Hear David Boze every weekday at 6am on 770 KTTH
 David Boze
Get David's Books
The Little Red Book of Obamunism: Quotations from The One
It's the must-have election resource of 2012! It's a pocket-sized collection that reveals not just what the president says, but what he means!
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample

Kumar Joe, The Singing Crow
Kumar Joe, the Singing Crow is the tale of a little crow who was born with a heart for music, but not a voice for it.
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample



President Obama was for gay marriage before he was against it then for it again

May 9, 2012 @ 2:34 pm (Updated: 2:39 pm - 5/9/12 )

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

This clip from the Daily Show illustrates how President Obama's "struggle" with the issue of gay marriage is orchestrated political theater and nothing more. Obama the candidate was for same-sex marriage, but switched when he ran for higher office, and has now switched again in order to energize support.

In the clip below, the final third shows a clip from Fox News that features an old candidate questionnaire Obama filled out in his earlier political days--but you should watch the whole thing. It's a funny segment.

More David Boze

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (43)


  • Add A Comment

  • ron prevost wrote...
    flavor of the month, part D
    May 9, 2012 2:03 pm
    well, at least for now, the war on women and 'it's all about race' take a back burner. ... He needed to bolster his base - BUT those states where the gay vote is significant, he already leads strongly. In those areas opposed to gay marriage, the opposition is probably a lot more dedicated than supporters. This could even cost Obama Washington.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    ron, you really aren't bombing the O about changing his mind, are you?
    May 9, 2012 2:30 pm
    What do we have in Willard? He was for pro choice before he was against it. Not a fan of Raygun before he was his mentor. Raised taxes in Mass. But he didn't. Was anti auto bailout, now claims credit for it. Anti gun, now for them.

    Is there a single hot button issue he hasn't changed his mind about? Just one?

    Admit it ron, this is a gutsy call, that like the call to take out Osama and might cost him the election.

    I'd rather have a guy that will tell you where he stands.

    He did.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    eventually confirms his stand ???
    May 9, 2012 3:38 pm
    Well Oz finally did something for the Tin Men. And now they can contribute even more to his war chest. But will this bring out any more votes than he already had ? ..... Yup - It's a REALLY gutsy call - especially since I doubt Rahm Emanuel would have approved. But he's in Chicago now and hasn't time for his project any more. By energizing a lot more opposition than he can reasonably gain in support - it IS very un-Obama like. .......................................................................................... But what makes you think I'm all that thrilled with Romney ? Sure, he's better than Oz, but we can't expect to find a Reagan but every 50 years or so. ........................... But also interesting as to why is changing his mind a flip-flop for Romney, but a 'gutsy call' for Obama ???
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    By the way - I'm starting a campaign now for polygamy.
    May 9, 2012 3:46 pm
    Unlike gay marriage, polygamy is actually sanctioned in the Bible, as well as in the Qoran. Just why is true love limited to one on one ? .............. And what's more American than a boy and his dog ? ............... But - OH - not many voters or money in those mixes. Dang !
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hamsterama wrote...
    Polygamy.....
    May 9, 2012 8:26 pm
    ....is illegal for a good reason. I had ONE wife and contemplated other illegal activities all of the time.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Realitycheck wrote...
    Really???
    May 10, 2012 5:46 pm
    Where does he stand??? He maybe says one thing, but all his actions say the opposite. Enlighten me on how Obama is a man of his word. Never met a bigger liar then this excuse of a leader.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    It Was a Struggle....
    May 9, 2012 2:38 pm
    Rick Santorum just divorced his wife and married his dog. Are you happy, Mr. President?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    GOOD JOB OBAMA !
    May 9, 2012 3:46 pm
    It's about time the DNC ended their Discrimination and Bigotry!!! It's nice to see America evolve and embrace equality at a time when the rightwing GOP wants to enshrine into law their LGBT fears with bans and hate.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hamsterama wrote...
    Ciggy Rides the Unfounded Talking Points Again
    May 9, 2012 8:58 pm
    Care to point out ANY concrete examples of "ban" or "hate" ? Because I don't believe that a given relationship is as worthy of the same government endorsement as another, I'm a charter member of the KuKluxKlan? True, I find effeminite men and butch women as repellant as everyone else, but I believe they have right to marry whomever they want and pressure the market and their government for the status and protections they desire, as long as said protections and status don't overextend into violating the concept of "live and let live".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Hamsterama
    May 9, 2012 11:43 pm
    Ever hear of R-74?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    still no cigar
    May 10, 2012 6:19 am
    I'll say it again - R-74 is neither pro nor con gay marriage. But IS pro democracy. ... Referendum 74 simply allows the general public to VOTE on the bill passed by the legislature. You can actually vote to approve, if you want to ! ... The will of the people - what a concept.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @ron prevost
    May 10, 2012 6:15 pm
    The will of the people...is not the highest law. WHY? Because we have a US constitution. IF the "will" of the people decide to pass segregation, slavery, homophobia (R-74), or anything else that circumvents the 10th amendment, it gets struck by the federal courts.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @ron prevost
    May 10, 2012 8:10 pm
    I meant to say the 14th amendment.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Cigar - Amendments COME from the will of the people.
    May 11, 2012 6:19 am
    And SB 6239 (WS legislature passed gay marriage law) is NOT part of the Federal (or state) constitution. .......... But the 14th only applies that states can not greater restrict rights than the federal government - so what does that have to do with this ? ............................................ But, also, the will of the people IS tops. If for some ungodly reason congress and/or the states/people enacted a constitutional amendment re-allowing slavery, it WOULD be the new law. .. Prohabition was once a part of the constitution by amendment, but later repealed by another amendment.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @ron prevost
    May 11, 2012 8:16 am
    First things first, federal law superceeds state law. All laws are subject to the US constitution. To answer your question about the 14th amendment, are you familiar with prop 8 in California? The US constitution is the highest law, not the "will" of the people.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    @ Cigarfan - and your point is ???????
    May 11, 2012 9:15 am
    other than the defense of marriage act, I know of NO federal laws regarding gay marriage - that WAS the topic here, wasn't it ? ... So, again, what does the 14th Amendment have to do with 6239 ? ?? .... Last time I checked, the 9th Circuit Court was not the supreme arbiter of laws - that's why they call that bench in DC 'The SUPREME COURT'. And I think if the Supremes had ruled on Prop. 8, it might have made the news. .. Actually this whole idea of constitutional until proven otherwise confuses people, apparently including yourself. ................................................. And I'll try this again and you apparently don't read full postings: The 'will of the people' is what WROTE the Constitution - and can amend the constitution -- and can do just about anything with a 90% majority.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    PS: Cigar -
    May 11, 2012 9:20 am
    The Constitution was written and can be changed only by the people. Judicial activism should only interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    PS RON
    May 11, 2012 2:48 pm
    Yes the US constitution can be changed, but is changed by the congress & ratified by the states. Not the citizens. I understand that courts (not judicial activism) interpret the laws in light of the constitution. That is their job.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @ron prevost
    May 11, 2012 2:45 pm
    my point is....do you know why prop 8 was struck? (it made the news). I did not say there were federal laws regarding gay marriage. The subject is R-74. You are all over the road. The will of the people didn't end segregation, the courts did. The will of the people didn't end roe v wade, the courts did. Take R-74 and apply what happened to prop 8. Do not go beyond what I say or put words in my mouth. USE QUOTES if you have to.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    The 9th Circuit Court is NOT supreme
    May 11, 2012 3:56 pm
    First - the Constitution CAN be changed by state conventions. It's just extremely difficult. But we are in a world of hurt if Congress and the State Legislatures are NOT the people. This is a representative democracy - not a system of demigods for life. ... Second - the 9th Circuit Court makes rulings all the time that are eventually shot down by the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has yet to rule. But just because the Supreme Court doesn't rule doesn't automatically make a ruling or law constitutional. Japanese internment during WWII never got to the Court by the end of the war. So was THAT constitutional ? ... ... But third. You apparently do not understand the referendum process. ALL R-74 does is bring SB 6239 to a vote of the people - to reject OR ratify. Lots of times, the legislature themselves attach a referendum vote to a law passed. .. Are you afraid of the vote of the people ???
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    and by the way - the people DID end segregation in a way.
    May 11, 2012 4:10 pm
    In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v Ferguson that 'separate but equal' was constitutional. Were it not for the civil disobedience of first Rosa Parks, and then others in the 1950's, the Supreme Court likely would have never even HAD the case of Brown v the Board of Education to reverse segregation. Further, without the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - passed by the representatives of the people in congress - integration might still be greatly limited. .........................
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    segregation
    May 11, 2012 5:46 pm
    Brown vs BOE was the point I was making.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    ambiguity
    May 11, 2012 5:43 pm
    Make sure when you write "constitution" you put either US or WA in front of it. You make it ambiguous when you do not. I never said the 9th circuit is supreme. Try to understand why we have a US constitution to begin with and NOT the "will" of the people as the highest law.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Last word - Cigarfan
    May 11, 2012 6:29 pm
    Brown (and and Supreme Court decision) is toothless without legislation to back it up. The Cherokee Nation WON their case against removal to Indian Territory, but Jackson went specifically AGAINST the court. That's why THE PEOPLE had to follow up with the Civil Rights Act. ................................ And the US constitution (not a lot of people tout the WA constitution, but ...) did not spring into being by magic or an act of God. And it was the "will of the people" that brought us the Bill of Rights, and every other amendment to the US constitution thereafter. ................ ........................... and if you DON'T think the 9th Circuit Court is the law of the land, just what IS your point with Prop. 8 ???
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    clarification
    May 11, 2012 7:47 pm
    9th circuit is the law of the land unless it is appealed higher. My point is that Prop 8 was struck, just as R-74 may be struck on similar grounds IF it passes. Just because states do goofy things, does not mean that the feds will not act in the interest of the 14th amendment of the US constitution.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Rulings in the 9th District Court are applicable ONLY in
    May 12, 2012 4:39 am
    9 western states (+ Guam). .. And THEN, only until overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States - something that happens at least 80% of the time, when appealed. ... And even currently, 9th District rulings hold no sway over the 4th District, which might some day rule on the North Carolina law. ................................................................................................................................... But you STILL fail to understand the concept of a referendum. R-74 does not MAKE law, but would allow voters to accept or reject legislative action. .. By your way of thinking, the 9th Court could rule on proposed laws REJECTED by the legislature as to the constitutionality of rejecting what you believe is a right - even if it never existed before. ..................................................
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Final to cigar -
    May 12, 2012 5:12 am
    To finally clarify - IF voters reject SB 6239 via R-74, there IS no law for the 9th Circuit to rule on . No new law EITHER WAY. .................. IF voters ACCEPT SB 6239, THEN there is something the 9th Circuit could rule on, eventually.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    fuzzy writing
    May 12, 2012 11:12 am
    You should just say IF the voters reject R-74 (which would be a good thing), then state law would remain in force. I only commented on the 9th circuit because you brought it up. (I know we both know that the 9th only affects the western states.) IF the voters approve R-74 then it would be challenged.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    I give up - but keep your confusion.
    May 12, 2012 3:17 pm
    If R-74 is to APPROVE or to reject 6239, what do YOU think that means ? ? ? ....... Yes, approving R-74 approves the SB. This is another of those 'vote yes on no' things.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ohyea53 wrote...
    The President has every right to change his mind...
    May 9, 2012 2:45 pm
    Just like the next president has changed his mind about Goverment run health care. Fair is fair.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Voters in thirty states...
    May 9, 2012 3:16 pm
    ...have already spoken. They believe marriage should ONLY be between one man and one woman.

    Recent polls show this is particularly true in several key battleground states.

    In Ohio, a 35 percent of voters support homosexual marriage, and 52 percent oppose it.

    In Pennsylvania, opposition to homosexual marriage at 50 percent, with only 38 percent approval.

    In Florida, polling shows homosexual marriage support at 38 percent approval, 48 percent disapproval.

    Ultimately, as James Carville once said, "It's the economy, stupid." This is just one more nail in Obama's coffin.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fitz1 wrote...
    above
    May 9, 2012 4:18 pm
    How sad I feel for you! I have been married to the same woman for 42 years, I am a disabled veteran, I know many gay folks who are married and have more love for people than you ever will. I feel so sad for such small petty people like you who think they can tell strangers how to live their lives! how dare you!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • notsleeping wrote...
    Such a sham
    May 9, 2012 3:37 pm
    What else is he going to do to drum up support? The reality is that a majority of this nation does not support redefining marriage to include same sex. The supporters of this movement can lie to themselves all they want. It does not make it true. Barack has been forced into to making this claim public but I know he does want to redefine marriage because he wants anything that undermines the family unit. Just the same, a president saying they think marriage includes same sex does not legitimize the claim.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    @notsleeping
    May 9, 2012 4:16 pm
    "The reality is that a majority of this nation does not support redefining marriage to include same sex"

    Now read this: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fitz1 wrote...
    above
    May 9, 2012 4:26 pm
    I am so afraid for you! you must be in trouble! now that the president has done this thing! Your life will change! Strangers must be kept in line with what you believe because your life and family are so fragile it could break anytime! how afraid you must feel!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ohyea53 wrote...
    The biggest exaggeration/lie is the love angle. 2 people in love should be allowed to marry.
    May 9, 2012 4:30 pm
    Guess what. Anyone can get married. It’s been that way for decades. The problem is they want it sanctioned from the government for other reason than “being in love”. Heath insurance is one example. Your employer covers you but not your partner. If the state recognizes same sex marriage then the employer must cover the partner. Many people say that if your partner is sick or incapacitated the partner can’t make a medical decision for them …BULL-Loney. Get and medical power of attorney and all the problems are solved. Btw even legally married couples should get medical power of attorney. You need to protect your right to make decisions.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @ohyea53
    May 9, 2012 5:54 pm
    Anyone cannot get married. You have to be 18 or have parental permission. "The problem is they want it sanctioned from the government" Guess what? Government regulates marriage. It's been that way for decades. You need to change the law to have equality so the gov't will recognize what the gov't is regulating anyway.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    Don't ask Mitt Romney if "one man - one woman" marraige is the way it's always been
    May 9, 2012 6:25 pm
    Grandpappy Romney had like 20 wives all at the same time. Heck, those people routinely married off their adolescent daughters to much older men who already had a flock of wives.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    The Dear Leaders re immaculation chances are in jeopardy.
    May 9, 2012 6:35 pm
    This is the reason that he has come out and publicly approved of Homosexual unions. It's all (And only) about the votes and those who have sold their souls to this regime for the regimes recognition of them and their minority lifestyle choices.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    poor Ha ha!
    May 9, 2012 11:50 pm
    You think Obama accidently changed his mind? You really want to be on the losing side of history? Slavery, women gaining the right to vote, ending bans on Segregation, ending bans on interracial marriage, ending DADT, and ending bans on same-sex marriage is the evolution of human rights. You really think this country is returning to the stone age of the GOP?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    It's not really about Gay Marriage
    May 10, 2012 12:55 am
    or Obama. The real story is how sheeplike people are manipulated by the Media and Politicians. Their bred and fed ideology which blinds them to reality.

    This year the election will be decided by those that can think - not by the ideologs. The mantra of this election will be "Once bitten, twice shy"

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Nervoso wrote...
    Romney has also flip flopped on this issue
    May 10, 2012 9:34 am
    Boze, welcome to politics.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }