POTUS to LGBT: “Welcome to Your White House”

He may be slow, but President Obama has done more than his predecessors.

Let’s see: The POTUS is a handsome, reasonably young, black man. He should be able to work something out to appeal to at least half the LGBT’s.

I’m bugged by articles that refer to our president as “Mr. Obama”. He is now our president and should be referred to as “President Obama”. It is respectful.

To anyone who is opposed to gay marriage, I ask you to answer this very simple question: If tomorrow it was legal, in what way would it directly affect your everyday life? Honestly…

Twanya..Every President including our current President has on occasion been introduced as Mr. rather than President….it is not meant to be an insult or show of disrespect..NYT for example used Mr. Bush quit a lot as well referring our current President as Mr.Obama…

Obama to the gay community:
Continue to donate money and I promise to get to you by the end of my administration.
I guess Obama figures they are as dumb as the rest of his supporters.

Ryan C: Stop hiding behind children, or playing dumb.
Most men, gay or straight, produce sperm. Most women, lesbian or straight, produce ovum. Those two cells and a woman’s biology produce an environment for re-production of a new human being.
Sex acts, marriage, monogamy… all the other “implied” things about re-production don’t have to exist.
For some straights AND gays who re-produce they don’t exist – they are not married, they use artificial methods, many of the contributors don’t even know or meet each other let alone have a sexual encounter.
The illusion that human beings as well as human rights are ONLY for a married man and a woman who have engaged in exclusive sexual intercourse and spend their entire adult lives together is just that – an illusion.
It’s one of many possibilities.
Would we like it to always happen that way?
Ask Senator Ensign and Governor Sanford, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Jim McGreevey, Thomas Jefferson. And then there was Octo-Mom.
Oh, yeah, Pres. George and Martha never had any kids. She brought hers from a former relationship.
“Look at me, I can make a kid!” is not much of an accomplishment. Certainly not an entitlement in and of itself. It more like a warning to others.

“Ryan C: Stop hiding behind children, or playing dumb.”
Either I got namejacked or you misunderstood.
I support same sex marriage.

WOnder when Obama is going to represent the other people of the nation instead just the wealthy ones.

Didn’t Obama state that he is against same sex marriage?

Many of your comments are on target (have money-get audience, first LGBT reception ever). We are responsible for making sure our elected officials do the right thing. We need to be clear that DOMA and DADT must be reversed this year (now). These are laws that prevent our equal civil rights. State and federal LGBT rights can be ignored just by inserting “spouse as defined by federal law” This is how the IRS is preventing Domestic Partner health care benefits at a reduced rate as outlined in ARRA (American Recovery & Reinvestment Act). I suspect that President Obama did not expect the action the IRS has taken. DOMA and DADT must be reversed now!

Excerpted from AllahPundit titled:
“Obama to gays: I’m totally going to help you out, just not right now
“What does a president get from a gay audience when he’s publicly against gay marriage, unwilling to take bold action to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and so terrified of the political consequences of challenging the Defense of Marriage Act that he’ll actually defend it in court? Why, he gets “thunderous applause,” of course — if he’s a Democrat.
“Money line: “We’ve been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.” Translation: Elect me to a second term so I can be the hardcore liberal I am without worrying about the electoral consequences.”
AP cracks me up!

“We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.”
I like that.

“Having civil unions for same-sex couples and marriage for opposite-sex couples creates a “separate but equal” system that is ripe for abuse”
==========================
Yeah, kind of like hate crime legislation. Separate but equal only seems to be a problem when it’s not a benefit.

The POTUS was not comfortable hosting a White House Prayer Breakfast this year, but he sure got into it for this event!
Go figure!

You call that progress!
We are not progressing, we are regressing..Mr President; what you are
doing is bringing the judgement of God to america, what a shame for our fore- fathers to have blessed us with Godly values and now you are bringing curses to the land that God has blessed!!
Shame on you, you will certainly reap what you have sown because “Choices have consequences”

George Washington and our founding fathers of America are rolling over in their graves! What a disgrace this president is to all that makes this country special. We cannot sing “God bless America” any longer, for judgment is what God is going to bring this Sodom and Gamorah society now. Yes, I know there be “few” who agree with me. I have already been told that, nearly 2000 years ago.

