Why can't politicians support gay marriage?

What's so tough about it? Why can't they just stand up to the fundies and support what's fucking right? I love Obama, but knowing his stance on gay marriage bothered me and continues to bother me. You're a good man, Obama, and a very smart man...are you going to do the right thing or not? Why should it even have to be a question?
I guess I have a lot of questions...and the answers, if there are any answers to be had...are likely ones I won't like hearing. :(

voters?

Should've figured. :(

Looks like you are saying Obama is a greedy coward?

between getting gay people to vote for them by saying they're for gay rights, but wanting more conservative people to vote for them too so throwing them bones to show them that they don't like gay people all that much.

along with others

like having a retarded cowboy for president for 8 years.

it's kinda up to us to change it though, right?

if not us, who will?

I think he is realistic about it.

If you are still upset about cabinet appointments, get a life. Ever work in a government agency? I have. You want administrators, not ideologues.

Clinton didn't and he was less instinctively liberal than Obama.

behavior.

but won't.
People can marry and divorce in seconds, on an idiotic whim, but god forbid the gays marry, or the sanctity of Bubba and Bubba Jo's marriage will be threatened!!!

There is the man's personal religion and then there is separation of Church and State.

If government were to involve itself in religious ceremonies then the separation becomes muddled.
So, a true respecter of the constitution would call for what is constitutional and stay the heck away from religious opinions.

Hence the position that everyone should have the same governmental privileges, because that's as far as a government should go.

if the president says he supports gay marriage. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?!!! You want hundreds of millions of innocent people to die?

;)

:scared:

WHY CAN'T YOU FOCUS ON *REAL* PROBLEMS!

:sarcasm:

bought the sticker and the yardsign.

stood outside in the cold to register voters.

bugged the hell out of all my friends and relatives to do the same.

did you?

we came within 4%.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 2010 we put it over the top.
If not, we'll be back in 2012.

it's funny how easy it is to make assumptions about people you don't even know.

some of us do more than talk shit and complain.

some of us actually do something meaningful with ourselves besides stir shit for the fuck of it.

It's so fucking easy to support gay marriage. It costs no money and requires no complicated, 200 page, legislative bills. All it takes is a little courage and compassion, which apparently is too much to ask from our Dem politicians.

It involves sex. In this culture sex is such sold as a sin, rather than a natural part of a healthy relationship between loving adults. AND as such, divorce rates are at 50% and people have un-natural and un-healthy ideas and ideals of a partner. Its not exactly like race.. you can't hide your color.. its about relationships and love and sex and things people don't really want to examine in their own lives, let alone speak about in public.... which is why we have a sky-high rate of unwanted pregnancies, children without a clue, and dysfunctional families. I think this is the reason many just stay out of the issue.. including many progressives.

I'm for same-sex marriage. Period.

However, so many politicians are listening to the vocal minority that goes for the "one man, one woman" marriage argument.

So what do we do? Fight over what marriage means and not pass domestic partnership and civil union legislation so that no one gets jackshit?

That's where we are and will continue to be standing in the mud until a generation or so dies off or when some one in power just says "fuck it, y'all, gay marriage is now on the tracks..."

Keep fighting. Keep organizing. Keep talking to those that disagree and change their minds.

Look at the states which have passed laws or amendments banning gay marriage. Now imagine if Obama had supported full gay marriage rights without equivocation. How would the electoral math have worked out? Many purple states Obama won in November have a strong history of anti-gay law, places like Virginia being especially draconian.

So he did his calculations. The gay rights legislation he supports (ENDA, DADT and DOMA repeals) come with a healthy majority of support - even in many amendment states. But when it came to marriage, he went cagey, equivocated, and talked out of both sides of his mouth.

I'll be honest. I don't think Obama opposes gay marriage based on religious grounds. I think he's quite fine with it, but buckled and bowed to political constraints. The only question now is whether those constraints are lessened once he assumes office. I think we'll see something "easy" earlyish, like ENDA or hate crimes legislation. Something with maximum symbolism.

The real trick - and the real test - will be federal rights and benefits for couples, retirement sharing, social security, immigration. Those will be the first instances of bringing gay marriage to the federal level. Does he have that in him? I guess we're going to find out.

Only Feinstein doesn't, and when she retires, she'll be replaced by someone who does (and I suspect she'll "change" her position if she runs for governor). It's a reflection of a certain threshold of public support for marriage equality being met.

It's the truth. I understand this when I vote for them, but, nonetheless, most are spineless cowards.

If they weren't, most would be for gay marriage, regulation of big business, and single-payer health care.

which was probably the pernicious evil of all time. While these folks are rightly looked at as giants among men even they could not face up to a problem that would tar them with labels etc. And I do not see many among today's politicians who could have sat at the table with our founders. Kucinich, Feingold, Obama for sure.
Courage seems to be a short commodity among politicians.

that Feingold and Kucinich are.

What unpopular stances has Obama taken?

and they happen to vote.

Remember Ohio in 2004?

listen, there's a lot of things that I'm for that if my candidate supported them he'd lose.

for instance, I'm a Socialist, but I don't want my candidate to publicly support that position, outside of Vermont.

the primary source of fear is lack of knowledge

a large percentage of the electorate revels in its own ignorance

these people find comfort/security in other individuals who are similarly uninformed... so they form social groups

the thread that often binds these social groups is misinformation

individuals perceive the expansion of their knowledge as dangerous because it threatens the thread which helps bind them the group

unfortunately, most politicians resort to the fear-based strategies that will most commonly resonate with these social groups & not threaten them

in this day & age, sadly, fear of glbt is the most commonly agreeable & acceptable social fear... so politicians across the board cave to that

at maximum, a politician will condemn marriage equality & at minimum he/she will artfully dodge the issue

you'll be hard pressed to find a successful politician who is willing to unconditionally back equality


a lot of people saw obama as a different sort of politician because he wasn't willing to "dumb down" his rhetoric to appease uninformed social networks

he required listeners to "look up" & expand their field of vision



i know obama is too educated to be a bigot

as a politician, however, he hasn't evolved beyond political posturing

he's caved on this issue like every other politician

despite this, i still like the guy

and i'm happy a lot of noise is being made NOW, while we have a democratic leader in office

good things are happening, really

takes time & now is as good a time as any to move forward

what I do care about is when he uses that opinion publically in order to pander to the Religious Right. If he is going to announce that opinion publically, then he should also announce that states are perfectly within their rights to enforce marriage equalty under their constitutions. This would take a real act of courage, and until Obama demonstrates that courage I will call him out on religious bigotry.

no other reason. Most people who are against gay marriage believe that it is wrong. It's that simple.

Religion has long been used as a cover for various forms of bigotry. This is nothing new.

but do not state it for political reasons.

I can think of no better way to describe someone who believes one thing, but says they don't for fear of political reprisal. I'd like to think that they're both just wrong on the issue than lying cowards.

Oops.

I've been there.

Supporting them is like supporting a pig-in-a-poke. You never know how they see their options and under what circumstances they'll do what.

They take money from rich people, who cover their bets on both sides until some advantage appears, then they, the rich, start putting their thumb on the scale and the politicians pretend that they don't know that that is going on and they say in effect "I listen to Everyone equally." They DON'T. And yet the party (whichever) wants us to give and give and give with NO ASSURANCE that the politician is going to stand with us on our issue(s).

If they really are superior types, more capable of leading than others and, therefore more worth my time, money and efforts . . . as I was saying, if they REALLY are superior types they should be required to PROOVE that BEFORE the fact/vote. They should be REQUIRED to tell us EXACTLY what their approach to solutions would consist of and how their approach might or might not integrate with other factors in the arena, what we might expect, what we might not. All of us KNOW that such things are hypothetical. All of us KNOW that a variety of things COULD happen, but these self-serving cowards have been HIDING behind that and

USING US.

If they really are superior types, they could TELL us why and how Gay Marriage could be GOOD for us, or at least just tell us how it will NOT harm those who just can't tolerate it. But no, apparently politicians really aren't superior enough to be able to do that, so we get played and they get PAID.

If they CAN'T make the case for ______________ publicly, what the hell are we supporting them for?

It's pretty much as simple, and disgusting, as that, I think.

Politicians support marriage equality all the time. And the voters choose someone else. So the question isn't why politicians don't support marriage equality, it is why the voters don't.

Politicians rarely change minds. Politicians are chosen because they reflect the mindset of the voters. Those who don't, lose. On Civil Rights, politicians like LBJ and JFK were not strong supporters until outside leadership in the form of MLK and his movement changed people's minds, and politicians then felt safe supporting them. There are rare and beautiful exceptions, of course, but mostly, it's up to us.

We have to change minds, so we can get the politicians we want. To play The Dark Knight game, we get the leaders we deserve, not the ones we need.

And our leaders have to stop undermining us. When a leader like Clinton supports DOMA to head off a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, it's a judgement call. We hate his actions, but we understand his motives. When a leader like Obama or Biden or Kerry or many others say they support civil unions but not gay marriage, we understand they are trying to do what they can to win while making some progress. We may not agree with them, but we know they are trying to help. But when Obama legitimizes the bigoted opinions of opponents by honoring them, we are pushed backwards, despite their best intentions. Politicians who can't oppose the enemy ought to at least avoid aiding the enemy. Obama's new, he'll learn that.

Politicians are followers, we must be the leaders. At the same time, we should work hard to support those who do support human rights, because sometimes the change is coming, or even already here, and politicians miss it, and we miss it. Sometimes the voters will see an issue the way we want them too, if they are shown the issue the way we see it. So we should always support the politicians who see things the way we do, because we rarely know when the people are really ready.

And I'm not excusing any politician for not doing what's right. I'm only pointing out that it's the voters who choose the politicians who do the wrong thing.

I have an integral part of the answer that I am able to provide in some detail but let's be frank here, or diane if you prefer: this site is able to absorb it.

They do polling. They believe in that polling just like they believe the sky is blue. They may have personal beliefs to the contrary, but taking a political stance that will keep them out of office is really not even worth considering.

...as soon as you stand up to them.

And as much as he repudiated Rev. Wright, he needs the churches to further his message in 2012--especially if Palin is running on a fundie platform.

Politicians succeed by getting elected.

Even people who are not homophobes seem to have is ridiculous issue with the term "marriage".

Sometimes you have to pander to local prejudices in order to keep a seat of of Republicans hands.

I mean shit, gay marriage was struck down by popular vote in CALIFORNIA of all places. That's not a good sign.

Barack Obama campaigned on Hope and Change.

Right now, whether anybody is ready for it or not, there's a window of opportunity for gay rights to be perceived by a majority of Americans as human rights. This is a historic moment. The more we talk about it, the easier it is for politicians to do the right thing.

This is a moment in history.