Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

The Irrelevant Ghoul

The Irrelevant Ghoul
A noun, a verb, and 9/11

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

FINALLY!




Now let's hear how the GOP nominee will face this issue:

OKLAHOMA CITY – Mitt Romney on Wednesday reaffirmed his view that marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman, highlighting a sharp contrast with President Barack Obama. Obama declared his unequivocal personal support for same-sex marriage during an interview with ABC News. Reporters asked Romney about the issue after a campaign event in Oklahoma City.


"My view is that marriage itself is between a man and a woman," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee told reporters. He said he believes that states should be able to make decisions about whether to offer certain legal rights to same-sex couples. "This is a very tender and sensitive topic, as are many social issues, but I have the same view that I've had since — since running for office," Romney said.


He first ran for political office in 1994, when he challenged Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Obama is the first president in history to support gay marriage. Polls show the country is evenly divided on the issue. Romney did not go so far as to accuse Obama of changing his position on gay marriage, though the president has said that he had an "evolving" view of the subject. Questioned by reporters,


Romney said news reports indicate Obama has shifted his stance. Romney was a leading voice against gay marriage as Massachusetts governor. The courts legalized gay marriage in the state during his tenure, but he supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. After gay marriage became legal, Romney sought to enforce a statute banning state officials from marrying gay couples from other states. In a speech to conservatives last winter, Romney touted that move, saying he prevented Massachusetts from becoming the "Las Vegas of gay marriage."


Romney said Wednesday he supports limiting benefits for same-sex couples. "I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," he told the Fox TV station in Denver. "My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not." The Romney campaign did not respond to requests for clarification about which benefits Romney supports and which he does not ."


NOTE TO WILLARD:  You're on the wrong side of history, dude!

Thank you President Obama for coming out in favor of civil rights for all Americans!

45 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

I'm thinking the polls have a bit to do with this. Since half of America now supports the misnomer of gay marriage it is looking more like the President will score maximum points with his announcement. He is a fairly shrewd politician I'll give him that.

Indeed Carney was right when he said the President's position was evolving. It evolved to fruition just in time for this election cycle. I clearly remember candidate Obama's position in 2008.

I wish I could say I believe his statement will put the issue to bed (no pun intended) but it won't. I can hear the socons engines revving already.

Think I'll get the popcorn & beer and what the show.

Dave Miller said...

And what a show it will be RN as those who oppose this talk about how we need to conserve traditional American values of discrimination and marginalization.

Certainly his timing was political, or at least it would have been had he waited for the convention, but it does not change the fact that Obama is, in the words of Shep Smith, a FOX News anchor, in the 21st century.

I wonder where that puts people who are not happy with this?

Rational Nation USA said...

Well Dave I don't rightly know what century they are in, other than the here and now longing for the good old days of the closet mentality.

His timing is absolutely political. Obama and his handlers have determined that with the country split on the issue as it is, with the trend moving in the leftward direction he believes he can now move the issue more quickly and in the process bolster his poll numbers.

Shep is right of course in the broad sense of the issue.

On the issue of terminology I stand my ground as I have for years. So I suppose that puts me in the 20th and 3/4 century huh?

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN: "...the trend moving in the leftward direction..."


RN, I'm surprised to read that from you. As someone who believes there is too much government in people's lives, you should be happy to see the president finally on the side of MORE freedom, not less.

Or do you think MORE freedom is a leftward direction?

Perhaps you do--your remark implies that, and we on the left are proud of that.

While you and other call the president's announcement a "political" move, can you name me a president, or any pol running for president, whose actions, most of the time, are NOT political?

"Mission Accomplished!"

And Romney's boast that he would out-liberal Senator Kennedy on gay rights when he was running for the US Senate, and now Romney is against gay marriage and even civil unions. LOL!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Here's conservative political pundit, David Frum, on the subject of his "evolution" on gay marriage (do you think he's being political?):

David Frum:

"The president's statement today about marriage rights changes nothing—and everything.

The statement changes everything because it powerfully symbolizes an awakening that so many people have had, myself included: here is a social change whose time has come, and more than come. Denying marriage rights to same-sex couples inflicts real harm on real people, while doing nothing to prevent the deterioration of marriage among non-affluent Americans.

