On 2012-05-09 19:36, mastermindreader wrote:
=we understand that civil rights aren't determined by a majority vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed if it had been put up to a popular vote. There will never be a shortage of bigots.

On 2012-05-09 19:56, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-09 19:36, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-09 18:27, Woland wrote:
Interesting that despite the polling data, Lobo, it appears that every State referendum on the issue has defined marriage as meaning one man and one woman. As in North Carolina yesterday, with a 61% to 39% vote.

One of the great things about our democracy is that we understand that civil rights aren't determined by a majority vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed if it had been put up to a popular vote. There will never be a shortage of bigots.

Bob, that's why Obama's position on gay rights is so disappointing:

Quote:

ABC News has only released one brief clip of Obama's conversation about gay marriage today, but it seems fairly clear from the network's coverage that his announcement amounts to much less than meets the eye. He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?

The key language in the ABC News write-up is this:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

On this afternoon's special broadcast, Jake Tapper echoed that point: "The president said he thought this was a state-by-state issue."

Well, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery. There are 44 states in which gay men and women are currently barred from marrying one another. Obama's position is that, while he would have voted the other way, those 44 states are perfectly within their rights to arbitrarily restrict the access of certain individuals to marriage rights based solely on their sexual orientation.

More here.

On 2012-05-09 20:13, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-09 19:36, mastermindreader wrote:
=we understand that civil rights aren't determined by a majority vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed if it had been put up to a popular vote. There will never be a shortage of bigots.

Which is why it's REALLY funny that a biracial constitutional scholar took a "separate but equal" position on this issue for so long.

Having said that, I'm glad that we have the first president in office to take this position.

On 2012-05-10 02:12, critter wrote:
Krem 2 news just reported the story and said Obama will be doing a fund raiser in Hollywood "where many of those in attendance will be from the gay and lesbian community." Sometimes stereotypes are true, but it was still funny to hear it from the news anchor all serious like.

There is also a glaring contradiction in your post- In the first sentence you state that "President Obama has just adopted another one of Vice President Cheney's long-standing political positions." The word "another" clearly implies that he has previously adopted other Cheney positions.

And yet in the second paragraph, in which you falsely state that he is having difficulty raising money, you write that adopting "at least this one of Dick Cheney's views will prove popular with major donors in the entertainment industry." (Talk about stereotyping!)

What may have tipped the balance is the difficulty he is having in raising money for his re-election campaign...

The Obama campaign is dismissing speculation that it may be poised to raise $1 billion by November. But Brendan Glavin, data manager with the Campaign Finance Institute, said Obama appears to be "on pace" to at least surpass the $750 million he raised in 2008, which would set another record.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/......uShleb2a

On 2012-05-10 06:08, mastermindreader wrote:
Or perhaps, instead of spinning it, you can just look back at his positive record for gay rights since the beginning of his administration and take him at his word that he has evolved, as have a large percentage of Americans, on the issue.

On 2012-05-09 20:24, mastermindreader wrote:
I think his former "separate but equal" position was another example of...political pragmatism

Obama, backing gay marriage, on fundraising tour

The president made his historical endorsement on the eve of a sold-out fundraiser Thursday evening at the Los Angeles home of movie star George Clooney.

The timing of the event is creating a blockbuster confluence of high celebrity, big money and committed activism. Hollywood is home to some of the most high-profile backers of gay marriage and the 150 donors who are paying $40,000 to attend Clooney's dinner Thursday night will no doubt feel newly invigorated by Obama's watershed announcement the day before.

Overall, the dinner is expected to raise close to $15 million — about $6 million from the guests and the rest from a campaign contest for small-dollar donors, the winners of which get to participate in the dinner. It is an unprecedented amount for a single event. And it means that in one single evening the Obama camp and the Democratic Party will collect more than Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican challenger, has amassed in his best single month of fundraising.