The Dumbest Spin on Obama’s Marriage Equality Stance?

So who will have the dumbest, most hysterical response to President Obama’s announcement that he favors marriage equality? It’s impossible to say and too early to tell, but here’s the immediate reaction of a go-to source for internet stupidity:

Yep, it’s all about attacking the Christian Church. Sweet Merciful Flying Spaghetti Monster, that nitwit must scoop up his bean dip with lead paint chips.

141 replies
  1. 1

    And by “Christian Church” he must mean just the ones that are anti-gay as opposed to the churches like the Unitarians and the Quakers and a lot of other churches that embrace marriage equality.

    Yeah, it’s all about you, asshole.

  2. 2
    yopd1 says:

    Mother Jones

    Obama Endorses Marriage Equality… But Not For All

    Keep moving the goal posts folks.

  3. 3
    CardinalRed says:

    The Log Cabin republicans are the worst

  4. 4
    Clime Acts says:

    My artist’s tribute to Obama and The Gays: A Love Affair HERE.

  5. 5
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    When Stupid and Angry had a baby, they named him Jim Hoft.

  6. 6
    Svensker says:

    @yopd1:

    Yeah, that’s what my Professional Left friends are saying, too. They are Very Disappointed.

  7. 7
    eemom says:

    . . . the dumbest is not
    So long as we can say ‘This is the dumbest.’

  8. 8
    PeakVT says:

    At least Hoft didn’t say that the endorsement proves Obama is Muslim, though it could be he simply forgot.

  9. 9
    ruemara says:

    @yopd1: When people ponder about slavish obots reflexively wondering what the emoprog reaction will be, shit like that is why. Gawker has a blistering attack on Obama for supporting gay marriage because it’s bullshit since he acknowledges state’s rights and is not for actively overturning all anti-gay marriage laws. The thick fucking clueless is not just for conservatives.

  10. 10
    Alex says:

    Hoft is so seriously brain-damaged, he scoops up lead dip with lead paint chips.

  11. 11
    Clime Acts says:

    @yopd1:

    Keep moving the goal posts folks.

    Could you explain what about that article is incorrect?

    By this reasoning, the Southern states would still be free to hold slaves cause, you know, every state has the right to decide for itself.

    I still give credit to O for his statement of personal support, but he’s still hedging and hemming and hawing…jeez, I should have known.

  12. 12
    The Dangerman says:

    Yesterday, I took the position that Romney was toast; now, not so sure. The right position, but this is a political loser, and if taking the right position gives us President Romney with a Republican House and Senate, we’ll be fucked for generations to come.

  13. 13
    BGinCHI says:

    Question: COULD Obama force states to accept marriage equality for all? Does the President have that power? Remind me.

  14. 14
    Clime Acts says:

    @ruemara:

    Blind Obot, thou has spoken.

    I got all excited and gave Obama too much credit before reading thru his statement.

    OF COURSE he’s hedging his bets; it’s what he always does.

    By his bullshit “states’ rights” reasoning, he might still be held as a slave in any one of the southern Bigot Belt states. Cause we respect the right of states to decide for themselves.

    God, he’s such a wimp.

  15. 15
    Clime Acts says:

    @BGinCHI:

    Hmmm…no. But he certainly has the power to push for it, and support the concept of equality for all under the fucking constitution which last I heard does not change at state lines.

  16. 16
    chopper says:

    faux is now saying that obama ‘declared war on marriage’.

    if it’s anything like the ‘war on christmas’ it’ll be meaningless. i’ll still stock up on ammo tho.

  17. 17
    David Koch says:

    This was just a bone to the base.

    he didn’t even mean it.

    and he only said it because dan choi chained himself to the white house two years ago when obama was out of town.

  18. 18
    Triassic Sands says:

    Why does Obama hate God so much?

    I guess they’ve written off North Carolina — new World HQ for Gender Bigotry.

    I don’t know which is more shameful: 1) that North Carolinians voted to enshrine such bigotry into their state constitution; or 2) that so many of them voted for it without knowing what they were voting for.

  19. 19
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @Clime Acts:

    By this reasoning, the Southern states would still be free to hold slaves cause, you know, every state has the right to decide for itself

    You really should go read up now how Lincoln freed the slaves. 1862 it was slaves owned by masters who actively taken arms against the US government are confiscated as a weapon of war, 1863 it all slaves held in states not under US control are free then in the 1865 slavery is abolished by a constitutional amendment.

    It’s very simple, the way it works in a Democracy for a president to fix a traditional American value evil he has to walk the public into making him do it.

  20. 20
    Steeplejack says:

    @Clime Acts:

    Dude, “Content currently unavailable” again. You fix.

  21. 21
    pragmatism says:

    they don’t call hoft the dumbest man on the internet for nothing, folks.

  22. 22
    Maude says:

    @ruemara:
    Ignorance is bliss.
    The emo prog bit about the states having the right to decide issues isn’t new. It keeps getting washed up on shore like a dead fish.

  23. 23
    Mickey says:

    I think the log cabin hypocrits Republicans have that beat.

    ” That the president has chosen today, when LGBT Americans are mourning the passage of Amendment One, to finally speak up for marriage equality is offensive and callous.
    Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina”
    http://goo.gl/4T2PR

  24. 24
    Baud says:

    @David Koch: We need to teach Democrats a lesson for supporting gay marriage too late.

  25. 25
    dmsilev says:

    @Clime Acts:

    By this reasoning, the Southern states would still be free to hold slaves cause, you know, every state has the right to decide for itself.

    Uh, yeah. You do realize that it took a constitutional amendment for the federal government to ban slavery in all the states, right?

  26. 26
    pragmatism says:

    pundits don’t become villagers by being sycophants to democrats. they become villagers by being sycophants to gopers dressed as centrists.

  27. 27
    MattF says:

    I suppose there’s the possibility that Obama’s statement reflects what he actually thinks about gay marriage. Simple-minded and naive of me to imagine this, I know. In any event we can be confident that Mitt’s reaction, which will be coming shortly, no doubt, has no verifiable relation whatsoever to what he actually thinks.

  28. 28
    drew42 says:

    Ah, TPM. Never miss a chance to wring their hands:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/a.....eeling.php

    And that nonstop rotation of worthless, 6-months-before-the-election poll tracking at the top. Why do I keep going back there?

  29. 29
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @Clime Acts:

    I’ll tell you what I told that dimwit Trurl in the last thread: this whole feds-rule-states-drool fetish only works so long as you don’t have a lunatic in the White House. If you set the precedent for overruling state government whenever you feel like it, watch the next Republican president turn every blue state into Alabama. You think gay marriage in Massachusetts and the like can survive a GOP government that wants it gone with a precedent like that set? What’s the deal with this firebagger fetish for a big tough guy federal government anyway? Especially after they spent years criticizing Bush for taking on too much executive power?

    Obama isn’t ‘hedging his bets’, he’s following the rules of federalism that were put in place long before he showed up. And the rules are there because the people who wrote them were smarter than you. It’s actually kind of amazing to me just how quickly all the firebaggers moved their goalposts on this. By God, they need something to complain about, facts be damned!

  30. 30
    yopd1 says:

    @Clime Acts: First Obama didn’t do enough because he went through Congress to pass DADT (the legal and constitutionally correct thing to do).
    Second Obama broke tradition and didn’t support the DOMA in the courts but he didn’t come out and say he supported gay couples right to marriage.
    Now he’s not using an executive order and the national guard to force Church’s to marry gay people? I mean seriously, what is he supposed to say?

  31. 31
    scandi says:

    Maybe it’s time for a real war on Christians. Think about it. They have old white dudes with guns and a few angry moms. We we have fierce queens, pissed off pups, butch bull dykes, Dan Savage, flaming twinks, grizzled leather dudes, Sharon Needles, high femmes (pointy high heels), Rachel Maddow, bears, Puerto Rican transexuals, Queen Latifah, muscle marys…not to mention the most important thing of all…we’re right. I say bring it.

  32. 32
    kc says:

    Actually, I thought the dumbest spin was some commenter on this very website, saying that Obama had thrown gay people under the bus by endorsing gay marriage.

    ‘Course, I couldn’t tell for sure whether it was a parody comment . . . my parody trolldar is broken. :D

  33. 33
    Turgidson says:

    The emoprogs can’t even just say “well I still hate Obama for all these other reasons, but he got this one right”…?

    Sheesh.

    (granted, some of my leftier than thou friends in real life seem pretty impressed by what he said, so maybe they’re not unified on this one)

  34. 34
    dmsilev says:

    Has RedState weighed in yet? I think we may be closing the nominations for ‘Dumbest Spin’ way too early.

  35. 35
    David Koch says:

    Obama should be primaried for this.

    Grayson/Weiner 2012!

  36. 36
    Shinobi says:

    The Christians are still very butthurt about that whole “ladies have a right to insurance for their slut pills” thing. I wouldn’t be surprised if this got a LOT of traction.

  37. 37

    @Clime Acts:

    I agree. I also like pie, but would prefer fruit to cream. YMMV.

  38. 38
    Trurl says:

    [[ “The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.”

    Well, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery. There are 44 states in which gay men and women are currently barred from marrying one another. Obama’s position is that, while he would have voted the other way, those 44 states are perfectly within their rights to arbitrarily restrict the access of certain individuals to marriage rights based solely on their sexual orientation.

    That is a half-assed, cowardly cop-out. …

    Equality is not a state-by-state issue. There is no reason other than ignorance and hatred that two men can get married in New York and not North Carolina. At a time when vindictive hucksters are rolling out anti-gay marriage amendments across the nation, and when conflicting state and federal laws portend an insoluble morass of divorce, custody, and estate issues, and when gay Americans are turning to the U.S. Constitution and the courts to seek an affirmation of their humanity, “it’s a state-by-state issue” is a shameful dodge. …

    This was obviously a hastily arranged interview—we’re told that ABC News’ Robin Roberts, who is close to Michelle Obama, was only tapped in the last 48 hours by the White House to come down—designed to clean up the mess left by Biden’s pro-gay marriage comments in as advantageous way as possible. And for Obama to declare that he considers North Carolina and other states’ bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional would probably energize the GOP base. But those bans are unconstitutional. And anyone who supports their legitimacy—as Obama just did, in no uncertain terms—even if they oppose the policy, is adopting the retrograde position in the contemporary gay marriage debate. Obama is moving backward, not forward. ]]

    http://gawker.com/5909002/bara.....5992588381

  39. 39
    Martin says:

    @yopd1: Perhaps Obama needs to come out in favor of polygamy, just to see how Mittens and the ‘war on religion’ folks respond to that.

  40. 40
    kc says:

    @Mickey:

    I hate to be crass, again, but fuck the Log Cabin Republicans. Those dumb-asses.

  41. 41
    Brachiator says:

    I’m waiting for some pundit to claim that Obama is feverishly trying to imitate Lincoln, whose position on slavery evolved over the years, and who did not actually free any slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation.

    Shameless.

    LOL.

  42. 42
    MikeJ says:

    @dmsilev:

    I think we may be closing the nominations for ‘Dumbest Spin’ way too early.

    Agreed. I have yet to see anyone say that Obama wants to dump Michelle(who in their telling is a horrible, ugly, harridan) and marry a dude and go back to his true calling of selling crack.

    Note that I say we haven’t seen it *yet*. Mainly because I haven’t looked. I’d guess it will be out there before the end of the day. Thank gopod for Roy Edroso, so I don’t have to read such stuff.

  43. 43

    @dmsilev: #34

    RedState:

    When Barack Obama made his unsurprising announcement today that he has finally evolved far enough to endorse homosexual marriage, ironically an evolutionary dead end, he made two other interesting statements.
    __
    First, he attributes his evolution to his Christian faith. This is sort of odd, speaking as a Trinitarian Christian, because it puts Christ in the position of disavowing himself. This is not surprising. Anyone who learned Christian theology from Jeremiah Wright is bound to have imbibed a substantial number of heresies.
    __
    The most surprising statement was this:
    __
    [W]hen I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf…
    __
    Really. Our troops are fighting on his behalf? I had always imagined they were fighting on behalf of the nation.

    Sput-sputter-fritten-fratten-mumble-damn . . .

  44. 44
    JPL says:

    Decades ago I heard Martina Navratilova speak about what it was like to be gay and she mentioned that was who she was. She met the bigots and grifters and it was difficult to face all that hatred but she did. I recognized that I never faced bigotry but could empathize with her. That’s when I evolved. Let those throw the first stone I guess..
    btw I have listened to this song a dozen times today link

  45. 45
    lamh35 says:

    Let’s talk realistically and hard tacts: how will this REALISTICALLY effect the races in more conservative states and districts where the Dem candidate will be asked about marriage equality and if they agree with POTUS? I hope they have an answer for this question because if they dont’, then we can kiss any chance that we will have of keeping or picking up more conservative states and districts which we need to keep control of the Senate and to try to re-gain control of the House.

    ETA: I”m fine with the POTUS doing this, but , here’s what I’m afraid of…the same Catholics, old Reagan Democrats, and some not all, but some AA pastors who let GWB and Karl Rove use them to further their own agendas in ’04.

    I hope ALL those young people who will supposedly be energized by the POTUS saying he supports SSM, will actually get up and get to the voting booth , though I suspect that just as they didn’t in NC or CA, they won’t now either, because if SSM equality was as important to them as have been claimed, then they would have been out there when these amendments came up for election, I hope I’m wrong.

    BTW, the don’t be surprised that the goal post will be shifted, especially since Like I said earlier today, ALL the people who really truly claimed to need this BETTER have POTUS damn back …PERIOD.

    I truly think that this announcement has even the playing field for Robmey. I expect the enthusiam gap that may have happened just because Conservatives hate Robmey will evaporate and there is no longer room to wiggle. We will need to fight for every vote and there is no more room for freak-outs.

    Glad he did it, but let’s not be naive and think this is the end of it.

  46. 46
    Arclite says:

    Sweet Merciful Flying Spaghetti Monster, that nitwit must scoop up his bean dip with lead paint chips.

    CLASSIC.

  47. 47
    Clime Acts says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    It’s very simple, the way it works in a Democracy for a president to fix a traditional American value evil he has to walk the public into making him do it.

    Leadership: How does it work?

    I look forward to the southern hate states reinstating slavery. Which will make Obama campaigning there problematic.

  48. 48
    WereBear says:

    Lo, I remember when the whining focused on the then-candidate at least coming out in support of gay marriage… and now that he has, it’s not good enough.

    Always a day late and a dollar short for that kind of crowd.

    I think it’s fantastic that the President has drawn this kind of line in the sand to clearly delineate the two parties; we need a lot more of that. And he’s honest about his process; that’s also very interesting and a mark of his ability to grow and learn.

    I feel for the people for whom nothing is ever good enough. They think they are being all principled and cynical and uncompromising. But in pragmatic fact (where we all live) this kind of stance gets you nothing but the satisfaction of the stick up your ass is a much better, more streamlined, shape.

    Why did it take so many decades for the first toe of African American Civil Rights to be dipped in the water? Because the fight was full of uncompromising idealists who refused to compromise and got nothing done. Whoop-de-do.

  49. 49
    Clime Acts says:

    @dmsilev:

    You do realize that it took a constitutional amendment for the federal government to ban slavery in all the states, right?

    Yeah…I missed the part where Obama pushed for that today. I wonder if Michelle keeps his spine in a basket in the pantry…or maybe a black box of some kind always follows him around for when he needs to use it to stand up to the hippies and fags.

  50. 50
    dr. bloor says:

    @Trurl:

    And for Obama to declare that he considers North Carolina and other states’ bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional would probably energize the GOP base. But those bans are unconstitutional. And anyone who supports their legitimacy—as Obama just did, in no uncertain terms—even if they oppose the policy, is adopting the retrograde position in the contemporary gay marriage debate. Obama is moving backward, not forward. ]]

    So the correct course of action here would be for Obama to take the politically disadvantageous course and…what? Hold the Republican members of Congress hostage until they say Uncle? Force the issue to the Supreme Court, where the fate of a suit–if he can even do that–will be decided by five old Catholic guys who hate his guts and have no use for the constitution?

