Most folks forget the Bible Belt isn't a good representation of the country as a whole.This isn't, strictly speaking, true.
Most folks forget the Bible Belt isn't a good representation of the country as a whole.This isn't, strictly speaking, true.
Obama Blasts Obama's Evasive Stance On Gay Marriage
'The President Needs To Come Clean On His Views,' Obama Says
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama lashed out at President Barack Obama's seemingly evasive stance on gay marriage Tuesday, calling the head-of-state's cagey position on the issue both "cowardly" and "an example of failed leadership."
Speaking to reporters from the White House East Room, Obama said that he has had enough of the president's endless hedging on same-sex marriage and that, as president of the United States, he can't just sit back and take a passive position on what he called the "most important civil rights issue of our time."
"President Obama's inability to simply state whether he's for or against gay marriage is unacceptable," Obama said during a spirited 30-minute address in which he sharply criticized the president for failing time and again to articulate his beliefs. "This nonsense where he says his views are 'evolving' isn't going to cut it anymore. It's patronizing and it's wrong."
"Mr. President," the president continued, "I am waiting for your answer. We all are."
Yesterday's speech comes on the heels of Vice President Joe Biden's recent announcement in support of same-sex marriage, an announcement Obama praised Tuesday, saying he was pleased "someone in the Obama administration was finally brave enough to take a clear-cut stand."
To date 30 states have banned gay marriage.Most folks forget the Bible Belt isn't a good representation of the country as a whole.
i think those that oppose gay marriage have a huge advantage on the organizing and GOTV front when it comes to the ballot initiatives.To date 30 states have banned gay marriage.
You're just being intolerant and bigoted.If this is what loses the election for him, America deserves a swift kick in the nuts.
lol, and here i thought my cynicism couldn't get much higher.Hey I agree. I'm just saying I don't necessarily believe it's a political ploy.
resident Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage less than 48 hours after the Washington Post reported that prominent political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the president’s position on gay rights.
A number of gay and progressive donors, unsolicited, have indicated to us that they aren’t considering requests to donate to the Obama SuperPac because of the president’s refusal to the sign the order. And those are high-dollar asks, some in the seven digits. We have heard from at least half a dozen major gay and progressive donors that they stand united with us.
Uh, well, there you go.lol, and here i thought my cynicism couldn't get much higher.
http://freebeacon.com/gay-for-pay/
Yeah that California is right in the middle of the Bible Belt -- yet it lost there too....Most folks forget the Bible Belt isn't a good representation of the country as a whole.
I figured I'd go ahead and beat RV and Riz to the obvious double entendre here! lolAnd also -- keep in mind that having someone poll you and ask you your opinion of Gay Marriage.
This goes both ways. Some people privately don't care, but publicly fall in line with what their church tells them they should believe.Yeah that California is right in the middle of the Bible Belt -- yet it lost there too....
And also -- keep in mind that having someone poll you and ask you your opinion of Gay Marriage is a whole lot different than a closed voting booth --
People that are against it but don't want to appear to be bigotted will tell a pollster what they want to hear.
Very well said. I feel the same way. Along that line of reasoning, I have a question for those more learned than I. With the whole separation of church and state thing, can it be legally argued that the government should ONLY recognize civil unions/partnerships whatever and leave the marriages to the churches? When I got married, my church required pre-marriage counseling but the state only required a donation.Wouldn't it be a lot easier if the government got out of recognizing "marriages" as a whole? Allow the various religious institutions to recognize whatever they want to define as "marriage". In terms of governmental benefits and such (All the legal issues that are awarded a spouse), recognize a civil union or whatever else you want to call it.
Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with this --- it only means that there will not be a Government Sponsored ChurchVery well said. I feel the same way. Along that line of reasoning, I have a question for those more learned than I. With the whole separation of church and state thing, can it be legally argued that the government should ONLY recognize civil unions/partnerships whatever and leave the marriages to the churches? When I got married, my church required pre-marriage counseling but the state only required a donation.
FIFYIf this is what loses the election for him, America deserves a swift kick in the Truck Nutz.