Ammo For Sale

« « What the hell? | Home | Theft » »

Random Obama and gay marriage thoughts

So, Obama is now progressive on gay marriage, like Ted Olson and Dick Cheney. I don’t recall those two getting a lot of pats on the back from pundits and media for it. Gee, I wonder why?

Also, on the drive to school, I listen to the local affiliate of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy radio for weather and traffic. The topic was, of course, gay marriage. And they were getting the usual calls from people poo-pooing gay marriage. After about a minute, I changed it. I don’t want my kids listening to that nonsense. We know a few gay couples and our kids think nothing of it. And let’s keep it that way.

27 Responses to “Random Obama and gay marriage thoughts”

  1. Weer'd Beard Says:

    Yeah had to switch news stations last night because there was just all sorts of gay bashing.

    BTW Obama supports gays like Clinton supports women. But hey, he has a “D” after his name, so he’s a friend of the gays.

    That’s like saying that somebody has an “R” after their name so they’re a friend of gun owners.

    Baaaaa!

  2. John Richardson Says:

    I voted against Amendment One because I just didn’t think something like that belonged in our state constitution and because it would block civil unions.

    However, I think the move to call Obama’s change of heart on gay or single sex marriage heroic is just a bunch of crap. It is not heroic to come out for a position after you’ve seen the reaction of your potential voters and DONORS to the vote in NC.

    Heroic would have been coming out two months ago against Amendment One and urging black churches and black voters to oppose it.

    Obama voted “Present” on this and needs to be called out on it.

  3. Jack Says:

    Yeah Weer’d, just take poor Senator Luger or the evil, evil Cheney.

    But hey, Obama did just enough to bask in praise and fresh donor cash. And all he had to do was do a press conference. That’s about as hard a workin’ day for him.

  4. HL Says:

    It was just as courageous as giving the order on the Bil Laden raid.

  5. Bubblehead Les Says:

    Lets see. The Middle East is being taken over by Religious Fanatics with a Dash of Nuclear Warfare on the side; the EU is about ready to Tank, sending the World into another Depression; the REAL Unemployment Rate is Atrocious, and those who do have Jobs are seeing Prices go through the Roof, but their Paychecks are shrinking due to Tax Increases from the Gooberment; yet my Main Worry is to be concerned about whether or not John can Marry Bob?

    Must be an Election Year.

  6. armed_partisan Says:

    And now, for your moment of zen: If a gay couple gets married, and Obama doesn’t oppose it, are they still unemployed?

  7. kirkosaurus Says:

    “Gay Marriage” is an oxymoron. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a women. Gays can call their union whatever they want but it is not marriage and can not be so. The issue isn’t about gay rights, they have just as much rights as anyone else. They want extra rights and to redefine what marriage is.

    Uncle, every one of us pro 2A people get upset whenever the anti-rights people try to redefine the second amendment to something that it was not intended to be, like the Brady’s or CSGV proclaiming it isn’t an individual right. Pro marriage people feel the same way. Marriage has been defined and cannot be defined any other way.

  8. BornLib Says:

    @armed_partisan
    Ha!

    I still haven’t quite figured out where I sit on the Conservative – Libertarian spectrum, but I really could care less about gay marriage. If there were a vote I suppose I’d be for it, since I remain unconvinced that there is any harm in allowing it.

  9. SayUncle Says:

    Yes, kirkosaurus, separate but equal! Or you could just start calling yours holy matrimony, I guess?

    And I think that’s why they call it ‘gay marriage’.

  10. John Smith. Says:

    Gays don’t want it to be called gay marriage unc. They want it to be called marriage and be considered the same as straight couples which will never truly happen nor be truly accurate.. When you try to force something on people who do not want it they tend to resent you for it.. But then again most people don’t learn from history. When 2 percent of the population tries to force its view on 98 percent there is something very wrong…

  11. ATLien Says:

    Uncle, kirk has a point. It’s the terminology. If you keep using the word “marriage,” eventually the state will make it to where churches MUST perform gay marriages on par with straight ones, using the argument you just used.

    If you don’t think that could happen, look at how they want to make Catholic Universities pay for contraception.

  12. SayUncle Says:

    Whose forcing a church to do anything? I got married at a gay bar by a Republican.

  13. Eseell Says:

    They want it to be called marriage and be considered the same as straight couples which will never truly happen nor be truly accurate.

    Why not? Are homosexuals incapable of romantic love? Commitment? Raising a family? They’re at least as capable as straight people of all of those things, and their ability to marry each other has exactly zero impact on straight couples. There’s no logical reason to oppose gay marriage. The only reason is bigotry. You’re free to be a bigot, but don’t try to bullshit the rest of us.

  14. Rick Says:

    yet my Main Worry is to be concerned about whether or not John can Marry Bob?”

    I know I’m losing sleep over it.

  15. John Smith. Says:

    Oh really eseell… Seems you ignored the part about forcing ones beliefs on the overwhelming majority… The reason most people do not like gays is not that they object to them but to the way they are constantly in your face about their sexuality… The news publishes about them constantly and they get online calling anyone who does not bow down to them bigots… Would you find it amusing if I called you all Faggots because I did not agree with you??? Hmmm??? If you want to debate grow a pair and debate but quit acting like a fucking child who cannot come up with anything other than I am right because you are a bigot…

  16. Eseell Says:

    I did ignore the part about “forcing one’s beliefs on the overwhelming majority” because it’s completely irrelevant. You don’t have to marry a man if gay marriage becomes legal. You don’t even have to talk to a gay person if you don’t want to. The ability of gay persons to marry has no effect on your life at all. Literally nothing is being forced on you. Your argument has no validity.

  17. John Smith. Says:

    Really if my argument meant nothing you would not have answered period… Truth be told acceptance is everything to you so you are forced to respond to everything.. By the way. Good on you for not calling names.. Nothing is forced on me? What about churches that will not marry gay people? What about religious based businesses that would suddenly have to provide insurance for something they think is wrong? How about bed and breakfasts that do not rent rooms to gay couples?? The reason I have this list is because people are already in trouble for not accepting gay marriage in the states where the legislature has passed it…. Several have been fined others have shut down… I do contract work for just such a B&B… If they shut down I am out a job.. Sounds like I would get effected… You cannot just look at primary act.. Seems harmless but most things do. The repercussions are not so harmless though. They send out shock waves.

  18. benEzra Says:

    kirkasaurus, Amendment One was not about gay marriage and had little to do with it. Amendment One was about outlawing any legal recognition of ANY domestic partnership, straight or gay, that *isn’t* marriage. That has all kinds of bad ramifications.

    That is going to hurt a bunch of people, gay and straight, including friends of mine and possibly even me someday if I ever end up domestic partners with a woman prior to or in lieu of marriage.

    FWIW, the only people forcing anything on anybody re: civil unions, and banning of same, are religious conservatives trying to increase the consequences for not living by *their* beliefs instead of our own.

  19. Jerry Says:

    “I got married at a gay bar by a Republican.”

    Your ‘shitten me, right?

  20. Seerak Says:

    Oh really eseell… Seems you ignored the part about forcing ones beliefs on the overwhelming majority

    This reverses the reality. It is the ones insisting on the “man and woman” definition who are doing the forcing. It becomes force **at the moment it gets written into a law**, since government and law are force.

    The same unacknowledged switcheroo is going on in kirkosaurus’ comment; where those attempting to legally redefine the Second Amendment are doing so to erode individual rights, those seeking to open up marriage to gays are working to expand individual rights — and its the ones working to legally force their meaning of marriage who are eroding them (to maintain such an erosion, to be more specific).

    It’s funny how some conservatives understand that the right to bear arms is not granted by law or society, but is inherent to the individual (whether installed thereby nature or by God), but when the topic is freedom of association and contract (the marriage edition), all of a sudden they turn into majoritarians like the Left.

  21. John Smith. Says:

    How about this Seerak. Lets up the right to bear arms up to a national vote then…

  22. Jerry Says:

    I am not a lawyer,(TFG, by the way.) but I am a human. I am also trying to get to sleep, as I have to get up early, so this will be as well, nevermind. Marriage is a legal contract, between a male, and a female, human being. It is not a way to screw the insurance company into a new roof.

  23. jim Says:

    You bunch of goofballs sound like a bunch of blind men describing an elephant.

    Why is the government in the business of marriage anyway? There is you elephant.

    There is no reason for a gov minion to have any say in what is completly a religious creation. Let the churches marry who they wish and let folks inteterested in a business contract go to the gov.

  24. Eseell Says:

    Perhaps you could explain why marriage is a legal contract that has benefits only when men marry women? Men and women, traditionally, don’t seem to be so great at the marriage game themselves.

    Gays in many states right now do not have the right to inherit their life-long partner’s property when one partner dies. They don’t have visitation rights when their partner is sick or dying in the hospital. They don’t have the automatic power of attorney that spouses have. They may not have the ability to adopt, despite being fit parents*. These are problems that legal marriage can resolve.

    The arguments against gay marriage in this thread seem to be:
    1) Marriage is between a man and a woman. I can think of no legal reason why this should be so.
    2) Majority rules, and gays aren’t in the majority.
    3) Gay marriage might lead to the end of institutional discrimination against homosexuals.

    Call me crazy, but none of those arguments are particularly convincing to me, especially when individual rights and civil liberty are the points under contention.

  25. comatus Says:

    Just keep putting “poo-poo” and “gay marriage” in the same sentence, and everything will work out fine.

    I used to be spelt “pooh-pooh,” until the whole business with Tigger and Piglet. Unfortunate.

  26. RC Says:

    The better idea is to get government out of the business of defining and condoning marriage at all in any form. Let the religious get their partnerships recognized in the church of their choice but for civil purposes make it all contracts and contract law, period.

  27. Jerry Says:

    When I was dating my first wife, her roomie had a saying. It just don’t work.