Barack Obama, until May of 2012

was publicly against SSM.

Now the same people who voted for him (over 60% of Portland voters did) are determined to shut down the business of any person who has publicly expressed the exact same view that Obama held a mere two years ago.

This is really insane.

CORRECTION: MathMan corrects me: in the post I link to above, I read that "only two years ago" Obama did not support SSM, and unwisely thought this meant in his presidential campaign. But no, clearly the meaning of the post I linked to is that as of April 2012, that was still his position. He publicly announced that his position had changed in May 2012. I have corrected the post to reflect the actual situation.

UPDATE II: I accidentally typed 2014 in my correction when I meant to type 2012.


16 comments:

  1. No, in the 2012 election he supported it. And even before that, his prior position was simply that his personal religious belief was that marriage is between a man and a woman, not that he necessarily wanted the states to define it like that. He didn't express an opinion on that publicly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good catch. I misunderstood the post I read. My post has been corrected.

      Delete
    2. You mean 2012, not 2014. And even prior to that, he never supported state laws banning it. He just had a personal religious belief that marriage was between a man and a woman.

      From a 2008 New York Times article:
      "While he does not favor laws that ban same-sex marriage, and has said he is “open to the possibility” that his views may be “misguided,” he does not support it and is not inclined to fight for it, his advisers say."

      Delete
  2. Look at this article from 2008:
    http://nyti.ms/Lfi4xD
    "While he does not favor laws that ban same-sex marriage, and has said he is “open to the possibility” that his views may be “misguided,” he does not support it and is not inclined to fight for it, his advisers say."

    And Obama opposed proposition 8. So it's not quite right to say they had the exact same view.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who think that their opinions and tastes are a significant part of what makes them a good person. It's only natural to them that the holders of evil opinions must be punished. So much for the open society.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I certainly wouldn't object if public pressure was brought on Barack Obama to resign because of his past actions.

    Brendan Eich spent four figures on an attempt to impose an apartheid regime on non-heterosexuals.

    What, precisely, is wrong with people who think that's an evil thing to do refusing to use the products of a company he heads and publicly saying why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Brendan Eich spent four figures on an attempt to impose an apartheid regime on non-heterosexuals"

      What an utterly moronic remark. Yes, a wealthy gay couple in their Upper West Side penthouse was suffering just like a black gold miner in South Africa!

      So now I assume you feel polygamists and people who want to marry their pets are suffering under "apartheid"?

      Delete
    2. By the way, Tom, I can now see how good you would have been at reporting witches in 17th-century Mass. or reporting reactionaries in the USSR in 1930.

      Delete
    3. Gene, two questions:

      1. Do you think it makes sense to call anti-miscegnation laws apartheid?

      2. How would you feel about people who boycotted a business that supported anti-miscegnation laws?

      Delete
    4. This is exactly the sort of behavior EV meant in you boycott posting. Knapp and Beria are kindred souls.

      Delete
  5. Gene; it's no use. I think that the only thing that will stop people from conferring legitimacy to the absurdity of men "marrying" other men will be when this reasoning reaches its ultimate stupidity; brothers marrying sister, and fathers marrying sons. It's already being argued that it shouldn't be illegal in some parts of academia. I can't wait for the "enlightened" liberal and libertarian folks out there to start waxing about how it isn't our right to say "what love is".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The campaign for legal polygamy is already underway.

      Delete
    2. Incest as OK was a common liberal theme in the late 60s early 70s. Everything old is new again.

      Delete
  6. Err, hasn't polygamy always been legal in some places?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Err, yes, Samson, it has always been legal in some places. But, err, those aren't the places where, err, the campaign for legal polygamy is occurring. Cause, err, it's already legal in those places.

      Delete
    2. To 'err' is human.

      Delete