GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/05/09/obamas-cynical-gay-marriage-move-made-from-position-of-political-weakness/trackback/

  1. [...] Obama’s cynical gay marriage move, made from position of political weakness [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama’s gay marriage decision: product of campaign politics? — May 9, 2012 @ 6:58 pm - May 9, 2012

  2. The thing is…it’s not really *his* fight. His words are important, and will further etch into the American psyche that support for marriage equality is the mainstream position, but this is something that will ultimately (and correctly) be decided by the courts.

    Moreover, everybody who’s paid any attention (who isn’t delusional) knows that Obama has always supported marriage equality privately, but coming out publicly involved political strategy. That’s, um, kind of how politics works.

    That said, on the liberal side of the aisle, we have the same thing that conservatives have — people who just are going to be butthurt no matter what (see: the Religious Right’s reluctant behavior when it comes to finally embracing Romney) and so yes, it was a good time to shore up an important part of the base. It’s not like Romney was ever going to corner those voters or that money with anything. He has too much to lose. Obama doesn’t. He’s not going to lose black voters over this, and thanks to the GOP’s behavior on immigration, the fastest growing voting bloc in the country is in the Democratic column for the foreseeable future, in ever-growing percentages. Women are squarely in Obama’s corner for obvious reasons, and so…

    The timing was right. Politics? Sure. Who cares? The fact is that we have officially entered a period where support for marriage equality, for a Democrat seeking national office, is more likely to be a net positive in the voting column than it is to be a negative. For a Republican, it would be political suicide, of course, but Obama made the right move. In a unicorns and lollipops fantasy-land, he could have done this before the 2008 election, but that just wasn’t the political landscape. The Republican establishment will see a similar shift in the landscape of their base in 2186 or so.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 9, 2012 @ 7:16 pm - May 9, 2012

  3. This is all about money. He needs to bleed someone for the money and gays are so gullible. In this case I say that he is trading votes for money. He will lose votes with this position, not gain. Everyone gets lulled into the idea that gays are an enormous voting block because we hear from them all the time. The number of voting gays will never make up for the number of other people who will now vote against him for this position. He does not care about gays. He cares about himself. Just the the small percentge of blacks who will now change their votes will be enough to overwhelm any votes gained from the gay block.

    Comment by Scott Lassiter — May 9, 2012 @ 7:18 pm - May 9, 2012

  4. I give Obama credit for at least not proposing an amendment against gay marriage. Other than that, this does seem to be an empty gesture, probably to excite Gay Left donors.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 9, 2012 @ 7:21 pm - May 9, 2012

  5. Evan was very eloquent and pretty much summed things up as best they could. As far as Comment #3, there is a large contingent of non-gays for who marriage-equality is an important issue.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 9, 2012 @ 7:24 pm - May 9, 2012

  6. Obama’s campaign is a black hole burning up more cash than it is raising; he’s desperate. Although this may have been an attempt to change the subject, I believe it shows the greater cracks of his own campaign. Within his campaign, it has to be total chaos since there’s no single message or theme. Obama has to run on distractions instead of empty vacuous rhetoric.

    Obama has 8 slogans to date with many more to come.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — May 9, 2012 @ 7:32 pm - May 9, 2012

  7. One of my favorite movie lines is from Aliens when the little girl says, “It won’t make any difference.” Obama will be crushed in this election regardless of how many non-gays give up their vote to support the gay marriage issue. Straight and without a job, in debt, and bleak future? Yeah, they’ll vote to help all their gay friends.

    Comment by Scott Lassiter — May 9, 2012 @ 7:37 pm - May 9, 2012

  8. The little girl was named Newt and Ripley vowed to protect her. Which, as far as Aliens the movie was concerned, she (as well as Hicks and Bishop) did. So, yes, Ripley did make a difference.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 9, 2012 @ 7:54 pm - May 9, 2012

  9. It’s about, Gay Inc’s cash.

    Comment by Richard Bell — May 9, 2012 @ 7:59 pm - May 9, 2012

  10. “Wonder if this sudden change of heart had something to do with money.” . . .”It’s all about the money, friends.”

    It worked for me! I just happily donated to Obama’s campaign fund.

    Comment by Richard R — May 9, 2012 @ 8:09 pm - May 9, 2012

  11. It worked for me! I just happily donated to Obama’s campaign fund.

    A fool and his money…

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 9, 2012 @ 8:17 pm - May 9, 2012

  12. As the saying goes – Better late than never. Always thought that he personally was in favor of same sex marriage on a personal level. Now that he’s publicly admitted it, he should be hailed for it. The first president in US history to to state his support is a key moment in our history. He’s clearly been showing his support in other ways – signing the repeal of DADT, directing the justice department to cease fighting cases against DOMA, etc, etc.

