Did you even read what you posted yourself Lee?

Headlines like that make you look like an apologist. Hes more liberal than Obama... on marriage? Nevermind that he holds almost the same position as Obama.

"The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support"

Thats pretty much the same position as Obama. Obama says he does not agree with gay marriage but that he also does not think the government has a place in dictating marriage policy.

Its the same position as being against abortion, but also believing the government has no place telling women what to do with their bodies.

Pres. Obama has said it is a states rights issue and does not believe the Federal Government should be involved. He personally would do nothing to interfere, but that the STATES could rule anyway they wanted.. now how is that in anyway different than what ass wipe said?

I answered my headline with 'maybe' for the reasons you stated, Ashby - President Obama opposes 'marriage', Cheney is fine with it...

It's a toss up; Cheney is slightly more clear about the wording. Not a great position for President Obama, really.

it's something we've lived with for a long time?

Like a disease or defect for which there is no cure? At least, that's what it sounds like to me.

I don't understand what it is that the gay community wants Obama to do about gay marriage. He gives great speeches but he's not going to change people's minds on this issue nor influence the states. And he is surely not going to become a lead activist in the gay marriage movement. I love my President too, but he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. We knew this before he got into office and I certainly hope no one thought this was going to change overnight.

Right now, I think the gay community should focus on getting the states to legalize it.

I see Obama and Cheney's position on this as virtually identical. If Cheney did not have a gay daughter I suspect that would not be the case.

People are rarely one-dimensional. This post only makes sense if people continue to advance the theory that Obama means something other than what he says. If he doesn't sincerely believe in civil unions over gay marriage, then of course he's only playing politics and he's now behind the curve. But if he actually does believe, just as he said he does, then he believes what he believes, and what other people believe have nothing to do with it.

QT

Lee - your comments are on the money. I couldn't agree more.

I do not care for President Obama's stance on gay marriage either.

But has it occured to anyone that perhaps he says he does not support gay marriage because, you know, he does not support gay marriage? Like that's actually his personal feeling on the subject?

Perhaps we got so used to our former president lying to us that we don't know how to act when a president is honest with us.

What exactly is wrong with Obama's position?

He is against gay marriage, but he wont lift a finger to tell people they can't get married because he does not believe it is the role of government to do so.

This is a respectable position. He is willing to stand for what he believes, but he also does not mean to impose his belief on others by opposing government regulation of marriage.

You should be happy about Obama's position, because critizing it in the way that you are feeds the stereotype of forcing "teh gay" on people.

@JM: It's much the same as Joe B's position on abortion. HE doesn't like abortion, and also has no interest in telling women what to do with their bodies.

Looks pretty straightforward to me. Obama seems to say "i don't agree with the idea but it's not my, or the federal gov'ts call".

Cheney has basically the same view in that the federal gov't should not get involved.

As others have stated, President Obama's position is really no different from Cheney's.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is folks not wanting homosexuals married in their churches. It's another form of that "NIMBY" bullshit. All the other verbal jiggerypokery ("gay' marriage" leads to bestiality, both of which are a mor-tull sin before GOD ALMIGHTY, etc.) gets introduced by fraud merchants taking advantage of the combative posture each side takes in the argument.

Never mind the semantics and word emphasis. Neither are that comfortable with "gay marriage" or homosexuals getting married. Cheney voices as much in the very paragraph that is posted here. He's voicing dissociation like all who aren't quite comfortable with homosexuality (or similar circumstances like, say, criticizing someone you admire [hint]), but do not want to impede on anyone's sense of being. There's no harm in this, and my entire point is the inquisitive headline is a skosh hyperbolic.

Well, Obama is sincerely religious, and most Christian denominations, even many of the so-called "liberal" ones, do not support gay marriage, many even are still arguing over gay ordination or whether being gay itself is "unnatural".
Cheney has had a close personal relationship with a gay person, so he is less ideological on this subject. Doesn't surprise me in the least, and although I can't stand Cheney, am glad he supports his daughter.

There's a lot to criticize Obama on, including this, which has been pointed out, isn't really that different than Cheney's position. If I remember correctly, Obama urged Californians to vote no on 8.

I want Obama to pass health care reform. I'm hoping that's his grand master plan too. He needs public support to pass it. It's just too important, and he doesn't want to give the right wingers any ammunition in the meantime.

In my mind, it trumps everything else except national security. Get health care access to all, then come out in support of gay marriage, allow gays in the military, and allow the torture prosecutions to take place.

I don't think Pres. Obama ever weighed in on Prop 8.. you would have to prove that to me.

I think you are totally off base with that remark.

Annette: Obama wrote a letter, which No on 8 got a hold of, urging CA voters to vote against prop 8. The No on 8 campaign chose not to release the letter. This was a big deal a while ago.
Past that, prove it to yourself. There was no need to be rude to Jeff.

Funny how this letter did not get released by those claiming to possess it for inconspicuous reasons.

And you say this letter was addressed to CA voters.

And it was a "big deal," you say? Hmm...

How long ago was it a "big deal"? After Wimpbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail or before he embarrassed the Republicans on November 4th?

Not that I care one way or the other (I don't live in CA), but I'd like to see proof of something so noteworthy first-hand before giving credence to what one such as myself could construe as gossip.

A link to the site claiming to possess the letter won't suffice.

This letter sounds a little Whitey tape-ish, but I could be wrong.

Let's see.

Accuse me of being rude prematurely, and you may get a taste of how rude I can be.

I'm...curious, is all.

I don't know that I was rude, I stand by what I said.

Until I see the letter, I don't believe it was ever written.

FE, there was no need for you to be rude to me.

Hmm. The FOX News Channel technique of presenting an editorial statement as a question. Lee, Lee, Lee.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=117466&title=the-question-mark

fe, thanks for the support.

A little googling found this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/1/649173/-No-on-8-ad-with-Obama,-Schwarzenegger;-Magic-Johnson-robocalls

Now Jeff needs to explain why he needed to be critical of Obama voicing opposition to Proposition 8.

Oh, a quote from your link:

"I was at a training today for Election Day volunteers. Yes, they need money for the ads but they also need GOTV phonebanking in the next three days, and they need folks to do informational flyering near polling places on Tuesday.

The concern is that we know the yes-on-8 people will show up to vote on this proposition, even if they’ve given up on McCain, whereas the “No” voters (especially younger first time voters) may not bother to vote if the lines are long and the election seems safe for Obama." by Ebby

The more I read up on this Prop 8 matter, it seems that only superficial cause horses cared about its impact last year. These people did not know how to organize correctly or promote their cause succinctly. They wrapped it up as a "gay" issue, when it is really civil rights dispute. The reality is that those for the proposition were on a mission November 4th, while those against, though their hearts were set, didn't have the numbers to compete against the culture warriors.

"Jeff needs to explain why he needed to be critical of Obama voicing opposition to Proposition 8."

Or at least made it appear that way in his opening remarks.

I'm just saying...

I apologize for being a bit too inquisitive. Don't wanna be like Lee now, do we?

"Jeff needs to explain why he needed to be critical of Obama voicing opposition to Proposition 8."

I'm surprised it came across that way. I'm criticizing him for not pushing adamantly for gay rights. I believe it's something he wants to do but doesn't want to use up his political capital yet.

FYI, I voted no on 8. Where I live, north of San Diego, the No side was totally outnumbered. In my neighborhood, Yes on 8 signs dominated. Their supporters stood in mass numbers out on street corners. I wish I'd done more than just yell at them as I drove by, but I devoted all my campaigning to helping get Obama elected.

You're surprised? I was surprised someone on here was saying as much. Read your initial remarks on the subject back to yourself and see if it doesn't sound like you're critical of the president for a position you both took last year.

And as I stated, it always appeared that you folks were outnumbered in every respect on the issue by the people that were offering the proposal in order to spark the that idiotic national debate. When their small victory failed to make a true impact beyond the homosexuals seeking to marry, the fraud merchants chose to highlight activists getting into scuffles with police. It's similar to how the odious Donald Trump allowed his show to be a circus platform for sensationalism's sake. These are the shenanigans these political tomfools partake in, and more often than not, the crusaders for equal rights fall right into the trap.

Regarding President Obama's position on gay rights, I'm no expert on the matter, but it seems to me that gay rights advocates have had it in for Obama since 2007 with that whole McClurkin debate. I'm saying, it's ok to keep the pressure on nationwide, and I figure the president is attempting to let the advocates themselves to push the issues into the spotlight. The man is not trying to be a mini dictator like Bush was; he's seeking an open discussion to see how we all feel on these matters. Meanwhile, he's still got a nation of varied opinions to deal with. You can't keep thinking he's going to appease each and every issue right away for the simple fact that he got your vote. If you expect him to just dismantle idiocy that took at least two American generations to consolidate to the detriment of this nation, you're not thinking clearly.

Obama's 8 year run is going to require patience on all our parts. You see that the crazies are popping up more frequently, right? They're engaging in domestic terrorism again just like they were in the 90s. These people need to be confronted head on. They're a bunch of spoiled brats that like to hide behind America's questionable reputation as a sterling example of superiority. These people are the intellectual dregs of our society, yet they advocate for guns that aren't distributed equally, and are forever issuing threats to people as if they mean to menace the populace if they can't get their way. They are no different from the "terrorists" they deride in their delusions of grandeur. This situation is getting VERY serious, and we ALL need to recognize the sickness plaguing the United States. It's about time we cut this cancer.

Issues like "gay marriage" and the like are what fuels these fanatics, along with the economic hardships that the con-servatives assured would be there for ANY Democrat that took the oath of office on January 20 of this year.

C'mon, man. Whjat are we dense? We know these Republicon bastards have are perpetrating an elaborate sabotage in order to cement its politically dominant position, and had been planning to do as much as early as 2003 as the elections. The shit began backfiring on them, however, in 2005, and what we're left with is a party that is attempting to stoke the anger of the criminally insane wing of its intellectually irrelevant party.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see how we can get so wrapped up in dismissing Obama on the issue of gay rights solely when the alternative is embracing a man that belongs to a party that embraces a sect that would just as soon label every homosexuals a terrorist and hunt for them as if they were deer.

I'm not going to jump on this bandwagon some of you seem determined to promote. That would be the bandwagon that whittles away its own credibility criticizing the president on things that obviously cannot be help at this juncture. We've got media dorks out here attempting to forget the eight year plague that was foisted upon this country, and some of you seem to be perpetually indecisive as to whether you want to support this man for superficial reasons.

Some of these matters CANNOT be seen through just by bitching, people. YOU HAVE SERIOUSLY GOT TO FIGHT. Not just discuss then vote - FIGHT!

It's extremely vexing to observe the liberal Democrats' practice of being occasionally obtuse in their support of one of their own politicians. Some of you act like you're Morris the damned cat with this nonsense.

Seek to promote Cheney as a "liberal" at the worthy cause's peril, people.

That shit ain't beneficial to you in any way, nor is it as rhetorically cloying as you think it is.

Consider the alternative and calm that shit down.

I realize that wasn't entirely directed at me, but it sure feels like you have it in for me. A few months ago I posted a comment by Limpbag that he'd backpedaled from saying he wanted Obama to fail and you called me out as a conservative troll. I can assure you I've never a day in my life qualified as a conservative and considering I'm on this blog every day agreeing with Bob and the vast majority of contributors, I don't think I can be called a troll.

Realize that you're bringing your own credibility into question with these kinds of attacks.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm with you. Really, I don't expect Obama to change everything overnight. But when it comes to civil rights, there's a right and wrong side of the issue. He's publicly on the wrong side, even though he urged a No on 8 vote. He's said he doesn't support gay marriages, and I totally understand why that's his public position.

But like I also said, he's set his national security and economic policies in motion.....and as far as I'm concerned, health care reform is the only thing that absolutely has to get done first and might be threatened if Obama pushes for gay rights too soon. So I'm willing to wait, but not much longer. Still, I can't imagine any scenario in which he wouldn't get my vote in 2012.