Support NeoGAF

[Tamanon]

I don't mean to be confrontational, but you really haven't backed that up. I know my post lacked hard data (digging that shit up is a pain), but I did explain where I'm coming from. If you ask most voters, Iraq, health care, gas prices, or the economy at large are most likely to come up as the most important issues for them in this election. And yet, having publicly funded campaigns (fully public, not the half ass shit we have now) has the potential to turn all those issues on their head. We know that are war policy is determined in large part by contributions made by defense contractors. We know that the democrats would push single payer health care if weren't for the fact that democrats like Clinton take massive contributions from health insurance companies. Do I even need to explain how corporate lobbying effects are policy towards wall street and oil companies? Where's the hyperbole?

Look, I'm a big supporter of campaign finance reform, but it's something that's attacked in small portions. It's not something that you just plop into place. It's certainly not the most important issue of the government, because it's one that can't be solved through government.

 

[Stinkles]

Stay classy, Thekad. Classy and retarded.

I wish to run on a GOP ticket just so I can make my slogan, "Are you a Republican, or a Republican't?"

 

[kame-sennin]

Look, I'm a big supporter of campaign finance reform, but it's something that's attacked in small portions. It's not something that you just plop into place. It's certainly not the most important issue of the government, because it's one that can't be solved through government.

Ok, I agree with the first part, but how is Obama helping to attack the issue in small portions by opting out of the system? I understand the political disadvantage aspect of it, but he's still not helping to move the issue forward. And it's an issue Obama knows is important. If he didn't he wouldn't brag about his small doners so often.

As for the bold, I don't see how this isn't a government issue. The government has passed laws on it before. I will agree however, that the voters have to do more research on this issue and make it a priority. That's why I made my original post. If you really want Obama to be a great candidate, you should be holding his feet to the fire on this. Giving candidates a pass is what creates the John Kerry's and (2000) Al Gore's.

This is topical:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/w...031afedbf7d8&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

 

[Incognito]

I don't mean to be confrontational, but you really haven't backed that up. I know my post lacked hard data (digging that shit up is a pain), but I did explain where I'm coming from. If you ask most voters, Iraq, health care, gas prices, or the economy at large are most likely to come up as the most important issues for them in this election. And yet, having publicly funded campaigns (fully public, not the half ass shit we have now) has the potential to turn all those issues on their head. We know that our war policy is determined in large part by contributions made by defense contractors. We know that single payer health care would be on the table if it weren't for the fact that democrats like Clinton take massive contributions from health insurance companies. Do I even need to explain how corporate lobbying effects our policy towards wall street and oil companies? Where's the hyperbole? Please, don't argue that campaign finance is not one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issues until you've considered how it affects the rest of the political agenda.



The above applies to these posts as well. If you disagree with me, please explain why. Believe it or not, I am open to changing my positions. But dismissing my points with insults does not bolster your argument.

I would simply say that while it's unfortunate Obama reversed his word on public financing, the simple fact remains that there are no trophies for second place when it involves running for the presidency and that Obama can affect some sizeable change on public financing were he to actually become president. Instead of hoping that by restricting his candidacy to public funds during an extremely vital election, in which his opponent has already broken the law in regards to public finance and has expressed no desire in reining in the numerous 527s, he's going to affect future policy more so than by becoming president is a foolish notion. He has to win. Absolutely nothing will change if John McCain becomes president. So, yes, a step backwards. But sometimes a step backwards is necessary in order to put both feet forward.

 

[Tamanon]

Ok, I agree with the first part, but how is Obama helping to attack the issue in small portions by opting out of the system? I understand the political disadvantage aspect of it, but he's still not helping to move the issue forward. And it's an issue Obama knows is important. If he didn't he wouldn't brag about his small doners so often.

As for the bold, I don't see how this isn't a government issue. The government has passed laws on it before. I will agree however, that the voters have to do more research on this issue and make it a priority. That's why I made my original post. If you really want Obama to be a great candidate, you should be holding his feet to the fire on this. Giving candidates a pass is what creates the John Kerry's and (2000) Al Gore's.

