TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross

Obama's stand on gay marriage IS NOW FULLY EVOLVED!

May 10, 2012 @ 8:52 am (Updated: 9:22 am - 5/10/12 )

cedargrove
Tom Douglas holds up his James Beard Outstanding Restaurateur Award at 97.3 KIRO FM's Ross and Burbank Show. (MyNorthwest.com/Jamie Griswold)

The president's stand on gay marriage is now fully evolved! After languishing in the primordial ooze for several years, it learned to walk on all fours, and finally stood upright.

And the consensus seems to be this ranks somewhere between the Pope apologizing to Galileo and FDR popularizing the hot dog. But let's remember, he also said he doesn't think this is a federal issue.

"I continue to believe this is an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level," said Obama.

And he doesn't condemn well-meaning people who see it differently.

"Many of them are not coming at it from mean-spirited perspective, a bunch of them are friends of mine."

In short, he was simply expressing a personal belief.

"For me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm."

It's just your personal belief. We get it. But what we really want to know from our politicians is, how much more freedom are you planning to take away from us? Which is why this debate is so strange. Because this is the one issue that's become controversial because people think it expands freedom too much!

So I'll be curious to see if any other politicians evolve. Like those politicians who consider the government unfit to control health care, but who think it is fit to control consensual human love.

As was pointed out by several commentators, North Carolina is a state that will let you marry your heterosexual first cousin and have kids together, but which prohibits a non-reproductive marriage with your gay cousin.

A position like that is not only not evolved, it's not even Intelligently Designed!

You may also like:
Both sides cheer Obama's support of gay marriage
David Boze: Obama's political theater and nothing more
No change for McKenna on gay marriage

More Dave Ross

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 (82)


  • Add A Comment

  • kata wrote...
    I think we need
    May 10, 2012 8:57 am
    five, no six... six more articles on this.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    Free the hookers....they are political prisoners
    May 10, 2012 9:03 am
    what does "controlling consensual human love" have to do with redefining the word "marriage"? Redefining a word has nothing to do with expansion of freedoms. If you liberals really want to expand the freedom of "consensual human lust"...then you would support legalized prostitution....but since the hooker's union is not as organized and powerful as the National Coalition of Fudgepackers, it will never happen.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Hi, Paul
    May 10, 2012 9:43 am
    Something told me you would be around shortly. :-)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mobeta wrote...
    right on Paul
    May 10, 2012 1:09 pm
    I like the NC of Fudgepacker. Maybe they can have a parade, oh that's right they do! Maybe Cheucky, Cbrew and whoever else wants to hold the flag a the GAY and join hands and lead them down the dirt road of the NC of Fudge parade! LOL
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    The GOP has to have a mole inside Obama's panel of advisors....
    May 10, 2012 9:06 am
    Election over. Done deal. Romney wins. He should say, "Thanks for the office, Barack! It wasn't even a federal issue!"

    I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is just sick and tired of being President. Perhaps he figured that since it would be disgraceful to resign the best exit strategy is to be sure he has *no chance* for a second term.

    A close relative of mine is a microcosmic example of how this is going to backfire on Obama. When somebody recently asked her, "Will you vote for Obama or Romney in November," she replied, "I can't vote for Obama! He's a Muslim!"

    She was then asked, "Well, Romney is a Mormon. You have always despised Mormons. Are you willing to vote for a Mormon?"

    Her answer to the second question was, "I'll probably just stay home at not vote at all. If I have to choose between a Muslim and a Mormon, I just won't vote."

    Next time I see her, I'm willing to bet that from her perspective a Mormon who wants to keep those "evil homosexuals" in their proper place will seem much more attractive than a "Muslim" who favors gay marriage.