    A lot more support as a publicly elected official than certain whose flaccid credentials you’ve tried to pump up like a helium balloon.

    Comment by Kevin — May 9, 2012 @ 8:20 pm - May 9, 2012

  13. Women are squarely in Obama’s corner for obvious reasons

    Are you calling women stupid? I mean, the only they care about, obviously, is whether or not the government pays for birth control. At least that is what I infer from your comment.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 9, 2012 @ 8:22 pm - May 9, 2012

  14. That should be: The only thing they care about.

    The first president in US history to to state his support is a key moment in our history.

    What about the vice president? Was that a key moment, too?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 9, 2012 @ 8:25 pm - May 9, 2012

  15. @Rattlesnake, you may infer all you’d like, but if you think the only way the GOP has alienated women in the past few years is over birth control, you’re sadly mistaken.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 9, 2012 @ 8:39 pm - May 9, 2012

  16. Blah blah blah on that revelation of Obama’s, he lost in how many counties in West Virginia to an inmate?? LOL oh yeah, he’s for all kind of things now, the show has just begun :)

    Comment by jann — May 9, 2012 @ 8:57 pm - May 9, 2012

  17. I wonder when Obama is going to backpedal?

    He’s already in a hot war with the U.S. Catholic bishops (and presumably or by extension, at least some Catholic voters who previously backed him). This move won’t help. It may also move a few culturally conservative blacks to question their enthusiasm for him.

    If Obama is as empty and cynical as I suspect: Having made this move now for the Gay Left money, he will downplay it (or even walk it back) for the general election. We shall see. I hope he surprises me. (Not that I want him to walk it back; rather that I really don’t like being proven right, in my lowest expectations of somebody.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 9, 2012 @ 9:04 pm - May 9, 2012

  18. you may infer all you’d like, but if you think the only way the GOP has alienated women in the past few years is over birth control -other than left-lish women who of course were alienated to begin with-, you’re sadly mistaken

    FIFY, Evan.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 9, 2012 @ 9:08 pm - May 9, 2012

  19. Keep spinning, guys, keep spinning. Maybe you’ll at least be able to fool yourselves, and that’s the important thing.

    Comment by JJ — May 9, 2012 @ 9:11 pm - May 9, 2012

  20. ILC, the Catholic hierarchy is itself in hot water with the Catholic laity (protecting child molesters while attacking nuns? never a smart move) so Obama probably doesn’t have much to worry about there.

    Comment by JJ — May 9, 2012 @ 9:15 pm - May 9, 2012

  21. JJ,

    Given that Obama was for SSM in 1996, then came out against it, and now has been back to supporting it, why do you believe him this time?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 9, 2012 @ 9:16 pm - May 9, 2012

  22. Oh yeah, I forgot about abortion. But the left generally considers abortion a form of birth control anyway, so that doesn’t really matter.

    Why must women care about anything other than the economy or foreign policy? There are probably women who would vote for Obama based on those reasons, but the only things that would “alienate” women from the Republican party have nothing to do with either of those things.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 9, 2012 @ 9:16 pm - May 9, 2012

  23. I think Legal Insurrection summed it up best.

    “BHO endorses status quo on marriage, and it’s historic.”

    He also points out that now when Prop 8 hits the supremes. Justice Scalia can cite the President in reversing the 9th circut.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 9, 2012 @ 9:33 pm - May 9, 2012

  24. His policy is the same as Romneys. They both believe it should be left to the states to decide.

    The only reason Obama is saying what he is saying is for votes and money. I don’t believe he is for same sex marriage. I don’t believe he struggled with it. Black Liberation Theology is strictly opposed to gay marriage. He’s just saying it because it’s politically expedient. He believes the end justifies the means.

    Most of my family love him and they won’t change their minds. I don’t see the allure of someone who wants to tax and spend us into socialist oblivion.

    Comment by Sara — May 9, 2012 @ 9:38 pm - May 9, 2012

  25. I just got this from someone -
    1996: “I Favor Legalizing Same-Sex Marriages, And Would Fight Efforts To Prohibit Such Marriages”…

    2004: “My religious faith dictates marriage is between a man and a woman, gay marriage is not a civil right.”

    2008: “I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman, As a Christian it’s also a sacred union.”

    2012: same-sex couples “should be able to go ahead and get married.”

    The only thing I would believe from him is if he said I want the government to run every aspect of your lives.

    Comment by Sara — May 9, 2012 @ 9:55 pm - May 9, 2012

  26. The only thing I would believe from him is if he said I want the government to run every aspect of your lives.

    That would be a refreshing change from Presidunce Corky McShortbus, Sara. It would be the truth!