No, it's not something that can be solved in one fell swoop by the government because it would require them to vote on it. And the people who are funded by lobbyists won't vote to get rid of that funding. It's something that's shifted from outside blood.

Obama's method of attacking the issue in small portions is by funding the campaign with straight donations, no lobbyists. Plus he's having the impact of banning lobbyist and PAC donations from the DNC in general.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Goddamnit, Barry. Keep your fucking trap shut or you're going to alienate gay people, a large, important and wealthy Democratic voting block.

Gay marriage may not become a national issue this election, but it’s certainly becoming more of an issue for Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

The Senator from Illinois sat down with ABC News’ Jake Tapper early this week, just as California began issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Obviously Tapper broached the issue. Here is their exchange:
TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?
OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I’m a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we’re involved in a national conversation about this issue. You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.
None of this should surprise us, of course. Obama’s held the same view since he got into the election and doesn’t seem to be budging. The politico’s repetition of his ideal marriage definition has some gays riled, like Sara Whitman, who blasted Obama last night.

Wrote Whitman:
If I hear “Marriage is between one man and one woman” one more time from Obama’s mouth- or any Democrat’s mouth- I’m going to scream. Last night, while being questioned on California’s decision, Obama just had to say it. One man, one woman.
How is this change? Leadership? Hope?
Or do only straight people get to hope?
…
As historical as having an African-American man run for the highest office in this nation is, it is not the only history being made. The fact that the second state in this country- and a fairly big state- has laid claim to the belief that separate is not equal is just as historically significant.

This really pisses me off. It's fine if he believes it, but can't he just leave it at "it's a state issue"? Seriously, I hear this shit from him again I'm going to re-think voting for him. It's bullshit.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Goddamnit, Barry. Keep your fucking trap shut or you're going to alienate gay people, a large, important and wealthy Democratic voting block.

This really pisses me off. It's fine if he believes it, but can't he just leave it at "it's a state issue"? Seriously, I hear this shit from him again and I'm going to re-think voting for him. It's bullshit.

That's been his position all along. I disagree with it, but there's nothing new there.

 

[Mercury Fred]

That's been his position all along. I disagree with it, but there's nothing new there.

What's new is that he's re-stating it after California has performed gay marriages and the public narrative coming out of that victory is largely pro-gay marriage. I don't need this separate but equal crap shitting up what happened in Cali.

 

[Tamanon]

Yeah, where's the anger from? It's his position, it's been the same this whole time, he's still going to repeal DOMA. Your previous candidate had the exact same position.

 

[kame-sennin]

I would simply say that while it's unfortunate Obama reversed his word on public financing, the simple fact remains that there are no trophies for second place when it involves running for the presidency and that Obama can affect some sizeable change on public financing were he to actually become president. Instead of hoping that by restricting his candidacy to public funds during an extremely vital election, in which his opponent has already broken the law in regards to public finance and has expressed no desire in reining in the numerous 527s, he's going to affect future policy more so than by becoming president is a foolish notion. He has to win. Absolutely nothing will change if John McCain becomes president. So, yes, a step backwards. But sometimes a step backwards is necessary in order to put both feet forward.

The counter-argument to this factually correct post is that it is always a vital election. And thus, based on the above premise, we must always put our faith in the democrats to do the right thing without ever threatening to penalize them for doing the wrong thing. We must always vote for the least worst candidate and expect, irrationally, to get a quality candidate. We must assume that once elected, a democrat president will - out of the kindness of his heart - decide to do the right thing with no incentive for doing so, even at the risk of his party, his re-election, and of becoming a lame duck. This strategy does not make sense. As long as you are willing to vote for the democrats under nearly any circumstance, you are assuring them that they don't have to listen to you.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Yeah, where's the anger from? It's his position, it's been the same this whole time, he's still going to repeal DOMA. Your previous candidate had the exact same position.

Minus the faith-derived one man one woman crap. But I think that blogger was right. Hope and change are only for straight people. Thanks for sending gay people to the back of the bus, Senator Obama. Grow a fucking pair and lead, you asshole. "New politics." Right. Just the same old shit. It's disgusting that he'd still spew this post-California.