“a society that makes a mockery of marriage and places its stamp of acceptance on its desecration”
That’s what same sex marriage will do?
What did Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, John Edwards, Bob Barr, Mark Foley, minister, Ted Haggart (just to name a few) do for the institution of marriage?
Make it stronger? Set a shining example? If a homosexual union is threatening to your marriage – you need to take a good look at your marriage.

God created ADAM and God created EVE WHY ? answer that .Marriage should be sacred.Its not now a days. Teens marry have kids divorce ect.What happened in the days past .The days our parents were married many years raised a family, died together . The morality of this country has gone to hell. We have a Muslim President who supports this in some way. He could care less.This ASS just wants VOTES will never have mine . No I am not a Republican,or a dam Democrate crook. Yes I vote,and no did not vote for MKcCain . He was the slight lesser of the 2 evils tho. .I beleive give gay couples rights,and this can be done as it is already,Marriage is out of question.It degrades Gods way of thinking,something we as his creation can not do. He rules.not Oduma ect or the Democrates.

Define “bigotry” David. I’m tired of all the people in favor of same-sex marriage always using that word. It cracks me up because I’m sure more most of the people using that word only use it because they heard someone else use the word and thought it had a nice ring to it!

By the way, Mr. Wylie, did you thump on YOUR Bible when you quoted 1 John 4: 7-8?

I ask the following with all degree of sincerity: If gay marriage is deemed acceptable, what is it about marriage amongst polygamists that would be unacceptable?

Jesus, it’s not BEHAVIOR, it’s who we are. Bigot? Stop changing the subject, if you don’t know what it means look it up. Mr. Wylie, don’t worry about it, you and I both know that God’s judgment will be the only one that matters.

To JSK:
And then there were those who worked to free the slaves, such as my Quaker ancestors. Or those who fought and died during the Civil War for the same purpose. If we were all perfect, we would not have needed an Intercessor to plead our case.

Your god is obviously not my god. Pointing out that the bible has contradictions is not “bible thumping”. I give, all I know is I’m going to be able to get married by the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots and that’s all that matters to me. Amen.

No in that respect we have the same. It’s ironic b/c I’m not making this up but my sister ran away. I condemn her act but she caused so much pain for my parents I don’t know if I can say I love her after what she did. I actually quoted the same commandment. Anyway that’s beside the point, I’m fine if we agree we have different Gods, just so long as neither of us claim one is better than the other. I am glad to see you still love your nephew. I’m going to have to come out soon but I guarantee my parents will cut me off all college aid, write me out of the will, and disown me. Talk about conditional love. At least I have a support network I didn’t have a year ago.

” To all of those who pulled his lever how does 10% unemployment feel right now?” It feels like Bush was president way too long. This mess took years of stupid shortsighted policy to create.—as far as Obama, I think he’s being far too timid in pushing gay equality under the law. I think nothing short of equal legal rights and protections for all of our citizens, is acceptable for this nation.

“I ask the following with all degree of sincerity: If gay marriage is deemed acceptable, what is it about marriage amongst polygamists that would be unacceptable?” — Because it’s an exclusive partnership – one per person – period. That wouldn’t change, and is not discriminatory. Another straw man argument. One can only enter this marriage partnershipe contract with one other otherwise unencumbered person. That wouldn’t change. We’d just stop telling our citizens what other adult we could pick. Personally, I don’t see why we have government in the “marriage” business at all? Why not just have a ‘life partner’ or ‘domestic parnter’ agreement that each person can enter with one other person. Since it seems we don’t have the critical thinking skills to understand that civil marriage is not religious marriage – then clearly the government shouldn’t be giving out special privileges for being ‘married’. Remember – separation of church and state? It’s kind of a founding principle of this nation.

“I ask the following with all degree of sincerity: If gay marriage is deemed acceptable, what is it about marriage amongst polygamists that would be unacceptable?” — Because it’s an exclusive partnership – one per person – period. That wouldn’t change, and is not discriminatory. Another straw man argument. One can only enter this marriage partnershipe contract with one other otherwise unencumbered person. That wouldn’t change. We’d just stop telling our citizens what other adult we could pick. Personally, I don’t see why we have government in the “marriage” business at all? Why not just have a ‘life partner’ or ‘domestic parnter’ agreement that each person can enter with one other person. Since it seems we don’t have the critical thinking skills to understand that civil marriage is not religious marriage – then clearly the government shouldn’t be giving out special privileges for being ‘married’. Remember – separation of church and state? It’s kind of a founding principle of this nation.

“It feels like Bush was president way too long. This mess took years of stupid shortsighted policy to create”
Yeah, it’s all Bush’s fault. How quickly we forget (from Labor Department report December 2007):
The Labor Department reported that December 2007 marked the 52nd month of unyielding positive job creation, extending the Bush economy’s all-time record streak (over the previous record of 48 months, held jointly by Reagan and Bush 41).
Remind us again how many jobs have been lost since (a.) Obama received Democrat party nomination, (b.) Obama won the election, and (c.) Obama was inaugurated.
It ain’t pretty…This is Obama’s economy – He has the checkbook and dictates economic policy.

” Who said homosexuality was unacceptable behavior? God. And, as we are to love God first,just as you show love to a parent by obeying him/her, you show love to God by obeying Him.” A set of old texts adopted by the desert religions from the middle east say that – no one knows what “god” says – no one. It says in these old desert texts that homosexuality is an abomination, but so is wearing fabric of mixed fibers or planting two crops in the same field. Raping young women is apparently okeydokey by god according to parts of same ancient desert texts….I am SOOOO glad that this country doesn’t build laws based on any religion’s dogma. You do remember that don’t you?

Hi JKS,
So you are saying that since marriage is already in the toilet in this society, we might as well give it the coup de grace with same-sex marriage?

JKS…. regarding your post of President Obama’s comments at the National Prayer breakfast. Please understand, some of these people only watch Fox News… “they know not what they think”…. :-).

LOL… tjp612…. regarding your so called, “Labor Department report”…. go check out the Bureau of Labor and Statistics website. You’ll find that under every Republican administration we’ve had, unemployment creeps up from where a Democrat left it (every Democratic admnistration since World War II, except for Jimmy Carter, left office with unemployment under 4.5%). On the other hand, under every Democratic president we have had, the national unemployment rate creeps downward from where the Republican president left it (every Republican administration since World War II has handed the White House over to an incoming Democratic administration with unemployment above 6%). Great example… Clinton left office January 2001, unemployment was at 4.2%. G.W. Bush left office January 2009, and unemployment was at 7.2%. Here’s a great website that graphically depicts this incredible historical trend
(You can also verify the monthly data at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics website.)

Hi JKS,
So then why to homosexuals what to participate in this discredited institution? Why not set a new standard that heterosexuals will seek to emulate? We could call is something catchy like “Civil Unions”.

Hi Trish,
So you are saying a polygamist like say, the President’s father, should not have the right to be married, but that two men do?

Hi JKS,
Is it possible there is a distinction between “rights” and a “definition”?
Since all the rights of marriage are conferred in a civil union, and a marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman, what is the issue?

Someone show me where in the Constitution it says that anyone has a “right” to marry.

LOL Paul -
“(every Republican administration since World War II has handed the White House over to an incoming Democratic administration with unemployment above 6%).”
Actually, this isn’t true – Unemployment at the end of 2008 was 5.8% (yes, I realize close to 6%). Unemployment at end of 1980 (Carter) was 7.1%. Average unemployment during George W. Bush’s tenure (8 years) only marginally more than that under Clinton (5.26% vs. 5.20%).
Obama will not even come CLOSE to reaching these levels of unemployment – And it will NOT be Bush’s fault.

