Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

to use the LBJ line about Jerry Ford, "without a helmet"

this is a very cynical election year ploy to shore up his credentials with younger voters - the GOP has no option but to look bad by comparison, Obama gets to look like the reasonable adult in the room etc.

― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, May 9, 2012 2:37 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

so are you saying that a politician had political motives for doing something?

What is going to be the gay equivalent of the shotgun wedding?

Fox is 'news' for ppl who played too much football in hs/college

― Love Max Ophüls of us all (Michael White), Wednesday, May 9, 2012 3:07 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah TOTALLY come over and join us on ILNFL it's basically a klan meeting with funny pictures of eli manning

totally psyched for the war on marriage, you guys

man the torpedoes

full w33d ahead

Marriage army general Dan Savage:

"But the president also supports the 'concept' of states 'deciding the issue on their own.' (States like, say, North Carolina, which yesterday banned any recognition of same-sex relationships in reality, not in concept.) So the president supports same-sex marriage while also supporting the right of states to ban the same-sex marriages that he supports. Which means, of course, that once the dust settles... everyone is going to be upset, supporters of marriage equality and opponents alike.

"...Forgive me for being Debbie Downer about this. But if a politician came out for legal interracial marriage and then said in the very next breath that he also supported the right of states to ban interracial marriage, well, I can't imagine that supporters of legal interracial marriage would let pass without comment."

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/09/obama-comes-out-for-same-sex-marriagebut-his-evolution-is-incomplete

it's basically a klan meeting with funny pictures of eli manning

I played some football in middle school. I think your use of funny may be superfluous, though.

gonna crash a church wedding and pants the groom during vows

When people admit they're being Debbie Downer and ask for forgiveness, it's an even bigger Debbie Downer than whatever Debbie Downerism made them feel like Debbie Downer in the first place.

O_o

You could make an argument that the 'laboratory of states' theory behind federalism should allow states some leeway about something as fundamental in western/xtian culture as homophobia and sex-negativity (fornicators!) to figure it out out at their own speed. They'll lose tourism dollars and inhabitants and then they can decide whether it was worth it to increasingly be a pariah.

looking fwd to Utah and Alabama being emptied

http://static.rateyourmusic.com/lk/l/w/418ef31d3810de2440c13c02276c309b/4201736.jpg

― frogbs, Wednesday, May 9, 2012 4:03 PM (27 minutes ago)

http://oi45.tinypic.com/2udz0k6.jpg

just to be clear here, Dan Savage's end goal is a federal law declaring the rights of gays and lesbians to marry...?

I think so, yes.

I'd put the odds on that as being at least a decade out. The SC might strike down DOMA, but that doesn't mean they'll enshrine the right to marry in their ruling. Hitting Obama for not aggressively lobbying for a nonexistent law that has no chance of passing seems a bit shortsighted to me.

nonexistent BILL, that should say

Greenwald applauds, bcz only politicians' actions matter:

I’ve had zero tolerance over the last three years for people who pop up to justify all the horrible things Obama has done by claiming that he is forced to do them out of political necessity or in cowardly deference to public opinion; that’s because horrible acts don’t become less horrible because they’re driven by some rational, self-interested political motive rather than conviction. That’s equally true of positive acts: they don’t become less commendable because they were the by-product of political pressure or self-preservation; when a politician takes the right course of action, as Obama did today, credit is merited, regardless of motive.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/

I think that's true - however this is not really an "action", it has zero effect on policy

On his Fox News show, Smith played the tape of Obama speaking, and then said, "the president of the United States, now in the 21st century."

A couple of minutes later, Smith was speaking to his colleague Bret Baier. He asked Baier if the GOP would campaign against same-sex marriage "while sitting very firmly, without much question, on the wrong side of history on it."

I wonder if Shep Smith's position at Fox is so secure that he can get away with twitting Fox's target demo, or if he's angling for a high-profile firing.

they won't fire him

Thing is, plenty of people would happily stay on the wrong side of it. Buckley's comment has it built in to the mentality, which I think that NRO types have reffed, that they feel they're helping slow the march of history/progress/whatever. so what I'm saying is, the romanticism of Lost Causes is vitally important for a certain kind of retrograde fuckhead.

it has zero effect on policy

but it is a relatively rare "bully pulpit" moment from Obama.

I wonder if Shep Smith's position at Fox is so secure that he can get away with twitting Fox's target demo, or if he's angling for a high-profile firing.
― improvised explosive advice (WmC), Wednesday, May 9, 2012 4:45 PM

the former...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuF03PTNpp8

If he's trying to buck up the youth vote maybe he could start to point out the long-time idiocy of marijuana prohibition and our policy of locking everybody up for a zillion years for realtively minor crimes. Good avenues to look at for easing our budget woes, imho.

If Shep were going to be fired, it would've been after the 2008 election when he essentially pulled the curtain away and told people that pundits on both sides punch a time clock and then go socialize every night like the things they're saying don't have VERY REAL impact on the people they're preaching to.

kudos and all that, prez. but i guess this really 'matters' insofar as how it plays in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, etc. would like to see some data on that...

Shep's job is guaranteed because he's Fox's insurance that they're fair and balanced.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. How are his ratings?

I'm not sure his 3pm show does any kind of numbers at all, but he's still their 7pm news guy right? I imagine that show is what keeps him employed.

Vidal Sassoon is dead, so a 50/50 gay day.

Shep's job is guaranteed because he's Fox's insurance that they're fair and balanced.

I've heard this one before. Wither Alan Colmes?

Alan Colmes wasn't popular and he sucked.

whereas every one of my conservative relatives adores Shep

I misread that as "adopts."

Gay Adoption to Alfred.

no thanks

Mr. Romney, after a campaign speech in Oklahoma City on Wednesday, underplayed his differences on the issue with Mr. Obama, while also offering a reminder that he had been consistent.

“This is a very tender and sensitive topic,” Mr. Romney said, “as are many social issues. But I have the same view I’ve had since, well, since running for office.”

this guy is so doomed

poor Romneybot, his programming now dictating he must "pivot" to the center in a general election.

Dan Savage demurs.

tsk tsk, old man! have you killfiled me?

What, is Romney going to start calling the other guy a flipflopper?

https://mobile.twitter.com/BarackObama/status/200426078974640128

hi, i'm from australia and my prime minister is a pointless piece of shit

you just have to wait for her to evolve

It's awesome that Obama did this, but ... what did he do, exactly? States can (and will) continue to ban gay marriage, or more/worse. Once this gets to the Supreme Court, Obama has no sway, and likely anyone he would have appointed to the court would be at least somewhat sympathetic to the issue, anyway. Unless he actively campaigns on the issue, which I doubt he will, by supporting gay marriage Obama puts nothing at stake (anti-gay marriage peeps likely would have not voted for him anyway) and gets little in return (except some gay $$$, and maybe the renewed support of some hard-left people and libertarians somehow able to overlook all the other things about him they don't like). Right? And for those who think the decision will cost him any significant portion of the black vote ... please.

That's correct but here's where I might surprise you: I was impressed with the simplicity of the language used in that interview. In clear jargon-free sentences he explained how he as a father and husband approached the unveiling of a decision he had no doubt decided years ago. It does mean a lot that POTUS did it too.

as Dennis Perrin put it, "Liberals love voting for symbolism."

(even if it trails Dick Cheney)