The statement changes everything because it puts marriage rights on the 2012 ballot as a voting issue. Mitt Romney has declared—not only his opposition to same-sex marriage—but his intention to use the power of the presidency to stop and reverse it. One may doubt how intensely Romney feels about that commitment, really. My own guess: about 1/1000 as intensely as he feels about Sarbanes-Oxley. But the issue is joined even so."

Silverfiddle said...

He had to get the demoralized base fired up, and this will help do it. Also, he's far short of his billion dollar fundraising effort, the foreign money ain't quite getting him there. This will milk millions from gay advocacy groups.

Rational Nation USA said...

Shaw, perhaps you misinterpreted my response, or perhaps it is all .or nothing with you on the left. I fail to see any difference in our positions other than the use of the term (concept) marriarage being used to destined same sex civil unions.

The rest at my sire. Beyond that it is a moot point for me.

Rational Nation USA said...

Wasn't talking about Romney or Bush now was I. Nice try though.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Silverfiddle: "He had to get the demoralized base fired up, and this will help do it. Also, he's far short of his billion dollar fundraising effort, the foreign money ain't quite getting him there. This will milk millions from gay advocacy groups."

Your irritation at the president's morally correct announcement and the support he'll enjoy from the base and the LGBT community is duly noted.

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN, I referred to your comment where you characterized acceptance of gay marriage as "...the trend moving in the leftward direction..."

And I asked if you thought allowing American citizens justice and liberty is a "leftward direction."

Or did you not understand my comment?

As for your implication that this presidential decision is political, I brought in evidence that EVERYTHING an incumbent does or says is most assuredly a political decision, and I gave you evidence for that statement.

It wasn't just "talking about Romney and Bush," as you say, but a piece of evidence to prove my point.

I'm surprised you missed that.

Marla Brunker said...

I know the Republicans are probably treating this like their birthday came early.
But in taking this position, however daintily, Obama has just sent an engraved invitation to every homophobe, sexophobe, prude, prig, tight-ass, professional virgin, prissy-pants, panty-sniffer and Nosy Parker in the GOP to come on up and show the people their batsh*ttery--preferably on national television.

You know how popular this nose-in-everyone's-bedroom​ shtick was when Rick Santorum was campaigning on it? Its appeal hasn't widened. But the Rs aren't going to be able to resist it.

Anonymous said...

According to news reports, the Romney camp will campaign against extending civil liberties to the LGBT community. Romney is for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions.

Way to "conserve" prejudice and injustice, GOP. These are the same people who were against interracial marriage and civil rights for black Americans.

At least they're consistent.

Rational Nation USA said...

You need not "prove anything." I am aware, perfectly aware of your point. Just in case you think not.

As I said, moot point. Some actually do "get over it" so to speak. And some simply must have the whole enchilada.

Sheesh...

Infidel753 said...

MB: Obama has just sent an engraved invitation to every homophobe, sexophobe, prude, prig, tight-ass, professional virgin, prissy-pants, panty-sniffer and Nosy Parker in the GOP to come on up and show the people their batsh*ttery

Batsh*ttery duly delivered.

skudrunner said...

It was a very smart political move whether BHO feels that way or not. He has had the support of the gay groups but that support has been slipping so this will shore up their support. BHO never had the support of the conservative right so this changes nothing.

This does divert attention from things that are really important like jobs, economy, Americas future. Instead of addressing critical issues we discuss where to put the dog before you have him for lunch and the presidents fake stand on gay rights. This is just distraction from a failure of leadership on both sides.

Get the government out of peoples lives, Don't tell them who they can marry, what they can eat and don't ask them to pay for someone else healthcare.

billy pilgrim said...

i'm sure he wanted to say this years ago but was waiting for the right moment. it's probably a trap for romney.

he's going to be playing romney like a cheap fiddle for the next six months.

now what about legalizing pot? akuni

Anonymous said...

What a political acrobat the president is. I wish he were as good at leading as he is at politics

Infidel753 said...

SR: don't ask them to pay for someone else healthcare

Er, you do realize that it's the pre-Obamacare status quo that forces people to pay for other people's health care, right? Since hospitals do have to provide some minimal treatment to the uninsured under certain circumstances, and they don't have insurance to pay for it, the costs are passed along to everyone else in the form of higher charges. By requiring everybody to obtain health insurance, reform will actually reduce the extent to which you're forced to pay for someone else's health care.

Silverfiddle said...

If only progressives would display the same libertarian tendencies when it comes to other aspects of our lives...

Shaw Kenawe said...

MB, well stated; and as Infidel noted, the batsh****ery has engulfed the right like a raging storm. And at the place where it thrives: FAUX NOOZ.

skudrunner:

"This does divert attention from things that are really important like jobs, economy, Americas future."

Well I've always believed that equality of Constitutionally guaranteed rights for every American citizen is a very IMPORTANT issue, even if conservatives don't. You and RN have stated, in so many words, that you don't believe this issue is very important. We Liberals disagree. Freedom and justice for all Americans is paramount.



skudrunner:

"Instead of addressing critical issues we discuss where to put the dog before you have him for lunch.."

I don't know about you, skud, but I always put him right beside my baked beans.


skudrunner:

"...and the presidents fake stand on gay rights."

Interesting how you above anyone else can read the president's mind! Do you also do palm readings? I have a tough decision to make, and I'm wondering if you'll be able to let me know whether or not my final decision is fake or real. Your insight would be so very helpful.


skudrunner: "Get the government out of peoples lives, Don't tell them who they can marry, what they can eat and don't ask them to pay for someone else healthcare."

Because all that lovely salmonella and ecoli on our veggies? We'll be able to detect it ourselves, right? You first, though, then tell us all about it after your or someone in your family has spent a couple of uncomfortable hours in the ER. Thanx.

And Infidel answered your naive statement on paying for someone elses' health care.

Someone very close to me who had no health insurance while waiting for it to kick in after 3 months on a new job took very, very ill one night and had to be hospitalized. No insurance.

You, and everyone else, paid that $5,000 bill, ambulance ride not included.

You've been paying other people's health care for years, don't kid yourself.

Shaw Kenawe said...

SF, not every problem is solvable by Libertarian solutions.

Shaw Kenawe said...

billy, Obama's been doing that for quite some time. This will be an interesting 6 months.

Anonymous said...

"...Romney says that we should not discard 3,000 years of history of one-man-one-woman marriage. Ahem. His own family were ardent polygamists only a century ago - and went to Mexican colonies to escape US federal oppression of their version of marriage (which also goes back a long, long way and still exists across the world). Romney's great-grandparents were polygamists; one of his his great-great-grandfathers had twelve wives and was murdered by the husband of the twelfth.

For Romney to say that the definition of marriage has remained the same for 3,000 years is disproved by his own family. It's untrue. False. A lie."

Anonymous said...

He stated his opinion. He has not supported any laws to support his position. In fact he has supported laws against the gay community, and now it seems, his own thinking.
A slight majority of the people, are against gay marriage. It is a risk to go against the majority.
Seems our president is quite a risk taker on many issues (like invading another country without their permission to kill our enemy).
We should/need a president that takes risks. To bad he's not a liberal.

Anonymous said...

"You've been paying other people's health care for years, don't kid yourself."

And now we will still be paying only more.
When this gets enforced through the IRS it will be the taxpayers who will still be footing the bill for those who don't file...aka illegals.
And they were already told this I am sure. Just more votes bought for Obama at taxpayer expense.

Sorry to spoil your fun

skudrunner said...

Shaw,

I don't remember reading in the constitution anything about gay rights or marriage either so I don't believe it was "Constitutionally guaranteed". Frankly I have no issue with people marrying, hooking up, sleeping with anyone they choose as long as it does not infringe on my rights.

I am not a believer in coincidence and for BHO to have a slip in the polls than all of a sudden Biden supports gay marriage followed by BHO right after he starts his official campaign is a little to convenient. Why all of a sudden the apifiny. It was a good political move to gain support from a group who already supported him but was waning a little. This was an issue meant to distract from his lack of accomplishments and leadership and it worked for a while.

You are correct that we all pay for others healthcare but we don't pay for everyone's because 85% of the American people took care of themselves, or their employer did. If Obama's socialized medicine is so great, why have so many companies and unions been excluded.

As to telling fortunes, I am having a seance a midnight if you want to attend.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner: "I don't remember reading in the constitution anything about gay rights or marriage either so I don't believe it was 'Constitutionally guaranteed'."

It's the 14th Amendment I was talking about:

"The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states. The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.

More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws."

In the case of same-sex marriage or civil unions, the states that pass laws against them are denying equal protection under the law. They deny a minority, homosexuals, the right to enjoy the protections and privileges that are granted to the majority, heterosexuals when they marry.

It is a state government that issues licenses to marry, not religious establishments. A religious establishment must have this state issued marriage license before it can perform a marriage.

When two people decide to divorce, they must break that state issued license/contract to make it null and void.

There is no way under our Constitution that a state can disallow a license to marry solely on a religious prohibition.

States tried that trick with interracial marriages and lost.

They will lose this one as well. Eventually. That's the good news.


skudrunner: "This was an issue meant to distract from his lack of accomplishments and leadership and it worked for a while."

If it makes you feel warm and squishy to keep repeating the lie that Mr. Obama has accomplished nothing, then go right ahead and do so. I'm the last one to force a depressed person to face facts that make him or her unhappy. It's called living in a bubble, but if it helps your distress, go for it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I hope fellow blogger, Infidel753, doesn't mind my copying and pasting some of what he has written in his excellent blogpost on Mr. Obama's support on this issue:

"Some have argued that Obama was pushed into this move by Biden's recent remarks about gay marriage (the latter branded as a "gaffe"); others consider the administration too savvy to have let itself be put in such a position, and insist the whole thing was orchestrated. To me it seems just as likely that Obama had "evolved" to his newly-stated position some time ago, and felt it appropriate to make a public statement now in order to reassure a reliable but embattled constituency in the wake of the North Carolina vote.

Was it risky? I question how many extra knuckle-dragger votes the Republicans will really gain from Obama's announcement. Those who believe him to be a Muslim communist Nazi Kenyan America-hater have no doubt long been convinced that he's pro-gay-marriage whether he explicitly said so or not; their votes were in the bag for the Republicans all along. It's the less-motivated part of the left, the naïve both-parties-are-the-same cynics, the ones who aren't paying attention, who are more likely to be reachable here."


As they say in the blogsphere, Infidel753 "nails it."

Go read the rest here.

S.W. Anderson said...

The easiest, most politically self-serving thing for Obama to have done was let this matter recede into the background until after the election. Then, if he's re-elected, let it percolate until his last year in office or thereabouts. I think his mind was already made up to support gay marriage, but wanted to lead on this, not leave the impression Joe Biden is leading on this. So, in for a penny, in for a pound, Obama spoke up.

RN and SF commented on Obama's statement of belief and the enthusiasm of supporters. I think the great majority of the LGBT community's support was already directed toward Obama and Democrats, and for good reason.

The more pertinent question is, how and why do any gays and lesbians support Romney or any other Republican? Or maybe more to the point, how many of them, if they just can't bring themselves to vote for Obama and Democrats, will sit home in well-justified disgust instead of showing up to vote and work for Romney and other GOP candidates?

Same-sex oriented Republicans must be gluttons for punishment and at home with alienation, but there has to be a breaking point.

Darth Beacon said...

Obama did the right thing in coming out in favor of gay marriage. Good for him. And good for America.

skudrunner said...

You state "The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That being said, BHO bailed and said it was a States Rights issue. That from someone who doesn't believe in States Rights and files suit against states trying to enact laws of a state if it differs from his.

It was a calculated gamble to solidify the gay vote, which he had anyway. If you recall in California, the black community was very much against gay marriage. Now are they going to sideline their vote because they won't vote Republican but maybe they just won't vote.

I think to ban gay marriage is dumb and it should not be an issue in the campaign but it is a diversion from the real issues facing the country.

Infidel753 said...

SR: Now are they going to sideline their vote because they won't vote Republican but maybe they just won't vote.

Maybe not.

The flaming anti-gay nutballs are mostly also flaming anti-Obama nutballs, so this is unlikely to cost him any votes he would otherwise have had. On the other hand, it could strengthen him with one slipping constituency (see here, last two paragraphs).

Anonymous said...

RN's hate for Obama is showing. For RN to say Obama's position is purely political, without consideration that Obama's position has been evolving, is BS. Seems RN the protector of "individual freedom" for decades; did not accept same sex marriage as an individual freedom, until today (see RN's post). I guess only RN has the true conviction of an evolving position. Some day maybe his position that our fiscal mess is an equal responsibility of Dems and Reps will evolve to the truth. For RN to claim to be the soul of objective rationalism with individual freedom at its core, yet just today understand that gays individual freedom includes the right to marry, makes RN's evolving decision more self serving than his claim that Obama's evolving position is only based in politics. But I here no apology from RN for his support of discrimination against gays for decades until his political change on the same sex marriage issue, just today. RN's pompous attitude against those who disagree with him, is the base character of those who take 60 years to apply their freedom for all position, to those who are different them themselves. I call that intellectually slow, at best.

Rational Nation USA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rational Nation USA said...

Anon, you are really a epic piece of work. I won't sully the pages here describing exactly what that piece of work is.

http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2010/09/independent-conservatives-view-of-gay.html

The link above describes my position on same sex relationships as of September 2010. The basis for my position then, as well as now remains the same. The only explicit change is in me now accepting "the terminology of gay marriage" as opposed to "civil unions" or "sane sex marriage."

For the who will take the time to read and understand... I believe they will simply smile over the fact a simple change as occurred (especially if they are truly ones who accept progress as the basis of their ideological perspective) in my thinking. A subtle shift that is centered on a deeper degree of understanding.

As for anon, who in my view has a intolerant perverse sense, as well as a deep hate for me as a individual, and possibly for everyone who dares to differ from his views... can take a long walk off a very short pier. As short as his tolerance for differing views.

As for the reasonable progressives who frequent this fine site I'm quite sure you recognize and accept those with more conservative, libertarian, and classically liberal views.

All, have a wonderful Mother's Day.

Anonymous said...

From RN's recent post:

"However, until today I argued that same sex unions should not be considered marriages. Like so many I felt that marriage was between one man and one women, the traditional concept of marriage.

So you may be asking, what made this day different enough to change your position? Really it is quite simple. I was wrong."

RN's Republican double speak. I guess it depends what the definition of is, is.

Rational Nation USA said...

Anon, having fun yet? LMFAO at your obvious lack of intelligence and tolerance. You are without a doubt one of the .00001% of progressives who have burnt out a few too many cells of the grey matter smoking what I don't know nor could care.

How is it these days in Kentucky?

Anonymous said...

Your words RN, not mine.
Not surprising you cannot defend them, or make sense.
Hypocrites do get confused, but that does not excuse the hypocrisy.
Glad to have you on board, even if you had to be dragged and embarrassed by family and friends. In fact, that's how individuals usually change their discriminatory thinking.

Anonymous said...

Insults are your only response. Telling.

Rational Nation USA said...

Really Looked in the mirror lately?

You dind't answer my question.

Rational Nation USA said...

I have no need to defend.anything Jocko.

The confusion is all yours.

Anonymous said...

RN,
How many sites have you visited and cried, this is an unimportant issue, lets move on? That's what the KKK replied when asked about lynching blacks.
Your pattern is consistent: can't answer your own hypocrisy-throw insults.
You should talk more with your friends and relatives, maybe we can make a human being out of you. Doubtful.

Rational Nation USA said...

Talk about insults and hypocrisy. If being human were to mean being like you it gets a paas.

By the way, your tactics no longer work on me. I simply haven't the time nor desire. You are not worth my time.

Have a good day Smuk.

Anonymous said...

Right,
Which is why you play this childish game of having to have the last word. let the readers go through your comments and see if you talked anything serious, or just threw insults, which is what you always do.
Grab your sheets, the meeting is going on.

Rational Nation USA said...

Last word? Hm...