I’m a bit behind on this since the President made his statements a few days ago. Fact is I’ve been busy writing more fun things and truth be told; I’m not running in an election, so I can get to it in what I feel is a good amount of time and not in what some PR person tells me is the perfect time.
President Obama said, “I’ve stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community and I’d hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient … and I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word ‘marriage’ is something that evokes powerful tradition and religious beliefs.”
Fair enough right, It seems reasonable to me, here’s the rub though. If it weren’t an election year would this even be on the table? Now it’s a choice between yes to allowing gays to marry with President Obama, or Romney who opposes it as well as civil unions. Obama does still say it should be on a state by state basis, so he doesn’t anger state leadership, my point is if you are going to take an actual moral stance then take one. Looking back through statements and such from both Parties nominees, You can see the Obama’s opinion has changed over time. Romneys hasn’t changed so much as flip flopped depending on who he is speaking to and in what context. I find that irritating. I have no problem with his saying he doesn’t support gay marriage. I do have problems when he can’t seem to make up his mind. He’s allowed his opinion but he should know what it is.
Richard Grenell said this, “While I am pleased with President Obama’s new decision, it’s important to keep politicians from playing politics with a group’s civil rights. The President’s timing suggests that he is once again more concerned with his own political calculations than with actual equal rights. The president could have evolved when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, or even yesterday, before the swing state of North Carolina voted.”
For those of you unaware North Carolina recently approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in that state. I agree with Mr. Grenell, here’s the thing though. Depending on the point of view of the person, myself included, it is a Moral issue. Churches may not want to marry same-sex couples; they don’t have to. I’m perfectly fine with that. My problem is that two people who Love each other and want to legally become a couple, in whatever word it is we are using this week aren’t allowed to because some people want to impose their beliefs on people who do not share those beliefs.
I think two people who Love each other should be able to Marry. You can’t force churches to do it. You shouldn’t be able to force someone who is against it to perform whatever type of civil or religious ceremony it is you choose to use, but you sure as hell should be able to Marry. I also think that our government shouldn’t get to use this issue like a political ping-pong ball to score cheap points with voters. So to anyone who wishes to Marry and isn’t being permitted to, move here to NY, it’s legal, and I’d be happy to stand up for you during whatever ceremony it is you choose. It’s not a political issue. It’s not worthy of study. It’s a personal choice and last I checked our country was founded on just that.
Want to know what the politicians should be talking about?
8.1% National Unemployment.
$1.327 trillion, Budget Deficit.
16% Of Americans have no health care, Mostly children and the Elderly.
Ranked 11th in Education worldwide.
Oh and we are fighting a few wars as well, not that it’s important for an election year. Lets beat each other to death with Gay Marriage so we don’t have to talk about things that effect everyone. It’s more fun to argue about the little things then fix the big ones.