POLL: How Do You Feel About Obama's Gay Marriage Endorsement?

The president came out with his opinion on gay marriage. Critics say he's taking a risk.

President Barrack Obama said today he supports gay 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," Obama told ABC News' Robin Roberts during an interview today.

What do you think? Do you like Obama more or less for his view on same sex marriage?

Patrick May 11, 2012 at 01:46 AM
SPB- Why radio personalities? Another question for you: are you a progressive?
SPB May 11, 2012 at 02:38 AM
@ Flush Talk radio is largely conservative and against gay marriage. My opinions on this issue are at odds with them, as such they provided a handy example of where my new best friend Tif may have gotten the impression that I'm somehow a bad person for holding the views I hold... though hey, I was just trying to avoid the easy fox news reference. As far as being a progressive, I don't wave the flag for any political ideology. I prefer to do my thinking for myself.
stef May 11, 2012 at 02:45 AM
Funny that 0baMao claims to be a Christian. He has NO idea what the Bible says, except for what his black theology, anti-American pastor has preached to him.
LBV Collins May 11, 2012 at 03:10 AM
<groan> More Fox News & Friends pabulum. Stef, I suppose you think Obama is Muslim. If so, I'd REALLY like to know what you think of Muslims and the God they worship.
temeculan May 11, 2012 at 04:55 AM
SPB, you wrote, "talk radio is against gay marriage" and "you...do your thinking for yourself". Let's examine your "thinking", shall we? We are to assume that your term; "talk radio" refers to all talk radio, everywhere? Do you really listen to all talk radio or are you “profiling” talk radio and substituting assumptions for facts? And, so… when a majority of voters in California vote against gay marriage, would this mean that "talk radio" represents the "majority"? Actually BO “agreed with this when he needed moderate voters to support him. Because, you see, this is a “moderate” opinion. “Most” people in the US think that “Marriage” is and has always has been a “man and a woman” arrangement. Should two gay people join together in a legal union? Sure - with all the rights and responsibilities. But “marriage” is “man and woman”. Your so-called "thinking" is simply regurgitating the politically correct progressive point of view. Which would be fine but hardly, “thinking for yourself”? You sir, are a shallow, pedantic phony. You may argue now.
V May 11, 2012 at 05:47 AM
I love how fox news and religion has allowed a whole segment of society to act stupid and some how feel lagitamet. Think and read facts before stating them. Spitting out fox news shows no class and certainly no education.Iit's all lies and fairytales people.
V May 11, 2012 at 05:51 AM
Really stef... I bet 10 to 1 you have never read the bible front to back but have recieved your religious beliefs from your parents pears or pastor. If you read it you wouldn't be a fox news fan boy. It would be impossible to hate so much!
SPB May 11, 2012 at 04:55 PM
part 1) You are making a few mistakes here Temeculan, let me walk you through them: First, this is a discussion about gay marriage, not talk radio. The talk radio comment was clearly a small jab at Tif regarding the fact that she is just parroting the same tropes we hear over and over again without actually having any substance to her assertions. Second, I never said "talk radio is against gay marriage." That would indicate that all talk radio programs are against gay marriage and that is clearly false. I wrote that talk radio is LARGELY against gay marriage, because anyone who has surfed talk radio stations can tell you it is LARGELY a conservative medium. Again, a side note which I sadly had to spell out for someone, which again, isn't even the issue here. Third, a majority of California voters did in fact vote for prop 8 a few years back, though my argument had nothing to do with "majorities" or "moderate opinions." My opinion, which I suppose I'll have to re-spell out for you, is that our society is based on the premise that A) all people are created equally and B) There is no official state religion. As such, we cannot make laws putting one group of people above another simply on the basis that "God says so."
SPB May 11, 2012 at 04:56 PM
part 2) I went a little further explaining my opinion why the argument for maintaining the word "marriage" as between one man and one woman was bogus in light of the actual history of the institution, but again, your assertion that "most" people think marriage is and has always been a "man and a woman" arrangement means nothing to me. It has nothing to do with my point. I never said "popular" or "moderate" equates to being correct. I never said it because I don't believe it. Most people used to think blacks were 3/5ths of a person. It was a "moderate" stance in its day, but it was not correct. Which bring us back full circle to the real issue. People getting denied equal rights because of religious law. Now, just because I think the Federal Government should give gay unions all the same accommodations as straight unions doesn't mean subscribers of faith must accept gays in any way into their church (though I find that sad). Churches can deny marriages to gays forever as long as I'm concerned. It is not the State's business to give religious mandates. Separation of Church and State works both ways, and I never said people should be forced to watch will and grace and eat quiche.
SPB May 11, 2012 at 04:57 PM
part 3) If I wrote the law I would mandate that the Federal Government recognized all unions between consenting adults as "civil partnerships." If that couple wanted a certificate that says "marriage" on it, then they could go through the religious institution of their choice. If gays wanted to be "married," they could hold their ceremony at an Anglican Church, or any other church/temple which allowed the practice. None of my statements are regurgitated. I take no marching orders from any party or ideological cause. I do however see a pattern with your inability to parse nuance from statements you would lump together as "progressive." You may call me shallow and pedantic, though its hard to reach the bottom of the well if you're only skimming water from the surface.
TVOR May 11, 2012 at 09:00 PM
Flush, all rights can be alienated, just look at the second ammendment.
Troy May 11, 2012 at 10:27 PM
I thought sodomy was illegal? On to more serious questions... Aren't laws a moral reflection of a society? I understand the constitutional obligation, "separation of church and state". When it comes to writing laws, voting on them, and enforcing them do we not look to our own moral compass for how to do so? If your moral compass says homosexuality is wrong, and millions of others happen to agree with you, then shouldn't those morals reflect so in the law? Here's an example. As Americans, 99.9% of us will universally agree that raping children is bad, and you should go away for a very long time at least. Yet, if you were speaking to an Iraqi, they wouldn't have the same point of view. In my opinion, laws are a reflection on societies morals, therefore religion does, indirectly, codify their prejudices into law.
SPB May 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM
@ Troy, Thats a very good point to make and I appreciate the questions you pose. It is the grey area like this where the validity of laws are truly measured and debated, and while you are absolutely correct to a certain extent that religion indirectly codifies its morals into law, one of the purposes of the constitution is to ensure that no religious codes that discriminate against entire groups of people are allowed to govern broader society. Obviously what constitutes "discrimination" has evolved over the years, but in modern society, it essentially means that no group can have preferential treatment over others because God said so. You have one big hole in your thesis however and that is the assumption that all morals are religiously derived and or inspired. There are millions of atheists in America who are moral and upstanding people who do not believe in God yet somehow find a way to do the right thing. There are certain morals which are pretty universal in our country, and the idea that using force to acquire sex is a bad thing is one of them. In certain societies child molestation is not viewed with the abhorrent distaste found in America, but every society is different and like you said, those morals get codified into law. Which brings us back to America, which has no State Religion. As such, theology cannot be the last word pertaining to civil law. Thats why we have the court system. To circumvent popular oppression of minority groups.
tolegirl May 11, 2012 at 11:24 PM
While all of you are discussing the constitutional rights of we, the people, explain to me why any person can't have the same legal rights just by adding another persons name to any legal agreement, such as a will or trust, power of attorney, mortgage, bank account, etc.? I understand that they want the same rights, but it seems to me that they can have them without trying to change the letter of the constitution.
temeculan May 12, 2012 at 08:43 AM
SPB, So....what your saying is that you and Oralia agree? :)
SPB May 12, 2012 at 05:18 PM
no, I disagree with Oralia. SODOMY FOR ALL!!! :)
stef May 12, 2012 at 05:41 PM
Sorry LBV and V, unlike you I actually read, listen and research. I think 0 favors muslims out of reverence for his daddy, and at the very best he is a Christian pretender. Being blind to 0bama's history and his thug politics just makes you not worth the discussion. I'll bet you think the D party is still the party of JFK and MLK. HA! If you don't see that it's the new Communist party we have absolutely nothing to talk about. Get out of your MSNBC trance and research a bit.
Paul Jacobs May 12, 2012 at 07:30 PM
Ever hear of "Rights of Survivorship"? Civil marriage entails many legal rights denied to gays and lesbians. The Constitution of the U.S. already guarantees equality, but religious and conservative groups are actively changing state constitutions to deny equality under the law. Churches do not have to marry gay and lesbian couples. Religious and personal freedoms should be respected and protected equally.
Tonto May 13, 2012 at 03:56 AM
I want to marry my German Shepard. Its only fair and my right to equality. All Americans should live free. You must agree or you are a beastialityaphob hater :)
