Shotgun

He signed DOMA into law. That was certainly doing something.

Well I agree, but of course this is easiest for the outcome of one group. Not saying it's wrong, just pointing out the obvious. I agree here, seperate but equal does have problems. Always has, always will. I think the real hope and most likely the real believe is that all the people that don't believe it's "right" will agree once the laws are changed...or they die off. I'm 52, in the last say five years or so I have gotten to the point that when a interracel couple walks by I barely notice....for some of you that will be hard to believe and not believe that I am not a racist. I believe that should marriage become avaliable between the same sex couple I will one day not even notice. I just hope I learn faster. This is one of the best posts in this thread.

I don't think this is the sort of thing that can have a quick resolution. And I think that we will probably see some action in time. It took some time before "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was repealed, but it happened, and that was a huge step. Yeah, I think he's playing "smooth" or whatever, but it's a delicate situation. I don't think it would be a good idea to go all Gavin Newsom on the issue; that would push people in the wrong (IMO) direction. There are a lot of people in this country whose feelings about same-sex marriage may be "evolving," and who may be struggling with long-held beliefs. And for those who are Obama supporters, he may actually have some influence regarding how they see the issue. And again, if you haven't read the Newsweek article, find time to read it. I really appreciated the author's perspective.

It's not just on Reagan's biography; it's on a lot of the others as well. Some of them are interesting little factoids, but yeah, I don't think it was a very good idea.

If you have time, read the article. The author is gay, and he understands the political calculations, but I think he does a good job of explaining why it means so much to him.

I thought it was a rainbow halo, but I suppose it could be a mighty large cock ring. Anyhow, here's a link to the article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/13/andrew-sullivan-on-barack-obama-s-gay-marriage-evolution.html

Yes, it is . . . Time's breastfeeding cover: the meme (Some funny pics in the slideshow.) But hopefully with our collective limited attention span, we will have forgotten all about this by the time he's old enough to know what happened.

This argument makes pretty much no sense to me.

Going to get a marriage license from the government is pretty much acknowledging marriage as a legal thing. So everyone who is legally married must recognize the legal aspect of it, whether they chose to have a religious ceremony or not. (If it wasn't important for the government to recognize their marriage, then why bother with the license and such?)

it's a shame since that's the real solution Not really a solution. Mitt Romney has stated that he is even against same-sex civil unions, and I'm sure a lot of people agree with him. North Carolina just voted to ban same-sex civil unions as well. I don't buy the semantics crap. I've always seen "marriage" as a legal thing. If others choose to see it as religious, then that's their business, and there's no reason to get the government involved if they don't want to.

What is the difference between a legal marriage and a legal civil union? Aside from the fact that other countries might not recognize the "civil union" . . . Right now, if people don't want the government involved, they can do whatever ceremony and call their relationship whatever they want to call it. You can choose not to have the government involved in your relationship. (Well, unless you split up and your ex decides to involve them.) And it's not even on the table to change all legal marriages to civil unions. So for now it makes more sense to extend the privileges/responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. Unfortunately there are still certain rights, particularly with healthcare, that are only given to married people. There are also certain tax benefits in some situations. I meant what is the difference to you? It sounded like you were saying that there should only be civil unions recognized by the government, and that the government should not be involved in "marriage." Or did I misunderstand?

What is the difference between a legal marriage and a legal civil union? Aside from the fact that other countries might not recognize the "civil union" . . . Right now, if people don't want the government involved, they can do whatever ceremony and call their relationship whatever they want to call it. You can choose not to have the government involved in your relationship. (Well, unless you split up and your ex decides to involve them.) And it's not even on the table to change all legal marriages to civil unions. So for now it makes more sense to extend the privileges/responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples.

OK, now I would be disturbed by the picture if it wasn't her kid. But since it is, and perhaps since I have no kids, I'm not particularly moved one way or another by the pic.

Oh my goodness, this is what you were talking about? I recall reading about this in one of Obama's books. I believe he was six years old and slightly pushed the girl, while a group of white kids was standing around making fun of the two of them. But it's funny to see the effort in this article to try to beef up the story. Hardly the same as a high school senior holding someone down and cutting his hair off . . . Anyhow, to be fair, I have no idea if the accusations against Romney are true. And, since it's not likely I would vote for him anyway, it really doesn't matter.

Hey, I'm waiting! I honestly have no idea, but I voted for Bush v.1 just for the hell of it.

Yep. So we can assume that with the prevalence of binge drinking in college, that most college graduates have some brain damage.

Sure, what is the story?

In my opinion, I see a big difference in doing stupid stuff to oneself and doing stupid stuff to other people.

Nothing immediately happened, and maybe nothing will happen. But I think it's a historical moment when we have the President and Vice President stating that they support same-sex marriage. To me, it's a sign of progress. I mean, less than ten years ago, we still had a number of states that had active laws against same-sex couples even having sex with each other.

Oh, I think he was pretty quick to come out and say that he still opposes gay marriage and civil unions, and that he won't ever change his mind on that issue.

That's some dang smart people there in WV.

So because it will cause some legal reworkings, you would deny the rights of people to marry who the choose? I think "Go Poly!!" means he is for it. I also think he is a lawyer, so . . .

When a President (a federal politican) says he's for or against something, it always raises a question in my mind. Is the president just expressing his personal views? Or is he also expressing his support for imposing his views on the states, perhaps against those states' wishes? In this case, he said he was expressing his personal view and that he thought it was still an issue for the states to decide on their own.

Yes, you do. Because you're always so freakin' serious, quade. How are we supposed to know?

OK, it's hard to tell which statement you're referring to when you quote the whole thing. And when you're link doesn't seem to be relevant to any of it.