http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html

intro paragraphs:
President Barack Obama said Wednesday he supports same-sex marriage, raising the political stakes on an issue over which Americans are evenly split.
The announcement was the first by a sitting president and put Obama squarely at odds with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who on Wednesday said during an appearance in Oklahoma, "I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."

I don't care whether he's doing it for the votes or because he truly believes it. It's a first step.

Except he says that he doesn't believe in a federal law, but rather thinks this should be decided at the state level.  (what about foreign military bases, US territories, US-registered ships, immigration policy, respect for other nations definition of marriage, etc - all federal, not state, questions)

He is not where we need him yet.  Yes, he's better than other people out there, but he can and should do better.  But he's still trying to hedge.

I liked his stance that it was support for marriage, regardless of the sex of the partners, as being a good thing.  I think that will gain support from quite a few of the moderate religious for instance.  The nutters are beyond reach anyway. And the choice is out there now. 

Our unmarried PM on the other hand is against gay marriage , but I think it is because she is secretly opposed to marriage in any form. 

Karen.

Quote from: Slanan on May 10, 2012, 12:24:59 AM
Except he says that he doesn't believe in a federal law, but rather thinks this should be decided at the state level.  (what about foreign military bases, US territories, US-registered ships, immigration policy, respect for other nations definition of marriage, etc - all federal, not state, questions)

He is not where we need him yet.  Yes, he's better than other people out there, but he can and should do better.  But he's still trying to hedge.

Sadly, this does seem to indicate that his support is a personal preference rather than support for that most fundamental principal that all men are created equal.

Saying it is a local issue legitimises continued discrimination.

Personally, I see this as little more than an affirmation of bigotry.

Equality isn't a grant, it isn't something we earn nor something the more enlightened can hand down.

It's a basic right. As much a right as life itself.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Presumably, gay people are still to be considered less than fully human.

It actually cannot be a states rights issue because it does involve interstate commerce.  If a citizen of a state that won't allow it has to pay more taxes to the federal government then money has clearly crossed the state line.