Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Obama: Extending marriage to gay couples will ‘strengthen families’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. It remains for Obama to be elected for a second term and for the rest of the world governments that have not done so already, to give the LGBT Community full rights in everything. He is indeed a great man, who has the courage of his convictions. Thank you President Obama

  2. Well, I suppose he needs the money for his election campaign. It will lose him the election though

    1. Are you a pessimistic gay or an optimistic homophobe?

    2. No. It won’t.

      The people most bothered by marriage equality are the kinds of racist xenophobic fascist freaks who would never have voted for Obama anyway – not even if he came up with a cure for cancer.

      And the GOP cannot even stand their own candidate, who won by virtue of everyone else in the running being utterly bloody insane.

  3. He’s not a great man and he certainly has some major foreign policy issues with some close allies which show deep seated prejudices, but he has finally done something decent, even if I continue to be cynical about his motives.

  4. If he loses the election the,haters will use that against us,the implications concern me.

    1. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 2:39pm

      I’m not worried. If haters can’t use ‘that’, they’ll find rocks, or pull some crazy policy from their arse. There not going to stop if Obama wins or loses.

      Equal rights for gay people are already given and protected by the Constitution of the United States and therefore must be secured and achieved in court and not by vote.

      They will be achieved in the courts (already done at District and Circuit), and there isn’t much that Obama, Romney or bigots can do either way, other than stall.

      1. Michael Anthony 15 May 2012, 2:46pm

        Actually it could get worse if Obama loses. There are several supreme court members near retirement. If Romney wins he can change the court and make sure we lose. We won the Lawrence decision, but Scalia and his “pals” made it clearhow they view gay marriage in that decision

        1. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 6:07pm

          I refuse to cast my vote solely out of fear. I say we fight for our rights in Court believing we will win, in-spite of any fear that we could lose. “Everybody Fights, Nobody Quits”

          What you said ignores that Justices have life tenure. Romney ‘could’ only in theory.

          In Practice, Supreme Court Justices try to retire when there is a President in office that will replace them with a Justice with similar political views to themselves.
          Secondly a President’s nomination is not enough; generally a Justice requires confirmation by Senate before being appointed.
          Thirdly Justices do not have to vote as the President that appointed them would like.

          Finally the Lawrence v. Texas decision was a 6-3 ruling for gay rights (that’s a good ratio) & it overruled the earlier Supreme Court decision of Bowers v. Hardwick. As for Scalia & pals views, they are the minority.

          There is more written about this below on the page.

  5. Looks like this issue as squaring up as THE issue at the next US election.
    If the Tories are not careful- and delay introduction of equal civil marriage for gay and lesbian people in this country- it will be THE issue in 2015- with the Conservatives again branded as the NASTY PARTY. Cmon Tories- get this on the statute book as quickly as possible before it tears your party apart!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2012, 12:12pm

      The Tory backbenches are already trying to tear it apart and are quite prepared to see it happen as well as face a resounding defeat in 2015. I blame Cameron for allowing it to get out of hand. He doesn’t have the courage to confront them. Come to think of it, nor does anybody else including Miliband and Clegg.

  6. I am surprised that he is now being much more vocal on this issue but it is indeed welcome.

    If the polls in the US are to be believed and many Americans are in favour of same sex marriage then hopefully he will get elected for a second term and can then maybe try to force some positive change across the whole of the USA.

    1. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 2:56pm

      @ Stu’s personal…

      Family is not defined by blood; it’s defined by the strength of the bonds between people and love. This is why a spouse is considered the next of kind.

      Let’s see you ignore reality. In gay couples using surrogates and lesbian couples and the child is genetically (a ‘blood tie’) related to one parent.

      How is a gay/lesbian couple that adopted a child different to straight couple that adopted a child? Both have no genetic relation. Do you condemn the straight couple?

      None of these children are victims. In gay couples using surrogates and lesbian couples the child would not be born if not the love and sheer will of its parents.

      Finally these victims (children) of yours, have you considered what you are doing to them? Some of them are gay. By trying to deny gay-rights you are trying to harm them. You are trying to tell them they are less than.

      And you are most certainly wrong.

    2. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 2:57pm

      Sorry wrong reply box

  7. The anti-gay, anti-marriage equality hate groups and individuals are all con artist’s, liars and thieves trying every devious trick to steal our dignity and our right to happiness, they can’t do it and they will never succeed. Their motivation is immoral and wholly vindictive, they are on the wrong side of history.

    1. Nebraska Jane Svoboda.

    2. Medicate H8!!

    3. In see the grammatical and literacy abilities of the piece of filth known as Keith has taken second place to his drinking again.

