Obama Endorses Gay Marriage

As Nick Gillespie anticipated earlier this afternoon, President Obama today explicitly endorsed gay marriage for the first time (since 1996, anyway), telling ABC News:

Over the course of several years, as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage—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.

As I noted in my column today, Obama had previously endorsed "civil unions" with "all the rights" and "all the benefits" of marriage for gay couples but had carefully avoided the m-word. Now he has dropped that distinction.

The Washington Post notes that gay supporters are conspicuous among Obama's biggest fundraisers. Obama's clarification should help him attract young voters, a large majority of whom support gay marriage, but could hurt him in swing states by discouraging black voters (who mostly oppose gay marriage) from turning out.

Mitt Romney, for once, is not changing his position.

Obama said he still thinks states should be free to define marriage as they see fit, which suggests he is not endorsing the constitutional argument against California's Proposition 8, although he opposed the initiative before it passed. He also opposed the constitutional ban on gay marriage (and gay civil unions) that North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved yesterday, which did not quite jibe with his explanation that he is against abolishing marriage rights once they've been recognized (since North Carolina already had a statutory ban).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    Let me guess. It's an election year.

  • ||

    I bet you wouldn't be doubting his sincerity if he were white. Where'd you hide your white hood and large wooden cross?

    /Michael Moore.

  • ||

    I done burned that cross.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    ...but had carefully avoided the m-word. Now he has dropped that distinction.

    Let me guess. It's an election year.

    Yep.

  • wareagle||

    come on sarc. It's called transparency. Took 3 and a half years, and it's as credible as one of his budgets, but the move is transparent.

  • Trespassers W||

    at a certain point [which is to say, an election year] 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

    If he'd had an actual change of heart, that would be one thing. But he never had a heart to begin with, just a vast, blank projection screen. I didn't think it was possible for me to have any less respect for him. Well done.

  • Entropy Void||

    "I didn't think it was possible for me to have any less respect for him. Well done."

    Just you wait for the rest of the campaign ... this guy makes John Edwards look like Honest Abe ...

  • Another David||

    Honestly, if it's now a good election-year move to support gay marriage, fuck it, bring on the pandering.

  • ||

    What a principled fellow. I'm sure he means it.

  • BC||

    I'm confident that Andrew Sullivan just creamed his panties.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You mean the FRC and FOTF just creamed their shepard's robes.

    I can guarantee they're going to use this as a fundraising point and scaremongering tactic from now until the election.

    OBAMA IS A SECRET GAY MUSLIM WHO EATS ABORTED BABIEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!!

  • Bardas Phocas||

    He's pretty much said he's PRO-SODOMY right there: "when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained...."

    Constrained soldiers, airmen, marines or sailors threaten our national security.

    Really, who writes this shit?

  • ||

    I'm pro-sodomy.

  • wareagle||

    but you never claimed otherwise. POTUS bleated endlessly in the last campaign and since about how opposed he is to gay marriage.

  • SugarFree||

    Evil Republicans made him say it. Their unwavering faith instructs them to believe so.

  • wareagle||

    so I shouldn't believe the debate transcripts or the interviews where he opposes gay marriage? It's all a repub-made illusion. Damn; they're good.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Actually, they're not "good" - they're just better than Obama. It's just the special olympics of national devolution.

  • BC||

    No. You should believe his earlier public statements, from when he was running for the Illinois legislature; at that time he was unapologetically in favor of gay marriage. His opposition to gay marriage coincided with his national political career right up until the moment the polls flipped.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Makes sense. They might not like it, but the black vote isn't going anywhere.

  • ||

    +some quantity

  • ||

    Quite a bit of the church-going black voters might literally not be going anywhere on election day, i.e. staying home.

    But, at last I agree with something that arsehole Obama said. Dunno if he'll recant if the perceived electoral advantage from polling shows this position hurts him in swing states, but still -- better than Romney on this issue, same as Johnson.

    Still voting for Johnson.

  • Bam!||

    Given that marriage isn't a federal issue, and Romney (as far as I know) isn't trying to make marriage into a federal issue, how exactly is Obama better on this than Romney?

    If one thinks that the executive brand and the federal government itself should constrain itself to its constitutionally defined role, shouldn't one only vote on issues the candidates can or should effect?

  • thom||

    The church-going black voters staying home on election day will be great in states that are having referendums on marriage equality. This may have been just what was needed to stop the MD repeal effort.

  • rts||

    Great!

    Now what?

  • Brett L||

    He couldn't have done that monday? before the whole Amendment 1 vote?

  • ||

    Isn't that the point? This way, he can ride the wave of discontent that Team Blue is feeling toward NC right now. If he came out as for it before, it wouldn't have had the same impact.

  • Brett L||

    Oh, I know. It still would've lost and he'd just look ineffectual. Which he is, rather than looking like an opportunistic wimp, which he also his.

  • Brett L||

    Wow. Punctuation fail. Transpose the first comma with the second period.

  • ||

    An opportunistic wimp? Not to his base. To them, he was galvanized after he saw those no-good rednecks quash freedom by amending their constitution. This is a shared moment of head-shaking for liberals, and they're pleased he's officially there with him.

    For people who put a high priority on gay marriage but were worried about the economy, this might be enough to make sure they get out on election day. They wouldn't have voted Romney, but this way he can bolster his numbers in November.

    Just my take, anyway.

  • ||

    And as if to confirm, here is a tweet from a person I know: "Not getting married in North Carolina is an acceptable sacrifice to get Obama to support same-sex marriage." BOOOOOOM

  • R C Dean||

    So, sacrificing the (in his/her/its view) the civil rights of some is acceptable in the service a Greater Cause/Man.

    Nice.

  • ||

    Well, yeah. He's a college-aged Obamabot who regularly posts links to articles about Britney Spears; critical thinking is not his strong point.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well, if that quote is accurate it's not a greater cause, since it wasn't to get same-sex marriage nationally. It was just to have "their guy" on the right side. So, they're sacrificing others' rights for their own ego boost. Not surprising.

  • ||

    So, they're sacrificing others' rights for their own ego boost.

    Welcome to Politics. You get a t-shirt of your choice (red or blue), and these convenient blinders to keep you from losing sight of what matters. Enjoy your stay.

  • wareagle||

    so you're saying Obama supporters really are as stupid as we thought they were. And then some.

  • John||

    That is amazing Alack. Wouldn't you want the policy you support to actually go into effect? Basically what he is saying is feeling good about his vote for Obama is better than actually accomplishing anything.

    And people on the other thread are calling me out for calling these people "generation retard".

  • RBS||

    Who's calling you out? Clearly these people are "generation retard"

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm 23 and the one who pointed this out.

  • John||

    IF he had done that, he would have shown his reverse midas touch when it went down to defeat.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    So Nick's a mindreader. Is Matt a clown? Just askin'.

  • ||

    Matt isn't sucking your dick enough, Alan?

  • Brett L||

    Thanks, reason. All your gay marriage threads has the match.com ad in your sidebar showing me dudes. More t-shirt ads, fewer "date dudes now" ads, kthxbye.

  • rts||

    Bring back Lobster Girl!

  • Voros McCracken||

    Here you go:

    Lobster Girl

  • TheZeitgeist||

    What a two-faced clown.

  • ||

    Now would be a good time for LP nominee to one-up Obama and say government should stay out of marriage & sex completely, for gays & straights.

  • SugarFree||

    That's not a one-up for the peanut-crunching crowds, it just reads as an "anti-same-sex-marriage idea."

  • yonemoto||

    exactly. The only way around it is if Johnson got ordained in whatever church he's a member of, and in the next sentence offered to minister weddings for gays, then ditched his fiancee and married himself to another man, preferably with a last name that is also a penis euphemism (say, a chinese person with the last name "Ding" http://goo.gl/RtLAr) and STILL somehow it would be a ploy to put down gay marriage. Of course the media wouldn't cover it.

  • ||

    Now would be a good time for LP nominee to one-up Obama and say government should stay out of marriage & sex completely, for gays & straights.

    I think Johnson's lines at the LP convention about "coming out of the closet" about being a libertarian, and "the LP nominee is going to be the only one talking about gun rights and gay rights in the same sentence" (or was that Lee Wrights that said that?) are much funnier and likely to attract gay-friendly voters.

  • SugarFree||

    The LP could also hit the "don't care what consents adult do in their lives, be it their bedroom, their domestic arrangements, or their money." Would play well with the relatively affluent gays.

  • ||

    Well, I posted before I googled. Johnson did address government getting out of the marriage and sex business earlier today. And has been for months (if not years).

  • BakedPenguin||

    All this tells me is that he was more confident in the black base not deserting him than he was in the gay base deserting him if he didn't do this.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Or what ant1sthenes said.

  • John||

    This was a straight cash homey decision. He isn't getting the money out of Wall Street and Silicon valley he was. So he needs the gays to make up for it. And they are a really cheap date.

    I think his numbers among blacks is really soft. But they have no choice at this point. They will have to depend on Holder to start a few race riots to keep blacks from staying home or realizing Obama is half white.

  • ||

    Also, can't wait to go to Facebook and see al teh gheys on my friends list crowing about what a god their beloved Obama is. It's gonna get nauseatin' up in there.

  • ||

    Just as I thought....from one my gay friends: "What courage!!"

    Fuck me.

  • RBS||

    What do you mean? There is nothing more courageous than endorsing a position that a majority of your supporters believe in.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Especially those with money.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    "What courage!!"

    Are you sure they are not being sarcastic? If not, jesh.

  • ||

    Um, no. Not sarcastic. He even changed his fucking profile to Obama.

    I think he has battered wife syndrome.

  • ||

    profile picture

  • RBS||

  • ||

    Sadly, no. It's one of those pinup poster headshot ones with the dead eyes and 1000-watt fake smile.

  • BakedPenguin||

  • ||

    From my facebook feed: "Not getting married in North Carolina is an acceptable sacrifice to get Obama to support same-sex marriage."

    And

    "Kudos 2 Obama for putting politics aside & standing up for equality! "@huffpostgay: Obama supports same-sex marriage http://t.co/J6LbQtBF""

    Sometimes I hate people.

  • RBS||

    Hahahahaha, that second one is brilliant! That was sarcasm right?

  • ||

    Nope. These people go full retard over this kind of stuff.

  • yonemoto||

    you think you have it bad? I volunteer on Wednesdays delivering meals to HIV patients. Most of the volunteers and coordinators are let's just say, interested in this development, and I have to figure out how to tactfully convey my cynicism about this. Why couldn't Obama have made this announcement on a Thursday??

  • yonemoto||

    I'll probably just shut up and say nothing

  • creech||

    Tell them what a shame is was that many loving HIV couples didn't have a chance to get married, and one of them has passed on, over the last three and a half years while Obama dithered.

  • yonemoto||

    Surprisingl, nobody brought it up, at all. I guess blathering on about it is a hetero/lib thing to do, much like the whole "I have black friend" thing.

  • Scarcity||

    You do not! Libertarians are evil and hate people and never do anything to help anyone but themselves!

  • Jeff||

    You are remarkably stupid even for a bot.

  • Pip||

    " when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf"

    Because it's all for you, baby.

  • R C Dean||

    Its like a mental illness with this guy. He . . . Just. . . Cannot . . . Stop . . . Using . . . the first person pronouns.

  • Paul.||

    You know, he's kind of got a point...

  • ||

    I'd let it slide on this one, if only because he's the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Seems "fighting on my behalf" is an accurate, although revealing, statement.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "carrying out my orders to fight on your behalves, my fellow Americans."

  • ||

    Maybe he'll actually do some other shit he promised in order to shore up his base? Probably not.

  • ||

    Would you guys put it beyond him to literally and completely reverse his position on this in the future if sentiment swayed in the right direction?

  • ||

    Easily.

  • ||

    It's pretty extraordinary how people allow him to escape scrutiny when he pulls a 180 on something. It's almost as if he were being given special treatment because he's a progressive and/or black, but THAT'S just nonsense!

  • Scarcity||

    That's racist, straight up.

  • ||

    Well, let's face it. Every time Obama has said in the past that he opposes gay marriage, every single person in the country has thought, "he's lying." So he hasn't done a 180; he gets a pass on this because he's just not lying anymore. In fact (excuse me while I wipe the tears away) we should all be so PROUD to live in a country with a president who believes in principles whenever they poll above 50%.

  • PantsFan||

    Most of his supporters are stating his position has "evolved"

  • ||

    Evolved!? That sounds like racist monkey-talk!

  • R C Dean||

    Oh, sure. Throw in some garble about consulting with black preacher community, how important religion is to him, blah blah.

  • ||

    I think both Obama and Romney would say almost anything if they thought it would net them some votes, even if it meant completely contradicting previous statements.

  • John Thacker||

    Well, yes. They are politicians who like to win.

  • Proprietist||

    I kind of doubt it. When you go all-out on a national stage, it's much harder to reverse course. It cost Daddy Bush the presidency, for instance.

    And what would Obama have to gain from switching course? He's already been to the most powerful position in the country.

  • yonemoto||

    that is an untestable hypothesis, since public sentiment has been improving towards accepting gay marriage.

  • ||

    I'm no political strategist, but this is probably a good play on Obama's part. The right is going to start squealing like a stuck pig about teh gays now, and no one will pay any attention to the fucked economy behind the curtain.

  • R C Dean||

    I think the Dems distraction campaign is mis-timed. They're going to burn through the distraction issues too early. By the time the meat of the campaign season rolls around (August or so), they won't have any "Hey, look over there!" issues left, and they'll be stuck trying to explain away the economy.

  • Wilt Chamberlain||

    I agree. They've already burned through women, (Fluke) blacks/guns (Treyvon) and now gays. Dems are running out of pointless social issues to distract people, and the election is months away. Of course, the republicans can still lose, because they can never pass up the opportunity to lose an election.

  • ||

    OK, I'll give you guys that. It also occurs to me that the left was going to vote for Obama no matter what his position was on gay marriage, but the right is not exactly excited about Romney. The SoCons will happily pull the lever for the guy running against the incumbent with the pro-fag plank. So has Obama just secured more votes for the right than he has for the left?

  • Another David||

    The lefties I've talked with have the exact opposite viewpoint - the people who consider stopping gay marriage a priority would never vote D anyway, but he had to shore up the liberal constituency who were getting fed up with his refusal to actually have a stance on anything other than blowing up people in the Middle East.

    I think the moral here is that everybody hates them both, just to different degrees.

  • Pip||

    This is exactly correct, MS, which is why Biden threw out the first salvo on this, which EAP pointed out yesterday. If you watch closely, you'll see a pattern. They telegraph their punches.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/05.....nt_3017024

  • Proprietist||

    Principled or not, I still welcome this development. I strongly doubt, but hope, Romney will follow suit.

    The downside is that this nullifies one of Gary Johnson's advantages over Obama for the Left. But what the heck, I care more about actual progress than political advantage.

  • John Thacker||

    Over the long term, this is entirely the result of cultural trends. Romney would follow suit if the polls shifted a bit more (or he were running in MA again.)

    For the short term, it would have been helpful to try to defeat Amendment One in NC.

  • ||

    I hate to overstate Johnson's importance, but I wonder if Obama would have gone there if Johnson hadn't been in the race.

  • yonemoto||

    your answer is yes, yes he would. Nobody gives a flying half shit about Gary Johnson. Not even people who were on his campaign (or so I hear).

  • Paul.||

    You gotta hand it to the dude, he can't lose.

