Reader comments · Reactions to Obama’s endorsement of equal marriage begin to flow · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Reactions to Obama’s endorsement of equal marriage begin to flow

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Thank you Mr Obama for making a clear and unambiguous statement that you support same sex couples being able to marry and that you see this as a human right.

    Thank you for showing that (what many of us have been sure of) your position on gay marriage was evolving.

    I look forward to seeing you secure a second term and making a real difference.

    Its time to be on the right side of history – and you have made a historic claim as a US president to lead morally and show the way on human rights! Thank You!

    Bring it on.

    This is the generation that will make the world a fairer place to be honest about who you love.

  2. Stu, you’re letting him off to easily. This is calculated manipulation and abuse of the LGBT agenda in the extreme. As a point very well made by the Log Cabin Republicans – it is galling that it comes so late in his presidency, HIS presidency and tragically late for NC and the host of other states who’s vocal minority have been allowed to get away with bigoted laws and constitutional amendments.
    This has never been a difficult question for anyone, least of all the first African-American president of the US.
    It’s a far too little very late.
    Not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth however, he should put his money where his mouth is and make up for the flip-flopping.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 10:49pm

      Don’t be so ridiculous. Even if he’d come out in support a year ago, the situation in North Carolina still would have happened. Bigotry is bigotry no matter who supports equal marriage. Do you really think a President Romney is going to do anything? Of course not, he wants to promote the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) and invalidate same-sex marriages already performed. At least the democrats no longer legislate against gay people, republicans do. Get real.

      1. theGentleWarrior 10 May 2012, 1:04am

        We’ll if you see no point in Obama coming out in support a year ago, why do you care or think it is important that he has now. By your logic it will make no difference. You’re wrong by the way, a strong leader could make a difference.

        And when (here’s hoping) Romney gets into office, he’s nothing going to care one way or the other about DOMA. If you review his history he’s a politician, as Governor of Massachusetts; one minute he was signing same-sex marriage into law, the next he opposed it, the next he opposed the bill to oppose it.

        He’s not a serious threat to same-sex marriage.

        And here is the kicker, this issue must be resolved in the Supreme court; and neither Obama or Romney can fix, stop or interfere with that.

        1. David In Indianapolis 10 May 2012, 7:03am

          I’d rather stick red hot needles in my eyes than vote for Mitt Romney.

          I’m serious.

          I voted for President Obama in 08 and I’m proud to say I’ll be voting for him again this coming November.

        2. Robert in S. Kensington 10 May 2012, 11:28am

          Well it sure as hell won’t be a republican fixing it. Romney only days ago just said he now wants civil unions banned. None of your candidates supported equal marriage, none. They’re all against passing ENDA too and have threatened to filibuster it. That’s all they do. They’re nothing but a bunch of obstructionists and racists.

        3. So the answer to my question “are you a Republican” is yes. You would rather have Romney a Mormon cultist who hates gay people, a member of an organisation that put up millions of dollars to discriminate against gay people rather than a President who has stated publically that he defends the rights of the LGBT people in America?

          You really expect to be taken seriously? You have the effrontery to criticise President Obama while hoping a cultist homophobe who hates LGBT people gets into the White House? What are you nuts?

    2. You are niaive. He has always been clearly pro LGBT rights but had to play the Washington game. I trust him. Don’t knock people in positions of influence who are on our side. Crazy!

      1. theGentleWarrior 10 May 2012, 12:49am

        He’s a opportunistic politician and a democrat (all talk and no action unless pushed), He’s on nobody’s side but his own.

        And Obama’s doing nothing but talk. Congressman Tim Huelskamp (a Republican) is actually doing something to stop the Justice Department from defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court. An action that Obama could have taken. c.f.

    3. Are you always such an ungrateful winger ?

      As a president he has done more for GLBT rights than anyone else.

      What ever the motivation for waiting to this time in his presidency is irrelevant. What is important is he has personally come out in favor.