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — May 9, 2012 @ 10:06 pm - May 9, 2012

  27. Obama’s statement can be dissected and broken down any way people imagine but I will gladly accept a pro gay marriage stance vs. an anti-gay stance (Romney and co.). He was honest about his feelings and put them on the record. The end.

    Comment by anthony — May 9, 2012 @ 10:26 pm - May 9, 2012

  28. “Obama’s statement can be dissected and broken down any way people imagine but I will gladly accept a pro gay marriage stance vs. an anti-gay stance (Romney and co.). He was honest about his feelings and put them on the record. The end.

    Comment by anthony — May 9, 2012 @ 10:26 pm – May 9, 2012″

    Why did you come to the conclusion that Romney does not support homosexual marriage except from liberal revisionist history prior to Santorum bowing out?

    Grendell shot himself in the foot because he was a loose cannon. If Romney selects another homosexual to be the point man in the US State Department, he and the liberal wing of the Republican Party are continuing Obama’s foreign policy. Were you and are you still genuinely ignorant regarding the position of the liberal wings of the Republican /Democrat Party?

    From the Republican Party…………………..

    Republicans Quietly Retreat on Gay Marriage
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/273209_Republicans_Quietly_Retreat_on
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74661.html

    Should we be surprised by the minority liberal Republican Party and the push for the “Father of Homosexual Marriage”?

    From the Obama administration………………..

    Obama says in the memo:
    “I declared before heads of state gathered at the United Nations, ‘no country should deny people their rights because of who they love’ . . . Under my Administration, agencies engaged abroad have already begun taking action . . . as we in the United States bring our tools to bear to vigorously advance this goal.”

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/06/presidential-memorandum-international-initiatives-advance-human-rights-l

    Comment by rjligier — May 9, 2012 @ 10:49 pm - May 9, 2012

  29. Now I am rattled. It seems that hot on the heels of Obama’s epiphany, swarms of gays have declared their love and checkbooks for Obama.

    Now, obviously, if Romney were to come out for gay marriage and a state paid honeymoon, everyone would immediately drop Obama and race to embrace and finance Romney. (He is a Mormon, you know.) (His grandfather hung around polygamists.) (Obama’s father WAS a polygamist, but, hey, he wasn’t Mormon, you know.) (Marxists don’t do Mormon.)

    Comment by heliotrope — May 9, 2012 @ 11:19 pm - May 9, 2012

  30. Maybe I’m naive, but I think the main reason people vote against gay marriage and for gay marriage bans is that it’s been tainted as a liberal issue when it really isn’t. It is a legit issue of human rights, and a wedge issue for what liberals really want. For them, a means to an end.

    This should not be a state issue, for one thing.

    Comment by Christopher Shafer — May 9, 2012 @ 11:36 pm - May 9, 2012

  31. Karl Rove says he didn’t engineer anti-gay marriage amendments. He did.

    By Wayne Slater/Reporter
    wslater@dallasnews.com
    8:15 AM on Thu., Aug. 26, 2010
    For years, Karl Rove has denied that he helped engineer anti-gay marriage amendments in states to help George W. Bush win reelection in 2004. Rove’s position was that the marriage amendments arose organically within eleven states, including political crucial Ohio, and that the Bush campaign wasn’t involved in any way. Not true, a former Republican National Committee chairman now says.

    Ken Mehlman, who was Bush’s campaign manager in 2004 and RNC chairman, says in an interview in The Atlantic that he knew Rove “had been working with Republicans to make sure that anti-gay initiatives and referenda would appear on November ballots in 2004 and 2006 to help Republicans.” We wrote about that in our book The Architect, noting that despite Rove’s public pronouncements, his active strategy was to divide and conquer by microtargeting religious conservatives and turn out in big numbers against gay marriage – and for George W. Bush.

    At the time, Mehlman – like others on the Bush team — was among the party’s most active opponents of gay marriage. Now in private life, Mehlman supports gay marriage. In The Atlantic interview, he acknowledges that he is gay and acknowledged that some critics will see his past actions as hypocritical. That conflict, including Mehlman’s sexuality, is something coauthor Jim Moore and I dealt with four years ago in The Architect. Mehlman says he hopes that the GOP will become more accepting of gay marriage. And, ever the strategist, he offers a provocative idea: Why don’t gay voters form common cause with Republican opponents of Islamic jihad, which he called “the greatest anti-gay force in the world right now.”

    Comment by rusty — May 10, 2012 @ 12:03 am - May 10, 2012

  32. No, Questioning, I never said it was okay to exploit gay marriage for creating a temporary majority. And given the intransigence of social conservative whose support is essential to GOP success in the current climate, I don’t think total acceptance of gays will be a winning strategy for the party.