    He hadn't lost a single liberal vote by not endorsing gay marriage, and now those committed "he's on an emotional journey of self-discovery" voters don't even have to verbally contort themselves to pull the lever.

    I'm now officially preparing for the Biden inauguration in 2016.

  • ||

    I'm still hoping Paul-esques sweep in and take over some really big state, like Texas, and then secede, and proclaim a restored constitutional republic.

    Then declare war on the federal government, win, and restore the whole Union.

    /Fantasy.

  • ||

    Paul, your relentless pessimism seems more and more appropriate every day.

  • Paul.||

    I'm old enough to have seen shit we used to laugh about when we were kids now be passed as the law of the land, with little opposition.

    Although to be fair, I do have one of these in my cupboard. For reals.

  • ||

    How much pussy does that cup not get you?

  • Paul.||

    How much pussy does that cup not get you?

    All of it.

  • Paul.||

    And believe me, it's not the cup that doesn't get me any.

  • yonemoto||

    The good news is that since the economy will crash no matter what in 2013, your biden 16 scenario is unlikely, and by then even the conservativest of republican candidates will be unable to undo progressively increasing acceptance of gay marriage.

  • wareagle||

    after three and a half years, finally something from this administration that truly is transparent.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I do not want to go on Facebook for a couple days now.

  • Scarcity||

    Be proactive! Post now about what a cynical move it is but at least he finally did the right thing. That's what I did.

    Drive the discussion!

  • Ben the Duck||

    Obama Endorses Gay Marriage

    As nudged by Joe Biden, via the withholding of favors. Call it "The Lysistrata Effect."

  • PantsFan||

    But at least the economy's still screwed up, right?

  • R C Dean||

    What's even more amusing is that this is an issue that the President cannot do one, single, solitary thing about.

    Nothing. At all.

  • John Thacker||

    Well, he could have used the bully pulpit and tried to sway a few minds. There are some counties in the northeast of NC that are majority black that went 70% for Obama and 70% for Amendment 1. Except that he waited until it no longer mattered.

    NC's Amendment 1 was worse than the existing state law because of what it does about civil unions (and that was in response to the court ruling in CA that said that CA by granting civil unions demonstrated that there was no rational basis for not calling them "marriage.")

    In the long run, this doesn't matter, as the polls are shifting quickly. In the short run, defeating Amendment One would have been worth it.

  • ||

    No, but it doesn't matter if he gets anything done. As long as he repeats the following statements liberals will walk bare footed over broken glass to vote for him:
    1. Corporations are not people
    2. The free market only works when there are rules for everyone
    3. Warren Buffet should not pay less in taxes than his secretary
    4. Romney is a dangerous extremists who would take this country backwards
    5. Forward!

  • Proprietist||

    Well, I'm a libertarian and I agree with all of those points.

  • Paul.||

    Larks aside, if you believe Romney is a dangerous extremist, you haven't been paying attention.

  • John||

    You really think Romney is a "dangerous extremist"? Really? In our fucking dreams.

  • Paul.||

    I win.

  • John||

    In a photo finish no less. Both posts at 4:05 pm.

  • Proprietist||

    I think Obama is too. I consider anyone who wishes to grow government when so close to bankruptcy and wants to throw our troops into meaningless wars "dangerous extremists" because they don't appear to live in the rational world.

  • Paul.||

    Except that form of dangerous extremism is the new normal. That's just how fucked we are.

  • wareagle||

    you think it got this bad all by itself? Don't tell me Obama is powerless to effect the economy.

  • R C Dean||

    Sorry, wareagle. Meant to be a standalone comment, not a response to you.

  • Proprietist||

    Still, I appreciate that we finally have a President that supports this policy while in office. That impacts the conversation and puts the anti-gay marriage side on defense, where they should be for supporting a backwards, fading policy that violates equal protections under the law. Also, it hopefully influences African-Americans to be more accepting towards gay issues. The President possesses a big bully pulpit, and it's good to hear something worthwhile come out of his mouth for once, however Machiavellian it might be.

  • Paul.||

    The President possesses a big bully pulpit, and it's good to hear something worthwhile come out of his mouth for once, however Machiavellian it might be.

    Even if it was made purely based on political calculus.

  • wareagle||

    just stop. This president does not support this policy, not in the sense of what "support" typically means. He's been against gay marriage his entire political life but faced with the chance to do something politically expedient in the wake of an election, he did what he always does - lead after the fact.

    Blacks have never supported gay rights; they led the effort in CA but it was much more PC for the left to blame the Mormons. His announcement today will not change any of their minds about Obama; he'll still get the black vote for being black.

    The crime is the intellectual dishonesty he shows along with the sheer contempt he has for folks who take this issue seriously. He believes they are that gullible, and as some posters have shown, many of them are.

  • Proprietist||

    So what? It's better than him NOT changing his mind, or supporting the bad policies themselves.

    If he changed his mind about marijuana today, I'd be incredibly happy as well, no matter his previous moral and political failings.

    Neither of these things will change my mind about voting for him however.

  • yonemoto||

    Blacks have never supported gay rights

    To be fair, some gay black individuals sometimes support gay rights.

  • John||

    Dream on Proprietist. I think gay marriage and gay rights in general are going to get less not more popular in the future. And I don't say that because I think it is a good thing.

    The reality is that outside of upper class America and white Europe, gays are universally despised in the world. "Gay Rights" is a phenomenon of liberal post World War II society. And that society is coming apart at the seems. When the country is majority Hispanic and Europe is majority Muslim, gay rights are going to get a lot less respect than they do now. This is the high water mark of gay rights. Sad but true.

  • Proprietist||

    Well, Obama changing his mind doesn't hurt the possibilities for progress, does it?

    I strongly despise Obama, but my dislike is mostly rational and based on nothing more than his actual policies and positions. I honestly don't care what race he is or how much of a manipulative, unlikeable douche he is. I only care whether his policies improve liberty and justice.

    When he does or says the right thing, I applaud him, however he came to those conclusions. I see a lot of people, including you, whose hatred of him has become irrational to the point where everything he does is wrong, even if he does the right thing.

  • John||

    I don't disagree with you in that. You can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I just think people who believe that the world is destined to forever get more tolerant are kidding themselves.

  • Proprietist||

    And I'm not going to praise Obama for his "courage" taking an opinion that should be consistent with his supposed philosophy anyway - for political gain. I just applaud him for not being backwards anymore.

    But I still think it's good in the sense of helping the nation and world become more tolerant. It does send a message and it keeps general progress and openmindedness towards moving in the right direction, so I'll enjoy the moment, whatever tomorrow holds.

  • Pip||

    He hasn't done "the right thing". It's just words.

  • Proprietist||

    So if Obama came out tomorrow and said "I support legalizing marijuana", you wouldn't be happy? What's the difference? If he falls on the right side of the issues, hopefully he'll start advocating for the right policies.

  • T o n y||

    Obama is always wrong, even when he's right. Doesn't take a political science degree to know that. Or a GED for that matter.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why aren't you bitching about how long it took Genius Barry to come to this conclusion, Tony?

    Though he should have taken the sensible position of "every couple gets civil-union rights", which would solve the problem just fine.

    Barry only came to this enlightened moment out of political duress - as a Democrat, he *should* have been for the holy grail of the gay-marriage permission slip from the day he found out he was a Democrat.

  • Mo||

    Wishful thinking on your part*, John. Look at the polling trendline and let me know what make you think things will get worse? Fifteen years ago only the most extreme activist would think we'd have gay marriage in any states. Yet here we are an DADT and 8 states have legalized gay marriage.

    This is despite the fact that the trends you claim will stop it were present over the last 20 years as well.

    * Despite your tepid disclaimer

  • John||

    I am sorry my disclaimer was too tepid for you. And thanks for reading my mind and accusing me of being a bigot. For the record I don't view it as a good thing and I don't look at the future as being particularly bright for freedom or tolerance. Either apologize for slandering me or go fuck yourself.

    As far as the substance of your argument, such as it is. I said this is the high water mark, which grants that the trend in the last 20 years has been up. But there is nothing to say the future will look like the past. Those trends are going to stop because the society that is making them is going to change. The sad fact is gays have rarely been treated equally throughout most of history and are not in most of the world today. And worse still the people who want to treat them equally will be making up a smaller and smaller portion of the population in the future. Kid yourself all you like, but that is not a bright future.

    And lastly, you are first class smug asshole. Seriously, who put sand your delicate vagina today? How dare you call me a bigot without any fucking proof or reason other than you don't like me. I have never said a God damn thing against gay people on this forum. And I defy you to show me where I have. You are a first class shithead Mo.

  • T o n y||

    The only way tolerance for gays goes down is if a new supervirus evolves that kills children and keeps old people alive longer.

    It's inevitable--even more so than increasing racial tolerance--and here's why. Potentially every family contains gay people. Now that tolerance has reached a point where people are free to be openly gay without fearing for their lives, people will increasingly be in personal contact with gays. Bigotry only maintains itself when you can treat types of people as "other." When they are a part of your life, you learn to be more accepting. Plus I happen to think Biden was correct, if a little goofy, about WIll and Grace. Even if there are no gay people personally close to you, popular culture is a powerful normalizing force.

  • John||

    Tony every family in the world has always contained potential gay people. You don't think families in places like Iran where they kill gay people contain potential gay people? Gay people have always been part of life. But people still hate them. I don't know why. But they do. The world is for the most part a nasty horrible place. You have no clue how tolerant and forward thinking this country is compared to the rest of the world. The world, outside of the US is getting less not more tolerant. All of the old sicknesses like racism and Antisemitism are stronger now than they have ever been.

    Sorry Tony, Will and Grace isn't the real world. The real world sucks.

  • T o n y||

    I'd be fascinated to see data that backs your claim up. I hope it's not true, but it could be. Or maybe it's just where you live. Yeah even Iranian families have gay people--who are typically consigned to a life of denial or secrecy. Assuming such societies can get over the hump of wanting to kill gay people, and gay people feel freer to come out publicly, more public acceptance seems inevitable.

    I do think a good prescription for lessening radicalization in the Middle East would be to stop bombing them. As for America, it's kind of a race--can Republicans destroy education standards in time to keep people stupid and bigoted forever?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    IOW, gays in America have it nigh-infinitely better than gays in Iran.

    I'm sure you'll find a way to shit on that truth, Tony, if only to score points for your Team.

  • yonemoto||

    When the country is majority Hispanic ..., gay rights are going to get a lot less respect than they do now

    You clearly have not spent time around gay hispanics. I mean nobody like lesbian hispanics, but both straight hispanic men and straight hispanic women alike love the gay male hispanics.

  • ||

    So Obama waits till AFTER a gay marriage ban makes this issue topical to give an endorsement? Now that's the lead-from-behind Obama we all know!

  • RBS||

    From facebook : Want to say thank you to President Barack Obama? Make a small (or big!) donation today! Can't wait to see how much dough they rake in tonight.

    At least it's honest

  • R C Dean||

    Part of his statement was:

    You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples.

    I'm pretty sure he's lying about this.

    The number of kids who have same-sex parents is vanishingly small, and the odds that any of them are friends with the Obamas is microscopic.

  • John||

    Especially at Sidwell Friends. How many same sex couples live in Washington, have kids and have the money to send their kids to Sidwell?

    Chances are he is lying his ass off.

  • R C Dean||

    To throw some numbers at it:

    The 2000 census counted about 594,000 households headed by same-sex couples, and it found children living in 27 percent of such households.3 The census did not, however, count the number of children in each home. So all we can say is that, conservatively, at least 166,000 children are being raised by gay and lesbian couples.

    http://futureofchildren.org/pu.....tionid=698

    The 2010 census raises the number of same-sex households to 646,464, so the number of children in those households is roughly 180,000. To put that in perspective, 24% of the US population is under age 18, or about 74 million kids. So, about, what, .24 percent of children are being raised in same-sex households?

  • PantsFan||

    But Modern Family!

  • R C Dean||

    Better data here:

    [link rejected by squirrelz. It was a census study of same-sex households]

    DC has the nation's leading percentage of same-sex households, by a lot, at 4%. So the odds are better, there. About 20% of same-sex households have kids.

    Still doesn't look good for Obama, although it is at least plausible, solely because DC has a disproportionate number of same-sex households.

    Working against him is the fact that most same-sex households with kids don't have teenagers, since they mainly adopt, and have done most of their adopting overseas and in recent years.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Let me be clear... if I had a son, he'd look like me, and he might be gay."

  • plu1959||

    It's composite. Of several hetero couples.

  • Pip||

    + 1 gay family

  • Seamus||

    But the kids with same-sex parents are probably disproportionately concentrated at Sidwell Friends, which the little Obamas attend.

  • Killazontherun||

    Election calculation doesn't really make sense. The states where gay marriage is supported already lean his way. He needs to keep hold of North Carolina, but my fellow dipshits voted for the ban at close to two thirds majority. Little frightening that amendments can be past without the 2/3rds if you ask me, but onwards. What is the strategy here? Does he already know he is going to lose in November and wants to blame it on a principled stand instead of his historically shitty record?

  • RBS||

    I thought it was because he needs the campaign donations from Big Gay.

  • ||

    I think is last name is actually Al.

  • Killazontherun||

    That would make sense. Hollywood, and I don't mean just snippy actresses with no influence or power, was starting to get public about it's annoyance with Obama coming out to LA with his handout but not offering a complimentary reach around for the dough for which he is asking.

  • Gladstone||

    I guess it'll be nice for gays to get married when bankruptcy and the police state comes.

  • Scotch Man||

    Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking. Where was this yesterday when he could have delivered a big speech about it in North Carolina where he's pounding his fist on the podium on the day people had their pursuit of happiness on the ballot? No, he waited until the day after and sort of sneaked it in there in a softball TV interview. What a fucking pussy.

  • pmains||

    He knows gay people who are "incredibly committed." Oh? Their level of commitment is so intense (and readily observable) that he would not be able to believe it had he not seen it with his own eyes? Is that what he's saying?

    Or is this like Biden complimenting Obama on being so "clean and articulate?" Is he saying that their level of commitment is shocking given their sexual orientation? I wonder what Tony thinks about being microaggressed against.

    I know. I know. It's not supposed to mean anything. These are pleasant sounding words read from a teleprompter in a soothing voice. Why doesn't he just read us books on tape instead? At least there would be educational value.

  • T o n y||

    Glad you asked. There is an element of ignorant patronizing to the comments of many straight Democrats, but being gay means you live in a world in which you must assume that not everyone will "get" you immediately. Do I wish politicians would just say "gay people are human beings who deserve exactly the same rights as other human beings"? Yes, but sometimes the Joe Bidens and Barack Obamas of the world aren't perfectly articulate. At least they don't present overt hostility toward gay people like the Republican party does.

    And it really does take political courage to support same-sex marriage while owing your job to a not-safely-liberal constituency.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So... you're saying Democrats are *gasp* capable of bigotry or mere unkindness towards gays???

    Isn't that unpossible?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    A reminder:

    The best way to ensure gays have those protectiosn, is to give every "hitched" couple the same civil-union protections... but that means government wouldn't need to insist on marriage licenses, which gays for some odd reason view as some kind of prize.

    If every single couple had those same legal guarantees... well, you'll just disagree, because you want that piece of paper.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The fact that many people think this is important is a sad sign of how much many people overrate the presidency. The words of a politician are just a fart in a windstorm.

  • Alice Bowie||

    "I'm coming Out"
    "I want the world to know"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement