Obama comes out in support of gay marriage...Follow

I'm beginning to think that there are a lot of things that neither the feds NOR the states really have jurisdiction over (e.g. my ovaries.) **** states rights, what about human rights?

Working class Democrats aren't honestly going to care about this. They'll care about the direction the economy is headed, the unemployment rate and potentially things like who wants to cut their benefits or attack their union status. The Democratic-voting group most opposed to gay marriage is African Americans and Obama will still take them over 9:1 versus Romney. Voting wise, I expect it'll be a wash. Donation-wise, it'll appeal to progressives and the "elite" which I expect is more why it happened than an expectation for big returns in the voting booth.

I salute your courageous use of such homoerotic imagery.

Here-in Timelordwho fails to make a joke relating the title Nixnot: "Sword-swallower" and the phrase said by Nixnot: "S-word, swallow!" referring to an unfortunate incident with a bird.

At least Obama now favors your right to have those warm fuzzies stoked by whomever you choose.

States' rights have been used to cover up such a multitude of crap over the years that I can't help but shrug. Is anyone really making this their pivotal issue?

Now, I don't know anything about government, but this whole states rights thing confuses me. How can states have laws that contradict each other, and even at the federal level? That seems to weaken the whole national identity and continuity. Like marijuana. How can it be legal in one state, then the Feds come in and bust legal operations? How does it make sense to make SSM legal in some states, but not recognized in others, or even nationally?

My best understanding of the opposition to "gay marriage" is the use of the term "marriage", which has religious meaning in addition to the legal definition. I'll bet that if you asked people if they supported "civil unions" for gay couples, the response would be much more favorable than asking if they supported "gay marriage."

But then we've already had 50-page threads debating this.

An NBC poll from March asked if people would be more/less likely to vote for a candidate who supported SSM. 25% More so, 20% Less so, remainder no difference.

I suspect most of that 25/20 comes from people who are already strongly for/against the issue and saying you'd be 10% more likely to vote for someone you were 99% likely to vote for anyway isn't especially earth-shattering.

Edited, May 10th 2012 10:08am by Jophiel

Even that's just a little too broad. They don't mind lesbians, especially the hot kind. They can do whatever they want. It's the icky men who put ***** in their mouths that really just turn stomachs.

[:bidentrollface.jpg:]

Romney says the definition of marriage hasn't changed for over 3,000 years.

Andrew Sullivan points out that, a century ago, Romney's great-grandparents were fleeing to Mexico to escape an oppressive US government which disagreed with the (then) Romney definition of marriage: that it's between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a...

Edited, May 10th 2012 11:42am by Jophiel

If that's what makes you feel better