      Typically tragic outcome of the failed ex-gay brigade.

  8. This logic applies to adoptive straight families, Keith.
    But you don’t put your brain in gear before tapping out your poisonous ravings.

    1. Please do not feed the (not overly bright) troll.

      1. resond? Link to your petition please?
        Thought not!

      2. I note you have not rebutted any of Sasha’s points by posting your petition.

      3. “I notice you have not refuted any of my claims/facts.”

        Facts? You? LOL!

    2. Link please to your petition? or is that a lie?
      You can’t string a coherent sentence together never mind start a ‘Downing Street’ petition, whatever that is, You’ll be starting an orgy in a warehouse next!

      1. I promise I will personally sign your Downing Street petition egarding the slippery slpoe (sic) if you give me the god damn link. No such thing exists does it Keith? You are a fake and a liar

    3. As usual you change the goal-posts instead of defending your absurd position – that lack of full blood-ties is somehow damaging to children. But this is because you know that this is rubbish.

    4. I’m guessing your petition is being promoted from your bedroom in your Mum’s house – or are you adopted?

      You poisonous closet case

  9. I think Obama has been incredibly courageous.

    That said I also think it is a very smart ideal to do this now. The timing is perfect. Romney is backed into a corner. While at the same time it will energize Obama’s demographics (e.g., the young) to get out and vote while at the same time provoke all those extreme hater nut jobs – who now days never look pretty when they open their mouths as they have nothing fresh to argue – just their very tired old and discredited talking points and slogans.

    1. I think you are right – he had to take the initiative over this and not let his enemies ambush him – just, in fact, what he is managing to do to Romney. He is also positioning the issue in relation to equal rights under the law as an American value, while provoking Romney’s supporters into a hate-filled rearguard action. It will be a big fight, but I can’t see Romney beating him. The guy is hated by half his own party and has nothing to say to the unemployed except ‘let them eat cake’.

  10. There is only appropriate reply to you whoever you are, and the words are Nebraska Jane Svoboda. I would really like to just see that posted in reply to all the insane trolls who come to this site. Nebraska Jane Svoboda because that’s what they are.

  11. Stunning endorsement of LGBT rights from Obama.

    Keep it coming, Mr President.

    LGBT parents are strong, supportive and loving parents whose children are often responsible and give significant contributions to society.

    The American Academy of Paediatrics in a 2002 policy statement stated: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009.

    The American Psychological Association found that “same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.”

    The Child Welfare League of America state “”lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.”

    1. Absolutely, and those views are also supported in the UK.

      Barnardos chief executive Anne Marie Carrie said earlier this year “To suggest that a same sex couple is not as able to raise a child as a heterosexual couple is at once absurd and unsubstantiated. To continue to discourage potential adopters simply because of their sexual orientation is severely diminishing the chances of securing loving, stable homes for the children who are waiting. This debate needs to be urgently raised and myths surrounding how sexuality, race, marital status and gender can affect your parenting dispelled.”

      NCH Action for Children state “There are many myths surrounding adoption and this often puts extremely good prospective parents off the idea of making enquiries. For example, there is no reason why someone who is gay, or has a grown up family, or is on a low income can not adopt.”

  12. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 2:26pm

    Ricky introduces Obama; it’s poetic that you’ve got a disgrace to the gay community introducing a disgrace to the Nation.

    Ricky says “I believe Obama has shown a deep conviction” I disagree: “Just days after affirming his support for same-sex marriage, President Obama today declined to say whether he would go a step further and publicly take up the fight to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.”
    So talk followed by inaction.

    “You’ve got Governor Romney saying we should actually have a constitutional amendment installing the notion that you can’t have same-sex marriages”.
    We already have that; it is called DOMA, signed into law by Bill Clinton & defended by Obama in court in 2010. Taking over Clinton’s mantle of responsibility (2004-2010) Obama is now responsible for every gay couple refused a federal recognised marriage since 2010 to date.

    Are these the actions of man that supports equal rights for gay people?

  13. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 2:27pm

    Equal rights will be achieved in the courts, and there isn’t much that Obama, Romney or any bigot can do either way, other than stall.

    1. Michael Anthony 15 May 2012, 2:48pm

      A naive opinion.

      1. by misguided gay republican, yak

        1. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 5:43pm

          Perhaps if you concerned yourself with WHAT was ‘said’ rather than WHO ‘said’ you add be able to add value to a discussion or debate.

      2. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 5:43pm

        If your just going to say ‘naive’ with out giving reasons, you might as well have said nothing at all. Anyway read my reply below please.

  14. The Canadian Psychological Association stated in 2006 “CPA’s review of the psychological research
    led us to conclude that children of same-sex parents do not differ from children of heterosexual parents in terms of their psychosocial development, gender development and their gender identity.”

    The Australian Psychological Society stated in 2007 “… family studies literature indicates that it is family processes (such as the
    quality of parenting and relationships within the family) that contribute to determining children’s wellbeing
    and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and
    co-habitation status of parents. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes
    in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families
    of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain
    significant challenges for those families”

  15. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 2:57pm

    Family is not defined by blood; it’s defined by the strength of the bonds between people and love. This is why a spouse is considered the next of kind.

    Let’s see you ignore reality. In gay couples using surrogates and lesbian couples and the child is genetically (a ‘blood tie’) related to one parent.

    How is a gay/lesbian couple that adopted a child different to straight couple that adopted a child? Both have no genetic relation. Do you condemn the straight couple?

    None of these children are victims. In gay couples using surrogates and lesbian couples the child would not be born if not the love and sheer will of its parents.

    Finally these victims (children) of yours, have you considered what you are doing to them? Some of them are gay. By trying to deny gay-rights you are trying to harm them. You are trying to tell them they are less than.

    And you are most certainly wrong.

  16. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 5:40pm

    User Michael Anthony in response to my comments above is concerned that if Obama loses, several Supreme Court members could retire and Romney could change the court, so gay rights case will lose.

    This ignores that once appointed, the justices have life tenure.

    Romney ‘could’ only in theory. In Practice, Supreme Court Justices try to retire when there is a President in office that will replace them with a Justice with similar political views to themselves.

    So bar death and health problems, I assert we’ll be okay. Secondly a President’s nomination is not enough; generally a Justice requires confirmation by Senate before being appointed. Thirdly Justices do not have to vote as the President that appointed them would like. I cite Justice David Souter and President George H. W. Bush as example.

    Also note that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush nominated Vaughn Walker to the bench.

  17. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 5:41pm

    Now we have won, but with stays in place, ‘Perry v. Schwarzenegger’ & ‘Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services’ in District and Circuit Court respectively and both will end up before the Supreme Court. I have faith that we will win our rights in the Supreme Court but I do acknowledge we could lose, but that fear that we might lose should not stop us from trying.

    If we use legislation first to repeal DOMA the court will not hear cases to strike down DOMA. But if we go the Supreme Court first and lose (an outcome I not believe will happen) then we can still use legislation and votes to achieve rights.

    Rights achieved in the court and protected by the Constitution are stronger than those won by vote or legislation.

  18. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 5:41pm

    I’m concerned that Obama will stop a successful challenge in the Supreme Court by introducing some legislation to repeal DOMA as he did with DATA.
    When DATA was ruled on unconstitutional in court in October, 2010 due to the LCR 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 Court denied LCR’s motion to continue to hear the case and vacated the decision. Given this outcome another administration could reinstate DATA by popular vote

    And that is but one reason I’m not voting for Obama.

    1. Who you vote for is entirely your right to chose for yourself. I am curious though as I think you once posted that you are a Catholic, how can you consider voting for Romney who is a fully involved member of a cult that regards your church as satanic? Moreover, Romney is an out and out homophobe who will roll back LGBT’s hard won civil gains so as to please his other cult supporters. Surely President Obama as an advocate of equal marriage is in this regard a much better candidate than Romney for Presidential office?

      1. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 8:34pm

        Well Romney & Obama aren’t my only choices, I could vote (throw away my vote) for a third party.

        If Romney attacked the Church I’m sure it will survive him. It could be a good thing, occupy Pope Ratzinger and his Bishops time with a real cause to fight against, take away their free time to attack gays.

        Yes Romney is homophobic, but politically he’s all talk he did sign gay-marriage in law in MA. If you read my comments on the “Romney bullied gay classmates” story you see I’d be more than happy to see him arrested and charged with a hate-crime for premeditated armed assault causing injury.

        Even if Romney tried to “will roll back LGBT’s hard won civil gains” he would fail.

        I see President Obama as an advocate of equal rights in talk only and for my reasons outlined above and more I don’t want to see a second term for him. Obama betrayed the election promises for gays he made. I cite my comments on DATA for this; the only ban lifted by Obama was the one he put back in place.

        1. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 8:36pm

          and Obama refused to sign an anti-discrimination bill for LGBT employees.

      2. theGentleWarrior 15 May 2012, 8:36pm

        Now in an ideal world there would now be around of non-fatal hard attacks for Obama, Romney, Santorum (maybe fatal :) ), & Gingrich causing them to all to withdraw from the race, and some good candidates coming forth.

        But we live in this world however and when voting I prefer to vote for the least of all evils. Who that will be for certain, we will see in the coming months.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all