He’s evolving ! So is Old Joe .

I’m unemployed, he’s unemployed, she’s unemployed, they’re unemployed…equality for everyone!

Fact: Must remind him of that questionable relationship with his male roommate.

Good thing he’s not a Republican–he’d be labeled homophobic.

And the president plans to put BOTH of his feet onto that hallowed ground if safely reelected in 2012…

What if an Evil Corporate Jet Owner want to marry a same sex Millionaire / Billionaire Oil and Gas Tycoon ?

12:36 pm

He just reminded us that he was President of the United States .

The Lantern of Truth said:
He’s evolving ! So is Old Joe .

Fact: Old Joe out in the back don’t go for that sh-t neither.

How dare someone have an evolving moral opinion. Scientists have proven that there is no such thing as evolution.

12:43 pm . Every day , he gets letters from folks …

This guy has not got a clue .

Thanks , liberals .

Its clear the President is against gay marriage but has no guts to even admit that. But now watch the media bendover backwards defending him or giving him a pass on this. Talk a stand on one side or the other and stop with the nonsense.

Thelonious Funk said:
evolving

Lying .

He wants to be reelected .

God help us .

Azarkhan said:
Good thing he’s not a Republican–he’d be labeled homophobic.

His position is not homophobic, but it certainly is bigoted.

Thelonious Funk said:
How dare someone have an evolving moral opinion. Scientists have proven that there is no such thing as evolution.

Where is he evolving? He was against gay marriage before and still is. He just doesn’t want to lose votes so he takes no stand on this issue. He votes present. Its beyond weak.

Thelonious Funk said:
How dare someone have an evolving moral opinion. Scientists have proven that there is no such thing as evolution.

Your evolving credulity…. is certainly a counter to that…

Why would Mediaite not post an Obama press conference clip about the economy?
[rhetorical question]

Obama is for whatever gets him reelected.

jerrybobphil said:
Where is he evolving? He was against gay marriage before and still is. He just doesn’t want to lose votes so he takes no stand on this issue. He votes present. Its beyond weak.

Why are you assuming he’s against gay marriage?

Steve_27 said:
Why are you assuming he’s against gay marriage?

Because he’s said as much. He supports civil unions which, as far as I’m concerned, is just a case of ‘separate but equal’.

“We’re moving in a direction of greater equality, and I think that’s a good thing,”

Yep, at the rate we’re going, we’ll all be broke before we know it. Won’t that be awesome?

Michelle Obama denies supporting gay marriage
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57923.html

Steve_27 said:
Why are you assuming he’s against gay marriage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJhQBZ1La0w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8&feature=related

“Moving in a direction of greater depravity”.

Wow, I guess MOOCH-ELLE’s gonna be PISSED when BeeHO elopes wif Reggie.

-0bama – Widely held as WORST-

Hey Mediate, where are your 150 articles on the republican sexting scandal?

One of the benefits of the federal system is that it allows the states to operate as a laboratory for policy innovation.. he is wise to understand this. As executive it is his duty to enforce the laws, not to create or interpret them… his personal feelings are less important than his respect for legal obligations on the matter.

I understand the desire from some for him to lead through strong personal advocacy… that is clearly not his style. The nation was design to transform by virtue of delicate design and gradually shifting public will. Asking him to push for radical change, regardless of arguments for enlarged justice, equals a request for overstep that he rightly understands as less American than the transformation already underway.

Gay or straight, we are all just people. Why do they need special rights just because they have a different kind of Sex?
I wonder if Obama would have married Michelle if he could have married the person he really loved?

jeanieq said:
Gay or straight, we are all just people. Why do they need special rights just because they have a different kind of Sex?

The request is for equal rights, not special rights.

jeanieq said:
I wonder if Obama would have married Michelle if he could have married the person he really loved?

You are clearly a serious thinker.

Greg said:
As executive it is his duty to enforce the laws, not to create or interpret them…

Just love your pathetic attempt to excuse Obama regarding gay marriage. I’m sure you had exactly the same view regarding George Bush. Also please write Obama and ask him why he is ignoring the law regarding immigration, carbon tax, Libya, and commerce (Boeing). Ask him why he is using regulatory agencies like the EPA or the NLRB to bypass the will of Congress. (But don’t hold your breath waiting for a response.)

Greg said:
One of the benefits of the federal system is that it allows the states to operate as a laboratory for policy innovation.

Coming from a left wing statist, that is just too silly. But nice try.

Azarkhan said:
Just love your pathetic attempt to excuse Obama regarding gay marriage.

Remember our agreement on Aristotle dear friend?

Azarkhan said:
I’m sure you had exactly the same view regarding George Bush.

Despite changing the subject (and refusing to adress my prior argument), I will humor you.
Ahem… Rights did not expand under Bush as he and his party opposed such change… boy that was a tough one!

Surprising… more shift in the subject… but OK…

Azarkhan said:
why he is using regulatory agencies like the EPA or the NLRB to bypass the will of Congress.

He is enforcing legal standards and if objections exist, then he should be challenged by appropriate Congressional oversight…

I am an advocate for proper enforcement… a nation of laws not men.

The purpose of my post was to outline the Presidents attention to the rule of law in the above issue.

Azarkhan said:
Coming from a left wing statist, that is just too silly. But nice try.

let me try… as a Confederate slaveholder with children mothered by your first cousin, nice try…

…not so enjoyable to me…

obama is still being bigoted, supporting marriage just for couples

Maybe Obama could take this concept one step further and get Glenn Beck to marry Dennis Rodman. As Rodman’s personal bitch, Beck would probably become a much better human being as admitting his closet homosexuality is about the only thing left for Beck to do since Fox fake news network fired his worthless ass…

cjd ohio 1 said:
obama is still being bigoted, supporting marriage just for couples

You lost me.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
You lost me.

why just two people, why 3,4, 5

Marriage is a private is a private contract between two people and government should have no say in the matter.

Esahc said:
Marriage is a private is a private contract between two people and government should have no say in the matter.

it is involved, licenses, tax breaks etc

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
You lost me.

why should marriage just be between two people? why not 3, 5, 7 people?

cjd ohio 1 said:
why just two people, why 3,4, 5

Come on, man, not the straw man. This was a victory for equal rights. Personally, I could care less because it doesn’t affect me. If gays want to be miserable too by all means be my guest.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Come on, man, not the straw man. This was a victory for equal rights. Personally, I could care less because it doesn’t affect me. If gays want to be miserable too by all means be my guest.

Let me rephrase that. If gays weren’t already miserable then by all means let them fall further into depression. You can’t make the argument that it’s about taxes etc, but I highly doubt that they need that. statistically speaking gays are much better off financially.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Come on, man, not the straw man. This was a victory for equal rights. Personally, I could care less because it doesn’t affect me. If gays want to be miserable too by all means be my guest.

straw man, no, if you are re-defining marriage, why not go all the way

cjd ohio 1 said:
straw man, no, if you are re-defining marriage, why not go all the way

It is a straw man because that’s not the crux of the argument. You’re taking it to an extreme to emphasize what you view as an absurdity, that, my friend, is straw man; blatant misrepresentation of the opposing position. As I said I could honestly care less, jimmy and Timmy getting married has nothing to do with me. Jimmy and Timmy probably make more money and contribute more to society than me anyway statistically speaking.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
It is a straw man because that’s not the crux of the argument. You’re taking it to an extreme to emphasize what you view as an absurdity, that, my friend, is straw man; blatant misrepresentation of the opposing position. As I said I could honestly care less, jimmy and Timmy getting married has nothing to do with me. Jimmy and Timmy probably make more money and contribute more to society than me anyway statistically speaking.

mormons, muslims, that religion and culture believe in it, We are re-defining marriage

Obama’s position involving
Gay marriage is barely evolving
For his punt to the state’s
An affront that creates
A liberal base that’s dissolving.

News Short n’ Sweet by JFD8
http://twitter.com/JFD8

cjd ohio 1 said:
mormons, muslims, that religion and culture believe in it, We are re-defining marriage

But you’re taking it to an extreme, that’s the point. If you disagree fine, but don’t go into the straw man territory, that’s just unbecoming. Simply because they believe in it doesn’t make it right nor does it make it fair/equal. That’s what this has been about.

i am just saying, some people think same sex marriage is extreme, but are called bigots, not saying you do it

cjd ohio 1 said:
i am just saying, some people think same sex marriage is extreme, but are called bigots, not saying you do it

There’s a difference though. if you’re saying it’s extreme based on their sexual persuasion and that they don’t deserve equal rights, yes it’s a form of bigotry. if you simple don’t believe in changing the definition of marriage, not so much. But if you believe in multiple marriages but not gay marriage (like mormons or muslims) then yeah, you’re definitely a bigot.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
There’s a difference though. if you’re saying it’s extreme based on their sexual persuasion and that they don’t deserve equal rights, yes it’s a form of bigotry. if you simple don’t believe in changing the definition of marriage, not so much. But if you believe in multiple marriages but not gay marriage (like mormons or muslims) then yeah, you’re definitely a bigot.

now that was double talk, reasonable you are fun to debate, but we just have to agree to disagree on this one

some believe marriage is just one man and one woman, is that bigoted?

cjd ohio 1 said:
now that was double talk, reasonable you are fun to debate, but we just have to agree to disagree on this one

It definitely made more sense in my head. I’m not really in support of gay marriage though, I just understand the argument and don’t really care lol.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
It definitely made more sense in my head. I’m not really in support of gay marriage though, I just understand the argument and don’t really care lol.

cool, thanks for the chat

cjd ohio 1 said:
some believe marriage is just one man and one woman, is that bigoted?

No, but like I said if you’re denying them equality based on sexual persuasion i believe that it is. Granted the issue is very complex and a lot of the message does get muddled.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Granted the issue is very complex

Marriage is between a man and a woman. What’s so “complex” about that?

WHEN Obama changes his position on this, will the media characterize it as “flip-flop” or an “his thinking has ‘evolved’”?
Same question if it were a Republican.

THAT’S MEDIA BIAS!