      1. Paddyswurds 10 May 2012, 11:21am

        Never heard of this MPatrinos before, so one suspects he is one of these spit and run trolls, probably a member of the vile Repukelican party wheeled on to gripe and whinge in an effort to steal Obamas thunder but is only making the Nay sayers look like fools.desperate and ridiculous

  3. A brave stance and one that will be welcomed from Gay rights and the liberal thinkers in the US. Thank you sir for making this stance. Was it not long ago that North Carolina voted to stop multi racial marriages and enshrine it in its constitution?
    Many backward and bigoted thinkers must see that the worlds is a fairer and friendlier place and they are out of step with human rights. Obama has made me think that things can get better!

  4. I guess the Log Cabin idiots don’t realise that it was their own party who placed bigoted votes in North Carolina, people who would refuse to listen to Obama even if he had a cure for bloody cancer.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2012, 10:49pm

      And none of their candidates support equal marriage, none.

    2. David Myers 11 May 2012, 10:02am

      Actually they are fully aware of their partys stand on equal marriage and they are such hypocrits that they still decide to attack Obama instead of the dinosaurs in their own party. One thing is certain – Abraham Lincoln would not be a Republican today!

  5. gattagiudecca 9 May 2012, 11:26pm

    The comments by the Log Cabin Republicans are truly breathtaking. They take the moral high ground as if their party is ahead of Obama in the area of LGBT rights. Are they seriously deluded individuals? Why any LGBT person would vote Republican is beyond me. Especially as the Republicans steam ahead to the extreme right. But then they always have put the interests of their party above the interests of LGBTs.

    In an election year, I think this is an incredibly brave stance to take by Obama. Yes he should have done it years ago and done a lot more than he has done for LGBT rights, BUT, it would have been all too easy for him to keep side-stepping the issue for fear of losing votes.

    1. theGentleWarrior 10 May 2012, 12:39am

      I’ll tell you why. Outside of gay-rights republican president are strong, not weak. They don’t risk ruining the country with left-wing lunatic ideas. And we are always in fear of another JFK, that Muppet nearly brought nuclear war on us by being weak.

      And about Gay-rights.
      Judge Walker was nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan & blocked by nut-case Nancy Pelosi (Obama’s Pet). Judge Walker was finally appointed to the bench by President George H. W. Bush.

      FYI: Jude Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional

      The Log Cabin Republicans won the repeal of DADT in the courts & the Obama administration went screaming to the Appeals court to put a stay on the decision so Obama could be seen to do something.

      Marriage would be available to all today on a federal level in the US since August 18, 2010 had your beloved Obama not sought to defend DOMA by appealing Judge Tauro ruling against DOMA.

      And since May 17, 2004 had Bill Clinton not signed DOMA into law. He also signed DATA into Law.

      1. Paddyswurds 10 May 2012, 12:01pm

        ….I don’t have any idea how old you are but in regard to JFK you are talking shyte… How could you possibly say he was weak and almost brought nuclear war. On the contrary he faced down the Russians and they had to retreat and turned their missile ships and went home again. That bit od nonsense is just the sort of rubbish and lies we have come to expect from your ilk. One of the reasons your kind dislike JFK and other Democratic Presidents is their stance on human rights and JFK in particular as discrimination against Black Americans back then was rife and a scandal all over the civilised world. As I have said allready this is the kind of thing that makes the Repukelicans look so medieval and ignorant….

      2. gattagiudecca 10 May 2012, 7:19pm

        4 More Years! Face it honey – you are going to be seeing a lot more of Obama over the next 4 years. The sweetest part of Obama being re-elected is that it will cause so much consternation within the ranks of the Log Cabin Republicans. Now, the only thing that could top that would be seeing a female Clinton as President! Oh I would weep great big fat gay tears of joy if that happens!

  6. theGentleWarrior 10 May 2012, 12:12am

    Another stunt for re-election, let’s see Obama has defended DOMA up until now. And while he has asked the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA in court, he has in no way prevented the group BLAG from doing it in his place. Basically he is allowing others to do the dirty work because he wants to be seen to oppose DOMA but does not want to be seen to have stopped DOMA.

    Now Congressman Tim Huelskamp (a Republican) has proposed an amendment to prohibit the Justice Department from using any funds to oppose the constitutionality of the Defence of Marriage Act in court. c.f.

    Oh that is before Obama heart felt change to get votes from the left.

    Here is the reality folks, the Courts will solve this, and we don’t need Obama’s very, very late intervention. There is nothing he can now, that is not already being done.

    1. Oh, great another cut and paste comment from the right wing fool formerly known as Pepa.

      Oh, do keep posting, it’s riveting stuff! Yeah, it never gets boring, does it?

    2. You claimed in previous postings to be a Catholic. Your boy Romney’s cult has this to say about your church. “Mormonism’s main argument against the Catholic Church is its claim that there was a total apostasy of the early Church and that Catholicism is the apostate, counterfeit of the original. Mormons disagree with Catholics on many key doctrines (e.g., the Trinity, heaven and hell, salvation, etc.), but they recognize the antiquity of the Catholic Church. They understand that the only other Church that can make a plausible claim to being the original Church—the Church Christ established—is the Catholic Church.” Mormon’s also peddle this tripe, “God the Father was once a mortal man who lived on a planet near the star “Kolob,” he served and worshipped the god who ruled that planet and, after his death, he was judged worthy by his god to become a god himself;” Romney fruitloop!

      1. The clincher is “Jesus Christ was the “spirit brother” of Lucifer and, during his ministry on earth, was a polygamous husband who fathered several children;” Plus, ” “It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church was most abominable above all other churches’ in [his] vision.

        1. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it,’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been part of this satanic organization. He saw that this most abominable of all churches was founded after the day of Christ and His apostles; that it took away from the gospel of the Lamb many covenants and many plain and precious parts; that it had perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it had deleted many teachings from the Bible; that this Church was the mother of harlots; and that finally, the Lord would again restore the gospel of salvation”. The icing on the cake is Romney and his brother cultists also hates gays, this is the dipsh1t you want as President of the United States of America LOL.

  7. theGentleWarrior 10 May 2012, 12:25am

    And about Obama’s help with DADT, the Log Cabin Republicans had secured victory against DADT as far as the Circuit court; military recruiters were told they could accept openly gay applicants. DATA was declared an unconstitutional violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

    Then Obama went screaming to the court to put a hold on this so he could be seen to do something about his election promises. He traded a constitutional guaranteed right secured in the court for a weak right given by popular vote! As it is given by vote, it can be taken away by another vote. Note Rick Santorum said he would reinstate DADT, something he could not propose if the Court’s concluded their ruling in finding DADT unconstitutional. So thanks for that one Barack

    Why can’t you people see this Muppet for what he is, another Jimmy Carter! , and hopefully another one-term Muppet too.

    1. Read the above and then start singing “It’s time to put on make up It’s time to dress up right It’s time to raise the curtain on the Muppet Show tonight”. Make sure you have your Republican hat on won’t ya?

  8. Julia in Vancouver 10 May 2012, 2:12am

    An edit needs to be made to this article. Norway is listed twice. It’s a pretty great country, but still. ;)

  9. Just been sent an email byAllOut where they are asking people to sign a Thank-you card to be signed by everyone around the world in support. PLease sign

    Just been sent an email byAllOut where they are asking people to sign a Thank-you card to be signed by everyone around the world in support. PLease sign

    1. Peter & Michael 10 May 2012, 7:22am

      We did ! Thank You !

      1. Paddyswurds 10 May 2012, 12:17pm

        …watching the ticker tape of flags is amazing. The hole world is on that page saying thank you Barak Obama. Rightly so….

        1. Paddyswurds 10 May 2012, 12:18pm

          whole** …obv.

        2. Its astounding and momentous and wonderful.

          There will of course be a lash back by fundies and right wing extremists, but the battle is already won.

          History is about to be made in many nations.

  10. “Gay” and “Republican”. The concept always makes me think of Jews complicit in the persecution of other Jews. It also makes me think of Polonius’ advice to Laertes… “To thine own self be true… [and] thou canst not then be false to any man.”

    1. Or Black people joining the KKK!!

  11. What’s wrong with these republican gays? They are supported by Obama and hated by the republicans but they say it’s not enough or too late? Don’t ask, don’t tell anyone?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 May 2012, 11:24am

      And Mitt Romney, the gay repulbican icon, is against equal marriage, wants DOMA kept in tact and in every state and wants to invalidate same-sex marriages already performed and the latest is, he wants to ban civil unions. Sounds like the Tory right wing loonies in our own midst.

  12. Are these “gay Republicans” who are condemning Obama supporting same sex marriage, the same ones who have been saying all along they are working from the inside to effect change in the Republican party? Maybe they should be working on a change in attitude – their own would be a good start.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 May 2012, 11:26am

      Not all of them support equal marriage. just as not all of our own support it here in the UK. A lot of self-loathing going on probably.

  13. The most spectacular failure of courage is when the Log Cabin Republicans trash Obama but do not dare say anything about Romney.

  14. So let me get this, for lack of a better word, straight: prior to coming out in support of marriage equality, Obama’s opponents accused him of cynically waiting until after the election after which he would spring his surprise trap of support…a surprise that would surprise precisely no one…so the question was “Why won’t Obama show some backbone and tell us what he really thinks?” Now that he has, of course, the accusation is that he’s just doing this as part of a cynical election year ploy to get votes and that he should have waited until after the election so it wouldn’t be an issue.

    Okay, tell me, what exactly would you have had Obama do here? If he stuck to his “full and equal civil unions” line, you’d say he’s lying to avoid losing moderates. Now that he hasn’t, you say he’s lying to attract moderates? Sounds to me like it’s the moderates who can’t decide what they believe.

  15. Thank you Mr Obama for:

    Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the Armed Forces
    Ending the Legal Defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): The DOJ would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA against equal protection constitutionalchallenges brought by same-sex couples married under state law.
    Passage and signing of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
    Ensuring Hospital Visitation Rights for LGBT Patients and Their Loved Ones
    Developing and Implementing a National HIV/AIDS Strategy
    Expanding Access to Health Coverage insurers can no longer turn someone away just because he or she is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
    Addressing Health Care Disparities as they particularly affect LGBT persons with a focus on expanded care for single sex partners, in matters related to HIV/AIDS and in expanded community health centers.
    Ensuring Equality for LGBT Federal Government Employees expanding

    1. Federal benefit coverage to same sex partners.
      Taking Steps to Ensure LGBT Equality in Housing and Crime Prevention: widening directives re. discrimination in housing to specifically include LGBT individuals and directives to all law enforcement agencies to exercise increased diligence in re. to protecting the rights of LGBT persons.
      Preventing Bullying Against LGBT Students via a White House Conference, directives from the Department of Education, participation in the “It Gets Better” videos, establishing a six department steering committee to coordinate action.
      Advancing and Protecting the Rights of LGBT Persons around the World by challenging governments with repressive policies and seeking cooperative action with progress governments.
      for stating you support the marriage of same sex couples and see it as a civil right.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 May 2012, 11:32am

        And all republicans voted against it!

      2. Paddyswurds 10 May 2012, 12:27pm

        …am i right in thinking that if Obama signs Marriage Equality into Federal law, that then trumps State laws banning Marriage Equality? If so, I suspect that will be his next move but probably not until his second term.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 May 2012, 12:43pm

          From my limited knowledge of the American political process, I believe it would have to pass with a two thirds majority vote in the House of Representatives currently controlled by the republicans then pass to the Senate for the final vote. It would need 60 votes in the Senate to pass and the numbers just aren’t there. The only way to handle this is through the Supreme Court but even there, it’s stacked with 5 extremely conservative catholic judges who are not averse to overturning precedent as they did with the Citizens United Act granting corporations personhood so that they can contribute as much as they want to electoral campaigns (buying elections). The Supreme Court could decline to take the equal marriage case which would return it back to the states to decide.

          1. David Myers 11 May 2012, 10:18am

            Wrong. All that is required to pass a bill in the House is 50% plus one votes of those present. The Senate is another matter. All you need in the 100 seat Senate is 51 votes – unless the measure is “filibustered”. Under the old rules to filibuster someone had to get up and talk until they could no longer stand up or speak in order to delay a vote. But the filibuster could be stopped by a vote for “cloture” which requires 60 votes and then brings the measure up for an immediate vote requiring only 51 votes. For the last 6-8 years the Republicans have been abusing the filibuster process by threatening to filibuster without actually doing it. The Democrats then just drop the motion. The Democrats could change the rules at the beginning of the next Congress if they have a simple 51 vote majority (the rules change vote cannot be filibustered). Changing the number of votes to invoke cloture could include a decreasing number of votes required over time until finally only 51 votes.

        2. Paddyswurds

          I believe you are correct. If federal law is successfully introduced that clashes with state law, then federal law wins.

          According to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2) of the United States Constitution,

          This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

          As the Supreme Court stated in Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), a federal law that conflicts with a state law will trump, or “preempt”, that state law:

          “Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are “without effect.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)”

          In most cases I believe a two thirds majority (with at least half of the members of HoR present for the vote) would be required to see success in a bill. Although there are rarely used procedures (which I do

          1. not fully understand) which require a simple majority.

            Ultimately though federal law does trump state law.

          2. David Myers 11 May 2012, 10:22am

            The only time you need a 2/3 majority is (1.) to overide a Presidentual veto or (2.) to pass a Constitutional amendment. Everything else can be passed by a simple majority of the House members present.

      3. Dr Robin Guthrie 10 May 2012, 5:13pm

        And the Republicans counter offer:-

        Hate, Division, Hate and more Division.

    2. I agree particular for the Matthew Shepard Act. I’ve always counted that as one of the greatest victories of the Obama administration so far.

  16. So let me get this, for lack of a better word, straight: prior to coming out in support of marriage equality, Obama’s opponents accused him of cynically waiting until after the election after which he would spring his surprise trap of support…a surprise that would surprise precisely no one…so the question was “Why won’t Obama show some backbone and tell us what he really thinks?” Now that he has, of course, the accusation is that he’s just doing this as part of a cynical election year ploy to get votes and that he should have waited until after the election so it wouldn’t be an issue.

    Okay, tell me, what exactly would you have had Obama do here? If he stuck to his “full and equal civil unions” line, you’d say he’s lying to avoid losing moderates. Now that he hasn’t, you say he’s lying to attract moderates? Sounds to me like it’s the moderates who can’t decide what they believe.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 May 2012, 11:31am

      It’s just a bunch of sour grapes, because none of their candidates supported it and never will. Romney now wants civil unions banned and gay republicans, an oxymoron if ever there were, continue voting for them..

  17. Hopefully other leaders will follow his lead, and have the courage to support us.

    Way to go….yet!

  18. So, we have an endorsement from President Obama.

    The Christian Institute has and endorsement from, er, Christopher Biggins.

    Hmm. :)

    1. You forgot one aspect of endorsement that the Christian Institute have – they have endorsement from the leader of the biggest ever cover up of child abuse in global history – the Pope.

      Now, Chris Biggins and the Pope – such moral authority ;-)

      1. It seems, Max, that’s god chooses the most unlikely instruments to carry out his plan for humanity… :)

        Sasha x

      2. Paddyswurds 10 May 2012, 12:30pm

        ….an ex Naz1 and a washed up two bit actor…. wow. How will we ever stand up to that sort of endorsement……lol

  19. The pitiful and partisan sour grapes of the Log Cabin Republicans reflects very badly on them, especially in view of their own party’s atrocious record on lgbt rights. Obama an opportunist? What politician isn’t? What is the relevance of such a banal observation when a politician actually does a positive thing?
    It would be more useful if they had praised the President’s statement and encouraged their party to follow suit.

    1. David Myers 11 May 2012, 10:25am

      Absolutely correct. They show their own insincerity by their reactions.

  20. I think it is a blessing for this generation to witness this historic stand of a brave man to fight for LGBT rights. This is a good news for all struggling gay and lesbian youth. Harvey Milk would be proud.

  21. brave admission by the president, even if it is calculated move (which i very much doubt it) it is on record now.

    unlike the president none of the republican candidates including contender romney and that byproduct of anal sex santorum, not even once publicly backed gay rights.

    and you dont need to be intellectually well endowed to realize whose is the best option for the country and gay americans

    being gay and republican is worse than being gay and catholic

  22. dont drop your crystal ball

    1. Priceless! Aiden keeps it up his ass.

  23. “Obama has come out in ‘support’ because he needs the votes, nothing more then that, this wont win him the election.”

    Is that the best you could come up with? Bless. Whatever helps you sleep at night…. what with all the screaming from the other inmates and stuff.

  24. Bill Perdue 10 May 2012, 1:54pm

    It’s clear as day why Obama acted. Obama’s statement, which signifies nothing but his desire to get reelected is in response to the firestorm of totally legitimate criticism he received for refusing to sign the ENDA EO for federal contract workers. It’s something he promised to do before he was elected.

    His statement changes very little. ENDA will not be passed and DOMA will not be repealed because the White House and Congressional Democrats are infested with bigots and bigot panderers.

    When Obama came out partially in favor of the right to marriage, leaving it up to bigots in states and localities to decide, this is what changes – we’ll no longer say that “Obama is a long time bigot, a racist warmonger, a Bill of Rights busting lap dog of the rich and an empire building union buster.” Instead we’ll say that “Obama is a long time, partially contrite bigot, a racist warmonger, a Bill of Rights busting lap dog of the rich and an empire building union buster.”

    Obama is a right wing ca

    1. Bill Perdue 10 May 2012, 1:55pm

      Obama is a right wing candidate. He’s to the right of Nixon across the board on civil liberties, unions and union rights, Social Security and Medicare, the drug wars, environmental questions and wars of aggression.

      The way forward for working people, the only group capable of creating real change, lies in independence from our enemies in the Democrat and Republican parties and in supporting unions, the growing union left, the Occupiers and the struggle movements of people of color, women and the GLBT communities. That won’t change no matter which right wing candidate wins.

      On November 6th sit it out, write in Brad Manning, vote socialist as a protest and otherwise spend your time building the movement, not one of the two parties of bigots.

      1. Comments of a lunatic. Never a shortage of those on this site.

      2. David Myers 11 May 2012, 10:30am

        Go away Republican troll. You guys will do anything to lower voter turnout won’t you! Like “photo I.D. laws” laws in all Republican controlled states because you know that the poor, the homeless and the elderly won’t have the photo ID they need to vote even if they have previously voted every election of their life! Dispicable.

  25. Hilarious!

    The Christian Institute is run by a doughy simpleton named Colin Hart.

    The CI’s lead story today? A lengthy article by the chap running the spite-filled C4M campaign. That chap’s name? Colin Hart.

    Yup! They are so devoid of genuine support that they are reduced to reporting their own comments as ‘news’.

    If I were a Christian, I’d be so embarrassed by these assholes.

    1. Colin Hart is both CI and C4M communications director.

      You would have thought if he or the organisations had any knowledge or understanding of communication strategies that they would a) not issue news stories that merely quoted themselves and b) on a day where a huge story has broken that is against their position that they would pull out a hard hitting story to try and take over the headlines?

      EPIC FAIL!


      1. Daniel

        They decided to run with the N Carolina story instead. Really, North Korea has a more efficient and balanced news service than these a-holes do! :)


  26. Jock S. Trap 10 May 2012, 2:26pm

    “Obama has consistently fought against protecting the institution of marriage from radical social engineering.”

    Er… paranoid much Rick?

    1. Probably the same kind of radical social engineering as the fight for women’s rights, the end of racial segregation and the abolition of slavery. Doesn’t the Bible also treat misogyny and slavery as common practices totally accepted by society ? I believe that’s what Rick Santorum would like to see coming back to Unites States.

  27. Obama has come out in support affirming the comments he has been making in his evolved understainding on marriage for years. This is not some overnight decision.

    He decided this because (to quote Obama) he believes “totally in civil rights for all people”, including the right to marry.

  28. Very good “Aiden”. Weren’t you going to tell us why a godfearing heterosexual like yourself posts on gay websites under a false name ?

    1. Of course, non-gay people can comment here, Aiden

      It just puzzles me why someone would wish to use false photographs and a false name to conceal their identity if they genuinely did not have something they were ashamed of to hide.

      What are you ashamed of, your real identity?

    2. You really are one total gobsh1t and no mistaking. Come out of the fecking closet you big self hater, godbot idiot, knobhead, feckwit, tosspot, moron, idiot, asshole. There I feel so much better. Is it true Aiden is one of the ‘personalities’ of David batsh1tcrazy Skinner?

  29. Dr Robin Guthrie 10 May 2012, 5:10pm

    Yeh. Like their going to vote in a Mormon!!!!!

  30. Saying Thank you, please, excuse me
    if this thank you is a bit off-topic. …

  31. My husband just signed for both of us. Really glad to see Obama do this.

  32. Please except this as our way of extending our heart felt thanks …


These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.