I believe "leave it up to the states" is little better than compete silence on gay marriage.

[Stinky The Clown]

On so many levels it is wrong.

First, it is a weasly position. It is a politically expedient way of trying to have it both ways. It allows one to avoid having to actually take a stand.

Second, it doesn't help anyone who has a legal marriage in one state be accepted as married in another. Forget moving to such a state. Imagine a gay couple on vacation in one and having one partner be hospitalized. That's anyone's nightmare. If your spouse can't see to your well being, that is one of the worst things I can imagine.

And what about just the simple, basic, unfairness of it?

Jim Crow wasn't done on a state by state basis. If it were, it would still exist. Look no further than Kansas and the current assault on women's rights - and they're codified!!! - to see what "state's rights" get us in this country.

There are so many more reasons why this is wrong. The few examples are enough for this thread.

Taking no stand is being unfriendly to the civil rights of the LGBTIQ citizens of the country - even he ones with state granted rights to marry.

This, in part, is what my DU avatar is about.

[glen123098]

1. I don't understand why he still is against gay marriage.

I know Obama is largely a poll follower. Well, the polls are on the side of gay marriage now. So why is he still with the right wing minority?

[Bluebear]

2. "God is in the mix"

[HockeyMom]

7. "God created separate races and it is an affront to God

to have interracial couples marrying and mixing his races." Try another god argument. That was used as an argument in the Loving v. Virginia case.

[Bluebear]

13. It's certainly not my argument.

LAKE FOREST, Calif. -- One of the candidates for president strolled onto the stage at a massive megachurch in suburban Orange County Saturday night and started joking easily with the Rev. Rick Warren, maybe the most popular evangelical leader in America -- but just plain "Pastor Rick" to the candidate. He talked about his certainty that "Jesus Christ died for my sins, and I am redeemed through him," said Americans should be soldiers in the fight against evil, and defined marriage as between a man and a woman -- "and God is in the mix." This particular Christian candidate was so on his game that after a segment on domestic policy ended, Warren told him -- his mic still live as the TV feed cut to commercial -- "Home run."

Oh, and John McCain was there, too.

Actually, McCain was just about as relaxed at Warren's Saddleback Civic Forum as Barack Obama. The conversational tone of the event, moderated by Warren, played to his skills better than standard-issue debates do. The night may have offered Obama the bigger opportunity -- especially if his campaign is serious about efforts to reach evangelical voters in ways that previous Democratic nominees haven't.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/08/17/saddleback/

[The Doctor.]

4. He's not.

But I suppose if he has so many liberals fooled, there's no danger of the wingnut right suspecting it either.

[pnwmom]

9. He's ordered the Justice Department not to defend DOMA.

So he's supporting gay marriages in the states that have approved them. I know -- he can and should go further, but he has improved on his earlier position.

[Tesha]

11. He still holds to the delusion that if he only kisses their asses sufficiently, ...

...they'll somehow end up liking him.

As if!

Tesha

[patrice]

3. Are we, or are we not, "one nation"? Personally, I don't want my federal tax dollars going to

any states that do not recognize the Civil and Human Rights of ALL Americans. If people can have a conscientious objection to how their federal tax dollars MIGHT be spent on abortion, I am claiming my conscientious objection to those who discriminate against the LGBT community.

[Sparkly]

6. I'd like a conscientious objection to my tax dollars going to weapons of mass destruction.

:hi:

[Sparkly]

5. The same applies to reproductive rights.

"It's up to the states."

Does the Constitution provide for basic human rights, equality, and liberty, or doesn't it?!

"Weasly" is a good word for it.

[SoCalNative]

8. It is ridiculous to leave anything solely to the discretion of a state

when federal benefits are conveyed.

If that's the way they want to play it, then there should be NO benefits for marriage and its product(s) on the federal level.

[joeybee12]

10. He's behind the times...about 6 years ago weasly Dems started saying gay marriages was states right

issue, essentially to cover their tracks and try and please everyone...it didn't fool anyone, and it doesn't fool anyone today especially since he can't come up with an original way to weasel out of taking a stand.

[LiberalAndProud]

12. Rough translation:

"I don't want to talk about that right now."

At least, that's how I translated Obama's position at a recent family gathering. And to a person, Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal, the agreement with my assessment was unanimous.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Here are sewing instructions for that . . . . .

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o-dDe5EzQYM/Sg8dzVRSJeI/AAAAAAAAAhw/EktvQZ7rmRE/s320/sows+ear.gif

[ruggerson]

15. It's also intellectually incompatible with his position on DOMA

If he supports getting rid of DOMA as he says, then he WANTS the full faith and credit clause to apply to marriage. But that position is antithetical to a state's rights position. So he essentially has no credible position on this issue anymore. His political fears have backed him into an untenable corner.

[Bonobo]

16. I actually think it is worse than silence. nt