BARACK OBAMA took cubic miles of guff for spending the last few years insisting his position on gay marriage was "evolving". Now he's finally come out and said what everybody knew he was eventually going to say: he thinks gay people should be allowed to marry the partner of their choice. This puts Mr Obama back in the locomotive of the train of civil rights for gay people, which is where the Democratic Party wants him to be. It's hard to fault him for making the move, on either political or moral grounds.
But it's probably bad for the cause of gay marriage. Until today, the issue had only a moderate partisan cast. Officially, the Republican Party was opposed to gay marriage, and conservatives quickly responded to Mr Obama's declaration by reaffirming their opposition. But the issue didn't have a high profile, and many Republicans of a more libertarian slant on social issues were steadily coming to the conclusion in recent years that there was no reason why gays shouldn't get married just like anybody else can.
As of today, gay marriage is once again a partisan issue at the heart of a presidential election campaign. Many Republicans who might have had flexible opinions as of yesterday are now going to find themselves psychologically inclined to move towards the party line. Mitt Romney will be forced, within the next hours or days, to come out with a full-throated argument against gay marriage. Republican office-holders will have to vocally support that position. Republican media outfits (Fox News, conservative talk radio, RedState and so forth) will have to join the attack. Millions of GOP voters who otherwise might have gradually reconciled themselves to gay marriage within the next few months will be held back by the ideological alignments created in this presidential campaign.
The announcement is almost certain to help, not hurt, Mr Obama's re-election effort. Those who are radicalised against gay marriage by this announcement weren't going to vote for Mr Obama anyway; they are Republican voters who might have been on the fence about gay marriage. Almost no Democratic-leaning voters will switch or withhold their votes over this announcement. But many Democrats will be enthused to see Mr Obama take leadership on an issue of moral consequence in which they fervently believe. Voter turnout will rise; the tone of support for Mr Obama will become more emphatic. There will be a stronger sense that Mr Obama stands for a vision of America profoundly different from that of Mr Romney. The move may help re-elect a president who supports gay marriage. But my feeling is that it will delay the moment when support for the right of gays to marry becomes a widespread American consensus.
(Photo credit: AFP)
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
How can this newspaper believe real debate won't fuel discussion and perhaps even reveal insight on the issue? For too long too many of us have been silent on gay marriage. Let the full-throated arguments begin.
This is one of those issues which is hard for a christian to decide which side one should take, to support or not to.
For sure, I think that today was the same day that Jesus is on this planet, he would not even bother talking about it. He would rather focus on social agenda with more weight like poverty,homelessness, child abuse.
I am pretty sure that Jesus would walk through a farm and find a 'good homo' just like he narrated the story of good samaritan, or, even meet 'the samaritan gay'.
Sexuality would remain a personal issue for individuals to battle in their conscience, while child abuse, corruption, lobbying, bail outs would take centre stage in Jesus's message.
I think some provocative poinnts have been made here. I didn't support Obama in his first candidacy, and have been perhaps overly critical throughout his term. I do however admire his support on this issue, but as with all policticians I doubt sincerity over advantage. I think this should be a non-issue, for our culture and especially for the next election. It bothers me that Christians seem to be the most opposed to gay marriage. Being Christian it seems that the church is putting more weight on the US government to sanctify marriage, when this validity has traditionally been reserved for God. In any case, with all the problems that our nation currently faces, to vote one way or the other on this issue alone is ridiculous.
Am totally against gay marriage, and I think this route will be THE BLACK HOLE In Democratic Party's history.
Liberal concepts doesn't mean moral corruption, and people should be aware of the future of the humanity, Gay marriages can be meant as the destroying of our values and our natural creations. Liberal concepts can be shown in many different great ways instead of joining the world of looseness.
Gay so-called 'marriage' is now the modern ideal of the democrat-party.
/Obama is its titular head.
Charming. Other people's marriages are non of your business, and the fact that you and others have made it your mission to prevent their happiness speaks volumes about your so-called values and morality.
Uncharming. My marriage is none of the business of the radical homosexuals who want to bastardize the 6,000+ year definition of marriage and change it, i.e. everyone's, to satisfy their carnal wishes.
/Their mission to prevent my happiness, speaks volumes about their immorality.
6,000+ year definition of marriage? Do you mean that interracial marriage is still forbidden, women do not choose their husbands, nobody can get a divorce, men have the right to rape their wives, and women are considered property to be sold by their parents?
Believe you or not, the definition of marriage has changed dramatically in the last 6,000 years.
Think of the union of man and woman; if you can.
Those who support destroying the 6,000+ year definition of marriage are unmoored from scientific facts, facts about biology that, unlike research into pregnancy, didn't require recent technological advances.
Men and women aren't just different, they're biologically complementary.
/And if you've never heard, homosexuality is not in the definition of marriage.
Man and woman, and woman, and woman, and woman, and woman... you mean, surely? That's the biblical definition in the entirety of the Old Testament and portions of the New (enough portions that Martin Luther famously said polygamy isn't a problem). ONE man, ONE woman? Not all that old a concept, comparatively.
Not to mention that it's very strange you think YOU're the one being attacked when OTHER people decide they want to marry someone of the same sex. How is that?
Really, the only logical position is to leave marriage up to the churches, and for the state to just give everybody civil unions with the exact same rights and duties and tax code implications. Make civil unions a contract issue between consenting adults and marriage a moral and religious issue. Don't like gay marriage? Don't join a church that allows it.
HOWPEACE - Clearly you are a brainwashed fundamentalist who has been taught to hate and despise anyone different than yourself in the name of God. This both sickens and appalls me. It is precisely this type of Right Wing extremism that is undermining everything America historically stood for. Disgusting
Your marriage must suck if it depends on preventing others from marrying.
You want to hear a secret? I don't and they don't give a toss about your marriage. They just want the same rights you have, nothing else.
You talk of their "carnal wishes". Are you really so uninformed that you think homosexuality is only about sex? These people are attracted to, and fall in love with, people of their own sex. Just like you fell in love with your wife. They were born that way, and it's completely harmless to you.
I can't believe you feel you have the right to prevent them from marrying the person they love.
@LoneWolfEthos.
If you believe nature shows us the way, you may be dismayed to read that gay couples exist in most of the mammal species.
Are you afraid that you will be forced into a gay marriage? Why do you care so much? Live & let live.
Church has nothing to do with the original, traditional definition of marriage. ... And, I never said I didn't "like" gay so-called 'marriage'.
/Please do your homework before popping off.
You might be dismayed to know that homosexuality in the animal kingdom produces nothing.
All people, whatever their sexual proclivities, have equal dignity, worth, and basic rights, by virtue of being human beings.
That does not give a subset of people the right to bastardize and destroy the definition of marriage, and to make marriage unintelligible.
We will not make our society more civilized by detaching one of our central institutions, marriage, from its civilizing task.
Conservatives don't really care what Obama says about gay so-called 'marriage' because we assume he's being insincere most if not all of the time. It's merely amusing to watch Barry Obama wriggle as he tries to make all of his base elements happy without alienating any of them!
/What's next after homosexual 'marriage'; indentured liberty?
"You might be dismayed to know that homosexuality in the animal kingdom produces nothing."
True.
So we probably shouldn't allow men and women with reproductive issues to marry. Nor should we allow women who have been through menopause to marry. And as for those people who don't want children - well they shouldn't even be allowed to contemplate the idea.
Customs come and go, and vary by time and place, but the traditional institution of marriage has endured through millennia, for very good reason.
/For some, common sense seems to have gone by the wayside.
"/For some, common sense seems to have gone by the wayside"
And for others, intelligence
Yes, that would apply to America's first gay-President.
"I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," Barry Obama told ABC News last week.
/The supine Media fawned over this "evolution" in Obama's thoughtlessness of the subject.
You appear to have a poor grasp on your own arguments. "Marriage" is not a static concept; what marriage means has shifted many, many times over the course of human history, and produced many different manifestations across many different cultures. A single definition of marriage that has endured through millennia DOES NOT EXIST.
Sadly, you appear to have a non-existent grasp the birds and the bees, because the traditional institution of marriage has endured through millennia, for very good reason.
/Marriage, for 6,000+ years, has been the union of a man and woman.
That's called sex. No institution required.
In your case, then, marriage is a counter-cultural institution.
American history proves that traditional marriage is important for the foundation of any healthy society. Marriage benefits children, and it benefits women, --the bearers of those children.
"Traditional marriage," generally for the purpose or with the intention of having children, is obviously necessary for the advancement of society. No one is arguing that. Of course we need to produce offspring in order to continue as a species.
But why does that mean that gay marriage shouldn't exist? A gay man or woman isn't just going to enter into a "traditional marriage" for funsies. They wouldn't be producing children or participating in the "foundation of any healthy society," as you put it, anyway. Giving them the right to marry, which is such an obvious and simple conclusion that I have trouble comprehending how anyone thinks differently, doesn't take away from that. Society would continue to advance as it always has - the only difference is that millions of persecuted homosexuals would finally have the rights they should never have been denied. As you said, "All people, whatever their sexual proclivities, have equal dignity, worth, and basic rights, by virtue of being human beings." So how about we acknowledge that in our laws?
America's first gay-President (who's proved he utterly lacks moral conviction) has sided with those who want to destroy marriage by declaring that mothers and fathers are expendable, --and that even complementary sexes don't matter.
Under the Leftist view, marriage is whatever two adults want it to be.
Once these ideas are accepted, can you explain why marriage should involve only two people? --and not include other new ideas that you dream up?
/You want to "continue as a species" on the one hand, and undermine it's moral foundation on the other.
"American history"? Which American history? That of the U.S.? 230 years are a far cry from the 6,000 you like to cite, and in any case attitudes towards different aspects of marriage have shifted quite a bit from 1776 to today in the wider populace; they have not stayed static and they will continue to evolve, whether you like it or not. Colonial history? Their understanding of marriage included de facto polygamy, the toleration of misstresses, arranged marriages, and the subjugation of women. Native American history? Their understanding of marriage varied wildly from tribe to tribe; both polygamy and same-sex relationships were part of a rich tapestry.
The claim that "traditional marriage" as you understand it - one man, one woman - is as old as civilisation is false. The claim that that is the only definition of marriage is false. The claim that any instituation of any sort (much less the specific instituation of marriage) is necessary for reproduction is false. The claim that any other position must logically be morally corrupt flies in the face of logic and common sense. Your arguments are supported by no evidence, but only by gut feelings and oversimplifications. You are free to hold those opinions, of course, but they *are* opinions (misinformed and uneducated though they may be), not truth.
Did you just arrive from Alpha Centauri? (What is marriage like there?)
Traditional marriage, here, with the complementary sexes is as old as mankind.
/Homosexual, so-called 'marriage', is a perverse view of mankind.
You continue to not get that marriage is a social construct and, as such, subject to change. It is not the same as intercourse and sexual reproduction, which are subject to biological limitations (for the moment).
Sir, you continue not to get that homosexual "marriage" is a perverse social construct and, as such, subject to rejection.
In every society there should be a "General Rules" or "General behaviors". If Democratic Party wont pay attention to these rules, they will lead the American Dream to nowhere.
What's your opinion if I decided to ride my Giraffe on The Fifth Avenue in New york City? Why you didn't said that they should put a law which can allow people to do this? bearing in mind that the Giraffe is a tame animal :).
Everything has it's limit, I didn't say that we should punish gay people, but at least we have to not supporting them.
Am supporting the left wing, and the Democratic Party. I don't taught to hate, I taught how to live in a natural atmosphere, and how to believe in liberty not to "Crapirty" ;).
I learned how to put a book on my table, not to put a table on my book. By going to this route we will even present ourselves as "The Pioneers of freedom".
Anyway, I respect your opinion and thank you.
It would be fun if one could ride a giraffe on Fifth Avenue. I'm not sure that experience is in such great demand, however, and it would cause a lot of trouble for traffic.
Gay marriage, however, is in demand. Some gay people want to marry the person they love, but they aren't allowed. Gay marriage would cause little or no trouble for other people.
I'm sorry, but gay marriage is not comparable to riding a giraffe down Fifth Avenue.
And I support gay rights, because some of my best friends are gay, and I find it mad that they don't have the same rights I do, because of their sexuality, or rather, the distaste for their sexuality on the part of others.
I think supporting the gay marriage displays the democratic of the civil society espcially for USA.We needn't take the political strategy into considerations for every thing.
Democracy has no part of Ethical behavior.
/Democracy is mob rule; inherently evil.
wrong.. a failed, not workin, democracy leads to mob rule... when the people feel that the leaders thay have elected to power have failed them, it is then that a mob ensues. This is called Anarchy, not democracy!!!
No. The definition of democracy: 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Pure democracy is mob rule.
(Democracy can descend into anarchy.)
/This is why the United States is a representative republic.
Your alternative?
Theocracy...like in Iran?
No need for an alternative. (Why would anyone want to revert to the 7th century?)
/America's representative republic is the best form of government for a free people.
You forget that the U.S. form of government and constitution has more to do with how to set up government for a group of nominally independent "states" to get along, with very different population sizes...
That's because our Founders were wary of Centralized government. ... This allows the Federal government to operate only within defined spheres of jurisdiction.
/We like it that way.
I respectfully disagree with the author's opinion in this article. I still love the Economist, but this is about the most flawed reasoning I've seen in recent years from this newspaper.
Making a change requires taking a powerful stand. Would "don't ask don't tell" have been abolished without Obama's support? Probably yes, but it wouldn't have been in this presidency and perhaps not even in the next. Would slavery have been abolished without Abe Lincoln's fierceful battle for it? Most likely yes, but perhaps not in his generation, or even the next.
Someone has to take the first step. A sitting president coming out in favor of this, making it a campaign issue and re-opening the public debate, is most certainly a step forward, no matter how you spin it. If the gay community had to wait for the republican party to publicly come out in favor of gay rights on their own, I'm afraid it could've been a long wait.
With the president in favor, we'll soon have the rest of his party following suit. Congress is divided. And a house divided cannot stand. As Fox News anchor Shep Smith rightfully put it: Obama is on the right side of history on this.
To conclude, in Lincoln's own words, which are still remarkably accurate on the current issue:
A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.
The main obstacle to gay marriage is the monetary dilemma of the payment of pension and retirement benefits to the surviving spouse. Since gay people do not have a surviving spouse, the pension or retirement plan does not have to pay anything to the surviving "partner". It is all about money.
That's an issue (and an interesting point) but it's not the main obstacle to gay marriage. The main obstacle is that many believe that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of a being who made everything, including appendices and Noel Edmonds. Such believers are not going to be swayed by rational debate (they believe Noel Edmonds was created by divine power, for Buddha's sake!).
Surely the right to marriage Obama is talking about is the legal right to marriage, not the christian religious sacrament? It intrigues me as a foreign observer to see how this discussion often descends into an interpretation of bible quotes.
Are you saying that Obama's professed Christian faith should not have any influence on his stance on issues? For instance, Christians believe in caring for the poor, but since this is just Obama's personal religious belief, it should not have any influence on his policy stance? What is the point of such castrated faith?
You don't need to be a christian to beleive that it's morally right to care for the poor. Why can't one be christian and support gay rights aswell? It's unorthordox, but pioneering.
You don't need to. But if Obama professes to be a Christian, and he doesn't care about the poor, then I see a contradiction in his belief.
As a long time Democrat supporter, I have always preferred that our executive branch leaders focus on the economy and job creation. I can accept our leaders not taking a stance on other divisive but non-core issues.
If someone really wants to take a stance on these issues, I expect it to be consistent with his other professed views. Unfortunately, I just don't see how Obama can reconcile his support of gay marriage and his professed Christian faith. As per the Bible, the church would be the bride of Christ, and Christ is the head of the church. I just don't see how Obama can reconcile this core Christian belief with gay marriage.
That's an incredibly naive view of the role of personal belief for politicians. Do you think George Bush jnr was a christian? Harness the believers/non-believers for your own ends, that's the game that has to be played if you want to get to/stay in the White House. The mormon 'faith' (it's about as logically credible as freemasonry and no less powerful, unfortunately) epitomises this. Fortunately, Romney's on the wrong side of the debate. The anti-gay mob will pipe down in time, just as the racists did over Jim Crow and segregation and opposing gay marriage as a credible political strategy will evaporate. Catholics and abortion is another example to illustrate the point.
There is nothing naive about it. I did not vote for George W. Bush. It's one thing to profess to be a Christian but fail in some respect (eg. committed adultery). It's another thing to profess to be a Christian and then say adultery is okay.
In regards to segregation, last I check, MLK was a pastor.
Only focussing on economic issues took us to where we stand today. Life is about so much more than economics. And i definitely expect the political leaders to actively steer discussions on the main Social issues. There are up to 10 percent gay males. As they will not change their way of living as we tell them that we cannot find support for homosexuality in the bible we do have to make responsible politics for the life of all groups. Andrew, this is a Core-issue!
I agree that life is about more than economics. However, in my view, with regard to social issues, the battles need to be fought from the ground up, not top down. Steering discussion, sure, but the focus should be on the economic front, because that's the core responsibility, and because when a country's economic strength wanes, there would be a whole host of ills both domestic and abroad that it would no longer have the wherewithal to tackle. Additionally, I am not totally comfortable with the "alliance" of Christians with the right. Their rhetoric often reminds me of the bad shepherds and fat sheep of Ezekiel 34.
"I just don't see how Obama can reconcile this core Christian belief with gay marriage."
How about by recognising that God created us free and that imposing one's values over others (instead of evangelising) is anti-Christian to its core? Even if you consider homosexuality to be a sin, government has no role in preventing people from sinning. Faith is a personal relationship one chooses to have with God - not a public affair.
I believe Americans isn't only consist of christian. So why bother the political movement with christian tradition and stuff? Obama isn't running the church though. He's leading a very diverse country. After all its only politics.
How can any Christian reconcile their religious beliefs if they patronize and support businesses that run on Sundays? Should these Christians be conflicted about their beliefs?
Exodus 31:15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
Or do you, Mr. Chang, not take a stance on any issue dictated by the Bible just in case you may conflict with it?
That's a very narrow view that makes me think you haven't met many if any gay Christians. Just because you don't understand how they reconcile it with your interpretation of their faith doesn't mean it's not possible.
Another clear example of how out of touch TE is with mainstream American values. Most states(30) have passed anti-gay marriage laws and/or referenda with overwhelming majorities. What should be especially concerning to the Obama camp is that most swing-states fall in this category. Please, TE reporters, spend some time outside Manhattan, Washington DC, San Francisco in order to cure your elitist liberal bias.
it's elitist for a reason, fink about it.
Another clear examole how out of touch TE is with mainstream American values. Most states(30) have passed anti-gay marriage laws and/or referenda with overwhelming majorities. What should be especially concerning to the Obama camp is that most swing-states fall in this category. Please, TE reporters, spend some time outside Manhattan, Washington DC, San Francisco in order to cure your elitist liberal bias.
So what?! At some point you have to take a stand. All of the fence sitting right wingers who didn't really care weren't going to stay that way for long. They were just waiting for a reason. They have one now. They would have had one eventually.
You don't fight a battle by ignoring the conflict.
We must not protect gays in anyway. Either from marriage dangers.
I am so confused about this. One set of people, with Biblical support, believe that marriage is a God-created institution that represents the life-long union of a genetic man and a genetic woman. Another set cries out for equal rights, denounces the traditionalists as homophobes, etc., etc. What really messes me up is that the traditionalists are denying homosexuals nothing; homosexuals are free to do whatever they want and to call their unions whatever they want, but calling it marriage is a mis-classification. By definition, homosexual unions can't be marriages.
That's all, and there's really nothing more to it.
Constition Man, you do realize that definitions are ever evolving, right? Only religion has made a man and woman a part of this "definition"... enough said.
Evidently, you're not confused at all. You think it's perfectly okay to forbid people to marry because of how they were born.
I would be "crying out" for equal rights too, if the majority was preventing me from marrying the person I loved, casting it as though my happiness was a threat to theirs.
The views you're defending are an abomination, just like racism is.
It never ceases to amaze me how out of touch and how powerful are the forces of liberalism on the Economist's journalists reporting and analyzing American politics.
Most really knowledgeable political analyst would have written the title in exact reverse to the one by The Economist: Good for Gays, bad for Obama.
And this is an easy one because the facts are already there just to be quoted; it is not a question of opinion. In the United States there are already 30 states that have passed legislation and amendments to their state constitutions making marriage strictly between a man and a woman. Only 7 states have passed legislation approving the marriage between gay couples. There: 30 versus 7.
Furthermore, national public polls show an even tied between those in favor and those against, with a 50/50. However, in every state where a referendum has been executed or the legislation has been put to the voters approval, the vote has been by far in favor of restriction between a man and a woman. The last vote in North Carolina was 60/40 in favor. When the voters have the confidentiality of the voting booth, they vote against gays, time and time again.
The national polls are skewed in favor of gays because of the great weight that California, New York, and other large liberal states have in the population count. But that works against Obama during the election where nobody is counting on those states to defeat Obama. It is obvious that the great majority of the states that are on the fence (purple states) like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc., already have or will likely have legislation approving marriage only between a man and a women. The Economist disregards completely the fact that presidential elections in the US are won by winning each state at a time, and not by popular vote.
A great source of American political analysis is www.AmericasChronicle.com
The conclusion is that the election has turned against Obama due to his now pro-gay position.
You sound like you are a homophobe and if you are a fan of Ayn Rand you probably do have some type of mental disorder.
If you think this magazine is so out of touch then don't read it. Go vote against a gay and feel good about it. More power to you. Other than this, you aren't adding anything.
Comments like yours are the reason it is becoming impossible in America for compromise or even civil dialogue between left and right. No where in John-Galt10's comments did he espouse an anti-gay position, he recited a fairly factual account of recent vents, and you, like a typically 'tolerant' liberal, went off with insults, trying to shut down a legitimate line of discussion because YOU don't like the content. Maybe you are the one with the mental disorder.
I think you're ignoring what's been going on in the Red states - namely that a number of states have been passing laws and state constitutional admendments (sp?) to ban gay marriage which in my opinion is wrong on a number of levels. It's not at all clear that the Bible itself bans committed gay relationships, and I see no reason why the government should be banning them anyway, as we're not a theocracy despite the fact that many people wish otherwise.
the bible not clear?! are you all fooling yourselves? read this verse :
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
christianity is not just against homosexuality but also , adultery , extramarital sex , lust , praising our mortal bodies , prostitution .......................................
my opinion is everyone has all civilian rights to do and be whatever they want ( civilian marriage for example ) but NOT IN CHURCH , christianity is very clear regarding these issues , homosexuality is a sin which should never be justified ......but if someone loves the lord from all his heart and repents and is willing to try to take the rough road to heaven and to resist all the evil bodily urges and desires , asking for god's help all the way , not just the church but God himself is waiting for him/her with open arms .
Good that the US is still ruled by a constitution and not by a religious book, despite the efforts of republicans to turn it into an Americanistan, ruled by god sent leaders like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
Leftists never read the Bible. When they do they think they know what it says. Hilarious!
It was funny to watch Obama's sloppy, unserious second-in-command, Biden, get all the credit for moral courage by forthrightly endorsing homosexual marriage on Meet the De-Pressed
/Hopefully, Obama's position will now be a liability for him.
Leftists think the Bible consists of Creation, Leviticus, the analects of Jesus, and the Rapture.
That's terrific.
Oh, that most leftists would un-restrain their radicalism and learn about each of these. Understanding would follow in regards to righteousness and unrighteousness.
I'm a left-leaning independent atheist, and I read the Bible.
The Bible may say all that, but the verse doesn't say men who marry men will not inherit the kingdom of god. In fact, nowhere does the Bible say that two men may not marry each other.
That's wonderful; it's the most widely read book in the world.
For some scoffers there's no accounting for literacy.
/Plain meaning is lost on some.
Pretty convenient for you that Jesus wasn't gay, huh? Even though he hung out with an awful lot of men, come to think of it.
But imagine that it had been the other way round, that heterosexuality had been described as sinful. I'd like to see you "take the rough road to heaven and to resist all the evil bodily urges and desires".
Grow up and stop trying to back up your homophobia by quoting a 2,000 year old book about a man in the sky.
I have a challenge for you: Do a word study on the word that you have above translated to mean "men who have sex with men". You'll find that there's almost no agreement amongst theologians throughout history as to what the word means. Most respected theologians will admit that although they have theories they cannot be certain. There was, in fact, a period of several hundred years when it was even translated as masturbate.
If you do serious theological study on both Old and New Testament passages used today to discuss homosexuality, you'll find that they're actually far less clear then most of us believe, and that's because most of us have never sat with a stack of commentaries and Hebrew and Greek dictionaries. If you're serious about doctrine, take up this challenge. I'd be very surprised if you continued to believe the case was as clear as you do now.
Are those books not parts of the bible?
Excellent dropping Obama, that bombshell resides now in the annals of Democratic moments of Truth. If nothing else I applaud Obama's sincerity on this issue.
I can not believe you started an entire paragraph with the word "But" !
Economist you are wrong because Obama has just lost my vote over this!
You swayed your entire vote because you are that homophobic? Shocking. Supporting gay marriage is not going to do ANYTHING to society except... let gay people get married. Why not focus on more important things like foreign policy or ecomomic issues? You know, things that actually affect not just the US but the rest of the world.
You swayed your entire vote because you are that homophobic? Shocking. Supporting gay marriage is not going to do ANYTHING to society except... let gay people get married. Why not focus on more important things like foreign policy or ecomomic issues? You know, things that actually affect not just the US but the rest of the world.
Well Obama thought enough of it to take a position - a deeply unpopular one among Americans at large.
Can somebody please explain to me why gay marriage should even be a presidential election issue?
Congress makes laws in the United States, the judiciary rules on whether they are constitutional, and the president merely enforces them. In other words, Obama is not going to simply legalize gay marriage upon reelection. That's not his job; he's only spoken in support of the concept. Voting for or against Obama will have no bearing on the inexorable movement that is gay marriage.
I would think that regardless of the man's personal views, voters should make their choice in November based on how they feel the Obama administration has handled the economy, foreign policy, and civil liberties as per the constitution. Aren't these the issues worth politicizing?
This is why I want to abolish the presidential veto. Strip him of any legislative authority so there's no confusion.
"I would think that regardless of the man's personal views, voters should make their choice in November based on how they feel the Obama administration has handled the economy, foreign policy, and civil liberties as per the constitution. Aren't these the issues worth politicizing??"
In that case Obama loses - big