 

[kame-sennin]

This really pisses me off. It's fine if he believes it, but can't he just leave it at "it's a state issue"? Seriously, I hear this shit from him again I'm going to re-think voting for him. It's bullshit.

"But if you don't vote for him, you'll get McCain, and McCain will be worse."

 

[Mumei]

What's new is that he's re-stating it after California has performed gay marriages and the public narrative coming out of that victory is largely pro-gay marriage. I don't need this separate but equal crap shitting up what happened in Cali.

More or less.

It doesn't make me not support him or anything, but it does irritate me nonetheless.

 

[Mandark]

I'm with Mercury Fred. Obama's not changing his position, but I really think he and the other Democratic leaders are trailing the public on this issue.

kame-sennin: That's why we have primaries!

 

[Tamanon]

Minus the faith-derived one man one woman crap. But I think that blogger was right. Hope and change are only for straight people. Thanks for sending gay people to the back of the bus, Senator Obama. Grow a fucking pair and lead, you asshole. "New politics." Right. Just the same old shit. It's disgusting that he'd still spew this post-California.

I still see how California changed anything in his personal beliefs, and I fail to see how you had no problem with Hillary's stance on this issue when it was the exact same and even a bit more vitriolic. Hell, he's said he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman but he would repeal DOMA and leave that distinction up to the states. Just like he's personally against abortion but doesn't believe the government has a say in it.

Gay marriage is something that comes in increments, you really don't want this election to be made about it. Look what that gave us in 2004.

 

[grandjedi6]

Goddamnit, Barry. Keep your fucking trap shut or you're going to alienate gay people, a large, important and wealthy Democratic voting block.



This really pisses me off. It's fine if he believes it, but can't he just leave it at "it's a state issue"? Seriously, I hear this shit from him again I'm going to re-think voting for him. It's bullshit.

Obama personally believes marriage is between a man and woman. But every action and political position of Obama's is as pro-same sex marriage as you can get. You can only blame a man so far for their personal beliefs. Either way it is a rather moot point since Obama is still far better then his opponent in terms of gay marriage

 

[masud]

Minus the faith-derived one man one woman crap. But I think that blogger was right. Hope and change are only for straight people. Thanks for sending gay people to the back of the bus, Senator Obama. Grow a fucking pair and lead, you asshole. "New politics." Right. Just the same old shit. It's disgusting that he'd still spew this post-California.

The problem is that 'marriage' is faith derived crap. A better argument for you would be that marriages shouldn't be granted by the government at all, only civil unions. And stop comparing this issue to the civil rights movement, it's disgraceful. You realize the differences between your position and Obama's are the words on top of a legal document right?

 

[Tamanon]

Civil unions for all in the eyes of the government is where this is going eventually. I actually wouldn't be surprised if with the supermajority it took place.

 

[grandjedi6]

The problem is that 'marriage' is faith derived crap. A better argument for you would be that marriages shouldn't be granted by the government at all, only civil unions. And stop comparing this issue to the civil rights movement, it's disgraceful. You realize the differences between your position and Obama's are the words on top of a legal document right?

.....

:/

 

[kame-sennin]

Gay marriage is something that comes in increments, you really don't want this election to be made about it. Look what that gave us in 2004.

My god, everything comes in increments with you

But seriously, we are talking about people's basic rights here. We're talking about discrimination. As for the bold, have you ever considered that more gays might have come out to vote for Kerry had he embraced gay marriage instead of running from it? I'm not saying that it would have happened, but it is a hypothetical that is never considered and it should be.

Civil unions for all in the eyes of the government is where this is going eventually. I actually wouldn't be surprised if with the supermajority it took place.

I don't think heterosexuals would allow their rights to be taken away. I know that personally, as an atheist who wouldn't be getting married in a church, I would be offended if I could not consider myself "married" under the eyes of the law.