“Actually, this isn’t true – Unemployment at the end of 2008 was 5.8% (yes, I realize close to 6%).”
Unemployment rate in Oct 2008 was 6.2%, in Nov 2008 6.7%, 7.2% in Dec and 7.6% in Jan 2009.
You posted an average for the year.

tjp612….. looks like Danita and RyanC agree with me. On the MONTH (January) of every inauguration is what I’m talking about, and the handover from a republican administration to a democratic administration or vice versa…. the fact are: (1) Since Dweight Eisenhower, every time a Republican administration has handed the White House over to an incoming Democratic administration (during January of that particular year), unemployment for that month has been above 6%. (2) On the other hand, with 1 exception (Jimmy Carter) and since Harry Truman, every time a Democratic administration has handed the White House over to an incoming Republican administration… the national unemployment rate for that inaugural month (January of the inaugural year) has been below 4.5%. When you have a Democrat take the White House, unemployment trends downward, and when you have a Republican take the White House, unemployment trends upward. Since this blog won’t let me post a website…. I recommend you google “U.S. Misery Index” and look up the monthly national unemployment rate at the Misery Index website. They have an excellent graph there that depicts this trend. THEN, You can go verify their MONTHLY data at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics website.

“Unemployment rate in Oct 2008 was 6.2%, in Nov 2008 6.7%, 7.2% in Dec and 7.6% in Jan 2009.”
Perhaps there is a stronger correlation between unemployment and who was elected president in November than unemployment and lame duck president. Afterall, unemployment has done nothing but rise since election in November…

RE: “U.S. Misery Index” (unemployment rate + inflation)
Very interesting. But, to get a sense of the entirety of the administration (which to me would give more of a sense of how each president performed from the beginning of tenure to end rather than a single data point) check out the “Misery Index by President” which charts difference in index from beginning of administration to end. The index appears to be inconclusive if your goal is to draw conclusions around which party “performed” better – There are 3 Dems and 3 Repubs who had “positive misery indexes” (i.e., index “worse” than when they came into office) and likewise 3 Dems and 3 Repubs who had “negative misery indexes” (“better”). Reagan was very “good”, Carter was very “bad”. Nixon was “bad”, Truman was “good”.
Bush (43) and Obama are for arguments sake about “equal” (as you would expect given Obama’s limited time in office). I would predict that when Obama’s numbers are finalized his numbers will be “worse” as I predict (a.) this will be a “jobless recovery”, and (b.) inflation will be relatively high due to (relative) excess within money supply.
Appreciate the enlightenment you showing me this index.

Danita,
Do you ever post a comment that does not include the word “smear”?
From Merriam-Webster:
Smear: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization
So those of us who offer objections to Obama’s actions and policies ALWAYS do so without any supporting evidence?
You may want to find a more appropriate term.

“Hi Trish,
So you are saying a polygamist like say, the President’s father, should not have the right to be married, but that two men do?
”
Ignoring the silliness of the first statement, yes, there are a lot of practical reasons for limiting the legal partnership to one at a time. It would be a legal and logistical nightmare to do otherwise.

tjp612: “remember the Democrats have had control of both houses of Congress for 2.5 years”<<——- Yes, and you remember that Bush/Cheney had the opportunity to do wonders when for the first six years of his Presidency he had almost a "perfect flush"…….White House was Republican, House was Republican, and Senate was almost always Republican (only for the first 2 of those 6 years was the senate 50-50)….. a "perfect flush" in terms of party line-up in Washington D.C….. LOL… and look at where the Republicans got us to.

“tjp612…. Give me a break. Do you “REALLY” think that the National Unemployment rate is going to turn around based upon who the President “elect” is???”
No, I don’t. I was being facetious. Just as I don’t really think that the unemployment rate on the day before Inauguration Day in January is an accurate assessment of the incumbent president’s performance.

“Yes, and you remember that Bush/Cheney had the opportunity to do wonders when for the first six years of his Presidency he had almost a “perfect flush”
Yes – And I will not defend some of the actions of Bush and Republicans in Congress, particularly with regard to lack of fiscal discipline. They reaped what they sowed in ’06 and ’08. Same will happen to Dems in ’10 and ’12.

“Yes, and you remember that Bush/Cheney had the opportunity to do wonders when for the first six years of his Presidency he had almost a “perfect flush”
Also – There are some of us who feel Bush was too accomodating to Dems in Congress (a “problem” our current president does not have)

tjp612: “…I don’t really think that the unemployment rate on the day before Inauguration Day in January is an accurate assessment of the incumbent president’s performance.”
I agree… and I never said that it was. My point is look back at history and look at the trend. Did you check out the Misery Index website (monthly unemployment graph)(w.miseryindex.us)?

tjp612: “Yes – And I will not defend some of the actions of Bush and Republicans in Congress, particularly with regard to lack of fiscal discipline. They reaped what they sowed in ’06 and ’08. Same will happen to Dems in ’10 and ’12.”
EXACTLY how I feel. Believe me TJ, I voted for Bush in 2001 and was “hyped” when we had a Republican WH, Senate, and House from 2003 to 2007. And though those 4 years, all I saw from the party that likes to claim that they’re the party of “smaller government/less taxes” was more and more spending. But instead of paying for those OUTRAGEOUS federal government expenditures through taxes (“pay-as-you-go”)…. those years consisted of an ENORMOUS increase in our National Debt, from $5 Trillion when Bush took office to approximately $8.9 Trillion in 2007. Finally, when Bush left office, I believe that the National Debt was at $10.4 Trillion…. ABSOLUTELY AMAZING. Then, I discovered that the interest paid out on that debt (JUST LAST YEAR ALONE)…. this is Interest ONLY (no principle) for FY2008 was $451 Billion. Because of this, I will NEVER, EVER, vote Republican again. They claim that the Democrats are the party of tax and spend. I’d rather vote for a party that taxes me and spends my hard earned money, than a party that fools me into believing that they’re making government “smaller” (when they’re actually not), and they’re really financing the government on borrowed money where the public is not only paying taxes…. we’re also paying $451 Billion (FY08) in interest on that borrowed money too!

“Also – There are some of us who feel Bush was too accomodating to Dems in Congress (a “problem” our current president does not have)”
Bush issued a single veto between 2001 and 2007 (on stem cell research)
After the Democrats took control of Congress in Jan of 2007, he issued 11.
What was he being too accommodating on?

“What was he being too accommodating on?”
Let’s just say our current president (while campaigning on as a “post-partisan, reach-across-the-aisle-kind-of-guy”) is far more partisan than GWB would have ever aspired to be….

@ Paul -
“The two largest increases in our national debt since World War II were under Reagan and G.W. Bush.”
I get where you are coming from, but I am concerned about what’s ahead. From Washington Post (search wapo projected deficit – let me know if you are unable to find – be sure to check out the graph):
“In the first independent analysis of Obama’s budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obama’s policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after costly programs to ease the recession and stabilize the nation’s financial system have ended.
Tax collections, meanwhile, would lag well behind spending, producing huge annual budget deficits that would force the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade — $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his budget request just one month ago.
The result, according to the CBO, would be an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 — double last year’s level — and threaten the nation’s financial stability.”
Also see the graph – Obama’s deficits far outstrip Bush’s deficits – Obama’s “best” year of deficits (2012) is significantly higher (40%?) than Bush’s worst year (2008).
“Lastly, check out the Schindler-Price Home Price Index….. under Clinton, home prices soared, under G.W. Bush/Cheney… well, you know what happened (LOL).”
I’m not sure this was necessarily a good thing. The housing bubble occurred in part due to increased emphasis of the Clinton and Bush administrations (both were guilty, although Bush did push – although not forcibly – to rein in Freddie Mac; Clinton for his part reinvigorated the Community Reinvestment Act) to encourage home ownership. Credit standards were loosened, demand outstripped supply and you know the story ends.

“Deteriorating economic conditions are a major cause of the darkening fiscal picture, according to the CBO. But other factors also are weighing heavily on the budget this year and next. For example, the $700 billion financial-system bailout is now expected to cost taxpayers at least $350 billion, by CBO estimates, because the investments the Treasury Department has made in banks and other financial institutions are worth considerably less than when the bailout was approved.”
So the projected budget problems are largely due to 1) the national debt already incurred (and doubled under Bush), 2) the disastrous state of the economy (left by the Bush administration) and 3) the bail-out of the financial institutions which both crisis and bail-out occurred under the Bush administration.
White House budget director Peter R. Orszag, who served as CBO director before joining the Obama administration, defended the president’s agenda noting that the forecast of bigger deficits and mounting debt is largely because of the CBO’s view that the recession will be more severe and the recovery more tepid than the White House expects.
He also pointed out that long-term budget estimates are notoriously uncertain.

“What part of “NO special rights for people based on their lifestyle choices” does he not understand?” posted by Karen.
I think the part he doesn’t understand is special rights for straight people (based on their lifestyle choices) that gay people don’t get.

You trust the accuracy of a poll, JKS, when the people’s votes say the opposite??

To tjp612,
Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights is the term “separation of church and state” to be found. It was coined by Thomas Jefferson. Nowhere are any rights guaranteed to marry. So much for your “rights”.

@ Danita -
Why I respond to you I don’t know…Perhaps I am an optimist….
“So the projected budget problems are largely due to 1) the national debt already incurred (and doubled under Bush),
===============
Debt incurred by Presidents 1-42: ~$5T
Debt incurred by President Bush: ~$5T
Projected debt by 2019 by Obama: ~$10T
Bush = Bad, Obama = WORSE
===============
“2) the disastrous state of the economy (left by the Bush administration)”
What entity submits budgets for the president’s approval? (answer is Congress, controlled for the last two years of Bush admin. by Dems. Both parties share blame)
===============
“and 3) the bail-out of the financial institutions which both crisis and bail-out occurred under the Bush administration.”
Yes, bail-outs BEGAN under Bush, but Obama has continued.
BTW – What about the $1,000B+ ($787B + interest required for money borrowed) for the “Stimulus” package? Where are the jobs?
===============
“White House budget director Peter R. Orszag, who served as CBO director before joining the Obama administration, defended the president’s agenda noting that the forecast of bigger deficits and mounting debt is largely because of the CBO’s view that the recession will be more severe and the recovery more tepid than the White House expects.”
(a.) of course he defended Obama, did you expect differently?
(b.) CBO will be proved right, WH wrong – recession will be more severe and recovery more tepid the WH expects – we’re seeing it already – Unemployment estimates are higher than WH expected when “stimulus” proposed.
===============
“He also pointed out that long-term budget estimates are notoriously uncertain.”
Yes – Which is why it would have been nice if more deliberation in Congress of the “stimulus” package would’ve have been appropriate…instead a lousy bill (that no one read in entirety) that WILL NOT stimulate the economy was rushed through House and Senate.
Where are the jobs?
I’m all about “hope” and “change” – Hope to see some changes in personnel in Congress and WH!
BTW – I’m getting thirsty!

tjp612 . . .
You’re right, President Bush and the Republicans have no blame for doubling the deficit from $5 trillion to $10 trillion.
The also have no blame in the collapse of the economy and the $700 billion they felt was necessary to rescue the financial institutions.
President Obama takes full responsibility along with Congress and the Senate for instituting the Recovery Bill. Many people say without out it the American economy might have gone into disastrous free-fall. (You might know better of course).
The effects of this stimulus bill are expected to be felt in full during the middle to later parts of 2010. We will see.
2019!!! – As far as projecting budgets forward to 2019 – get a grip. Some bills will pass, others might not. There is no way you can accurately project to 2019. And already you’re blaming Obama for spending that money, and thus spending more than any other President – how sleazy.
What I see is you don’t like the new President and you attack him here at every opportunity – and you are demanding he perfect the world in 6 months. That is completely unrealistic.
Attempting to rescue the United States from the complete mess left (at the end of the Bush administration) seems to be a thankless task, and it may not even be possible – we can do our best to help make it happen. I am one of the large majority of people who feel exceptionally fortunate the President and his team are willing to take on this task.
You are completely entitled to your opinion, but why don’t you drop your constant attacks on the President and put your shoulder to the wheel? Get out and work for your community and your country with some imagination and energy. If you already are, congratulations, keep at it!

“no matter who you are or who you love”..so i guess i guess an old man loving a little girl or boy is ok, right?