Obama has tonight become the first US President to state that gay couples should be allowed to marry.

More at BBC News

I wonder if that is since seeing The Sugar Dandies.

Wow. Well done him. That is very honest for a standing president.

And watching the video. I'm amazed.

Ant and Dec are hilarious.

Have to say i'm very suprised. It was well known that he believed this just that he hadn't said it publically.

Loved the video too. I love a little bit of the quick step now and again.

Me too. I'll have to go watch me some Harry Judd now.



I'm surprised he came out(!) and said this before the election, but maybe he feels 'Champion of Civil Rights' is a better angle than his usual trying to appeal to everyone.

About time. Election in November after all...

Should have been his response the first fucking time he was asked. How hideously transparent.

I just hope he doesn't lose the election because of this.
He'll surely lose some votes as well as gain some votes.
If Romney wins in November then it will be a setback.

I'm not convinced that it was a prudent political move.

Let's not be too judgmental Judy, at least he finally did, first American Prez to do so and I'm down with that.

If Romney and Bachmann (I get to vote against her again this year!) win, it's time for me to look at homes in the countries I've always dreamed of living in. Seriously.

I just read today that Bachman, through her husband's ancestry, applied for and received Swiss citizenship. She's now a dual US/Swiss citizen. It happens that Switzerland requires of its citizens compulsory health insurance. The irony! (It's probably "residents", but I read "citizens")
Apparently they did it for the children.

And that won't affect anyone voting for her at all . At least her opponent this year has a shitload of his own money to spend, and as a successful businessman, has a free-market-friendly approach to the economy. But my city, the largest in her district, is mostly on the RELIGIOUS right, not the economic right. Sigh. AND it's a college town. I don't get it.

Does anybody get American politics?

And wtf happened to your handle? No more NYC? Can we do that?

To belive the words of a preacherman or a politican separately is hard. But to belive the words of a preaching politican really is impossible.

Really is a bold move on his part, will become a very polarised election although I suspect that was his game-plan.

I think it's a great thing to do whatever his motivations.
It's time someone takes a stand.

It was.

In 1996 when he was running for the Illinois state Senate his position was (and I quote):

I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.

Over the 16 years since that statement he's publicly been undecided, against, undecided, against, open to the possibility and held an evolving view on the whole issue before now once again being for it. And lets not even get in the farcical way in which this latest deceleration of being for gay marriage came about.

Here's an interesting news analysis on the subject:

A Watershed Move, Both Risky and Inevitable

Somebody else pointed that out in another thread.
Something weird happened with my account and they couldn't fix it. So they had to change it, but to keep with the rule of not changing your username they shortened it to Parsifal. I'm ok with that. I'm still "Parsy".

I can't follow this article. It pretends like everything is peachy and nobody cares anymore whether or not gay people can marry, totally downplaying the fact that in more states than not it is still not allowed to do so and looking at e.g. California even in the states where it is people still oppose it.
It's very bolt indeed.

I wondered about that too... Have to make sure the mind isn't playing tricks on me.

Listen to the wise squirrel.

Is that what you're calling yourself these days?

If anything I am an Asapan.

Why would the homophobic bible states give a toss what a black, Democrat president thinks?

Cause he runs the country? Bit hard to ignore.

Yes, they still have this annoying habit of wanting the Pres. (whoever he is) to show their sort of leadership...

Have to say, if ever we had a President here, I'd be much happier if we followed the German/Irish model. One who knows their place.

The difference is that in the US the president is both the head of state and the head of government (i.e. executor) where as in Germany, Ireland and the UK the two offices are held by different people with the head of state being mostly ceremonial (while still having influential power).

But only the state governments can legalise gay marriage. It doesn't matter a jot whether the president supports it or not. He can't even make federal legislation without Congressional approval, let alone state law. They don't care what he thinks.

I was aware of that, thanks. What puzzles me is the way when Americans come to Britain, they seem to drool over our unelected Head of State. They seem to think she's a great lady - but would they, would you want to be ruled by an unelected man/woman??

No thanks. I firmly believe that the role of Head of State should be vested in the people, not through any hereditary or honorific system.

But this is getting away from my point... which is that the Head of State should be apolitical - whether he/she is elected or not.
Some constitution, eh?? I don't mean that states rights, per se, are bad. It's just that the US seems to have such a haphazard division of legislative powers. In AUstralia, it's far more organised, and deliberate. There, for instance, marriage is a federal domain, always has been.

In the US - forgive the expression - it's purely down to whether you live in a bigoted state as to whether you can get married or not. I'm thinking 50-odd years ago (for mixed-race couples), or even today (same-sex couples).

We get some elected ones that I'm not too happy about being ruled by.

At least you can kick 'em out every 2/4 years.

You have to understand that the United States is a federation of 50 states.
In the first eight years after the British surrendered at the Battle of Yorktown the 13 former colonies were in effect 13 sovreign nations held together under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution, which went in effect in 1789, created the United "States" under a national umbrella with strong states rights. It can be a bit haphazard going from one state to another and not knowing that state's laws. Just be a good boy and you'll be ok.


... after they've done enough damage.
We're still trying to clean up the mess left behind by GWB.

They care about what everyone thinks, why do you think there is always the fuzz about it?

It's a nice gesture. At least it shows he has balls to some extent. The past four years I've assumed he gave his to Hillary for safekeeping on her world travels.

See, once someone makes a start the others fall in line.

The Defence of Marriage Act is a federal law.

DOMA defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. DOMA is what allows states to say that they're under no legal requirement to recognise gay marriage carried out elsewhere. DOMA is what allows the federal government to ignore same sex marriage and deny insurance benefits for federal employees, filing of joint tax returns and social security survivors benefits.

That a sitting President supports same sex marriage would mean that any attempt to repeal DOMA would have the support of the White House and would not be threatened with a Presidential veto should it ever pass through Senate and Congress.

More over if you think a sitting President running for a second term taking a very public position on just about anything in an election year is meaningless then you're a crazy person.


Its something of a stretch to suggest that we're ruled (in any real sense) by the monarchy. Our head of State simply is not analogues with the head of State of a republic and despite what American political leaders might say they are a republic and not strictly speaking a democracy.

He said it because Biden opened his gob and dropped him in it, and had he not done so he risked the moonbats staying at home in November. He made a calculation that the risk of a lower turnout outweighed the damage it would do him with the opponents, probably correctly as they are seemingly depressingly (from hi perspective) unfazed by Romney being a Mormon.

Yes he's always believed it, and yes he's a spineless little shit who lied about it when it was politically convenient to do so.


You obviously aren't familiar with obamacare. this president and his allies in congress aren't overly concerned about whether they have the authority to do what they wish to.



It isn't haphazard, it's just that the founders realised that the best defence against tyranny is to keep decisions as close to the people as possible.



It is also completely outwith the enumerated powers of congress, and should be struck down as an affront to all that is constitutional.



Jumbler is British, and our head of state is the head of state of a republic.

It wouldn't be the first unconstitutional act of Congress that has yet to be repealed.


And yet despite Obama's apparent support for the cause, not one single state has announced a change in policy as a result.

We're a representative democracy.

Yes, but who does the democracy represent?
(just follow the money )

Your negativity gets on nerves sometimes.

You tend to be overly sensitive whenever someone criticises your country even in the slightest.

Sorry about that, but it is important to see the truth about things and not live in high school civics class induced fantasy. My guess is that in a moment of truth virtually every member of Congress would agree with what I said above.

Sorry, Parsy. I didn't mean to snap at you.

Not a problem. I get worse on here.