Advertisement

Previous poll Next poll

Do you think President Obama’s stance in support of gay marriage will help or hurt his chances of being re-elected?

Response Percent Votes
It will help
 
46% 442
It will hurt
 
38% 365
Not sure
 
14% 142
Total 949

Comments

pace 2 years, 4 months ago

I am sure glad he did it. He is gutsy and smart. I want a President who stand up for civil rights.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 4 months ago

Give much and give often to Obama's reelection campaign.

Elections are all about money.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 4 months ago

His record on the economy and American jobs will have more to do with how people will vote in November than this issue.

0

pace 2 years, 4 months ago

I think Obama's efforts have been successful, I consider congress the culprit for slowing the recovery.

0

gudpoynt 2 years, 4 months ago

31 states, but not a majority of Americans. Kind of like how G.W. won the presidency, but lost the popular vote.

0

gudpoynt 2 years, 4 months ago

No, no. It was just an example of how you can point to stats that are not based on population to give the appearance that a majority of people agree with you, when in fact they do not.

But... regardless of who gets elected in November, or the November 4 years after that, it's pretty clear that opposition to gay marriage is on the outs.

Gay marriage today, is like interracial marriage (and general interracial mixing in other socio-economic contexts) that was adamantly opposed by crusty, old, white males like yourself, right up until the last generation finally gathered enough critical mass to dismiss it for the ethnocentric, xenophobic hypocrisy that it is.

You are in the minority now, and your minority will continue to dwindle with time, as America becomes more diverse, more accepting, and with the eventual passing of the baby boomers, younger.

You may feel you are on the side of righteousness today, much as Southerners of the last generation did, when they stood firm against interracial mixing, which they argued was a form of "communism", believe it or not.

But the history that has yet to be written and interpreted by future generations probably won't see it that way.

0

verity 2 years, 4 months ago

gudpoynt, the baby boomers were the ones who helped bring you the civil rights movement---I am one of the older ones, being born two years after WWII. I don't intend to be dying off for a good while yet and hope to support civil and human rights as long as I'm alive.

Don't be looking forward to my demise.

0

gudpoynt 2 years, 4 months ago

Sorry verity, no disrespect intended at all, and I am certainly not looking forward to anybody's demise.

Thanks to your efforts, my generation has had the privilege to grow up reading about segregation in our history books, rather than experiencing it first hand, like my father did in the deep south in the 50's and 60's.

The magnitude to which the successes of the Civil Rights movement has altered the trajectory of our society is hard to quantify. Likewise, it is hard to put adequate gratitude into words. But I'll say thank you anyway.

0

verity 2 years, 4 months ago

I thought it was strange that you would say something like that and part of what I said was tongue in cheek.

0

gudpoynt 2 years, 4 months ago

It won't hurt him as much as trying to continue defend the wishy-washy stance the administration previously held would have.

He lost fewer votes by this announcement that he would have by condoning, in any way, the N.C. amendment.

Alas, the economy and jobs is still highly likely to be the biggest factor. And it's Cap'n Rom's job to convince independents that recovery has taken too long and cost too much.

Unfortunately, this puts Romney in the uncomfortable position of reveling in bad economic numbers. The projections for 2012 put the numbers going below, then back up above the magic 8.0% mark that Obama pointed to as a target required for his own re-election, and he already missed his own deadline for that (what a bonehead thing to promise that was!) .

If it does dip below 8.0%, Obama needs to convince independents that it's better late than never, and indicative of being on the right track. Conversely, Romney would have to convince independents that it wasn't fast enough.

Looking forward to the debates.

0

gudpoynt 2 years, 4 months ago

You mean like they did here? http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2012/02/16/occupiers-protest-obama-fundraiser

Look! Fleabaggers chastising Obama for pandering to the 1% in order to get re-elected. On Fox "News" no less!

Did you ever think you might agree with the Fleabaggers on something?

You know that mental groan you just did upon realizing that your stereotypes of OWS don't quite match your perceived reality? That's called "cognitive dissonance". It's an uncomfortable feeling that nobody enjoys.

Now... at this juncture, you can choose to open your mind a little bit, and expand your currently held world view, bringing it more in line with reality.

Or.... you can use defense mechanisms in an attempt to bring reality more in line with your current world view.

What's it going to be then, eh?

My guess is the latter, where you simply ignore it altogether, and after a few dozen posts in your current vein, you'll forget it completely. Never happened. Didn't see it.

Cheers Professor.

0

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 4 months ago

I cannot imagine better timing. President Obama is taking a stand against prejudice and for allowing people to practice the rights they already have but have been denied. In most cases bigots are not just against one group but everyone who does not meet their narrow criteria for acceptance.

0

verity 2 years, 4 months ago

How many of the people who say this will cause them not to vote for Obama would have voted for him anyway? I think that it will get people out to vote that may not have voted otherwise. Obama's biggest problem this time around, in my opinion, is that people will just stay home and not vote. His presidency has not excited people as his candidacy did.

I also think he should dump Biden (tactfully of course, letting Biden decide that it is time to retire). While Jill Biden is an asset, I can't say that the VP ever has been. I think Hillary would be a good choice, but he really needs someone who could run for president in 2016 and it doesn't appear that Hillary wants to do that---she'll be 69.

0

gudpoynt 2 years, 4 months ago

I've heard the "dump Biden" sentiment more than once now, and while I don't think it's very probable, it's not unheard of. It has happened 9 times:

(from http://www.vicepresidents.com/steppingstone.html) Which vice presidents were not nominated for a second term even though the president they served ran again?

1) Aaron Burr was not renominated by Thomas Jefferson in 1804. Burr had killed Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in a duel and was later tried, but not convicted, of treason for trying to help parts of the United States secede.

2) John C. Calhoun was not renominated by John Quincy Adams in 1828. Instead, Calhoun ran with Andrew Jackson and was victorious, thereby serving his two terms with two different presidents.

3) Richard Johnson was not renominated by Martin Van Buren in 1840, but was one of three candidates for vice president running on the Democratic ticket. Along with Johnson were Littleton Waller Tazewell and James Polk. Johnson, however, was recognized as the official nominee.

4) Hannibal Hamlin was not renominated by Abraham Lincoln in 1864, and was replaced by Andrew Johnson.

5) Schuyler Colfax was not renominated by Ulysses S. Grant in 1872.

6) Thomas Hendricks was not renominated by Grover Cleveland in 1888 due to the fact that he had passed away in office in 1885. Cleveland campaigned with Allen Gransberry Thurman in 1888 and was defeated by Benjamin Harrison.

7) Levi Morton was not renominated by Benjamin Harrison in 1892, who instead chose Whitelaw Reid as his running mate. Harrison and Reid lost that election to Grover Cleveland and Adlai Stevenson.

8) Garret Hobart died in 1899 and therefore was not renominated by William McKinley in 1900.

9) Henry Wallace was not renominated by Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, replaced on the ticket by Harry Truman.

0

verity 2 years, 4 months ago

We had a VP named Schuyler Colfax?

Well, Biden hasn't killed anybody in a duel---and he's not likely to die of foot-in-mouth disease, he's just terminally not too bright.

Ten is one out of every eleven if my math serves me correctly, so the odds aren't that bad. If he would bow out gracefully and be replaced by a 40-something woman of high intelligence, looks and morals with the ability to speak and inspire, I think it would help Obama immensely.

Surprisingly, at least to me, there seemed to be a lot of 50-something men who were greatly disappointed that Hillary didn't get the nomination in 2008. I do think we're ready for a female president and putting a possible 2016 candidate in as VP could be a really smart move.

0

gudpoynt 2 years, 4 months ago

10 times if you count John Nance Garner, who served under FDR for his first two terms, but was not nominated for the 3rd.

Garner is the guy who said being vice president was "not worth a warm bucket of warm piss."

0

Mike Ford 2 years, 4 months ago

the people who are always game for the tail wagging with guns, abortion, and gay marriage that the GOP and Tea Party sells to avoid dealing with the gifts of George W. Bush have the audacity to call what they always follow a campaign distraction if used by Mr. Obama....go figure.....

0

blindrabbit 2 years, 4 months ago

Since when should a persons civil rights be determined by a vote. I can imagine that much of the civil rights legislation passed since 1964, if put to a vote in Dixie would still have a problem passing a majority (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina being the most likely failures). Much of this oppression of new rights is by individuals and groups is driven because of a percieved loss of control. Old white men loosing their influence, out of touch religious groups feeling the loss of their flock, and arrogance trying to oppress people of other sexual orientation and religious beliefs.

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 4 months ago

Gay marriage is not about a persons civil rights it is about granting special rights to people who engage in immoral sexual practices no different than granting special rights to adulterers or pedophiles.

0

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 4 months ago

Really? How many people who have had sex outside of marriage or committed adultery have been denied jobs or housing based on that? Gay marriage is not a special right, it is an ordinary thing to want to get married to the one you love and build a life together.

0

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

That's really such an offensive thing to say, and I'm not that easily offended.

Adulterers have full equal rights as citizens - would you take those away from them?

In fact, given how common it is, if your spouse cheats on you, you can't even successfully sue them for it.

Comparing gay people to pedophiles is just ignorant, and incorrect. Consenting adult behavior is in no way analogous to pedophilia.

What gay people are seeking are not "special rights", they're "equal rights". And, regardless of your opinion of them, they should have those rights. You're free to continue to judge them and believe whatever you like about them.

Sexual activities between consenting adults aren't anybody else's business - is what you do in your bedroom my business? If I have some sort of judgement about that, should I be able to deny you the right to do it? Or to fail to grant you equal rights as a citizen?

0

mom_of_three 2 years, 4 months ago

Special rights - you mean the right to marry who you want - the same right I had to marry my husband? You mean special rights which give gays the right to the same legal and economic rights as the rest of us married folks have. Those "special rights??"

0

mcontrary 2 years, 4 months ago

I don't understand what you mean by not being about civil rights? There is a big difference between pediphilia and civil affairs. Adulterers have nothng to do with either pediphilia or gay rights.

0

Richard Payton 2 years, 4 months ago

His stance on gay marriage is the same as Dick Cheney according to Greg Knapp in the mornings on KCMO talk radio.

0

grammaddy 2 years, 4 months ago

But Cheney sat in the VP's chair for 8 years without mentioning it at all. And Cheney has a gay daughter who ,along with her partner, made him a grandfather.Where were Darth Vade'rs cajones then?

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 4 months ago

In other news of the current regime's enemies list: "...Here's what happens when the president of the United States publicly targets a private citizen for the crime of supporting his opponent. Frank VanderSloot is the CEO of Melaleuca Inc. The 63-year-old has run that wellness-products company for 26 years out of tiny Idaho Falls, Idaho. Last August, Mr. VanderSloot gave $1 million to Restore Our Future, the Super PAC that supports Mitt Romney. Three weeks ago, an Obama campaign website, "Keeping GOP Honest," took the extraordinary step of publicly naming and assailing eight private citizens backing Mr. Romney. Titled "Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney's donors," the post accused the eight of being "wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records." Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being "litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement." ..." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577396412560038208.html?mod=rss_opinion_main Richard Nixon would be proud of the Mope.

0

Geiiga 2 years, 4 months ago

I...honestly don't see the problem.

Mr. VanderSloot, especially, is a particularly nasty fellow, who spends a massive amount of money to promote his particular form of ugliness. When an Idaho paper discovered that the Boy Scouts were responsible for concealing a pedophile Scoutmaster, Mr. VanderSloot ran a full-page ad in that paper outing the reporter as a homosexual.

VanderSloot likes to make his voice heard, especially on issues of gay rights, where he's an unsympathetic ass. He can dish it, of course, but he can't take it. Glenn Greenwald covers VanderSloot's whiny, litigious nature here: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/singleton/

When Rachel Maddow ran a profile based on Greenwald's reporting on this scumbag, Vandersloot's lawyers called her demanding that they remove the video from the internet. Maddow, of course, said no. Then they insisted their emails to NBC News were confidential and if NBC ran them they'd be guilty of copyright infringement (!)

And this guy donated a million freaking dollars to Romney's SuperPAC. You're suggesting someone who gives literally a supervillain's ransom to a politician's campaign doesn't deserve some scrutiny?

0

Shane Garrett 2 years, 4 months ago

I could be wrong. But, does not the book of the biggest sky god grant humans free will? If so, then why would the institution of marriage be threatened by same sex marriage? Let those in charge of the "here after" sort it all out. Man should not judge least he be judged; may be something I have heard somewhere. I do not believe that holding a sign stating that God hates America because the state allows free will, is immoral, it is just free speech. What is immoral is to institute that opinion upon those to young to make rational thought their own reality. Yes, it does sicken me to see small children holding signs of hatred. How does one teach children to hate love? We as a nation usually make gains in civil rights by taking small steps. So, let us call it a civil union and let the Church be separate from the State.

0

1southernjayhawk 2 years, 4 months ago

For me this is a non-issue and a complete distraction. We need a president that can get our financial wreck of a government back on track and operate within its means.

0

mom_of_three 2 years, 4 months ago

liberals are silly? why? because they think civil rights are as important as other issues....

0

Don Whiteley 2 years, 4 months ago

I think Obama's next statement should be in support of loving relationships between dogs and people. It is, after all, hypocrisy for people to criticize others about their sexual choices. Hey, if you have a better time with a dog than you do with a man or a woman, if they bring you more joy,. what right does anyone have to say that's wrong? We shouldn't make sexual choices for other people, should we?

0

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

Silly idea.

Consenting adult human choices are what's being discussed.

Can I tell you who you get to sleep with, if you're both consenting adults?

Or what to do in your bedroom?

0

grammaddy 2 years, 4 months ago

In 10 years the youth of America will look at the rest of us and wonder why this was ever an issue.The same way I looked at my parents and wondered why interracial marriage was illegal in 6 states when I married my first husband.

0

mcontrary 2 years, 4 months ago

I applaud his position, it's about time. However, I'm afraid there are still too many people still in the Dark Ages; not a few of whom have stated their position here.

0

pooter 2 years, 4 months ago

This announcement comes as no surprise since Obama already approves wholeheartedly of the 24/7/365 violent sexual assault upon not just innocent adults but especially of children, the handicapped and the elderly by his goons in the TSA.

Obama could stop this rape upon the innocent within the hour by placing one simple little phone call, yet he doesn't, so that makes him directly, personally, responsible.

And if you support Obama in any way shape or form that make you just as guilty of those same crimes as if you had your own hands down in those children's pants yourself.

Obama's name doesn't belong on a ballot, it belongs in the Sexual Offender's Registry.

*

0

DrQuack 2 years, 4 months ago

Gay marriage is really a question as to how much perversion you want to accept. Let's not forget about the pedophiles. We wouldn't want to discriminate against them for their "sexual orientation."

0

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

Again, a rather unapt comparison.

Consenting adult activities are in no way comparable to pedophilia.

It's so obvious everybody should be able to understand it.

0

verity 2 years, 4 months ago

From reading her/his other comments, I think this is sarcasm.

0

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

I hope so.

I can't recall seeing any other posts by this poster.

But, people clearly believe this sincerely, and argue against gay marriage because of that belief.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 4 months ago

Pander to whatever base is remaining Barry.

0

JackMcKee 2 years, 4 months ago

Where's the choice for "I don't care"?

If you care very much about this you are either 1. Gay or 2. an angry closeted gay in denial about your sexuality.

0

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

That's really not true.

There are many straight people who care about this and want equality for gay/lesbian/etc. people - I'm one of them.

Having known gay people pretty well over the years, I have learned about the inequalities they face, and so I care about them.

I suspect that most people who "don't care" are pretty unaware of those.

0

purplesage 2 years, 4 months ago

We can hope it hurts - shaves a few percentage points off the President's popularity. He needs to go.

0

OrestessonofAgamemnon 2 years, 4 months ago

it shows that he is an American not a Republican

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.