    Got it.

  51. 51
    David Koch says:

    stay home. don’t vote.

    teach NØbama a lesson for not divorcing Michelle and marrying george clooney!

  52. 52
    Citizen Alan says:

    @The Dangerman:

    Oh, what horseshit! There is not a single person who was going to vote for Obama yesterday who has changed his or her mind because he came out for gay marriage. Not one in the entire world. The only Obama voting bloc that is opposed to gay marriage are older Christian blacks, and they are not going to abandon Obama over this issue.

  53. 53
    Clime Acts says:

    @Steeplejack:

    Dude, “Content currently unavailable” again. You fix.

    Never mind. I took it down. I only make portraits of people who deserve it.

    I will ahve to come up with a new one, but not yet sure how to depict him without a spine…

  54. 54
    The Dangerman says:

    @lamh35:

    …which we need to keep control of the Senate and to try to re-gain control of the House.

    I think the House is lost (I don’t think it was ever all that likely). Keeping the Senate is doable, but it’s going to be a squeaker either way.

  55. 55
    Brachiator says:

    @dmsilev:

    Uh, yeah. You do realize that it took a constitutional amendment for the federal government to ban slavery in all the states, right?

    And that little Civil War thing.

  56. 56

    @lamh35: #45

    I truly think that this announcement has evened the playing field for Robmey. I expect the enthusiam gap that may have happened just because Conservatives hate Robmey will evaporate and there is no longer room to wiggle. We will need to fight for every vote and there is no more room for freak-outs.

    You are saying it was the right thing for the Prez to do but might make his reelection harder to achieve? That happens sometimes.

  57. 57

    This was the right move from a human rights perspective. And since Obama has proved long ago, way better at the politics of anything and everything than I am, I will trust he made the right choice in that venue as well.

  58. 58
    Forum Transmitted Disease says:

    “The announcement today by President Obama should come as no surprise to the American public. President Obama has consistently fought against protecting the institution of marriage from radical social engineering at both the state and federal level,” the former Pennsylvania senator said.
    __
    “The President recently opposed the North Carolina constitutional amendment and, of course, he refused to defend President Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act before the U.S. Supreme court. The charade is now over, no doubt an attempt to galvanize his core hard left supporters in advance of the November election.
    __
    “Thankfully the American public, when it has had an opportunity to consider the real world consequences of such a fundamental change to our society, has consistently voted for maintaining one man one woman marriage — the basic building block of our society,” added Santorum.
    __
    “I will continue to fight to make sure that the cultural elites don’t further undermine the institution that gives the best opportunity for healthy, happy children and a just and prosperous society.”

    This is what Romney should have said, the fundies don’t trust him at all.

    But no…it was Rick Santorum. Still kicking the shit out of Romney even after dropping his candidacy.

    Wonder how many more knives Rick’s got waiting for Romney’s back? I’m betting quite a few. He seems like the sore loser type.

    One who might not have a problem seeing Romney lose.

  59. 59
    dr. bloor says:

    @Clime Acts:

    Leadership: How does it work?
    I look forward to the southern hate states reinstating slavery. Which will make Obama campaigning there problematic.

    Good to see that others pointing out the ignorance behind your analogy isn’t discouraging you from repeating yourself.

  60. 60
    Citizen Alan says:

    @BGinCHI:

    No, but what Obama might be able to do in his second term, which is the ONLY thing that could force gay rights on bigot states, is appoint a replacement for Scalia or Kennedy should either of them step down or die between 2013 and 2016. Presently, we have four Justices who think gays should be able to marry, four who think gays should be put in jail for sodomy, and one who notoriously can’t make up his mind. THAT is where this issue will be decided, just as it was for interracial marriage.

  61. 61
    Beauzeaux says:

    @Clime Acts: Sorry. Marriage has always been defined by the states. I would think that the last thing you’d want is to have a National marriage law.

    This is a BIG step in the right direction. A mere thirty years ago, the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage was a total non-starter. Now the President of the United States has endorsed it. Several states and many countries have made it legal. Maybe it’s because because I’m old and decrepit, but the change in thirty years looks fucking amazing to me.

    I’m a radical and the President isn’t. He’s a Democrat.
    You’re not going to get radical from a Democrat. It’s like trying to get pizza from a Chinese restaurant. They don’t got it. Yell & complain but — they still don’t got it.

  62. 62
    lamh35 says:

    I know we clown Sully all the time, but I think this was very good. BTW, I do hate the title.

    Obama Lets Go Of Fear

    …The interview changes no laws; it has no tangible effect. But it reaffirms for me the integrity of this man we are immensely lucky to have in the White House. Obama’s journey on this has been like that of many other Americans, when faced with the actual reality of gay lives and gay relationships…

  63. 63
    Clime Acts says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    Obama isn’t ‘hedging his bets’, he’s following the rules of federalism that were put in place long before he showed up. And the rules are there because the people who wrote them were smarter than you. It’s actually kind of amazing to me just how quickly all the firebaggers moved their goalposts on this. By God, they need something to complain about, facts be damned!

    You know, you are really quite depraved in your Botulism. The man could AT THE VERY LEAST stop saying he “respects” the right of individual states to discriminate, and he could announce his firm support for and a campaign to enable a constitutional ammendment.

    But that would require ovaries or testicles and a spine.

  64. 64
    The Dangerman says:

    @Citizen Alan:

    Oh, what horseshit! There is not a single person who was going to vote for Obama yesterday who has changed his or her mind because he came out for gay marriage. Not one in the entire world.

