"It is good to see that after intense political pressure that President Obama has finally come around to the Dick Cheney position on marriage equality."


GOProud's Chris Barron reacts to Barack Obama's late and somewhat tepid support for marriage equality: 

"It is good to see that after intense political pressure that President Obama has finally come around to the Dick Cheney position onmarriage equality. I am sure, however, the President's newly discovered support for marriage is cold comfort to the gay couples in North Carolina.  The President waited until after North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment banningsame-sex marriage." 

"This is hardly a profile in courage by President Obama.  For years now, President Obama has tried his hardest to have it both ways on this issue. 

"The real kudos here goes to LGBT activists and their allies who finally forced the President into yielding on this issue."


NEXT: Peter Suderman on Obama's Technocratic Meddling

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.

  1. have it both ways

    Isn’t that polygamy?

    1. No you idiot, it means the President is bi-curious.

      1. I bet there’s a website out there where he could meet other bi-curious people. Unfortunately, the reason lockdown doesn’t allow them to advertise here anymore.

      2. Master Shake: Somebody’s a little bi-curious!

        Meatwad: I ain’t no bi-curious. I’m a man’s man!

        Master Shake: Not any more! I’ve planted the seed of doubt!

        Meatwad: You don’t say that! I’m a man, and you…if you need me, I’m gonna be in the garage…[in a deeper voice] hangin’ sheetrock, ’round an engine I’m rebuilding.

        Master Shake: Look at the way he rolls…

        Meatwad: WHERE’S MY CHEWIN’ TOBACCO?!?

        Master Shake: …just like a woman!

      3. I thought it was bike-curious.

    2. For years now, President Obama has tried his hardest to have it both ways on this issue.


  2. at long last, a decision from this White House that truly is transparent.

    1. Hehehe.

  3. …President Obama has finally come around to the Dick Cheney position on marriage equality.


  4. states issue & regulate licenses not the feds, regardless of president unless one holds that marrage is a civil right. >then the [COMMERCE CLAUSE] rules babiee!

  5. GOProud is just reinforcing the invidious stereotype that gay men are snarkily witty.

    1. Whoa! I thought it wa libertarians who were snarkily witty.

      I feel oddly . . . confused.

      1. No, libertarians are in-joking douchebags. The two look similar up-close.

        1. No, up-close it’s obvious that the gay men have better fashion, whereas the libertarians are in our T-shirts and SF cosplay.

          1. Whoaaa! What if you’re gay and a libertarian?

            1. Then you’re David Weigel.

              1. Take that back! Weigel’s no libertarian!

                1. And I don’t believe he’s gay either. Lots of media types and DC crats may seem gay-ish. But as the wealthy dyke said to Charlotte on Sex and the City when she started socializing with lesbians enjoying woman energy and woman space, you either eat pussy, or you don’t.

          2. I’m really losing faith in all of you guys today. First I find out you’re not pathological liars, and now it’s revealed that you don’t even wear vests and ties on a daily basis outside of work?

            Jesus Christ, man. Maybe I don’t belong here.

            1. Well, it’s a morning coat in the morning. Dinner jacket in the afternoon, followed by a tux in the evening. On the weekends, top hat and tails. Formal kilt on Scottish holidays, Prussian uniform on Christmas.

              1. You forgot about the monocles. Mine has a red dot sight for targeting minority children.

          3. Fool, we true libertarians have the most exquisite fashion sense: Tuxedoes, top hats, monocles, Clive Christian No.1 cologne ($2500/bottle and made from the finest dolphins and endangered whales). The Chinese ground baby pills keep us youthful and vibrant.

            In contrast, you’ll never find ME in a nonsensical graphic tee from Express.

            1. Libertarians are very pale nerds who project this bizarre narcissistic self-image into the minds of others. Nobody pictures you with monocles and top hats.

              Just as, perhaps to Ayn Rand’s shock, nobody pictures you as perfectly chiseled sexual titans either.

              1. Doesn’t matter how they picture us once reality runs headfirst into their vaginas.

                But really, we see eye to eye on this one, Tony Toni Tone

                1. Wow, that is a scary thing to be running headfirst into someone’s vagina. I am not in.


              2. Do you know how to read, retard? It’s not how people picture us, it’s what we actually look like.

              3. nobody pictures you as perfectly chiseled sexual titans either.

                Yeah! Not like Michael Moore, or Al Franken, or Alan Colmes, or crackling sexual dynamos like those guys!

              4. No point in responding to this lobotomized cretin. We have far more important things to do, like rounding up orphan workers, or rerouting our nuclear runoff into the nearest waterway.

              5. Fuck off Tony.

                Oh, and $

  6. tepid support for marriage equality

    Can we please stop calling it that? It’s a stupid euphemism. What about plural marriage? And why is the state involved at all?

    1. The state’s involved because it got involved a couple of centuries ago.

      The marriage contract isn’t just about who you can shag, it’s got to do with a whole lot of things about rights of inheritance and succession, who can take control in the event of the incapacity of the other, who can visit who in a hospital, who can make funeral arrangements etc.

      If you don’t have a marriage contract with your chosen life partner then the next of kin can step in and take control of those things and probably will if he doesn’t like them queers.

      Now, maybe the state shouldn’t be involved but it is.

      1. I’m not aware of any rights of a married couple that can’t be duplicated by actual contract.

        Inheritance: will.

        Incapacity: Durable and medical powers of attorney.

        Visit in a hospital: medical power of attorney.

        Funeral arrangements: will.

        1. What about tax breaks for filing jointly?

          1. There’s a simple remedy for that. Don’t have them.

          2. Last I checked, I paid more in taxes for filing jointly.

        2. As a lawyer, can’t you prepare an immigration petition for the same-sex spouse of an American citizen?

          1. No. As far as the federal government is concerned the same sex spouse is a completely unrelated individual and hence has absolutely no standing with ICE.

        3. As I have recently found out first-hand, wills can easily be flouted for a variety of reasons by a competent attorney. Rights of spousal survival, not so much.

        4. Mr Dean,

          First let me get this snark out of the way. Leave it to a lawyer to advance an idea that requires his services. 🙂

          All of what you say is true, hence my “maybe the state shouldn’t be involved”…

          However all of those things can be contested by a determined family member and even if they don’t win they can make things difficult.

          The marriage contract is a one shot deal. You know, like the old joke about the “roofers card”, it covers everything.

          I’m ambivalent about this, I’m tempted to think that this legal protection is one of the things the state actually does well but am also troubled about the way it is a culture war cudgel.

          My preference is that the state should relinquish the term marriage and leave it to the churches.

          If the state wants to offer a one size fits all contract for people then it can call it a civil union, or whatever, but it should be available to any couple who chose to enter into it.

          You want your union sanctified by the Almighty go to church and let a priest say the mumbojumbo. Or just stand before the Flying Spaghetti Monster and declare you endless love, or whatever.

          If you want you union legalized, go to the City Hall and have the clerk say the mumbojumbo.

          If you want both, I guess you’ll have to do both.

          Other couples can waste their money on lawyers 🙂 and customize their contracts.

        5. Those arrangements don’t necessarily hold up in court, either because of statutory prohibitions or because of common-law doctrines like meretricious consideration or public policy.

          1. And even if they don’t hold up in court, who wants to go through a court hearing before He/She can get in to take care of things for his/her beloved?

            However faulty the “covers everything” marriage contract offered by the state is virtually universally recognized and verifiable.

        6. Anybody can visit a patient in the hospital. There’s no requirement that they are relatives. I’m not even aware of any hospitals that have visiting hours anymore. At any of the ones I’m at, visitors come and go at all hours.

          1. I don’t think it’s about the actual visitation rights, I think it’s about who can make medical decisions etc.

            These are not trivial issues, especially considering that many gay couples encounter extreme hostility from one or other or both of their families.

            1. check out Cynthia Yockey’s blog post about the eventually losing battle with MS that she and her long time partner Margaret Ardussi fought together.

              Cynthia and Margaret had every piece of legal paper they could think of sewed up and it was still a fight to get the hospitals to recognize Cynthia’s rights to make medical decisions as Margaret’s legal next of kin.

              The crowning insult came after Margaret’s death when Margaret’s family tried to assume control of Margaret’s body because the ‘living will’ she had signed giving Cynthia full control was no longer in effect because Margaret was, of course, no longer living.

              It’s not about the sacred ritual of marriage, it’s about who you decide to be your next of kin and how you can force institutions like hospitals and governments to pay attention to your desires.


            2. It’s very touching that you all think this kind of family conflict is confined to gay couples. The same shit happens when the kids of the first marriage and the second spouse butt horns. Calling a gay union a marriage ain’t gonna fix it. Just admit that when the state gets in the middle of painful family situations, bad bad crap will happen.

  7. Obama to gays: “I want your money THIS much.”

  8. Personally in favor but it is a state’s rights issue. With fence sitting like that, I’d say he is definitely a bottom.

    1. With DOMA, it isn’t a state’s rights issue anymore.

      Eventually that piece of shit is going to have to be reversed.

      And better for CONgress to do it than to have it overturned by the courts.

  9. This is all of course politically motivated on Obama’s part. He may still get the majority of the gay vote this year, but the Left is losing gay supporters for the simple reason is that most gays are anti-socialists. Any Obama and the Democrats are embracing a disastrous brand of socialism on par with Europe.

    1. “that most gays are anti-socialists”

      Really? Maybe I’ve lived in the California too long. I meet very few free-market loving gays.

  10. If he wins re-election, I expect Obama to stand by gay marriage in his second term as faithfully as he stood by medical marijuana in his first.

  11. Well that makes a lot of sense dude.


  12. From ‘The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage’:

    …The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say which marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.