So you thought he would champion gay marriage in his 2nd term ?

Obama to MTV: I won't be pushing gay marriage in second term - National Elections | Examiner.com

Bwaaahaaahaaahaaaa!! He doesn't need the constituency anymore!

And so he should throw them under the bus, why do we have to put up with this crap, society overturned for a small minority

I guess now we're witnessing the de-evolution of Obama. That probably doesn't bode well for ex's legal weed hopes either.

Or DEVO for short

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/7310/obama1id0.jpg

He's making the distinction between civil unions and church marriages. Didn't throw anyone under the bus. More hyperbole... as usual.

That was his position du jour before the election cycle. During the election he claimed his position "evolved ".Now he's back to where he was before he pandered . Imagine that . Hispanics watch out . Your turn under the bus is coming .

That's a very badly written article.

Yes perhaps... but he did indeed make those comments to MTV .

What you should be asking is ;those comments were made Oct 26 . Why didn't the compliant networks make his flip-flop an issue in the days before the election ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes perhaps ... but he did indeed make those comments to MTV .

---

The article is so poorly written, I have no idea what comments he actually made and to whom.

OK then ;a 2min search and I found MTV's report .

Will President Obama Legalize Same-Sex Marriage? You Asked! - Music, Celebrity, Artist News | MTV.com

And he said, "And I think for us to try to legislate federally into this is probably the wrong way to go." .

He is still evolving, as is the country.

So he lied to the gays during the campaign .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so he lied to the gays during the campaign .

---

No, he didn't.

Yes he did ;and if he is taking the position he takes now ;he is a lying weasle who parses his words worse than Bill Clintoon .
This was in May :

ABC Scoops Other Networks... Obama FOR Gay Marriage - YouTube

Timing of gay marriage announcement paying dividends for Obama | Fox News

It was so obvious that he was pandering to the gay and liberal community when he made his announcement that he had changed his position and now supported gay marriage. He also failed to mention in his remarks that marriage is regulated at the state level by state laws. Licenses are given out by counties within the states. The feds do not have jurisdiction of the issue. The president - uhm, he can make a statement but other than that, no authority.

Obama is a master of public relations but not much else. And if the liberal faction of the gay community would pursue civil unions for full legal and financial parity with married people, I think they would find immediate success. Insisting on using the word "marriage" is the sticking point with the vast majority of people who object. The whole thing is really dumb, and Obama's statements were dumb and remain dumb. Why doesn't he just come out and say, "I support gay marriage but this is being dealt with at the state level. I hope the pro gay marriage voters will prevail in more states". Why would he pretend he can do something about it, then back away from his pretend promise? Really stupid.

The rights and privileges given to married couples do not match those given in civil unions..

Like what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Like what?

---

Couples who have a civil union will not have any of the protections or responsibilities federal law provides to married couples. These include social security survivors' and spousal benefits, federal veterans' spousal benefits, immigration rights associated with marriage, federal spousal employment benefits, the right to file joint federal tax returns, exemptions from income tax on your partner's health benefits, the federal exemption from inheritance tax, and many other federal protections which are denied same-sex couples whether legally joined in a civil union or a civil marriage.

Also, most other states will not recognize the legal status of your civil union, even though they would recognize the Illinois marriage of a different-sex couple. This means that when you travel or if you move to another state or country, your union may not be recognized. As a result, you should considering taking certain precautions before you travel, such as executing health care and financial powers of attorney and carrying those with you.

Finally, the most important difference between civil unions and marriage for many individuals is the second-class nature of civil unions. Civil marriage is a widely recognized and respected social structure for two people who have committed to build their life together. Civil unions are not universally understood. It is unclear whether they will be given the same level of respect as marriage in Illinois and elsewhere. What is already clear is that different-sex couples get to choose whether to enter a civil marriage or a civil union; lesbian and gay male couples are given only the civil union option.

http://civilunions.aclu-il.org/?page_id=48
***************
Summary
When politicians say they support civil unions but not marriage for people of the same sex, what do they mean? We find three main differences between civil unions and marriage as it's traditionally viewed:

The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

I'm not sure that the rights should be the same. Marriage laws are largely designed around the idea that most married people conceive and bear children. Certainly some gay people lived a straight lifestyle for a period and have children from a prior relationship or marriage, but their gay partner is not a legal parent to those children. Some gay individuals adopt children, or have children biologically through various means like artificial insemination, but again, their gay partner is not a legal parent to those children. So, the survivor benefits, insurance benefits, etc. should be extended to the child, not the partner.

As my grandmother used to say, life isn't fair. Part of being gay is that two men can't conceive a child, nor can two women. If they go to extraordinary lengths to overcome natural limitations with medical intervention or adoption, well, then they can have kids but still, legally, cannot both be parents to the resulting child. This is a choice, to enter into this circumstance.

I still feel there are enough very well documented and studied benefits of a child having one mother and one father who are married to one another that there should be laws to encourage and support this lifestyle. I know some people never fall in love, some people are infertile, some people get divorced, some people are gay, some people marry and never choose to have kids. Those are the breaks. I'm both divorced and infertile and am an adoptive single parent. Tax laws and other laws don't favor my life circumstances, but I manage. It's not the government's job to make up for the hard breaks of life.