polygyny (Greek: multiple women)= One husband, multiple wives

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:Why the heck would you want a law to cover that for a specific set of people?

It covers anyone who is married.

Corpsesarefun wrote:Well the first half is correct and the second half is a special case of the correct definition.