2012 candidates for gay marriage

[pronua]

(Is this the right section?)
Am I the only one who feels like the near future for gay rights in the US is hopeless? The major 2012 presidential candidates are against gay marriage, and it really upsets me.

[Revan]

*huggles* Honey, Obama is against gay marriage yet look at everything he's done. IT could still happen. And do NOT look at the Republican candidates, side from Fred Karger, you know they're all obsessed with NOT doing gay marriage.

[Nightmaric]

Ron Paul seems like the most progressive of the republicans. He hates gays but he voted for the repeal of DADT because he said he had no constitutional backing of DADT. I like him the best other than Obama.

[Emberstone]

obama was for gay marriage before he decided to run for the white house, when he pulled back his support for it so it would not be a devisive issue to the moderate and independents. he has spent the last three or so years saying his views on the matter are evolving, and has then focused a lot of time on repealing homophobic laws. when he is relected, he will be free from the scrouge of relection campaigns, which a first term presiedent basically does from the moment they finish their innaguration address. He can then come out once more in support of it, since he cant run for a third term anyways.

its common with devisive issues, and both parties presidential cannidates do it.

Fred Karger and govener colemen were the only republicans who would support the constitutional mandate of equal and due process under the law in regards to marriage rights. neither of them ever got attention because the right wing machine wont tolerate differences within social issues.

[Shades of Gray]

Originally Posted by Nightmaric

Ron Paul seems like the most progressive of the republicans. He hates gays but he voted for the repeal of DADT because he said he had no constitutional backing of DADT. I like him the best other than Obama.

Ron Paul hates gays? Do you have actual evidence of this? The one time I've heard him speak of an LGBT issue he didn't seem to harbor any hatred - heck, it felt like a sympathetic tone, if anything. But I could be biased with that and don't follow him religiously - just wondering if you could enlighten me on that claim of hatred?

As far as the potential candidates - yeah, the remotely electable Republicans (i.e., Romney and Gingrich) would not support federal legalization of gay marriage, but I doubt they could be bothered with trying to ban it when there are so many other issues going on. And even if they did aggressively seek to federally ban gay marriage - let's be honest - none of these weak republican candidates have a shot against Obama.

Hopefully the creeping integration of social liberalization in our culture would eventually give Obama the go-ahead for a federal bill, but that's never assured and we'll see what happens. Even with that, you'd think the majority of states will eventually legalize it.

And I'm just throwing this out there - don't know much of the potential here - but I think and hope that maybe Jill Biden's involvement in the push for LGBT rights could possibly develop into a push for some sort of gay marriage bill. Or am I way off the mark there?

[lazyboy]

Originally Posted by Emberstone

obama was for gay marriage before he decided to run for the white house, when he pulled back his support for it so it would not be a devisive issue to the moderate and independents. he has spent the last three or so years saying his views on the matter are evolving, and has then focused a lot of time on repealing homophobic laws. when he is relected, he will be free from the scrouge of relection campaigns, which a first term presiedent basically does from the moment they finish their innaguration address. He can then come out once more in support of it, since he cant run for a third term anyways.

its common with devisive issues, and both parties presidential cannidates do it.

Fred Karger and govener colemen were the only republicans who would support the constitutional mandate of equal and due process under the law in regards to marriage rights. neither of them ever got attention because the right wing machine wont tolerate differences within social issues.

I agree. I feel Obama is sympathetic to the gay rights cause in the US, but cannot openly take a pro-gay stance, since there seem to be an awful lot of people in the US Congress who want to take him down, or undo anything he tries to do. It appeared in the beginning that he was trying to form a more co-operative government for you, but sadly, it wasn't to be. There are too many people who are there to serve their own interests. Judging by the fight he's had to wage with issues such as health care, taking a divisive stance like that would've been like committing political suicide, so he's had to pull back on some of his early positions. After a second election, he no longer needs to fear that.

In general, I think Obama is your best bet.

[RedState]

Of the Republicans, I would say Ron Paul. Rep. Paul doesn't necessarily support the concept, but he feels that it's none of the Federal Government's business...and I agree with him. I seem to remember him saying that it should be a state issue.

Gov. Romney and Speaker Gingrich are both for "traditional marriage"...whatever that means.

Sen. Santourm is dead set against anything having to do with this issue.

President Obama is not a proponent of gay marriage.

All in all, most independent voters don't mind if a candidate is against gay marriage (in other words, they are not going to base their vote solely on that issue) but if they get a wiff of intolerance they will turn away from that particular candidate..which is one of Santourm's problems at the moment.

[InsertNameHere]

Ron Paul said he isn't for gay rights, but if the state feels they need to have it, then he isn't against that.

Honestly, I would totally vote for him over Obama if he could actually get through. Obama has been a terrible president. -_- I may have more liberal opinions than Republican, but IMO, Ron Paul just seems like the better candidate.

[Pseudojim]

is Nader running again? Hehehe

[Noir]

I do remember my mother telling me that when a hospital in Florida didn't let a lesbian see her spouse when she was dying that Obama personally called her to apologize. I don't know if it's true or not, but that carried some weight with me.

[Revan]

Originally Posted by InsertNameHere

Ron Paul said he isn't for gay rights, but if the state feels they need to have it, then he isn't against that.

Honestly, I would totally vote for him over Obama if he could actually get through. Obama has been a terrible president. -_- I may have more liberal opinions than Republican, but IMO, Ron Paul just seems like the better candidate.

Would love to hear your reasons for why Obama wasn't a good president....

[Shevanel]

Originally Posted by Revan

Would love to hear your reasons for why Obama wasn't a good president....

I'm not going to say he was a BAD president, but I'll give you one (since I'm not particularly a fan)

Obama signed ACTA

Think of it like a super SOPA, except more global. (lawl, Super SOPA.)

[Pseudojim]

Originally Posted by Revan

Would love to hear your reasons for why Obama wasn't a good president....

There was a good post related to this on a great blog i read. It's in the spoiler foldout of this post because it's huge.

Spoiler

Why do "Progressives" support President Obama ?
That's the key question asked by Glenn Greenwald in a Salon column:
The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested... He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth...

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law... He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs... He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government... Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before...

The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for President who has done all of that... I know it’s annoying and miserable to hear. Progressives like to think of themselves as the faction that stands for peace, opposes wars, believes in due process and civil liberties, distrusts the military-industrial complex, supports candidates who are devoted to individual rights, transparency and economic equality.
Although he does NOT endorse or support Ron Paul's candidacy, Greenwald then makes the point that Paul is, in many regards, more progressive than Obama:
The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views...

His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?..

I wish there were someone who did not have Ron Paul’s substantial baggage to achieve this... Still, for better or worse, Paul — alone among the national figures in both parties — is able and willing to advocate views that Americans urgently need to hear. That he is doing so within the Republican Party makes it all the more significant...

It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all the candidates, including the sitting President.
Much, much more at the link. For the record, at present, TYWKIWDBI does not endorse anyone to be the next president of the United States. Still looking (thus exemplifying Voltaire's old saying that "the perfect is the enemy of the good.")

http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2012/0...president.html