 

[Tamanon]

My god, everything comes in increments with you

But seriously, we are talking about people's basic rights here. We're talking about discrimination. As for the bold, have you ever considered that more gays might have come out to vote for Kerry had he embraced gay marriage instead of running from it? I'm not saying that it would have happened, but it is a hypothetical that is never considered and it should be.

That's because all great change comes in increments. It's the problem with the legislative process. You make your sales pitch to get an inch, then another inch, then another one. When Reps have to run for reelection every 2 years, drastic change in values based voting means they'll take less chances. In a perfect world, it would happen tomorrow, civil unions for all, marriages by churches as a formality. But it takes time.

kame: The point of civil unions for all, marriage as a private ceremony is that marriage wouldn't be recognized in the eyes of the law.

 

[grandjedi6]

My god, everything comes in increments with you

But seriously, we are talking about people's basic rights here. We're talking about discrimination. As for the bold, have you ever considered that more gays might have come out to vote for Kerry had he embraced gay marriage instead of running from it? I'm not saying that it would have happened, but it is a hypothetical that is never considered and it should be.

Supporting full same sex marriage is still political suicide on the national level. Alot of people do not like it, but it is true.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I still see how California changed anything in his personal beliefs, and I fail to see how you had no problem with Hillary's stance on this issue when it was the exact same and even a bit more vitriolic. Hell, he's said he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman but he would repeal DOMA and leave that distinction up to the states. Just like he's personally against abortion but doesn't believe the government has a say in it.

This is in no way about Hillary. She's not the nominee. If she'd said this crap post-California I'd be saying exactly the same thing.

Obama personally believes marriage is between a man and woman. But every action and political position of Obama's is as pro-same sex marriage as you can get. You can only blame a man so far for their personal beliefs. Either way it is a rather moot point since Obama is still far better then his opponent in terms of gay marriage

It's politics. Let him shut his mouth instead of giving gay people a fresh, new slap in the face during the week of one of the greatest victories of gay equal rights since the Stonewall riots.

And stop comparing this issue to the civil rights movement, it's disgraceful.

Tell that to Coretta Scott King.

Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.

I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.

For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people...Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions.

Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.

 

[masud]

.....

:/

It is. I'm not talking about the whole gay civil rights issue just the marriage/civil union aspect. It's an argument over semantics. It's not the same as Jim Crowe and segregation laws at all, not even close. Yes ideally it would be nice for gay marriage to be accepted by the country right away, but considering the fact that recently the GOP has use the DOMA to win elections I think people need to ease up on this largely symbolic issue. Remember social change takes time (and Democrats).

Tell that to Coretta Scott King.

Read instead of just arguing, I'm not talking about homophobia in general just this marriage vs civil unions issue.

 

[grandjedi6]

It is. I'm not talking about the whole gay civil rights issue just the marriage/civil union aspect. It's an argument over semantics. It's not the same as Jim Crowe and segregation laws at all, not even close. Yes ideally it would be nice for gay marriage to be accepted by the country right away, but considering the fact that recently the GOP has use the DOMA to win elections I think people need to ease up on this largely symbolic issue. Remember social change takes time (and Democrats).

There is no real difference between the same sex marriage debate and the interracial marriage one. The courts have even cited it as support for same sex marriage

 

[masud]

I don't think heterosexuals would allow their rights to be taken away. I know that personally, as an atheist who wouldn't be getting married in a church, I would be offended if I could not consider myself "married" under the eyes of the law.

Well you'd be a silly atheist then.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Read instead of just arguing, I'm not talking about homophobia in general just this marriage vs civil unions issue.

Why don't you drop your condescending tone? I have read. Have you? "Disgraceful"? Give me a fucking break.

 

[Mandark]

Don't be a dick, masud.

 

[Tamanon]

LOL at Mercury Fred lecturing someone on tone.

There's too much anger in this thread, especially since it exploded out of nowhere.:lol

 

[masud]

Don't be a dick, masud.

I'm sorry how am I being a dick?

 

[kame-sennin]

kame: The point of civil unions for all, marriage as a private ceremony is that marriage wouldn't be recognized in the eyes of the law.

Yea, and that would piss off straight people. We're going off on a tangent, but needless to say, straight people would not put up with the shit we make gays put up with.

Supporting full same sex marriage is still political suicide on the national level. Alot of people do not like it, but it is true.

So was supporting black civil rights. LBJ lost the South for the democratic party for at leat forty years - and he predicted as much - when he signed the civil rights act.

 

[Seth C]

Civil unions for all in the eyes of the government is where this is going eventually. I actually wouldn't be surprised if with the supermajority it took place.

We can only hope. Oh, and hopefilly we can soon open it up to multiple party (3+) unions as well.

 

[Mandark]

masud: For dismissing someone's anger at their marginalization as "silly".

When society sends a message to a group of people that they're abnormal, not as good, defective, or whatever then it really really sucks. Even if it doesn't involve any de jure difference in your rights or status.

It's a very legit complaint and deserves better than handwaving, especially from the people who have the privilege of not having this aimed at themselves.

 

[Seth C]

Damn 500 Errors.

 

[Tamanon]

Yea, and that would piss off straight people. We're going off on a tangent, but needless to say. Straight people would not put up with the shit we make gays put up with.



So was supporting black civil rights. LBJ lost the South for the democratic party for at leat forty years - and he predicted as much - when he signed the civil rights act.

Of course you have to realize that anything bringing gay "marriage" and straight "marriage" onto equal footing is going to piss off some straight people.

Of course, did LBJ campaign on the civil rights act?

And Seth C: I agree, polyamorous relationships should also be recognized as civil unions.

 

[masud]

Why don't you drop your condescending tone? I have read. Have you? "Disgraceful"? Give me a fucking break.

I'm sorry but I feel strongly about that, I wasn't attacking you only something you said. And you clearly didn't read what I said because you wouldn't have responded with a quote about the fight against homophobia instead of one about this specific issue.

 

[Tamanon]

masud: I guess the point is that he views this as homophobia, you(and I personally) don't.

 

[Gaborn]

Minus the faith-derived one man one woman crap. But I think that blogger was right. Hope and change are only for straight people. Thanks for sending gay people to the back of the bus, Senator Obama. Grow a fucking pair and lead, you asshole. "New politics." Right. Just the same old shit. It's disgusting that he'd still spew this post-California.

You're right, but it's MORE than that. Ultimately Obama's advocacy for second class relationships for gay people is going to hurt the cause for true equality. Obama's effectively gutting marriage equality for everyone with his advocacy for civil unions and condemning the court's logic. I made the same argument and I was laughed out of the thread and told that it should be "no big deal" that Obama's advocating for us to be second class. Well, frankly, it's a big fucking deal.

 

[Mumei]

My god, everything comes in increments with you

But seriously, we are talking about people's basic rights here. We're talking about discrimination. As for the bold, have you ever considered that more gays might have come out to vote for Kerry had he embraced gay marriage instead of running from it? I'm not saying that it would have happened, but it is a hypothetical that is never considered and it should be.

I always found this amusing:

According to CNN's 2000 exit polls:

Are You Gay or Lesbian

All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Yes 4 % 70 % 25 % 0 % 4 %
No 96 % 47 % 50 % 0 % 3 %

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

 

[kame-sennin]

Of course, did LBJ campaign on the civil rights act?

Well done, sir.

I'm not holding my breath for lightning to strike twice though.

And Seth C: I agree, polyamorous relationships should also be recognized as civil unions.

I agree with this as well, as I wouldn't want to discriminate against the polyamorous. But I think if such a law were passed, more would have to be done to prevent female slavery and the kind of shit that happened in Texas.

 

[Tamanon]

Well done, sir.

I'm not holding my breath for lightning to strike twice though.



I agree with this as well, as I wouldn't want to discriminate against the polyamorous. But I think if such a law were passed, more would have to be done to prevent female slavery and the kind of shit that happened in Texas.

I dunno what law you could pass though, I mean the whole female slavery thing can happen in a monogamous relationship. It's a religion thing, not a polyamory thing. There are MANY more normal poly families than the weird Texas stuff. I just can't think of anything that would fight that, but still preserve equality/privacy.

 

[kame-sennin]

masud: I guess the point is that he views this as homophobia, you(and I personally) don't.

How is it not homophobia. It ONLY affects gays.

I dunno what law you could pass though, I mean the whole female slavery thing can happen in a monogamous relationship. It's a religion thing, not a polyamory thing. There are MANY more normal poly families than the weird Texas stuff. I just can't think of anything that would fight that, but still preserve equality/privacy.

I was thinking more along the lines of making it a priority in law enforcement. The way domestic abuse went from being a private issue, to something that police officers actively investigated.

 

[Mandark]

Using the LBJ metaphor, Obama would need to pick Edwards as his running mate, win the election, get shot, and create a wave of sympathy that would carry through the reforms after Edwards' crushing 2012 victory over Newt Gingrich.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I'm sorry but I feel strongly about that, I wasn't attacking you only something you said. And you clearly didn't read what I said because you wouldn't have responded with a quote about the fight against homophobia instead of one about this specific issue.

I did read what you said and I feel strongly as well. The fight for marriage equality for gay people echoes the fight for marriage equality between people of different races. I cited Coretta Scott King--a key player in the civil rights movement-- in response to your claim that it was disgraceful to compare the struggle for gay equal rights to the civil rights moment.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread. I think Obama should be what he says-- a force for hope and change. And his comments made after California feel cowardly, regressive and not at all shrewd. He could have left it at a states rights issue. Instead he's walking onto thin ice with gay voters who are very, very excited about the progress that California represents. Progress that Obama seems to want to dismiss.

 

[Seth C]

I agree with this as well, as I wouldn't want to discriminate against the polyamorous. But I think if such a law were passed, more would have to be done to prevent female slavery and the kind of shit that happened in Texas.

It seems most of those women were happy in their situation, no? Certainly children shouldn't be getting married off at age 13 (even though traditionally speaking that is how society has handled it...), but I'm not sure I'd call what went on in Texas "female slavery." Though I didn't follow it closely.

 

[Gaborn]

I did read what you said and I feel strongly as well. The fight for marriage equality for gay people echoes the fight for marriage equality between people of different races. I cited Coretta Scott King--a key player in the civil rights movement-- in response to your claim that it was disgraceful to compare the struggle for gay equal rights to the civil rights moment.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread. I think Obama should be what he says-- a force for hope and change. And his comments made after California feel cowardly, regressive and not at all shrewd. He could have left it at a states rights issue. Instead he's walking onto thin ice with gay voters who are very, very excited about the progress that California represents. Progress that Obama seems to want to dismiss.

It's not derailing the thread to talk about Obama's bigotry, it's an entirely valid concern and an issue for poligaf.

 

[Door2Dawn]

You two are acting like if he gets elected,hes going to completely ban gay marriage,its his belief,deal with it.

 

[Mercury Fred]

its his belief,deal with it.

Sure thing. Sounds like hope and change to me. Hey, I'm starting to like this new politics!

 

[Tamanon]

I did read what you said and I feel strongly as well. The fight for marriage equality for gay people echoes the fight for marriage equality between people of different races. I cited Coretta Scott King--a key player in the civil rights movement-- in response to your claim that it was disgraceful to compare the struggle for gay equal rights to the civil rights moment.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread. I think Obama should be what he says-- a force for hope and change. And his comments made after California feel cowardly, regressive and not at all shrewd. He could have left it at a states rights issue. Instead he's walking onto thin ice with gay voters who are very, very excited about the progress that California represents. Progress that Obama seems to want to dismiss.

I'm sorry you read that from what he said. The sad truth is that politics as it is in this country won't allow what you want. Not yet anyways. It'll come, probably in a different form, but equality in all ways will come.

 

[Mumei]

You two are acting like if he gets elected,hes going to completely ban gay marriage,its his belief,deal with it.

:lol

I love responses like this, as though his belief should have no bearing on anything.