    I merely think that a libertarian approach is the best strategy — not only politically, but also socially. It won’t piss off the far right and will let the marketplace do what it has been doing, with private businesses becoming increasing gay-friendly.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 22, 2007 @ 4:30 pm – August 22, 2007

    Comment by rusty — May 10, 2012 @ 12:16 am - May 10, 2012

  33. I figured Obama would have waited until th High Holidaze of Gay Pride celebrations that start in the summer months to break the news that he had reached the plateau or high rock outcropping to make the announcement. But he does have several high profile parties over the next couple of days.

    Whether he gets re-elected or not. . .he will be recognized not only nationally but on a global level for this public announcement however sincere or insincere.

    This interesting to see folk at both ends of the spectrum contort and twist themselves like Gollum,screeching like schizophrenic meltdowns.

    Obama waited too long

    Obama was just playing us

    Obama is just . . .fill in the blank

    Biden did pop off on Sunday, that was a well-planned rant and pandered to that base of the Dems, the Ed Sec went out and popped off his script, and then Obama made his announcement complete with the chatter of dinner and his daughters ‘ but daddy why?’

    Great fun too be had. Time for roasted nuts, popcorn and soda.

    Comment by rusty — May 10, 2012 @ 12:28 am - May 10, 2012

  34. This is interesting . . .

    Comment by rusty — May 10, 2012 @ 12:29 am - May 10, 2012

  35. call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I have always believed – and still do – that Obama is a Muslim at heart. And as a Muslim, he hates gay people, however, he hates the prospect of losing the 2012 election more, so he will do whatever he needs to do to get votes, even supposedly embracing gay marriage. He hasn’t embraced it. He is just using the issue to his advantage to get votes, and anyone who gets behind him because of this is an idiot, excuse my bluntness.

    Comment by Mark — May 10, 2012 @ 12:49 am - May 10, 2012

  36. To BF,

    My friend Ben rides a “shortbus” and you ain’t fit enough to shine his shoes. In the words of ILC, “suck it.”

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 12:54 am - May 10, 2012

  37. His words are important,

    Curiously, it’s not important if you’re a Republican. How does that work?

    and thanks to the GOP’s behavior on immigration, the fastest growing voting bloc in the country is in the Democratic column for the foreseeable future, in ever-growing percentages. Women are squarely in Obama’s corner for obvious reasons, and so…

    [Citation Needed]

    The fact is that we have officially entered a period where support for marriage equality, for a Democrat seeking national office, is more likely to be a net positive in the voting column than it is to be a negative.

    So we’ll be seeing that taken up at the convention this summer, right?

    Politics? Sure. Who cares?

    So you don’t care that you’re being pandered to (read: exploited) for personal political gain? Really? If I pat you on the head and tell you what a good little faggot you are, will you give me money?

    Jeez!

    Comment by TGC — May 10, 2012 @ 1:31 am - May 10, 2012

  38. Hey Cinesnatch, did you know your “eloquent” Evan Hurst trashed mentally-retarded people, and claimed that criticizing him for doing it was “homophobic”?

    It’s just like with black children. Ordinarily you loathe them and think they should be aborted, but you’re more than happy to exploit them to your own ends.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2012 @ 1:38 am - May 10, 2012

  39. If you want to join me in taking BF to task for his inappropriate use of the word “shortbus” (for which, I doubt he has worked in special education or had a sibling who was born mentally disadvantaged), feel free.

    Otherwise, shut the F@ck up, repressed son of a politician.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 1:43 am - May 10, 2012

  40. In just 8 years, liberals have gone from playing politics using a lesbian in a political campaign to a SCOAMF playing politics by making a meaningless statement on TV. And Gay Inc. circle jerked both times.

    Evan Hurst, no doubt, has used up his industrial barrel of Astro-Glide.

    Just like so many battered women, the gay left runs back to their abusers because “he said he loves me!”. Millions of people don’t have jobs, millions are living off of food stamps, massive debt, massive deficits, folks are getting dumped by their health insurance companies etc. but, by damn, we’re supposed to get excited when the miserable failure supposedly evolves?

    How pathetic.

    Comment by TGC — May 10, 2012 @ 1:49 am - May 10, 2012

  41. Cinetwat thinks he suddenly has the upper hand on someone @GP for a change. I suppose we should let him have his moment.

    Comment by TGC — May 10, 2012 @ 1:53 am - May 10, 2012

  42. Meanwhile, Evan Hurst repeats the Obama Party fallacies that women are just gay men without penises, Hispanics are merely lighter Black Panthers, etc. In Evan Hurst’s world, these people are just like him: willing to sell themselves into slavery for pandering.