LBV Collins May 13, 2012 at 03:18 PM
Now Tonto... you're just being silly. Unfortunately, there are those who *actually* make the argument that if we allow gays to marry, then we'll eventually have to allow people to marry anything they love, including dogs... and even ice cream. (http://shar.es/2DxfX) Of course, back where I come from (planet Earth), intelligent adults realize that matrimony is best limited to consenting adult.humans.
LBV Collins May 13, 2012 at 03:30 PM
Hi Stef. I strongly suspect you never really have done any research. Nonetheless, I have an open mind, which means that if you can present me with reasonable, rationale, fact-based arguments, then you have an opportunity to change my mind and sway me to your way of thinking. So, if you please, present your proof that: 1. Obama favors Muslims 2. Obama is a Christian pretender 3. Obama employs “thug” politics (which implies no one else does) 4. And that the Democratic Party is actually a Communist Party. (And, please, no links to Fox News & Friends, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. Their propaganda is not research.)
Troy May 13, 2012 at 05:21 PM
I dont believe I have a big hole in my thesis, because in my opinion, all morals are derivative of a Creator. I say this because I believe in Natural Law and Divine Providence. I used to be atheist. My whole idea was that I could be a morally straight person, without religion, and I was. After some time, I began thinking about morals. Where did I come up with them? How is it, that people across the world of different cultures who have never met each other, seem to agree that certain things, like stealing, murder, and adultry are bad, yet have different spiritual beliefs? This is because of Natural Law. The Creator put these morals in us. Whether you are of a faith or not, you've got them. I can understand why some would be against gay marriage. It's against their personal morals. In one way or another, in my opinion, all morals come from a Creator of some sort. I dont fault them for their beliefs. I really dont care what gay people do. I dont think we have any right to deny them access to marriage as a legal binding contract with the same benefits as heterosexual couples. I agree that while we should not deny this right, we also should not deny the rights of the church to marry whomever they chose. That's a wonderful observation about "separation of church and state" being a two way street. Being gay is against my morals, however, its not my place to tell others how to be a moral person. God will judge all those who come before him, so if its wrong, its up to Him, not me.
Patrick May 13, 2012 at 05:58 PM
Incorrect. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -absolutely inalienable rights. These "inalienable rights" disappear when Americans trade them in for a government who offers up freebies like contraception & unlimited welfare, promises equal outcome -not equal opportunity- to all, and sanctions infanticide. Limp, whiny, and generally pathetic has our country become.
Patrick May 13, 2012 at 06:00 PM
Are you off your meds or just stupid?
TVOR May 14, 2012 at 01:09 AM
FTT, your assertion that these rights are unalienable is false. Our liberty has been slowly taken away from us for a century or so. It happens when some jackass in government thinks they can think for us better than we can think for ourselves. Lives are taken behind the scenes with stunning regularity. The pursuit of happiness is routinely slowed and hindered. Nope, not unalienable.
Patrick May 14, 2012 at 03:01 AM
I don't believe you for a second. The least you can be is honest. I didn't ask you if you are a 'D' or a 'R,' did I? I asked if you are a progressive. Let me ask you another question, in the hopes of recieving a straight-forward and honest answer: do you or have you even listen(ed) to more than a 'gotcha' sound byte from these radio shows?
Patrick May 14, 2012 at 03:14 AM
TVOR- I apologize for the inalienable typo but I think that's probably quite common. I don't think you caught what I was saying. The unalienable rights are just that because they are not given to us by some "jackass" in a cubicle. They are given to us by the Creator. Yes, you may choose to forfeit those rights but they cannot be taken from the hearts and minds of our citizens. Rights given to me by men can be taken away by men. Rights given to me from my God will never be willing stripped from me.. That I wholeheartedly promise.
Stanley May 14, 2012 at 03:26 AM
Romney should be asked what he thinks (well what he thinks today anyway). Better yet, ask him his opinion about polygamy, seeing as his grandfather had to flee the country with his child brides and settle in Mexico. Mitt's dad had 'sister moms' and lived in a commune in Mexico. Does Mitt condone polygamy because it's so prevalent in his family? Does he have secret sister wives? What is the Mormon agenda to get a Mormon in the White House?
Jeff Walters May 15, 2012 at 05:12 AM
Yes I listen to more than one radio sation for my information. I also read over 15 news articles a day concerning our elected officlas. I am very outspoken about non thinking idiots deciding my future. In fact it really upsets me.
stef May 17, 2012 at 11:41 PM


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »