Jump to content

President Obama's Views on Gay Marriage Are "Evolving"


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Below is a New York Times article, which talks about how President Obama's views on gay marriage are "evolving":

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19marriage.html?_r=3&hp

The article mentions that Obama originally supported gay marriage back in 1996 (back when he was a candidate for the Illinois State Senate). However, as Obama's political ambitions grew (when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004), Obama backtracked from his original position by stating that he actually meant (back in 1996) that he was just for civil unions. When running for president in 2008, he told pastor Rick Warren that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

As public support for gay marriage continues to grow, Obama is beginning to think that it is "safe" to publicly endorse gay marriage. However, he has to "discuss" this with his political consultants, so as to find the most politically beneficial way to change his opinion yet again on this issue. Obama's main concern, it appears, is that he needs to perform a balancing act: he wants to keep the homosexual community satisfied (so that he can rely on their votes in 2012), while at the same time nees to convince middle America that he is not "out of touch" with their social values.

My thoughts on this matter are very simple: on the issue of gay marriage, Obama (like just about all Democrats and some moderate Republicans) is a coward. It is clear that (in his heart) he believs that gays should be allow to marry. However, rather than taking a position that was (in the past) very unpopular, Obama publicly opposed gay marriage for political purposes. (This act of cowardice flies in the face of all the hoopla that Obama supporters claimed back in 2008, when they stated that Mr. Obama was a different type of politician: one who would never play the games that other politicans play, which include flip-flopping on the issues in order to get elected.) Should he now change his position (yet again) and endorse gay marriage, it won't be because he has "evloved" in his thinking on this matter. Rather, it will be because Obama now feels that he won't suffer much damage from embracing gay marriage.

Personally, I predict that Obama will not publicly support gay marriage until after the 2012 election (regardless of whether or not he wins that election); only then will there be no possible way such a stance could harm him. However, there is a slight chance that Obama may actually support gay marriage before the Republican nomination is decided. (In any event, there is no way Obama will change his views on this matter in September or October 2012.) That's because, by so doing, there may actually be a surprising political advantage in it for him: endorsing gay marriage would made most (if not all) of the GOP contenders focus on this issue (much more so than they are doing now) in an attempt to court the far right. This would also make it more likely for the Republicans to nominate a Michelle Bachmann type (which, of course, would help Obama greatly in his own re-election).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

No major politician is going to endorse gay marriage for a long time. The media would have a field day, and would blame any defeat at the polls on gay rights, as they did in 2004.

Democrats will make some token attempts to placate gay rights activists, and Republicans will hide behind an increasingly thin veneer of "tolerance" as they give more and more power to those who want to go back to the 30's or 40's on these issues, and in the case of far right hero Scott Walker, will not even allow a gay couple to have hospital visitation rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exactly. Obama is a politician first and foremost. And even though I supported the guy it was ridiculous the way people acted like he was the second coming in 2008. He'll say and do whatever he has to to claim a second term. He's been paying the same type of lip service to the Hispanic community for immigration reform and they've seen squat in the last four years. Now he's paying them lip service again since he knows he needs their vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's kinda like when people choose their candidate based on any issue, abortion is always a fun one. Cause unless a Supreme Court justice dies, the Pres ain't got no say in that issue. But it doesn't stop people from allowing it to be part of his platform. That's all gay marriage is right now. An issue you use to get support--for or against, It's not really going to be the President's call anyway, at least not for along time if it ever comes to that. He's not no real control over gay marriage anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

At least he admits his opinion is evolving. I don't believe any of the republican candidates believe in evolution.

But seriously, his opinion is a joke. Your opinion is never evolving. At any moment in time you have an opinion and it may be different from what it was 10 years ago but it is not presently in a state of flux. He just doesn't want to say he is for marriage equality, or that he is against marriage equality. I think his actual position is he just doesn't care because this is not his problem, and is looking around for some meaningless position that will get people off his back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy