Obama becomes the first president in history

[pastafarian]

to back same sex marriage.


political suicide or a brave step forward?


a sideline electoral issue has now become a major debating point in the US.

whatever your views on the subject the next presidential election race just became even more interesting

 

[dingodan]

Or something he thought would be politically expedient.

IMO marriage is between a couple and a priest.

 

[codemanh]

Or something he thought would be politically expedient.

IMO marriage is between a couple and a priest.

The thing is, is that marriage also holds economic benefits, such as better insurance plans, tax breaks, among others. In my opinion, if marriage is going to hold those benefits, it shouldn't have to be a religious affair.

 

[dingodan]

The thing is, is that marriage also holds economic benefits, such as better insurance plans, tax breaks, among others. In my opinion, if marriage is going to hold those benefits, it shouldn't have to be a religious affair.

Well marriage is a religious sacrament.

But even if you disagree, you can have your definition of marriage, I can have my definition of marriage, I cannot force my definition on you, and you cannot force your definition on me. Doesn't that sound fair? Rather than writing a law to force one set of views on everybody.

As for spousal benefits that has little to do with marriage. There is no reason that other kinds of partnerships can't be recognized, but besides if a priest refuses to marry a gay couple, I'm sure that couple can find a priest who will marry them. The government has no place in this.

 

[Frutos]

Well marriage is a religious sacrament.

So if a heterosexual couple have a ceremony in a registry office and conducted by a registrar, they aren't married because it wasn't a religious ceremony?

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

So if a heterosexual couple have a ceremony in a registry office and conducted by a registrar, they aren't married because it wasn't a religious ceremony?

Agreed. Marriage today is much more of a state insitution than it is a religious one.

For me, this is where the position of the church on gay marriage has been somewhat inconsistent. The church's traditional view has been that marriage has been the coming together of a man and a woman, before God. For a long time now they have recognised marriages that have been conducted in secular ceremonies, but they refuse to budge on the man and woman part. I can understand their opposition to gay marriages, but I think I'd respect their position a lot more if they were equally vocal about their opposition to secular weddings.

 

[beorhthelm]

So if a heterosexual couple have a ceremony in a registry office and conducted by a registrar, they aren't married because it wasn't a religious ceremony?

its stupid isnt it? the churches find themselfs in quite a stupid position, not being against non-religious marriage but insisting "marriage" can only be defined on their terms. why do we still allow the sky god worshipers to dictate things to us.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

A politically brave decision. Good to see a politician showing some backbone in the face of the religious right.

 

[pastafarian]

A politically brave decision. Good to see a politician showing some backbone in the face of the religious right.

i agree,however those in the religious coloured community that were republicans but voted for obama and change last time around are confused as hell today

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I can understand their opposition to gay marriages, but I think I'd respect their position a lot more if they were equally vocal about their opposition to secular weddings.

The Church of England is in no position to object to secular marriages. Up until the early 19th century, the State required ALL legal marriages in England and Wales to take place in the Church of England and to be registered by the Church of England which was, in effect, a branch of the State. They lost their monopoly when civil registration was introduced in 1837. They are not going to get it back.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Let's be honest, he's doing it because their gay lobby will pump huge amounts of money into his election coffers.

Like the vast majority of people he probably couldn't give a shit either way.

 

[Simster]

A politically brave decision. Good to see a politician showing some backbone in the face of the religious right.

Whilst I agree that it is the right decision in the face of religious intransigence, isn't this simply the American equivalent of banning fox hunting? i.e. he certainly has right on his side from the point of view of making his country a fairer place, but America has far bigger problems to solve than this.

Let's be honest, he's doing it because their gay lobby will pump huge amounts of money into his election coffers.

Like the vast majority of people he probably couldn't give a shit either way.

I don't agree. I think he's doing it to mask his failure to get the economy moving.

 

[pork pie]

to back same sex marriage.


political suicide or a brave step forward?


a sideline electoral issue has now become a major debating point in the US.

whatever your views on the subject the next presidential election race just became even more interesting

He should be an ideal candidate for Mayor of Brighton (and Hove actually) if he ever needs a job!

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I don't agree. I think he's doing it to mask his failure to get the economy moving.

Which is while he'll need huge amounts of money to pay the marketing spin doctors to paint his tenure in a positive light.

 

[brunswick]

it is total diversion from all the control laws he is passing, his wall street mates, and all the bombs he is dropping.

whether a gay couple have a piece of paper or not makes no real difference at all to anything real.

some americans are sooo stupid.

 

[Simster]

Which is while he'll need huge amounts of money to pay the marketing spin doctors to paint his tenure in a positive light.

But your logic seems flawed to me. If that was all it was about, I'm sure he could have courted much wealthier lobbies than gay rights. The NRA, for example, or various banking interests?

 

[Badger]

The Church of England is in no position to object to secular marriages. Up until the early 19th century, the State required ALL legal marriages in England and Wales to take place in the Church of England and to be registered by the Church of England which was, in effect, a branch of the State. They lost their monopoly when civil registration was introduced in 1837. They are not going to get it back.

Indeed, it does annoy me when they wheel out the Archbishop of Canterbury to give his opinions on political matters as if he gets to make the decisions. Let him wear his cape in his little make believe world and leave the important decisions to the politicians.

 

[Biscuit]

It's 2012 ffs. Let gay people marry, and allow them the same legal protection that hetrosexual marriages enjoy.

 

[pastafarian]

Let's be honest, he's doing it because their gay lobby will pump huge amounts of money into his election coffers.

Like the vast majority of people he probably couldn't give a shit either way.

some today are calling him a religious hypocrite (for the obvious reasons)

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

But your logic seems flawed to me. If that was all it was about, I'm sure he could have courted much wealthier lobbies than gay rights. The NRA, for example, or various banking interests?

The NRA aren't and never will be supporters of the Democrats. The vast majority of their support goes to the Republicans.

You underestimate the power the gay lobby hold especially in places like Hollywood where they can influence media/celebrities to rally for their cause.