    Oh, what hyperbole!

    This was always going to be a turnout election; guess what, asshole, the other side will now be assured of turning out, so it doesn’t really matter if so much as one Obama voter switched, does it?

  65. 65
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    I idly wonder what the responses of the David Brookses and Tom Friedmans of the world will be. You know, the ones who are always talking about how Great Men of History need to rise above petty temporal feuds and make great big bold statements that history will revere them for, and are constantly wondering whether Obama his the guts to promote Big Ideas.

    I mean, I know they’ll weasel out of it, but I admit being morbidly curious as to how.

  66. 66
    Peter says:

    @Trurl: You do realize that Roe v. Wade was a court case and not actually an act of the Federal government?

  67. 67
    pragmatism says:

    @Clime Acts:

    The man could AT THE VERY LEAST stop saying he “respects” the right of individual states to discriminate, and he could announce his firm support for and a campaign to enable a constitutional ammendment.

    genius plan. no potential downside to that in an election year.

  68. 68
    yopd1 says:

    Greenwald summed it up nicely in less than 140 characters:

    Advocating for it IS doing something for it – so is refusing to defend DOMA – what he can’t do is mandate it – he’s not a judge

  69. 69
    David Koch says:

    Obama is worse enemy gays have ever faced.

    In most ways, he’s worse than Hitler

  70. 70
    lamh35 says:

    @Linda Featheringill: yeah,I know that happens, but still, I just want people once they come down from the euphoria now what??? I suspect the goalpost will be changed and with every passing non-legislation by Congress and with more passage of anti-gay ammendments (remember what 40 – 1 is the current voting statistics against gay-marriage), just hope that now that Obama has said it, that those gay activist and donors who’ve said they were holding their purse strings until he says it, will still not be satisfied with his “evolution”.

  71. 71
    bemused says:

    I’m laughing and laughing at all this handwringing. Obama and his close advisors are slick and smart. I can’t see how doing this now hurts him at all. The same people criticizing him before are the same people criticizing him now.

  72. 72
    David Koch says:

    Kucinich was right – NØbama should be impeached

  73. 73
    Bnut says:

    This Fox Nation tweet is pretty good.

  74. 74
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @Clime Acts:

    Yeah, he really oughta tell that teabagger-infested congress to get to work on that pro-gay-marriage amendment. You know those things need 2/3 of Congress voting yea to pass, right? That will be so useful and help so many people! Or maybe he should just skip ahead and ask 2/3 of state legislatures to get to work approving that amendment! Care to tell us which 34 states they would be?

    There’s very little he can actually do, policy wise. Why would banging his head into the legislative wall described above help gay marriage in any way? Why do you guys keep insisting he bang his head into that wall or else he’s a traitor? What purpose does that serve?

    Are you firebaggers all this stupid? The president isn’t a dictator who can just do what he wants, and thank God for that. Things that don’t get accomplished aren’t automatically because of a lack of will on his part. There are very real barriers in the way, and Obama isn’t the only one who gets to decide them. You think we’re all annoyed by you guys because you have capital-P Principles and we don’t. For me, at least, the annoyance comes from a continuous and abject failure to understand how laws are actually made in this country.

  75. 75
    Citizen Alan says:

    @Trurl:

    But those bans are unconstitutional.

    Citing what case, asshole? Until the Supreme Court eventually rules on the California Prop 8 case, there is no binding precedent anywhere in the country that says that a law banning gay marriage is contrary to the U.S. Constitution. Even in California pre-Prop 8, the ruling that allowed gay marriages was based on a reading of the California Constitution. Until and unless the Supreme Court rules that the Equal Protection clause extends to allowing gays to marry (which will require either Anthony Kennedy being bolder than I think he is OR Obama appointing a replacement for Scalia or Kennedy in his second term), gay marriage bans are a states rights issue.

  76. 76
    Quarks says:

    Realistically? No one knows how this will impact the November election, or if most people will even remember this in the November election. It’s May.

    My own guess is that the anti-gay bigots weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway, and the rest of us are more concerned about jobs, the economy, the environment, Iraq, Afghanistan and who is going to win the next American Idol or whatever reality show is popular in the fall to think much about this in the voting booth in November.

    I’m glad that Obama made this statement, mind you. I’m just doubtful that it’s going to have much of an effect either way.

  77. 77
    Chyron HR says:

    @Clime Acts:

    Or he could AT VERY LEAST allow a homosexual onto his staff for a whole week (but not let him out in public, because, eew, amirite) before firing him.

    After all, when Mitt did that you proudly proclaimed it to be “a clear signal to us Friends of Toto that he is cool with the gays after all”.

  78. 78
    Gin & Tonic says:

    November is six months away. By then nobody will give a shit.

  79. 79
    yopd1 says:

    @Bnut: Yeah, my Conservative friends have already started to repeat that.

  80. 80
    David Koch says:

    I think we have to consider supporting Mitt Romney, who’s a true liberal and progressive on gay rights.

  81. 81
    MikeJ says:

    @Quarks:

    I’m glad that Obama made this statement, mind you. I’m just doubtful that it’s going to have much of an effect either way.

    If this was going to cost Obama the election I think he might well have held off until December to make a statement.

  82. 82
    Shawn in ShowMe says:

    The Prez has managed to define his opposition as the party who hates gays, demands that women be barefoot and pregnant, considers Clint Eastwood a girly man and longs for the good ‘ol days when Bin Laden was alive and GM was on its death bed. The kid with the big ears is pretty good at this.

  83. 83
  84. 84

    I think the only possible way coming out for gay marriage can hurt him for the election, is with maybe a few reddish states like NC that he won last time. And even then that it could increase the fundies coming out to vote that wouldn’t have otherwise. As well as working for the gooper candidate.

    But jeebus, about everything thing he has done, especially lately, has indirectly stated what he put into concise words today in support of gay rights of all kinds, so it really wasn’t that big a leap;

    And as well, maybe it will cause just as many liberals to come out to vote for him in those few states, that wouldn’t have otherwise.

    Plus, this election is primarily an economic election, and the wingnuts take a big risk trying to make this a big election deal, for a few extra fundy votes. That would divert their messaging away from the seminal issue this go around.

    I really don’t see any negative backlash electorally from him voicing what everyone already knew he was thinking. And if nothing else, might shut the firebaggers up long enough to get some peace, and focus on the republicans, and beating them

  85. 85
    Clime Acts says:

    @Linda Featheringill:

    weak ass b.s. you don’t have a filter, Linda.

    I didn’t know you were an alleged filter wimp. Good to know.

  86. 86
    kay says:

    @drew42:

    I’ve really gotten to the point where I wonder about the people who always say ‘it’s not ME, I’m very open minded, it’s just that I’m worried about all those OTHER less tolerant Democrats out there”

    It’s like they’re the spokespeople for Other Democrats.

    Why not just let those mysterious less tolerant Other Democrats weigh in? Let it play out.

  87. 87
    burnspbesq says:

    @Clime Acts:

    By this reasoning, the Southern states would still be free to hold slaves cause, you know, every state has the right to decide for itself.

    Dumbfuck, the states did have the right to decide about slavery. They decided when they ratified the Thirteenth Amendment.

    Did they not teach civics in your high school?

  88. 88
    Phoenix_rising says:

    @WereBear:

    Why did it take so many decades for the first toe of African American Civil Rights to be dipped in the water? Because the fight was full of uncompromising idealists who refused to compromise and got nothing done.

    Um, or you’re crazy. Go read some WEB and Booker debating in 1905, then learn about SNCC, and get back with us after. The sentiment of your comment is sweet, but can’t cover up the odor of the counterfactual you closed with…

  89. 89
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Clime Acts: Seriously? Why on earth would you want that?

  90. 90
    lamh35 says:

    @General Stuck:

    And as well, maybe it will cause just as many liberals to come out to vote for him in those few states, that wouldn’t have otherwise.

    Shit it better. But certain members of our party are very quick to move goalpost once they’ve been acheieved

  91. 91
    Clime Acts says:

    @Trurl:

    But those bans are unconstitutional. And anyone who supports their legitimacy—as Obama just did, in no uncertain terms—even if they oppose the policy, is adopting the retrograde position in the contemporary gay marriage debate. Obama is moving backward, not forward. ]]

    Trurl, you rock. Thank you.

  92. 92
    James E. Powell says:

    Also too, I was wondering if Romney was planning on getting any of his campaign messages out this week. Sorry, Mitt. There’s no more air in this room.

  93. 93
    Citizen Alan says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Wow. You know, the one bad thing about the pie filter is that occasionally someone quotes Clime Acts or some other dolt and I see just enough brazen stupidity to make me curious as to what else they’re saying.

  94. 94
  95. 95
    Shawn in ShowMe says:

    @General Stuck:

    And if nothing else, might shut the firebaggers up long enough to get some peace, and focus on the republicans, and beating them

    Privates Hamsher and Greenwald would rape a nun before they would carry out that order, sir.

  96. 96
    Quarks says:

    @MikeJ: Yeah. I think he and his advisors looked at the situation, realized that making a statement now wouldn’t cost him anything by November, and might gain him some donations and support in the short term. But cost him the election? No. Gain him the election? No.

  97. 97
    burnspbesq says:

    @Linda Featheringill:

    Sput-sputter-fritten-fratten-mumble-damn . . .

    Did you really expect something sane from RedState?

    Talk about failure to manage expectations … ;-)

  98. 98
    Cassidy says:

    @scandi: How did you guys train bears?

  99. 99
    Gabriel Bellatrix says:

    @The Dangerman: Oh please. Have you been asleep the past few years? The far right hates-hates-hates Obama; they were going to turn out in droves to defeat him even if he never budged on marriage equality.

    If anything, this should help motivate the Democratic base–this is red meat to the followers, particularly young folks.

  100. 100
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @Jamey:

    Aww, you shouldn’t have. No really, you shouldn’t have.

    @Gabriel Bellatrix:

    I do hope so. What I hope is that the emoprog mindest of it’s all just a ploy/he didn’t mean it/why’d it take so long doesn’t prevent that.

  101. 101
    Scratch says:

    Some day people will say, “That’s so hoft!” in place of “That’s so f-ing dumb!”

  102. 102
    burnspbesq says:

    @yopd1:

    I don’t mind giving props to Greenwald when he’s right, and that was awesome.

  103. 103
    Clime Acts says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    Shorter Spaghetti Lee: LEAVE OBAMA ALONE. HE CAN’T DO ANYTHING NOW WITH NO CONGRESS, HE COULDN’T DO ANYTHING WHEN HE HAD MAJORITIES….HE JUST CAN’T DO ANYTHING; IT’S ALL SO HARD.

    WHAAAAAAAAAAAA.

  104. 104
    Gabriel Bellatrix says:

    This is why the Democratic Party doesn’t listen to progressives. Because whenever a Democrat takes a step in the right direction, progressives complain that it was just one step instead of two or three.

    If it’s not one thing, it’s another. Before, the complaint was that Obama needed to evolve already; now that he did, the complaint is that he didn’t evolve far enough. And even if he had, then the complaint would be that it was all just talk. And even if President Obama proposed a constitutional marriage equality amendment and pushed for its passage, the complaint would be that he wasn’t able to garner enough support to prevent its inevitable defeat and thus didn’t really mean it or was a weak leader or something similarly ludicrous.

  105. 105
    Clime Acts says:

    @Chyron HR:

    Link to what I actually wrote, please.

    Thanks.

  106. 106
    Monkeyfister says:

    I liked this exchange between AlterNet’s Jim Holland and Charles Johnson:

    JH: You once called Jim Hoft, the dumbest person on the internet, a “borderline illiterate bigot.”

    CJ: I stand by those words.

    JH: They’re not even controversial, Charles.

  107. 107
    Phoenix_rising says:

    @lamh35: more passage of anti-gay ammendments

    Dude, stop, if I laugh much more I’m gonna pee my pants.

    We have nowhere to go on state laws. States that vote on gay couples do their best to outlaw us, full stop, no exceptions yet seen. There are no more states in which it’s politically possible for an amendment vote to happen.

    Sure, states can decide their own laws, within the limits of our Constitution. That’s not controversial. It’s not a problem to me or anyone I know that Obama failed to call for a second Civil War to impose marriage equality on the Confederate states. First off, I’m a pragmatist; more importantly, he’s right.

    Marriage is, as a matter of law, a state issue. So the case being argued in the 1st CA in which gay couples and MA, CT + NH are on the side of marriage being left to their states, a position with which the President’s appointees to the DOJ agree, is going to address the legal question: Is the set of amendments we already have from the previous Civil War sufficient coverage for LGBT citizens? We’ll also be hearing from the 9th CA in the coming months on this question. And for the families affected, it IS in fact a pressing one.

    In closing, as the person you’re saying is a petulant whiner who won’t really bust ass for the campaign even now–which BTW, is my contempt being expressed clearly enough to meet and greet your disrespect?–I’m laughing at your Chicken Little crap. This costs Obama a dozen or more votes in swing states, if that, and has my mom calling all her friends in Ohio to make sure they’re going to give and canvass, door-knock and send money. It’s all win.

  108. 108
    Clime Acts says:

    @Citizen Alan:

    fake pie filters are also spineless.

  109. 109
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @Clime Acts:

    Nice to see you couldn’t actually respond to anything I said. Keep on bein’ a fuckup, ya fuckup.

  110. 110
    bk says:

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    “Are you firebaggers all this stupid?” Evidently.

  111. 111
    kindness says:

    I think the Log Cabin Republicans press release was worse. They said (something to the effect of)

    “That the president has chosen today, when LGBT Americans are mourning the passage of Amendment One, to finally speak up for marriage equality is offensive and callous,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director.

    Yea…..isn’t that special. They’d rather stay with the party that wants to lock them up for their preferences. Isn’t that kinda like the Jews for Hitler club?

  112. 112
    ruemara says:

    @bk: deeply, truly, wildly stupid.

  113. 113
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mickey:

    Fuck it.

    I’ll help put the Log Cabin Rethuglicans into the cattle cars to Pat Robertson’s Vernichtungslager for fags myself.

    Fuck them. Which is probably what the pathetic asswipes want.

  114. 114
  115. 115
    kay says:

    @kindness:

    It’s sad. It’s so bitter.

    That said, I don’t want the Log Cabin Republicans in the Democratic Party because they’re Republicans on every other issue but THEIR issue.

    So they can stay over there and rage. We have enough economic conservatives/ libertarians in the Democratic Party. We’re full up.

  116. 116
    kindness says:

    @kay: True that.

  117. 117
    A Humble Lurker says:

    @Clime Acts:
    You know, I find it interesting that all it takes for Romney to be secretly for teh gays for you is for him to hire (and then fire at the behest of bigots) one Richard Grenell. Obama comes out in support of gay marriage (after overseeing the dismantlement of DADT) and he’s a liar McTraitor pants. Interesting indeed.

  118. 118
    polyorchnid octopunch says:

    That’s not bean dip he’s scooping up with those lead paint chips.

  119. 119
    feebog says:

    @ Turl:

    But those bans are unconstitutional. And anyone who supports their legitimacy—as Obama just did, in no uncertain terms—even if they oppose the policy, is adopting the retrograde position in the contemporary gay marriage debate. Obama is moving backward, not forward.

    In your opinion they are unconstitutional. However, according to that same constitution, there are only two ways that same sex marriage is going to become constitutional nationwide; either through a constitutional amendment, or the supreme court. I don’t see a constitutional amendment being passed until we get a large majority in both the House and Senate. And right now, if the question came before the Supreme Court, I am ready to lay down any amount you wish that it would be a 5 to 4 split decision against.

    The only way that changes is if we have Democratic President appointing Supreme Court judges for the next 12 years. Thats why (among many reasons) that I am voting for Obama, and hoping like hell that he has a Democrat suceed him.

  120. 120
    Citizen_X says:

    @Trurl:

    before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too

    Well, good thing LBJ made that Roe v. Wade decision, right?

  121. 121
    dmsilev says:

    I’d like to enter into consideration the Washington Free Beacon, for their take “GAY FOR PAY”, arguing that this was about seeking campaign donations from gay donors.

  122. 122
    chrome agnomen says:

    all this won’t change a vote in a thousand. obama might just as well have gone for broke. be a moral leader.

  123. 123
    mdblanche says:

    @scandi:

    We we have fierce queens, pissed off pups, butch bull dykes, Dan Savage, flaming twinks, grizzled leather dudes, Sharon Needles, high femmes (pointy high heels), Rachel Maddow, bears, Puerto Rican transexuals, Queen Latifah, muscle marys…

    …and Methodists!

    @Villago Delenda Est: Nonsense. Surely the members of the Homosexuellerat Log Cabin Republicans will be exempt from all that in exchange for their loyal service, right?

  124. 124

    Well… you know, this is exactly as true as the statement that Obama was attacking Catholics by ensuring that, if they buy health insurance, the insurance companies will provide free birth control.

    If the insurance decision was an attack on Catholics – who aren’t paying for birth control, but feel that it’s morally wrong – then this is an attack on Christians who don’t have to marry anyone of the same sex, but feel that it’s morally wrong.

    Of course, in the real world, it makes no fucking sense. But it is *equally* senseless.

  125. 125
    Terry says:

    @Shawn in ShowMe: Awesome, actually. Maybe phenomenal.

  126. 126
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @LongHairedWeirdo:

    Well, Catholics who fully support the red beanie brigade’s stance on all birth control are fully able to not put on a rubber or use an IUD or the pill, or have an abortion.

    Likewise, those who don’t want to marry someone of the same sex don’t have to.

    It’s just that, ZOMG, these things are happening out there and it drives these people bananas!

    What’s the quotation? A puritan is person who lives in the mortal fear that somewhere someone is having fun.

  127. 127
    John M. Burt says:

    I dunno, I think the Stupidest Response to Obama’s Endorsement of Gay Equality has got to be from the Stupidest Gay People (aka Log Cabin Republicans), that making his announcement right after Amendment One passed was “callous” and provided right-deprived gay North Carolinians “cold comfort”.

    No, dude. Knowing you’re in the largest and most prestigious gay Republican group, and that your group receives more respect from the GOP than they give to any other gay group, that is cold comfort.

  128. 128
    Rome Again says:

    I have never seen a more perfect example of ingrates in my entire life.

    Rome wasn’t built in a day, you know… but, Obama comes out in favor of same sex marriage and he’s somehow “moved backwards!” WTF?

    Wow, just wow! Firebaggers: IMPOSSIBLE to please!

  129. 129
    RSA says:

    @Mickey:

    Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue

    Odd how Vice President Cheney didn’t say a word when he was actually a leader and had some influence.

  130. 130
    Clime Acts says:

    @Chyron HR:

    Idiot.

    I was clearly mocking the Obot tendency to twist Obama’s every utterance and deed, no matter how bogus, into a positive by doing the same with Mitt’s gay firing.

    But your shriveled Obot brain won’t allow you to see that.

  131. 131
    Clime Acts says:

    @A Humble Lurker:

    dumb ass. I was mocking obots by posing as a Rombot.

    Your stupidity doesn’t allow you to grasp such distinctions.

    Id on’t care.

  132. 132
    Clime Acts says:

    @chrome agnomen:

    be a moral leader.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….OMG…HAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

  133. 133
    gaz says:

    Be nice to Hoft. He’s just throwing Tin Tin over at sadly, no a bone. Someone has to give them source material, after all.

    Might as well be “The Dumbest Man on the Internet” (google it)

  134. 134
    gaz says:

    @Clime Acts: google poe’s law. You’re not in a position to mock anyone. Don’t be surprised if your attempt at humor is lost on people, as it’s really not particularly funny.

  135. 135
    Chyron HR says:

    @Clime Acts:

    Every time I say something stupid it’s actually because I’m making fun of Obots.

    Is that why you keep incoherently babbling about “botulists”?

  136. 136
    Chyron HR says:

    @Clime Acts:

    And how were you “doing the same with Mitt’s gay firing”? The post you demanded I link to is clearly dated April 23, over a week before the firing took place. (Oops, maybe you should stop demanding people provide links to your posts when they throw your words back in your face.)

    Your response to the FIRING was as follows:

    Any theories on why the Romney campaign made this hire to begin with? IT’s not as though they didn’t know he was gay, and the potential shit storm that would follow from their right flank. ???

    Question mark question mark question mark, indeed. Doubtlessly more of the subtle Oscar-Wilde-meets-Mark-Twain wit evidenced in comments like “your stupid Obot brain”.

  137. 137
    shep says:

    “…it’s all about attacking the Christian Church.”

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

  138. 138

    Someone at DU, one of several there determined to remind us all of Obama’s gay failings, has coined a term to describe Obama’s position now: Gayparthied.

    Sigh.

  139. 139
    A Humble Lurker says:

    @Clime Acts:
    As Chyron points out, in conjunction with this that excuse is hard to believe.

    Oh, I think I get it now…you’re a Log Cabin Republican. That’s just the saddest thing ever. I would think the tax cuts would be something of cold comfort considering the hatred the GOP has for you.

  140. 140
    Barry says:

    A request to posters – please provide a link to the original item, instead of just a link to an image on Balloon-juice. I frequently would like to visit the source.

  141. 141
    john Williams says:

    To #52. I have sent donations to Obama prior to his election and infrequently since then. I voted for him on the last election. I won’t be voting for him again or sending any more money after his announcement.

Comments are closed.