Obama Backs Gay Marriage!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Congratulations, Mr. Romney.

Since when did bigotry become something to be lauded?

I think krazen is of the opinion that the division on this issue has de facto ended the election in Romney's favor. If pressed, I would say that krazen believes this because he believes that this is something that the American people, or key segments thereof, will side with Romney and against the President on this, in sufficient numbers and with sufficient zeal to render any other issues that may have helped the President's reelection campaign minor by comparison.

Am I getting that right?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It will be great when society moves off this issue, but the liberals are simply going to keep inventing new minorities. Homosexuals, transexuals, don't tell me this ain't a slippery slope.

It's the minorities who are 'inventing' themselves, thank you, and...I mean, no, this isn't a slippery slope, or at least there's no reason why it has to be. Why should it be? We've been in the process of reevaluating the issue of gender roles and their implications, which is a specific issue and not some sort of locus of unrelated affairs, for a couple of centuries now.

Looks like Obama alienated about half the hispanic votes in key swing states.  Oh, and I thought Romney was a flip flopper on issues, Obama supporters can be hypocrites at times.

Hispanics support gay marriage at about the same rate as non-Hispanic whites these days.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Looks like Obama alienated about half the hispanic votes in key swing states.  Oh, and I thought Romney was a flip flopper on issues, Obama supporters can be hypocrites at times.

Yeah, because they are going to run to the party that has demonize them the past few years.

Conservatives desperation is hilarious...........

Right....and Obama supports clean renewable energy when he drives a gas guzzling caddy?  Hypocrites!

What has that got to do with anything whatsoever?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It will be great when society moves off this issue, but the liberals are simply going to keep inventing new minorities. Homosexuals, transexuals, don't tell me this ain't a slippery slope.

It's the minorities who are 'inventing' themselves, thank you, and...I mean, no, this isn't a slippery slope, or at least there's no reason why it has to be. Why should it be? We've been in the process of reevaluating the issue of gender roles and their implications, which is a specific issue and not some sort of locus of unrelated affairs, for a couple of centuries now.

Looks like Obama alienated about half the hispanic votes in key swing states.  Oh, and I thought Romney was a flip flopper on issues, Obama supporters can be hypocrites at times.

Hispanics support gay marriage at about the same rate as non-Hispanic whites these days.

"Gender roles", another ridiculous term. People can't change gender roles, people also don't define them. Those gender roles exist because of human nature, and people aren't going to change that, no matter how much they try to manipulate it.

Human nature which changes from society to society and point to point in history and has been at several points openly and explicitly manipulated by social or economic interests? You've studied such extensively, I'm sure.

Certainly it will aid Mr Romney in acquiring the votes of people who don't necessarily like him but certainly don't like they type of behavior just endorsed by Barack Obama.

The people will render their verdict.

I suppose they will, and I suppose regardless of what it is you will be constant in your analysis that gay marriage was the issue on which people were making their decision?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My guess is that he just lost about 27 electoral votes, but strengthened his base. A great issue that the Romney Campaign can use against him in several ways.

If the Romney campaign did so it would open itself up to easy, and as the case would be entirely accurate, attacks about straying off of what the more important message is to most people (at least, most people who aren't gay or bisexual or very close to people who are).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It will be great when society moves off this issue, but the liberals are simply going to keep inventing new minorities. Homosexuals, transexuals, don't tell me this ain't a slippery slope.

It's the minorities who are 'inventing' themselves, thank you, and...I mean, no, this isn't a slippery slope, or at least there's no reason why it has to be. Why should it be? We've been in the process of reevaluating the issue of gender roles and their implications, which is a specific issue and not some sort of locus of unrelated affairs, for a couple of centuries now.

Looks like Obama alienated about half the hispanic votes in key swing states.  Oh, and I thought Romney was a flip flopper on issues, Obama supporters can be hypocrites at times.

Hispanics support gay marriage at about the same rate as non-Hispanic whites these days.

"Gender roles", another ridiculous term. People can't change gender roles, people also don't define them. Those gender roles exist because of human nature, and people aren't going to change that, no matter how much they try to manipulate it.

As I understand this, you support women going back to the kitchen?

No. However, I do recognize that women are better suited to be homemakers then men.

Hell, why stop there? They're also better suited to be priestly elites who control the domestic policy of the Kingdom of Wa while the menfolk go out and do diplomacy with the Empire Beyond the Sunset; slutting around as suits their womanly concupiscence while the chaste manly men do philosophy; do reaping as opposed to sowing because a woman's place is at the harvest whereas a man's is at the seeding; do sowing as opposed to reaping because a woman's place is at the seeding whereas a man's is at the harvest; fighting with spears instead of swords because spears are womanly and swords are manly; on the moon rather than the sun because the sun is obviously Hyperion and masculine while the moon is obviously Selene and feminine; on the sun rather than the moon because the sun is obviously Amaterasu and feminine while the moon is obviously Tsukuyomi and masculine...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Moral issues trump racial identity.

They....no. They really don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How many times must we remind you that Hispanics support gay marriage at about the same rate as whites? Are you really laboring under the delusion that Obama will sink below ~92% with blacks on account of this?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He didn't 'just' lose West Virginia, and Indiana was doubtful anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I am so pleased to see that when making Presidential decisions with far reaching consequences for the entire nation that the President depends on the advice of his two daughters, ages 14 and 11.

That really makes me feel confident in the direction the nation is headed.

Are you self-parodying or do you really not understand the significance of generational concerns, which for most people are expressed in their family relationships, to cultural issues? Weren't you the same person who was defending Mitt Romney having his wife who has never held paid employment as his economic point-woman?