Gay love

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

No.

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by spence

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, you're hardly in a position here to question anyone else's facts.

I agree Obama did this to get votes. That was his intent. But I think it's a boneheaded move that will cost him more votes than it gets him. Obama already had a lock on the gay vote. IMHO opinion,supporting gay marriage hurts him with independents, as gay marriage has been almost universally rejected.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you're hardly in a position here to question anyone else's facts.

Based on your continued use of the word I really don't know what a fact means to you.

I agree Obama did this to get votes. That was his intent. But I think it's a boneheaded move that will cost him more votes than it gets him. Obama already had a lock on the gay vote. IMHO opinion,supporting gay marriage hurts him with independents, as gay marriage has been almost universally rejected.

The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

The objective is to position Obama as forward leaning and in contrast to Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters.

I'd wager this is part of a larger strategy and we'll see more ideas similar to this in the future.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Based on your continued use of the word I really don't know what a fact means to you.


The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

The objective is to position Obama as forward leaning and in contrast to Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters.

I'd wager this is part of a larger strategy and we'll see more ideas similar to this in the future.

-spence

"I really don't know what a fact means to you."

Then let me elucidate...it means the truth. For example, you kept saying that in ME, the gay marriage law was signed, but the legislature chose to delay implementation. I posted a link to show that your statement was factually incorrect. The public voted to strike down the law.

"Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters."

You're claiming that opposition to gay marriage is dated by independent voters. OK. North Carolina is not a state of hard-line conservatives, it's not Tea Party Central. Yet just this week, the voters in NC overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.

So you're saying that vote that just happened a few days ago, no longer reflects the political tone in that state? That vote is antiquated already? If they took another vote today, the results would be different? That's what you're saying?

Jamie: voters in NC rejected gay marriage this week.

Spence: That's old news, that position is now dated by independents.

Spence, I get that you really, really hope independent voters are swooning about how forward-thinking and enlightened Obama is. I understand you really, really want that to be the case. But that hope does not trump the reality of what happened in NC a few days ago.

That's the difference between us. I agree with you that gays should be able to marry. Unlike you, I recognize the reality that most people (or at least most people who vote) don't feel that way. I react to reality, you base your existence on what you wish reality looked like.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Then let me elucidate...it means the truth.

You're claiming that opposition to gay marriage is dated by independent voters. OK. North Carolina is not a state of hard-line conservatives, it's not Tea Party Central. Yet just this week, the voters in NC overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.

To clarify, since we are dealing in facts, NC, had already rejected same-sex marriage with a law... This was to make an amendment so it couldn't be struck down by a judge.

end of fact, begin opinion

I do think there is a huge influence of the money for the 'pro-(straight) marriage' side and more passionate turn-out for the anti-gay marriage side than the pro, but this may not explain all of the 20% gap in NC. I would like to know the breakdown of party affiliation and voter turn-out in NC, but I don't have time to look right now.

Something changes between the Gallup and other polls and voter turn-out though...

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Then let me elucidate...

elucidate - e·lu·ci·date - Make (something) clear; explain: "work that will help to elucidate this matter"; "they would not elucidate further".

Not going to lie, had to look that one up.............

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Then let me elucidate...it means the truth. For example, you kept saying that in ME, the gay marriage law was signed, but the legislature chose to delay implementation. I posted a link to show that your statement was factually incorrect. The public voted to strike down the law.

It was signed into law, the implementation was delayed and then it was struck down.

Your initial question asked if same sex marriage was ever approved via legislation rather than by the courts. I gave several examples of which Maine was one. Had your question been "are there any states today that have legislative approved measures" the answer would have not included Maine.

In the context of your question my response was factual.

You're claiming that opposition to gay marriage is dated by independent voters. OK. North Carolina is not a state of hard-line conservatives, it's not Tea Party Central. Yet just this week, the voters in NC overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.

Yes, it's a swing state but also one with a large black population and deep Baptist roots.

So you're saying that vote that just happened a few days ago, no longer reflects the political tone in that state? That vote is antiquated already? If they took another vote today, the results would be different? That's what you're saying?

No, but if you look at trends I think the vote is running against the current of public opinion which is moving in the other direction as a Nation.

The constitutional bans on same sex marriage (and even civil unions in NC) are really only going to slow down the inevitable.

Obama said it very well when he announced his position. His daughters have friends with gay parents, why should they be treated differently than anyone else?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

-spence

of course not....absolutely nothing....

Obama for America | 2012 | Store | LGBT for Obama - Collections

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

of course not....absolutely nothing....

Obama for America | 2012 | Store | LGBT for Obama - Collections

Nope.

-spence

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

of course not....absolutely nothing....

Obama for America | 2012 | Store | LGBT for Obama - Collections

...which was also around in 2008

but lets not let facts get in the way of whining.