    She will now almost certainly vote in November.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    It's a shame we can't pick who we're related to, eh?
    May 10, 2012 9:19 am
    I can't think of a single person among my small group of (non partisan) friends who'd put up with that for even a minute.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lonestar wrote...
    The Hooker in Chief
    May 10, 2012 9:23 am
    He'll tell you whatever you want to hear as long as he gets paid.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Chuckster wrote...
    This keeps us from having to answer for the economy
    May 10, 2012 9:24 am
    War on women, Romney has a Swiss bank account, our wonderful leader now believes in gay marriage. Anything to distract those stupid, hateful conservatives from talking about the economy . The media will do our heavy lifting as we define evolution as people with the same plumbing getting married. I own conservatives, I am a centrist, Willie is coming over to celebrate our dear leaders stance with some Zima and Cher
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Speaking of gay; thanks for the fan mail- but I'm not only married, I'm straight...
    May 10, 2012 9:56 am
    Once past your disgusting, overt and unorthodox sexual suggestions,(very surprising indeed!) I did find your link to Willy Nelson's tune interesting. I've always liked Willy Nelson.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7f189Z0v0Y

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mobeta wrote...
    What wrong with having a swiss bank account?
    May 10, 2012 12:29 pm
    Keeping it away from the politicians greedy hands. I have my money not invested in the economy either and will not start until this socialist is gone. At least I can crank up my business all by myself and most of liberals can't. They are the hand out generation just like these guys. Check it out folks, this was on Bill Maher's show, bet he didn't really like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2kGPdxkofo
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hnuh wrote...
    05-10-2012 0bama's stand on gay...
    May 10, 2012 9:30 am
    It aint done evolving dude, this part of its evolution is about extracting money from the homosexual community, and incidently, votes. If the dissembler in chief is re-elected the evolution will become complete as in a federal edict that homosexual "marriage" is a fundamental human right and must be accepted as equal in every way to a normal marriage. This then paves the way for all churches declining to submit to this edict to be stripped of their tax exempt status and treated as ordinary businesses. The purpose in the Marxist/Leninist/Maoist revolutionary strategy is to destroy the power of the church, leaving the state as supreme. The state as supreme is a fundamental of the American progressive movement.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mobeta wrote...
    hnuh
    May 10, 2012 1:10 pm
    Well said. Extract their money is right! Right over the cliff! You nailed it!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    The evolution to what can be sold.
    May 10, 2012 9:49 am
    I find it hard to believe that the president's position 'evolved' on this issue. After all, he favored or accepted gay partnerships as long as 12 years ago - but retreated for the 2008 election. That's like devolving from a frog to a fish and THEN back to a frog. .. But I find it harder to believe that he knows 'a bunch of friends' who are NOT mean-spirited , one side or the other. Voice ANY position pro or con on gay marriage these days and expect the hate - and a lot of it. ESPECIALLY from those who claim to be tolerant. ... ... What is easier to believe is that this whole presidential gay marriage approval was carefully thought out - not for its humanity, but for its political advantage. . at least as anticipated. ......................... Oh, well. Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was political - not humanitarian. Doubt that with 2012 politics Obama's ploy will work out as well.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Just read the last of your post, Dave.
    May 10, 2012 10:10 am
    And you do elude to another contradiction even you may not see. Sure, you can have kids with your first cousin in NC (and in European royalty as well) while not allowed there to marry your gay first cousin. BUT, even the gay community would bar two gay brothers and 2 gay sisters from marriage - regardless of THAT being equally non-reproductive. Perhaps your gay friends also need to 'evolve' a bit.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    re: Ron's comment on Lincoln and the Emancipation....
    May 10, 2012 10:12 am
    I wonder if Obama might paraphrase Lincoln's revealing answer, given when somebody asked if Lincoln if he favored freeing the slaves? If he did, Obama's answer (about gay marriage) might read...

    "If I had to prevent any gays from getting married in order to save my presidency, that is what I would do. If I had to demand that all gays be allowed to marry in order to save my presidency, then that is what I would do. If I could save my presidency by allowing some gays to marry and others not, then that is what I would do."

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Dale wrote...
    How does the marriage license department know?
    May 10, 2012 10:15 am
    Fifty years ago my future wife and I applied for a marriage license and they asked us a few questions (as I remember, it was 50 years ago), we paid our $10, paid a preacher to marry us, and we were married. So when "gay marriage" is legal how will gays identify themselves at the marriage license bureau? Short hair, long hair, one short and long, take their pants off...? Actually, since "gay marriage" is not legal yet how does the marriage license bureau determine if a couple gays prove they are heterosexual rather than gay? Guess I am getting old but this "gay" stuff is getting complicated especially since I have never met a homo or a lizzy who were actually gay. At least as we used to define it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }