Reader comments · Newsweek names Obama as the first ‘gay’ president · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Newsweek names Obama as the first ‘gay’ president

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. President Obama speaks out for LGBT people, Romney the cultist homophobe is cheered by a crowd of cultist homophobes, I know which of these two candidates is going to win in November and it isn’t the Mormon.

    1. GingerlyColors 14 May 2012, 3:24am

      It is worth noting that during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Republican voters chose John McCain to run as their candidate. He had no issue against marriage equality, unlike fellow nominee, Mick Huckabee. It will be interesting to see what both the Republicans and Democrats come up with for the 2016 campaign as Barak Obama has to stand down then. Don’t forget some Republicans are happy to endore gay marriage while some Democrats are opposed. In America political parties are still elected on economic rather than religious policies.

      1. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 3:53am

        John McCain publicly opposed gay-marriage

        Also, it is suspected and rumoured that his daughter is a lesbian. If this is true and I believe it is, that would make him a traitor to his family for me this makes him far worse Romney.

  2. “Liberty University” Hmmmmmm.

    1. Paddyswurds 13 May 2012, 10:32pm

      Liberty University is probably the worlds foremost fundi xtian school and is privately funded…..Surprise surprise….not!

      1. Yes, perhaps the name was inspired by George Orwell?

        War is peace

        Peace is war.

  3. AlaskanAmber 13 May 2012, 9:21pm

    I think it is sooo closed minded of ANYONE to say that for Obama to support Gay marriage he has to be gay. He has people working for him who are gay and he has learned to listen instead of just spouting off . I know for a fact that George Bush had gays working for him (I worked for him for a few months as an intern and was offered a permanent position within the White House). I applaud President Obama for his courage to publicly support such a controversial issue.

    1. That’s not what it’s saying.

    2. “he has learned to listen instead of just spouting off”

      Now you must learn to read before “just spouting off”

    3. You’ve missed the point, dear.

    4. Akaska, you see!

  4. Uh no.

    I’d love to see a gay president – or prime minister for that matter – but giving the accolade to a straight man is just kind of desperate. The idea of a gay world leader isn’t so impossible that we have to claim a straight guy for it

    And, besdies, Obama’s record is better than any other president (which isn’t saying much) – but it’s far from perfect

    1. Hopefully where the fact they’re gay doesn’t even matter versus their politics. On this we have to salute Belgium being on to their 2nd openly gay head of Government and Iceland with Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir. Perhaps Germany is next with Guido Westerwelle who is already Vice Chancellor…?

      1. Correction – Belgium was Europe’s 2nd openly gay head of government to ‘2nd Belgian’ head.

    2. Rayne Van-Dunem 13 May 2012, 11:22pm

      The reason why Newsweek is saying this (euphemistically?) is because back when Clinton was getting impeached, he was dubbed the “first Black president” by Toni Morrison:

      “Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.”

      It’s become a running gag about Clinton ever since, a lot like how Al Gore (Clinton’s Vice-president) is still called the guy who “invented the Internet”. Obama being the “first gay president” falls in the line of comically or euphemistically inflating a pivotal action of that person’s time in office or that person’s background.

      1. Paddyswurds 14 May 2012, 11:29am

        Well Tony Morrison, (whoever he was/is) was wrong JFK was regularly called the first Black president, and shockingly was often refereed to as the N****r president and when he was murdered that was mooted as a
        possible reason for his assassination and that he was killed by white supremacists……

  5. What a shame for the usa that this socialist devil is destroying the family as we know it :(

    1. Actually, he is extending the range of family, making it more inclusive. I’m sure you would approve of that?

    2. Jean, you never fail to amuse.

    3. Shake Spear 13 May 2012, 10:11pm

      Jean, what a damn shame you can’t get any c**k.

    4. “What a shame for the usa that this socialist devil is destroying the family as we know it”

      Yeah, especially when we need to protect the rights of those decent inbred hicks to tie people to fences and beat them to death for being gay, becuase “god told them to”.

    5. better the devil you know darling

    6. The family as you choose to see it, Jean.

      Not everyones family is as restricted by your worldview.

      Some of us, see the delight, strength and purpose in family beyond your simplistic polar views.

  6. What a shame that Obama and his socialism is slowly destroying the institution which is between one man and one woman only! :(

    1. oops thought the first comment didn’t post, silly me!

      1. You’re more than silly love ;-)

    2. You are sillier than you admit. He is NOT destroying anything, he is extending it. He is adding members to it, and creating a bigger membership. And please don’t insult us by telling us that marriage is a thousand year old tradition and it is now under threat.. because it isn’t, on both counts..

    3. No what destroys the bigoted view of opposite sex marriage, is divorce and adultery (often amongst “God fearing” right wing red necks).

  7. It is time for all of the LGBT people and their allies to come out of the closet if we are to win our equal and civil rights and freedoms. Liberty University is making Christian terrorist to take over the government like Jerry Fawell the religious fanatic who started Liberty in Lynchburg Virgina wanted to do. It is the Christian Jihad training camp to train terrorist Christians on how to take over governments.

    1. There is so much truth in what you say, it sounds incredible to people who are unaware of the lengths that Christian dominionist’s are actually going to to realise their plan of world domination, and it really is a global network of allied churches, church planting and training programs.
      The Christian dominionist’s have been working towards this for several decades already while keeping just below the radar, it is too insane for most people to accept that it is happening.
      They are “salty”, methodical, obsessive and they are very highly motivated and persistent indeed. Uganda is their experimental model for the rest of the world.

      1. ‘..Uganda is their experimental model for the rest of the world…’

        and they have created dr frankenstein’s monster

  8. GingerlyColors 14 May 2012, 3:20am

    Not long ago the media was touting Obama as America’s first Muslim President on account of his middle name being Hussein.
    Abraham Lincoln was widely believed to be gay which would have made him America’s first Gay President, and ironically, he was a Republican.

    1. If you think about it, a gay president is most likely to be a republican, given how much they like shafting people…

    2. David Myers 15 May 2012, 7:48am

      He was the first Republican President, but there is no way he would be a Republican today, thanks to the right-wing fundamentalist fascists that have taken over this party that originally stood strongly against slavery.

  9. Euphemism or otherwise, I wouldn’t mind hedging bets that this Newsweek and The New Yorker editions become collector editions! (and) start showing up in time capsules in decades to come.

    In 1969 “ALL” of America was jubilant when they landed the first man on the moon.

    It is unbelievable that 43 years (almost 5 decades later!) the USA has a president who to both jubilation and discord of it’s citizens, announced his support for LGBT rights and marriage equality.

    It’s a sad reflection, that there is more unison and pride in what America accomplished 43 years ago, than there is unison, a determined objective and support for it’s presidents statement he supports equal rights and equality for all citizens.

    Hopefully, Newsweek and the New Yorker, will ensure President Obama is on the right side of history!

  10. Obama is no more the first gay president than Clinton was the first black president. Why jump the gun? (and that distinction might already belong to Buchanan).

  11. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 4:26am

    This is so pathetic, Obama says the right things and is loved, but his actions say otherwise, he defended DOMA in district court 2009, and initially to Circuit court in 2010. c.f.

    Later yes he tells the DOJ to stop defending DOMA, but he refuses to use his power to prevent others (i.e. BLAG) from defending it in his place. Basically Obama 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.

    When DATA was ruled on unconstitutional in court in October, 2010 due to the Log Cabin Republicans challenge, the Armed forces could no longer dismiss an openly gay person & Obama had it REINSTATED in November 2010, so he could repeal it a month later by legislation in December 22, 2010. The only ban lifted because of Obama was the one he made.

    These are actions of the great hero held in such high regard!

    1. Paddyswurds 14 May 2012, 11:33am

      Why are you such a racist bigot….?

      1. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 12:58pm

        How dare you. I don’t hate Obama because of race. I dislike him because he is a liar, he betrayed us & he’s a democrat.

        Tell me Paddyswurds,

        Why don’t you accurately know your history? You have been wrong on so many points
        Why do you never take any of the points I make, that you disagree with and debate them?
        But rather why do you always resort to insults (& unfounded insults at that), rather than providing counter points? If you think something I wrote is wrong, it’s important to correct it. Lord knows you have to be constantly corrected
        Why do you rampantly drag along pinknews writing wrong statements and lies?
        Why do you never provide sources? (My previous question answers this doesn’t it?)
        Why do make hysterical statements?
        Why do you discriminate against people of faith?
        Why do you not acknowledge that in all races, genders, orientations, faiths, atheism, & political affiliations … there is good and bad?

        Is that you can’t? That you don’t know?, How to intelligently debate?

        1. Religious people are the ones who don’t know how to intelligently debate, to be religious you have to give up all rational thought processes, therefore it is impossible to debate intelligently with you, of course if we descend to your level and debate in terms you understand, we get beaten by your experience. Religion enforces ignorance, hate and abuse, therefore it should be banned.

          1. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 1:57pm

            “Religious people are the ones who don’t know how to intelligently debate”
            Really? So this debate by Bishop Gene Robinson is what to you then?

            “Therefore it is impossible to debate intelligently with you”
            I’ve never used religion to justify any stance on any issue so I’m afraid that reason is all in your head love.

            “Religion enforces ignorance, hate and abuse.”
            No prejudices, homophobia enforces ignorance, hate and abuse. There are atheists out there with prejudices. It’s called the human condition.

            “Should be banned”
            That’s just wrong on so many levels Freedom of Speech, Though, Expression.
            I always wondered how anti-gay groups in churches ever got the idea that gays wanted to destroy the church. Well done dear you just validated these idiots’ beliefs?

            If you refuse to deal with the issue and raise the debate you’ll never sway anyone.
            Sometimes it’s enough to sway those watching/reading rather than the person you disagree with.

        2. “How dare you.”

          Funny “how dare you” comes up when you made racist remarks about the French and the Irish here.

          Only thing worse than a racist moron is one who thinks he’s not.

          1. Every bigot denies they are bigoted.

            Probably because their blinkered view of life prevents them having perspective on reality and they only see what they want or are permitted (by indoctrination etc) to see.

          2. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 2:06pm

            “remarks about the French & Irish ” You people really clutch at straws. That’s not racism.
            Those are nationalities love, not races. If this is not the case, by your logic YOU are a racist piece of sh*t (& a lot of others on here too) given your remarks and plain hateful insults about us Americans. And yet you only attack me. So we’re all racists then according to you?

            Moving on, you avoided the argument, adding nothing. Care to play on my level. Take a point, read it, research it, counter it, if you can? You might even learn something in the attempt.

            Oh and written an hour before your comment here, is a blaring racist comment by user Sevrin below and your condemnation is sadly lacking!

            If you want to attack a real racist remark, scroll down the page, read what user Sevrin wrote, condemn his views. Then you can pretend you deplore racism and try to hide your vendetta with me (all because you can’t handle some truth & comments about Europe & its nations)

  12. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 4:29am

    And this article reeks of bias – “The article was written by Andrew Sullivan, who, despite his Republican sympathies, has hailed President Obama …”

    ‘His Republican sympathies’ added nothing to this article and, all because you don’t like; us.

    1. “all because you don’t like; us.”

      Boo hoo.

      Yeah, we have a problem with fascists in Europe – its called learning from history. You should try it sometime.

      1. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 8:57am

        You seem light on your history. You do know that fascism was derived from Socialism. Mussolini was leader of the Italian Socialist Party, before going on to create fascism. His final title was Head of State of the Italian Social Republic.
        And Hitler was leader of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (1921–1945) and he adored Mussolini & his teaching & tactics. Both sought to be leaders under crazy titles for life.

        You say you’ve learned and yet in Europe, in France you’ve elected a socialist President. Greece has just elected a socialist party that can’t form a collation and threatens to collapse the currency. Both the Euro and the markets took a drive after Election Day.

        1. What on earth are you talking about???

          I just said “we have a problem with fascists in Europe”. What bit of English did you not understand?

          Are you illiterate or just stupid?

      2. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 8:59am

        You do know that being Republican by definition is the farthest you can get from socialist & fascism.

        But perhaps you’re referring to bigots. We do have them among us & so do democrats.
        Just tonight on CNN I was watching that more than 55% of the black democrats are against gay-marriage. Now the news focus was on blacks and Obama, but I assure you bigots come in all races, genders, orientations, faiths, atheism, and political affiliations.

        Some guy said gay-marriage would trouble the black-family & confuse children. And yet the report concluded that these black democrats while disagreeing about same-sex marriage would still vote for Obama (perhaps because as I have said “when it comes to gay rights Obama is all talk and no-action”).

        That’s right dear; in the world outside your head there are democrats that oppose equal rights for gay people (Will your reply be calling them fascists) and republicans that’s support equal rights for gay people.

        1. Republicanism is the new Fascism.

          1. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 2:05pm

            1. Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, where the head of state is appointed by means other than heredity, often elections. The exact meaning of republicanism varies depending on the cultural and historical context. Several definitions are covered in this article.

            2. Republicanism is the political values system that has been a major part of American civic thought since the American Revolution. It stresses liberty and inalienable rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.

            3. The Republic Party is not a Fascist Party & Republicans are not Fascists.

            Well that was a simple & useless exchange of views

          2. “Republicanism is the new Fascism.”

            Couldn’t agree more. Not that you’ll get anything intelligent form the “gentle” one here. Theocracy is a form of fascism, and the Republican party is driven by these lunatics.

          3. Words are thrown around on the internet such as marxism, communism, socialism, and (gasp) liberalism….and god forbid anything with the root base of ‘liberty’, and ‘liberate’. So labels are used (often without care about accuracy), I see the condescending demonization that takes place. You peg a personality with your broad brush ‘liberal’ so you can mock and dismiss it, so as not to have to actually put forth a lucid or intelligent argument for your case. That’s pretty transparent, but if you can just make a bum’s rush for power, leapfrogging on the anger built up for YEARS as Republican policies were implemented for tax cuts for the super wealthy, offshoring, outsourcing, wealth distribution upwards, and bald faced corporatism.

            Mussolini, the father of fascism, was quoted ‘Fascism should more appropriately be called ‘corporatism’, because it is the marriage of government and corporations’….sounds exactly like the definition of Republicanism, it is bald-faced corporatism.

          4. Fascism is a neutral term coined by Mussolini as to be synonymous with corporatism, why can’t the Republicans just admit to practice fascism, or corporatism? Every effort I’ve ever seen made by Republicans has been on behalf of corporations, even as they cloak their agenda in populist jingoism. They already have a solid 30 % (my estimate) of what I call ‘Fox News Cultists’, many who only get their information from Fox ‘News’., plus the people they can convince with their rhetoric and propaganda to be swayed, if people actually knew the things these people stand for and who pulls their strings, they would be aghast. They operate on hate, anger, and rely on amnesia. They speak in constant contradiction and live in a state of cognitive dissonance. They are throwing out the moderates in their party and are truly scary in their intentions and means.

            We already have what amounts to a plutocracy and oligarchy firmly in place. We have reverted to a robber baron state of affairs, where they

          5. where they basically write the rules that enriches them most, at the cost of all else, almost like a parasite that blindly kills its host.

            Follow the money, if you can. Because the way the rules are now, and the way it is laundered through a variety of structural entities designed for anonymity, it gives plausible deniability to candidates who are shills for their corporate interests, when their funding is trying to be scrutinized.

            Remember fascism is defined as corporatism, which is a fitting description of Republicanism.

            Why hide from your true self? C’mon, if everybody that doesn’t agree with you is a ‘liberal’, then why hide your fascist label? It’s the exact same thing. Every time you call somebody a liberal, you are calling yourself a fascist.

        2. next you will be telling me that dictator Franco and Pinochet were communists.

          1. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 2:26pm

            Franco was anti-communist. And Pinochet I think was anti-communist, but I’d have read more.

            So once again we have another individual unable to list the points he disagrees with, pick them apart, and counter them. Admittedly a challenge because I have sourced and checked my facts, but still you should try, you might even learn something in the attempt.

          2. oh dear, you are really thick, let me point you to the bit you have said i disagreed with

            you stated
            ‘…You do know that fascism was derived from Socialism…’

            i replied
            ‘…next you will be telling me that dictator Franco and Pinochet were communists…’

            general franco was a proper facist so was general pinochet who led a coup d’état which overthrew Allende’s democratically elected socialist government. we also agreed both of them were anti communist. i just hope your intellectual deficiency wont affect your ability to draw conclusion from the above

        3. Black people are closed-minded bigots, dragging their knuckles in the dust, mostly because white people infected them with christianity, which has corrupted their morals and their world view. They also suffer from poor education, and stupid people are easily brainwashed. Black politicians are no different to white in their total lack of morals, and complete lust for power. They will say whatever they think will get them re-elected as that is all they care about.

          1. wow, generalise much?

        4. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 2:17pm

          @Sevrin; Your comments are not acceptable here or anywhere else!

          For someone that claims and I quote “Religious people are the ones who don’t know how to intelligently debate, to be religious you have to give up all rational thought processes, therefore it is impossible to debate intelligently with you”

          Now how you suggest we debate with a racist piece of sh*t such as yourself.

          What you say is unworthy of any person. The problem you mention here is you and prejudice, not black people.

          1. I’m not racist, I am proud of my family’s black ancestry. And my sister is married to a Nigerian, so I know of what I speak. I consider white bigots to be knuckle dragging Neanderthals too, we just happened to be talking about black people, who suffer from this condition disproportionally. Usually because of lack of education leaving them open to brainwashing.

          2. “Now how you suggest we debate with a racist piece of sh*t such as yourself.”

            Said the same man who thinks it “funny” to say racist abuse against the French nation here.

            Hypocrisy is the main theme of the right wing.

          3. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 2:19pm


            Your racism claim is an insult to anyone who actually suffers from racism.

            “against the French nation ” still clutching at straws. Again that’s a nation, not a race. By your logic YOU are a racist given your remarks and plain hateful insults about America.

            And no condemnation of what user Sevrin wrote. You only pretend to deplore racism, but this is just a vendetta with me all because you can’t handle some truth & think France is great (ha) and beyond criticism, bless.

        5. David Myers 15 May 2012, 8:18am

          Since the racist southern Democrats deserted the Democratic party in droves when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and moved en mass to the Republican party, it has moved inexorably further and further to the right and now wants to roll back American history to at least the 1950’s. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, would be appalled by what his party has becomed and would not be a Republican today. You are a Log Cabin Republican and instead of congratulating Obama on his “evolution” and demanding that the Republican candidates join him in supporting same sex marriage, you condemn him while not even addressing any of the bigotry of every one of the Republican candidates for their party’s nomination, save two – Fred Karger (openly gay) and Jon Huntsman (who offered support for gay civil unions, but not gay marriage), both of whom dropped out early-on in the nomination race Why?

    2. Paddyswurds 14 May 2012, 11:35am

      Careful there “warrior”, your hatred and racism is beginning to show…..

      1. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 8:53pm

        Folks, I don’t hate people because of race. Paddyswurds is a liar. When it comes to racism he is crying because I criticised the French or the Irish and he thinks they are beyond reproach.

        He is disrespectful & intolerant of any people of faith, particularly of Christians, regardless if they are for gay-rights. Anyone that truthfully says something about Obama that he doesn’t like, they’re a racist no proof needed.

        This guy has a boys-club mentality. He will never call out one of his own on a wrong action, only his opposition.
        He refuses to acknowledge any wrongs that Dan Savage, Clinton or Obama has done, blinded by the tunnel vision & ignoring the reputable sources provided.
        The man makes hysterical comments like the country is near collapse. He makes too many assumptions when talking, without checking the facts, or lies like ‘Obama did not defend DATA or DOMA in court’, clearly blind to pink-news, other news sites, or even Wikipedia.

        And he cannot be reasoned with.

  13. Bad choice for the Title.

    Gives Barak Obama a bad name.

    Just hope that Americans can see through Romney and vote with their heart and conscience.

    And do the right thing for all Americans. Vote for Barak Obama for a 2nd term

    1. “Gives Barak Obama a bad name”

      Why would being called gay give someone a bad name?

      I suggest you get some counselling to improve the image you have of gay people.

    2. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 9:06am

      “You think your daughter is sick, Mr Grey?”

      It only gives “Obama a bad name” if you consider calling some gay a bad thing.

      George Clooney has said he will never deny rumours that he might be gay because it would be ‘unfair and unkind’ to the gay community to give someone the opportunity to make it ‘seem like being gay is a bad thing’.

      I admire his attitude and I suggest you could adopt it for yourself.

      1. Paddyswurds 14 May 2012, 11:38am

        Pretending to be concerned as to how GLBs would be viewed is pretty thin when on the other hand you are openly racist……

        1. theGentleWarrior 14 May 2012, 1:39pm

          Care to point to a source for these BS insults of yours? And not one inside your head or up your arse!

          This little vendetta of your looks bad, you should have this insult in response to a statement you disagree it with, with but hey if you,
          Tell enough lies, write enough rubbish, give wrong and inaccurate references to history, make stupid hysterical claims, and praise your Obama well beyond the point of ass-kissing and you just might reach Top ‘Idiot’ User this Week.

  14. Hahahahahahahahah you vile, stupid bitch! – He is, in a single stroke, stopping future rifts in families from happening and helping bigoted parents and monsters like you from driving healthy, gifted children born to be gay from ending their lives!

  15. obama’s public support for ss marriage, no doubt a genuine believe, was a great political move that left romney with no other choice than to stick to his medieval view of ‘traditional’ marriage. had he also expressed his support for ss marriage he would have find himself this election competing not only with obama but also with tea party candidate. one way or another he is a compromise choice of the right and it is difficult to be enthusiastic about compromise

  16. Politicians are motivated only by what will get them re-elected. Obama’s ‘coming out’ in favour of equal marriage is nothing but a political ploy to help win votes. It is however helpful to us, and if he succeeds is gaining popularity with this move, other politicians will jump on the bandwagon. However if he fails, then it will usher in another cold war against gay people.

  17. I thought James Buchanan was the first gay president ;-)

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.