    It is incomprehensible to Evan Hurst that a black person might oppose excessive regulation, or that a woman might object to her taxes being raised, or that a Hispanic person could believe in capitalism rather than socialism. After all, he’s a minority member and he doesn’t think of anything other than absolute fealty to and worship of Obama, so obviously, all other minorities are the same.

    In 2008, Evan was saying the same thing — the Obama Party was invincible. Evan is still trying to figure out the 2010 elections, because, with apologies to Pauline Kael, he doesn’t know a single person who voted Republican.

    The fun is yet to come.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2012 @ 1:54 am - May 10, 2012

  43. Oh Snatchy. You’re so hilarious, screaming about references to “shortbus” when you’re praising as “eloquent” people like Evan Hurst who mock “retards”.

    And don’t forget how your Obama mocked the Special Olympics.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2012 @ 2:05 am - May 10, 2012

  44. If Evan says something I approve of, it doesn’t equate that accept EVERYTHING he says. I don’t hold you accountable for everything your mother votes on.

    Whatever you say doesn’t diminish my relationship with Ben. Something your sorry @ss will never appreciate.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 2:08 am - May 10, 2012

  45. Eat your hormones, ***.

    Comment by TGC — May 10, 2012 @ 2:13 am - May 10, 2012

  46. Hormones? Cinetwat? Okay. If that’s the level we’re playing at …

    I’ll gladly post a picture of myself if you post a picture of you and then we can all decide who needs to eat their hormones …

    LOL. Hormones … You need a little sweet to go along with your bitter, just like Bruce.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 2:18 am - May 10, 2012

  47. Hi CS,
    I think you are better off ignoring NDT when he gets in these moods, and not replying. Ditto if he insults you. You just feed him if you “play.” It is a normal rhetorical tactic of his to link someone he is trying to bait (i.e. you) to some outrage of his mind. Your return in outrage at his comments only makes him more willing to do that sort of nonsense (as we have all seen in the past). He clearly enjoys doing it. I have not seen NDT acknowledge the validity of any progressive argument from a progressive commenter here, concerning any point he has made (happy to have a link where he has done so). He is unlikely to start now. As Joshua says in Badham’s Wargames: “The only winning move is not to play.” Please disregard my comments if you also gain enjoyment from escalating negative rhetoric…

    Comment by Cas — May 10, 2012 @ 2:31 am - May 10, 2012

  48. Thank you for your thoughtful words, Cas. I always enjoy reading your posts and I will heed your advice. I am now permanently leaving this thread.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 2:37 am - May 10, 2012

  49. Actually, Cinesnatch, you’re not leaving that easily.

    First, you directly threatened my family in this thread.

    Second, you made reference to one of my relatives allegedly being an elected Official with clear intent to affect said individual’s behavior and votes — which would constitute attempted blackmail of an elected official.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2012 @ 2:51 am - May 10, 2012

  50. I’ll gladly post a picture of myself if you post a picture of you and then we can all decide who needs to eat their hormones …

    As much fun as a pissing contest sounds, I think we can all look at the comments here and see which one is a whiney little bitch. Maybe you could post your e-mails to Dan about how mean everybody is as well. I can say that I’ve written exactly 0.

    Comment by TGC — May 10, 2012 @ 2:57 am - May 10, 2012

  51. [...] gay marriage.  Dan Blatt, at The Gay Patriot, notes that scripture marches nicely along with Barry’s desperate need for campaign cash, some of which might come from a GLBT community that’s pleased that Barry’s finally [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Presidential Election 2012: Eddie Haskell versus Ward Cleaver — May 10, 2012 @ 3:08 am - May 10, 2012

  52. In the words of ILC…

    Imitation (even ill-conceived) is flattery.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2012 @ 5:29 am - May 10, 2012

  53. For The Record, one thing that does *not* imitate me: Trying to bring in references to people’s personal situations/info (whether real or imagined) that the person hasn’t plainly volunteered.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2012 @ 5:36 am - May 10, 2012

  54. (I mean, commentors’)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2012 @ 5:36 am - May 10, 2012

  55. I have never done this before, but…

    17. ILC: If you actually think Obama is “at war” with Catholic bishops, you sadly overestimate the power of the Vatican in this country. Sorry, but no one cares. Not even normal Catholics. Also, what does “FIFY” mean? Is that one of those terms that dorks with no social lives use on the internet? Sorry, I’ve been doing “outside” activities and can’t keep up. Must be the difference between having a paying job writing on the internet vs. commenting on websites as a way to waste the rest of a life…

    21. @theliveiwre or whatever, anyone who believes Obama wasn’t for marriage equality the entire time is obviously mildly retarded.

    22 or 23, @rattlesnake: income inequality. I know Republican men don’t believe in it, but smart Republican women do. The ones with careers. Ask them sometime. No, not hairdressers. I mean the ones who might happen to be your boss. They’ll let ya know.

    24. @Sara: You are, wow, a moron. Wow. His Chicago church, which had nothing to do with Black Liberation Theology (you moron), is part of the denomination which is the strongest Christian sect in support of marriage equality. You damned moron. Tie your shoes.

    35. @Mark, you’re one of the morons who still thinks Obama is Muslim? Dumber than Sara. That’s the saddest thing about comments sections at blogs like this. They just get more and more Palin as you go. In case you don’t understand, “Palin” is an English word for “stupid.”

    36 or 37. @TGC: “citation needed”? You have Google. Don’t be a dumbf*ck. Look it up for your godd*mned self, you moron. That said, in politics (where I work, and you don’t) actions speak louder than motivations. Pander or not, the right move is the right move. Deal with it.

    38. @ND30, most of the commenters here kind of hate you. It’s not just liberals. Really. You might have Bruce, but he’s kind of, um, excitable and stuff. I hope you’re not under the impression that you’re well-liked, well, anywhere in the world. Everyone is making fun of you, either openly or under their breath. Feel free to contact me on Twitter all the time, like you always do, where I always ignore you. One of these days you’ll find love, I just know it! (Ha ha, no. Not gon’ happen.)

    40. @TGC Astro-glide? What the HELL are you talking about? I mean, yeah, I’m a top, so I buy it…

    And finally, Cinesnatch: Why do you spend time debating these kindergarten drop-outs? I mean, I’m sure they passed with flying colors in Oklahoma or whatever backwater they were spawned from, but seriously. I live in the South, and I consider the parts of my town which fall outside the historic districts to be Off Limits, mostly because it’s strip mall white trash hell, but also because it’s, um, white trash hell. It’s much more edifying to spend one’s time with people whose lives don’t revolve around resentment of racial minorities and the fact that no one has asked them out on a date in thirty years (ND30?). Feel free to drop in on the comments section of an organization that actually matters (mine).

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 10, 2012 @ 6:44 am - May 10, 2012

  56. dorks with no social lives

    LOL :-) Evan, don’t throw stones there from your glass house. Too bad you couldn’t make a more intelligent response… oh well, your problem.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2012 @ 7:15 am - May 10, 2012

  57. P.S. I will oblige you with a partial answer to your question, though. Evan they came out with this super neato gizmo. It helps people find things and stuff in seconds, when they’re just stumped and can’t figure out anything! It’s called Google. You could look into it. Cheers!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2012 @ 7:22 am - May 10, 2012

  58. 21. @theliveiwre or whatever, anyone who believes Obama wasn’t for marriage equality the entire time is obviously mildly retarded.

    Only possible translation:

    Obama was lying all along which he had to do because it was politically expedient.

    Which leads to this only possible translation:

    Do not take Obama’s words at face value. He is a manipulating, conniving demagogue who will use whatever means it takes to reach his end target.

    Which leads to this only possible translation:

    I support Obama and his duplicity, because he is my manipulating, conniving demagogue and I have no principled faith in representative democracy.

    Which leads to this only possible translation:

    Someone who thinks that the country is better off led by a merchant of deceit and chicanery is either a swooning, adoring captive of a charismatic or is “obviously mildly retarded”.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 10, 2012 @ 9:03 am - May 10, 2012

  59. Shorter Evan “I can’t ban you from this blog, but I can name call you and engange in smearing your character and anyone who might agree with you.”

    Also shorter Evan “OF COURSE he lies. But he’d never lie to me. He told me so.”

    Wow, I’ll admit, Evan’s more entertaining than Edmund. Just as dumb, but more entertaining.

    Comment by The Livewire — May 10, 2012 @ 9:11 am - May 10, 2012

  60. income inequality. I know Republican men don’t believe in it

    Are you referring to income distribution or wage disparity? Given the context, the latter makes more sense. So, assuming that is what you are referring to, are you suggesting Republicans would establish mandatory wage disparity? Some people might think that the best solution to that is more economic freedom (i.e. free markets).

    I’m sure they passed with flying colors in Oklahoma or whatever backwater they were spawned from, but seriously. I live in the South, and I consider the parts of my town which fall outside the historic districts to be Off Limits, mostly because it’s strip mall white trash hell, but also because it’s, um, white trash hell.

    Why are liberals always preaching “cultural sensitivity” or whatever but then deride the culture of places like Oklahoma? I mean, places like Saudi Arabia are much more backwards than Oklahoma. But we must be sensitive of Muslims because their backwardness is part of their culture (or something).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 10, 2012 @ 9:19 am - May 10, 2012

  61. If I were Jewish and wanted to belong to the Nazi party, that would make me insane.
    The GOP has nothing to offer to the gay community. You need to admit that, instead of spinning every positive move Obama does to acknowledge our community. If you think is not enough. You might be right, but for God’s sake give him some credit!
    Why do you think the GOP is so much better in regards to gay issues than Obama? Are you aware that every state legislature has passed right wing sponsored bills denying same sex marriage and reversing sexual discrimination of gay people?, but you still think we should vote for them. I really don’t get your logic.
    Obama spoke against NC marriage prop, maybe not early enough or strongly enough. Grant you that, but to validate conservatives who were in favor and supported it. I don’t get it.
    Because Obama do everything you want, you will vote for the party that hates gays and will make everything it can to eradicate us. I don’t get it.
    So your logic: don’t vote for the guy who is trying, vote for the guy who doesn’t believe in our agenda.

    Comment by George insane — May 10, 2012 @ 9:36 am - May 10, 2012

  62. George, get some new lines. The old ones are getting stale.

    Comment by The Livewire — May 10, 2012 @ 9:45 am - May 10, 2012

  63. Gee, George, do gays not pay taxes, hold jobs, start and run businesses, oppose government waste and corruption, and support a strong national defense?

    Well, we know you don’t. But that’s because you’re an Obama partisan operating under the Peggy Johnson Theory, aka “Why work for a living when you can vote to steal it from others instead?”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2012 @ 10:03 am - May 10, 2012

  64. And the really entertaining part, George: Obama Party supporters and paid operatives like Evan Hurst regularly slander gay conservatives and tell them to kill themselves.

    Plus the added bonus of Obama Party gays calling for Republicans to be murdered.

    That’s the Obama Party, and especially its gay supporters like you, George: obey the Obama Party or we kill you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2012 @ 10:18 am - May 10, 2012

  65. Wow! The monolithic gay community has been exposed:

    don’t vote for the guy who is trying, vote for the guy who doesn’t believe in our agenda.

    If you are gay, you put the gay agenda first and foremost.

    If you are gay and you do not put the gay agenda first and foremost, you are not gay.

    Simple logic. Or, logic of a simpleton. Or something about logic and simple.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 10, 2012 @ 10:22 am - May 10, 2012

  66. WOW, was that a disco ball Obama threw out there in front us???!!!! Preeeetty ~~~~~whoa, the narcissists are out in force! They all think it’s about them, why in world do the sillies only care about one thing while the rest of your rights are being flushed down the toilet? Best wishes on that marriage, oh, have a great time on that honeymoon in the back seat of your car……that’s if it’s not repossessed before the ceremony!

    Comment by jann — May 10, 2012 @ 10:54 am - May 10, 2012

  67. If I were Jewish and wanted to belong to the Nazi party, that would make me insane.

    Do Republicans want to murder gay people?

    You need to admit that, instead of spinning every positive move Obama does to acknowledge our community.

    The “gay community” shouldn’t exist. Not acknowledging it is a good thing. I would much rather be treated as an individual as opposed to a member of some homogeneous, immoral “community.”

    you will vote for the party that hates gays and will make everything it can to eradicate us.

    Apparently, you really do think Republicans want to murder gay people. That explains your Jewish Nazi remark. Of course, you are insane.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 10, 2012 @ 11:25 am - May 10, 2012

  68. Wait so lemme get this. George wants us to “vote for the guy who is trying.” But Evan says “anyone who believes Obama wasn’t for marriage equality the entire time is obviously mildly retarded”… which is a confession, not only that Obama is a big liar, but also that Obama HAS NOT BEEN trying, as he has spent all this time up to now cavorting with the anti-gay marriage side.

    So we should vote for……… ???? Ron Paul?

    Blue-on-blue violence… Pass the popcorn!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2012 @ 11:36 am - May 10, 2012

  69. [...] evolution–maybe the least surprising flip-flop in history–is worth hearing. Here is what Dan had to say today. If you follow the link, you can follow Dan’s links to a number of [...]

    Pingback by Social Darwinism: Obama’s ‘Gay’ Evolution | therightplanet.com — May 10, 2012 @ 11:39 am - May 10, 2012

  70. Apparently, you really do think Republicans want to murder gay people. That explains your Jewish Nazi remark. Of course, you are insane.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 10, 2012 @ 11:25 am – May 10, 2012

    George and Evan Hurst are only repeating what Barack Obama tells them to think, Rattlesnake.

    It becomes hilarious, because we all know that liberal gays and lesbians like Evan Hurst and George openly call for the murder of Republicans and tell conservative gays to kill themselves. Sheer projection.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2012 @ 12:50 pm - May 10, 2012

  71. Hi EH,

    Also, what does “FIFY” mean?

    I checked out the “gizmo” that ILC suggested, and I found that FIFY can stand for:
    1. Fify stands for ‘ Fit in (a) few years’
    2. acronym used in message boards, meaning “Fixed it for ya”. Most often used in quoting another posters work and slightly changing it.
    3. Free Information For You

    So, I guess the answer depends on the context in which it is used. You’ll have to take an educated guess.

    Comment by Cas — May 10, 2012 @ 1:55 pm - May 10, 2012

  72. Moron? Why so nasty? Rev. Wright’s church is based on black liberation theology. If that church is for equality, I’m happy to hear it. Wright sure doesn’t like whites or Jews so I’m not a big fan.
    Obama said what you want to hear and I’m glad he said what he said. But Obama was for it, then against it, then for it – he’s dishonest and it’s hard to know what he stands for. That’s my only point.

    Comment by Sara — May 10, 2012 @ 8:19 pm - May 10, 2012

  73. Atta girls (let’s get used to it in case Romney wins)

    I can understand that you may not agree with Obama on his economic, environmental and foreign policies, but what I can’t understand is why are you criticizing him for his stand in gay issues, you being gay and all. When the alternative is completely anti gay. And if you mention Dick Cheney once more, I’m pulling my hair. He is the only one. No one else, beside side dishes.

    One silly comment was pointing out how Obama has changed his position from strongly against to pro gay marriage. Isn’t that a good thing for us? In this respect, he is better than Romney that has changed from pro to against. So how can anybody with a sound logic can say that Romney is better. I’m only talking about this specific issue.

    And by the way, I pay taxes. You think liberal don’t pay taxes. I don’t mind it. I hate it when they are used for your wars!!
    Actually, my tax bracket is higher that Romney’s and I don’t have bank accounts abroad. Low shot, I know.

    Comment by George insane — May 11, 2012 @ 1:57 am - May 11, 2012

  74. Being a moron, no one wants to hear from me of course, but the blatant political use of the issue by Obama is off-putting to me even though it’s a good thing. It’s good he said it but why shortly before the election?

    Because he doesn’t care about you or any of us. This is the same as the black issue, the Hispanic issue, the religious issue, and so on, he divides and conquers.

    People care more about their own one issue than the broader issues facing the country. Catholics care about Catholic issues, gays care about gay issues, illegals care about open borders – my neighbor voted for a guy who promised him free teeth (which he never got once the man was elected). Obama is using this issue to raise money – he got $70 million from the gay community as soon as he said this. Is the gay issue one that money can buy? Or do you want your issue one that people buy into?

    I guess Obama supports gays rights to marry but why did he go back on that when it was politically expedient to do so? The guy’s a phony.

    Comment by Sara — May 11, 2012 @ 10:39 am - May 11, 2012

  75. but what I can’t understand is why are you criticizing him for his stand in gay issues, you being gay and all.

    You’re making the assumption that all gay people here agree with his stand on gay issues, which isn’t the case. Even those who agree with his stand are justified in criticizing him (see comment #68).

    When the alternative is completely anti gay.

    Wrong.

    One silly comment was pointing out how Obama has changed his position from strongly against to pro gay marriage. Isn’t that a good thing for us?

    The point is, he supported gay marriage in 1996. Why would he later not support it if it wasn’t for political reasons? Later, he starts “evolving” on the issue, which is a cowardly position. It’s been 16 years since he first came out in support of it, and he had 2 years to do something about it after he was elected (and I believe he has support gay marriage the whole time, he just waited until it was potically expedient to publicly say so). He is being criticize for, among other things, not doing something to advance gay “rights” when he had ample opportunity to do so. I don’t get why you’re not upset about that, as well as at being “played like a fiddle.”

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 11, 2012 @ 6:21 pm - May 11, 2012

  76. Being a moron, no one wants to hear from me of course

    The moron comment came from Evan Hurst. If you’re not familiar with him, he is absolutely vile and has no credibility.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 11, 2012 @ 6:23 pm - May 11, 2012

  77. [...] over at Gay Patriot asks the obvious questions and provides some even more obvious [...]

    Pingback by More on Obama’s About Turn On Gay Marriage.. | Sago — May 11, 2012 @ 9:35 pm - May 11, 2012

  78. [...] Dan Blatt, at The Gay Patriot, notes that scripture marches nicely along with Barry’s desperate need for campaign cash, some of which might come from a GLBT community that’s pleased that Barry’s finally came out of [...]

    Pingback by Obama’s Eddie Haskell versus Romney’s Ward Cleaver — May 17, 2012 @ 3:38 pm - May 17, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.196 Powered by Wordpress