Obama backtracks on gay marriage

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Blue Velvet, Jan 13, 2009.

  1. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #1
    Yeah, it's pretty slippery of him. We all know that politicians trim their sails as their ambitions grow... Obama is no different in this regard, as far as this topic goes.



    Tsk tsk. Many of us know what he might conceivably mean by 'bipartisanship'; it means kowtowing to an agenda that accomodates Republican concerns which seems wholly unnecessary given their electoral weakness.

    Throw one of your key constituencies under the bus and your words may come back to haunt you, Mr President-Elect.
     
  2. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #2
    Um, thrown under the bus? The first quote was from 1996. Since the election started, he's given the same view the whole time. Yet gays voted for him anyway. Now you call him throwing them under the bus? That makes no sense.

    And I was surprised that no one posted this here yet.

    But apparently everyone wants to whine about Obama before he even gets into office.
     
  3. Blue Velvet thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #3
    Since the election started, yes. However, this 1996 interview has only recently come to light, which demonstrates a shifting of position that can not be described as incremental.

    Ceremonial gestures are short-lived. The only thing that matters is policy, difficult to grasp perhaps after eight years of electoral-driven gestures and TV opportunities that have substituted for policy.


    Instructive that you see disgruntled people with progressive views as whiners, when it was progressives who backed Obama over Clinton with money and time when he was a rank outsider. As I said, there's little reason to accommodate the impotent right, the loudest whiners of all.
     
  4. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #4
    No, I do not see "disgruntled people with progressive views as whiners." I see those who backed Obama, who ran on a centric platform of accommodation of both sides of just about every argument, and then whine about him being a regular politician who is "throwing people under the bus" just to further his own power ambitions as whiners.

    This is what the guy ran on. If you don't like it, fine, but he's not turning his back on anyone. Do you honestly think that being unable to compromise, making a certain portion of the populace hate you for it, is the best way to bring the US and the world together? No, it's not. He's going to make concessions so that the other side will make concessions. That's how it works. If he went full progressive, all the centrists who voted for him, who thought he'd change things for the better in terms of destroying partisanship and lack of compromise will vote for the other guy in 2012.

    It's progressives who backed Obama over Clinton for this reason. They didn't want another partisan hack. They wanted someone who was willing to compromise, to not take just one side, but to talk things through with both sides. That's progressive. It progresses the political process to a better place.

    EDIT: I'm also amused that people rag on Bush for never changing his views, yet as soon as Obama does, he's a flip-flopper and just tries to get political advantage. The way you people react, it's almost as if Bush got it right and you never should admit your mistakes. Then you're not a strong "decider." :rolleyes:
     
  5. Blue Velvet thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #5
    Methinks you protest too loudly... what you call a 'centric platform of accommodation' is just coded language for the type of triangulation practiced by the Clintons on this matter.

    So, suddenly it's a Democrat's responsibility to do this? I haven't noticed much condemnation from you when the shoe was on the other foot. Note that Obama's mandate is far greater than anything George Bush could muster.

    Sorry, but the Republicans are in no mood to make concessions. This is pretty self-evident.

    Let me get this straight. A Democratic congress has spent the last few years bending over backwards to accommodate the White House, but now that a Democratic president is in charge, you expect him to accommodate himself to the minority party?

    Funny how you equate partisanship with hackery. Not surprising given the direction of the last eight years. If advocating for equal rights for all is evidence of partisanship in your eyes, then it's clear where your political centre lies.

    What does 'you people' mean? This last comment is fairly petty.
     
  6. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #6
    I hate to be such a pessimist, but I don't think his words will come back to hurt him at all.

    The LGBT community has been thrown under the bus by every president since it was organized.

    It was a fool's hope to think Obama was going to respond differently.
     
  7. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #7
    Um, me thinks you have me all wrong. I am a huge supporter of Obama, a huge detractor of G. W. Bush, and a life-long Democrat...
     
  8. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #8
    I think his message has been pretty clear, at least during the campaign. He's OK with civil unions but not a marriage in the traditional Christian sense.

    I don't particularly agree with him but I think it's harsh to get a snippet from 12 years ago and pick out a part of something he said 12 years later, despite him clarifying his position on this.

    At the end of the day, as with his stance on Israel; he had to get himself elected.
     
  9. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #9
    Um, I think that G W Bush should have most definitely been more accommodating. It was disgraceful the way that he ran Washington so autocratically.

    I disagree. Obama disagrees. The millions who voted for him as a bipartisan figure disagree.

    Yes, Bush should have accommodated the Democratic Congress. He didn't, never reached across the aisle ever, and the Republican party suffered for it. If you want Obama to do the same to the Democratic party, then yes, he should never ever talk to Republicans or compromise.

    And where would that be? The closest political movement I have managed to align myself with is social democracy. Was that clear?

    And no party's platform is perfect. That's why I like the American system: you vote for a person. I don't fully agree with either party. It makes no sense that in this country if you're against abortion you're automatically pro-death penalty and anti-taxes. I don't subscribe to that division. One party should not simply take the opposite view of the other. It makes no sense. Obama walks between the two parties. He'll work on reducing abortions and the death penalty. He'll trust in the market, but realize that it doesn't fix all ills. He wasn't elected to summarily implement a completely new system. This isn't a parliamentary system where as soon as a new party takes over, all the laws change at the whim of the new party.
     
  10. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #10
    While I can understand your frustration BV, the two quotes you posted actually don't seem to contradict each other to me.

    The first quote is about his support for legal gay marriages. The second quote, while it does include a comment on his personal feelings on the matter, ends with this:

    That to me also seems to be a statement in support of legal gay marriage; or at the very least support for not banning gay marriage.
     
  11. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #11
    Is this news? The thread title makes it sound like he changed his stance after the election. I think this is 'olds.'
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    Nothing like a little blanket statement covering all "you people"... :rolleyes:
     
  13. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #13
    I apologize, but I'm getting sick of people whining about Obama before he even takes office. I mean, give the guy a chance. I was just frustrated.

    BV, my point was that Bush's way was wrong, you need to be able to change your mind about things. Liberals (myself included) ragged on him all the time for it. Now whenever Obama changes his mind, he gets ragged on for it. So which is right? That was my point. It sounds like a double-standard that many progressives are applying to Obama.
     
  14. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #14
    i agree, i was about to post that hes held the same view during his entire election

    are people not allowed to change their views BV? even so, this isnt a case where hes changing his views after running for President

    12 years is an awful lot of time to change beliefs and views.

    however, in this case it doesnt seem as if he contradicted himself at all either

    good point as well



    thats what this thread certainly implies doesnt it?
     
  15. Blue Velvet thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #15
    It's getting late here so I'll leave this here and might come back to the thread tomorrow. The statement was made a long time ago, yes... but this old quote only just came to light in the past day or two so in effect, it's still news in that sense.
     
  16. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #16
    Yes, but very very rarely in the less progressive direction.

    Obama's change of heart over the course of 12 years seems to be more of a shrewd political move, not a genuine change in political philosophy.

    In which case, I wonder how long it will take before a President is willing to be openly supportive of unconditionally equality.
     
  17. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #17
    The statements do sound, to me, at best wishy-washy and at worse a decided change for the worse (either pragmatically or intellectually).

    On the other hand, neither Obama nor even the Republican Party are barriers to the legalization and normalization of gay marriage here. The core problem here is substantial number of centrist voters who oppose it. To me, gay marriage is a metademocratic issue. Like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and other basic rights, it makes our country freer and more able to sustain democracy.

    As I see it that way, I think it should not only be enshrined but enshrined at a level outside the easy grasp of the democratic process. That is, it should be a federal Constitutional Amendment. But just like abolition and women's suffrage needed their one time critical mass of support, this one needs it too.

    So in that sense, Obama is not the barrier. If that critical mass arose during Obama's time, I'm confident he would support it. He's not behaving as the standard banner exactly, at this moment, either, but he's not the problem.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    Probably about the same time it takes before a President supports Israel and the Palestinians equally.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    :confused:

    I constantly see you pointing out the disgusting practices of certain parties that relentlessy dig into the past, I don't see how this is different?

    Just because they've JUST found this little tidbit from 12 years ago doesn't make it more relevant. Also, it should be noted that although I don't really see a change in stance here, in 12 years ALOT can change.

    If you had asked me if I beleived in god as early as 4 years ago, I would have said yes:p
     
  20. iCantwait macrumors 65816

    iCantwait

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #20
    whats the big issue?
    wont matter in 1000000years (to us at least)
     
  21. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #21
    Why do you blame Obama for doing what the voters want? It isn't his fault a majority of Americans are stupid, religious bigots.

    The same goes for the drug war. It would be over if there weren't sufficient votes in keeping it going.

    Why is it that no-one will blame the voters in a democracy?
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    I see this as a further indicator that Obama will not stand in the way of gay marriage when the time comes. So I see this as positive.
     
  23. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #23
    Didn't Obama say all throughout the election that he opposed marriage but supported 'civil unions' with equal rights?

    The quote is very old. Who's to say he didn't change his views in '98, '97, or even in '96 at a later date.
     
  24. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #24
    I can almost guarantee you that he's been saying this to get elected. He was smart of enough to change his tune to get elected. We are election poison, as John Kerry found out. As Karl Rove once said, "Gay marriage- the gift that keeps on giving." Sad, but true.
     
  25. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #25

    I think he truly supports gay marriage but knows he won't get elected by supporting it. He probably won't do much in his first term for equal rights, but should he get elected to a second term, I think he will work towards gay marriage.
     

Share This Page