Obama endorses same-sex marriage (Page 11)

I'll ask the same question for the 3rd time now.  So why the day AFTER the NC vote and not before?  He certainly did not change his mind overnight.

We thankfully live in a country were our votes decide who we chose to create, change, and govern laws based on our beliefs and what we feel our elected-by-majority believe.  However,  I don't see SSM becoming majority legal anytime soon based on these Gallup statistics published May 8..FWIW

# of eligible voters 18-39  =  103million

# registered voters 18-39  =   68m

# registered voters 18-39 who plan to vote next election =  38m

# registered voters 18-39 who plan to vote who support SSM = 25m

_________________________________________

#  of eligible voters 40-85+  =  96m

#  of registered voters 40-85+  = 79m

#  of registered voters 40-85+ who plan to vote next election =  60m

# of registered voters 40-85+ that who plan to vote that oppose SSM  = 36m

Until voter apathy in the under 18-39 group corrects itself,  I don't see SSM succeeding anytime in the near future.     A sad study by Indiana University actually reported that 46% of the polled 18-24 year olds on campus could not define the concept of democracy when asked to explain.   The study also showed that 38% of  polled 18-24 year olds that stated they WOULD vote in the next election understood the issues very well, but had a difficult time discerning which candidtate represented their stance.     This is not a knock on the 18-39 year old voting group,  but rather the need to promote the privilege and responsibility that every law abiding citizen has.   This effects many more issues beyond SSM.

Ok, first off I would like to say that what you are quoting is from George's "Clash of the Orthodoxies", and the 14th Amendment needs to be looked at in this way.  

It's Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to states.  Yes, this clause has also been used to recognize (1) substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights, and (2) procedural due process rights requiring that certain steps, such as a hearing be followed before a person's "life, liberty, and property" can be taken away.  

The Amendments Equal Protection Clause requires that states provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions.  

Now, when DOMA was passed, the constitutional issues most relevant to it are the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is concerned with the definition section of DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which is primarily concerned with the second section of DOMA which states:

A right to marriage - at least "marriage" defined as one man and one woman.

Seems to me that Congress over stepped it's bounds on this one.  DOMA appears to violate the 14th Amendment, violating the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Amendment.  

I don't think we will see where this will go until we see if SCOTUS repeals the Defense of Marriage Act. Political move on Obama's part to bring this process to the forefront, absolutely.  

As far as a non religious argument on the issue of slavery this is what I remember from History class: 

Initially, free blacks led the movement condemning colonization and northern discrimination against African Americans. As early as 1817, more than 3,000 members of Philadelphia’s black community staged a protest against colonization, at which they denounced the policy as “little more merciful than death.”

David Walker, the free black owner of a second-hand clothing store in Boston, issued the militant Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World. The appeal threatened insurrection and violence if calls for the abolition of slavery and improved conditions for free blacks were ignored. The next year, some 40 black delegates from 8 states held the first of a series of annual conventions denouncing slavery and calling for an end to discriminatory laws in the northern states.

Oh and just for the sake of argument, I am not discounting your views or taking the stance that mine is the only one too.  I find that when two sides can listen to the other's interpretation, that is when communication opens up, and we begin to find a common ground.  

I just don't think anyone here can answer that, ya know?

Myself, I don't understand politics quite well enough to ascertain it would have been (more/less/neutral) politically expedient to announce this (before/after) the NC vote. I suppose an argument could be made for all six of those combinations!

HA!  LOVE IT!

Yeah, a bit too convenient for me...

I cannot answer the question as to why and timing....  

Perhaps "convenient", but if not now, when?    Should he NEVER come out?   Maybe SC was the straw that broke the camel's back of his conscience and he decided to be a leader.    

Agreed, and thanks for saying that.

I think George's formulation shows why marriages of one man and one woman can be rightly held to be a separate class under the 14th Amendment.  

As far as I can see, the events you cite regarding abolition don't explain the reason why abolition was morally correct.

My point with bringing up slavery is that I know of no one who would say that Christianity should have stayed out of the slavery issue, or the civil rights movement of the 60's, or had no right to impose a faith based understanding of the human person on others through law.

Even President Obama and Nancy Pelosi cited their Christian beliefs as at least some reason for supporting gay marriage.
That's fine, but you can't have it both ways.
Can't trot some misunderstanding of the notion of separation of church and state, as so many do, when you don't like what a faith based position on some policy might be, and then ignore the faith based foundation of a policy that you happen to agree with.

The very notion of universal human rights and justice in pursuit of securing those rights
developed out of Judeo/Christian Western Civilization.
That's not a coincidence. 

If that's the case then why not come out before the vote and maybe make a difference?

OK, I've read the whole thread--good reading.

What I don't get is why this is such a huge deal. He's just stating his personal belief. He's not saying if he gets re-elected he'll push for a gay-marriage amendment.

To me, it's similar to the abortion issue. A Republican can say they're anti-abortion, but abortion has been legal for a long time now. Should I vote for an anti-abortion Republican because I think they'll outlaw abortion if elected?

Did it come up? Yes. It wasn't turned into a media circus. I think it was dealt with by voters in the primaries. Or like I previously stated, maybe he had full unwavering support of the religious right and they aren't the almighty driving force behind the Republican party that so many people are afraid they are trying to make them out to be.

That would be a sign of leadership. What he did is a political move. I can't quite figure the angle, but I've got a pretty good idea where they're going with this. I hope I'm wrong. 

He's asked a question and you respond by telling him it's pointless to answer because he's made up his mind. Someone has clearly made up their mind and it ain't TriRSq...

He asked a question that has been answered roughly the same way a few times.  There is simply no way for us to know.  Unless he comes out and says why he waited.  So anything we would say would be just a guess and everyone knows it would be a guess

Well, Dick Cheney's daughter is lesbian. Just goes to show how people feel when it hits home and how people feel when they actually know a gay/lesbian person. I wonder how many anti-gay marriage people have non heteronormative family members?

You bring up an excellent point, and one I was trying to make earlier.  Since Clinton signed the DOMA act in 1996 I think it was, there isn't a way for this to be anything other than a state issue, although the federal government does have the authority to intervene if necessary.  That being said, I think what you will see him do is try to push for the repeal of DOMA through SCOTUS faster since there are 3 civil rights cases going through at the moment.  

Yes, I think it is a political move on his part, all public announcements are timed, but do I think he doesn't believe what he is saying.  No, I believe he supports gay marriage, and has for quite sometime.  I think it was an unpopular stance to take, but with the outcry of NC, the timing was right.  

Exactly. It's easy to be hardboiled when you aren't familiar with actual people.

And I agree with Zedxx's point, too. I think it's great that Obama has changed his position; and he admitted exactly what you said above, basically, "We know a same sex couple and now that I know them, I can't deny them the same rights and benefits as my wife and I enjoy." Even though he is a million times more influential than I am, his opinion, at the end of the day, doesn't hold any more weight than mine or yours. He doesn't get to legalize it -- he doesn't have that kind of power.

I don't get who is hurt by legalizing SSM. I get that some churches/religious groups see it as a 'sin.' Some people think playing card games and going to movies are 'sins' too. I don't see them marching in the street and getting all upset about those activities.

Oral s*x used to be illegal in some states (maybe it still is in a few).

Interracial marriage used to be illegal. ("But what about the children??" -- but guess, what. The children are great.)

Some of my "friends" disowned me because I married a nominal Mormon. My ex-husband threatened to take my kids away from me if we moved to Utah (which we hope to do one day) because they wouldn't be 'safe.' Seriously?

People are hung up on all kinds of things. On this issue, at the end of the day, they are fighting a losing battle. People will have their rights. And we all should. We need strong families, and "family" can be defined in many different ways. (My family is an example of that -- four last names among the five of us.)

<stepping off my soap box>