Bush didn't look like an idiot because of his gaffes, subby.

Oh noooooes! Biden doesn't hold religious hate for gays!!!!

beefoe: Gee, I don't know what Obama's position is on gay marriage. It's not like he signed some document saying "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit those marriages."

What, there is?

I'm sorry, but that's from 1996. If we're going by that, should we also assume that Romney is pro-choice and supports health care reform?

bobbette: Israel, for example

Israel allows civil unions. Only for folks unaffiliated with a religion, but it does recognize them.

Yep. Nothing quite separates the wheat from the chaff like a good bout of Biden butthurt.

Subby you sound like some crazy dipsh*t at Thanksgiving.

This is so farking stupid. Barack Obama is the President of the United States, an office that has absolutely nothing to say about marriage, straight or gay. So his official opinion is meaningless and his personal views are really none of our business. Having said that, it is not written anywhere that the VP cannot have his own point of view and express it. The only time this should be problematic is when there is a dispute on policy. So if his statement is considered a "gaffe" and created a "mess" for the White House, maybe they need a new press secretary -- one that has the political savvy and the balls to make anyone attempting to make hay out of this look like the moron he/she is.

We see that for the third presidential election in a row, the corporate-controlled media, following the GOP game plan, is making the non-issue of gay marriage an issue in a presidential election. And Americans on both sides of the issue are just stupid enough to fall for it.

rcantley: Oh that Biden. Seems like every time he opens his mouth, something honest comes out - which is, of course, the same thing as a gaffe.

If only he offered a mealy-mouthed, chicken-shiat stance on this issue, like Obama.

President Romney?

Geez, at the risk of being called a Obama cock-sucker (wait--maybe I could get on board with that) I think that is a perfectly legitimate answer.

rcantley: Oh that Biden. Seems like every time he opens his mouth, something honest comes out - which is, of course, the same thing as a gaffe.

Yes, like referring to Romney as "President Romney" and Obama as "President Clinton" in the same interview yesterday.

And my personal favorite:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened."

No wonder why Osama figured that if he assassinated Obama, America would be f'd under Biden.

Magorn: Marriage licenses are issued by individual states, the the Supreme court has long ago ruled that Family law is one of those areas where the federal government clearly intended state regulation to have primacy. Ergo, there is no valid federal role in deciding who may or may not get married (which means DOMA should have been a dead letter form the jump) so therefore I ask you how do Obama's views on the subject matter in the slightest?

I never really understood how something like marriage doesn't fall under "civil rights".

bdub77: Well...I'm voting against the stupid amendment in NC but I'm anti-marriage in general in a government sense. Civil unions for everyone, marriage should not be recognized by the state outside of the civil union. Marriage is the religious side of the equation. Separation of church and state - marriage by the church, civil unions by the state. You can have one or both.

Try telling opposite-sex couples you don't want them to be legally married anymore and prefer they merely be in a civil union or domestic partnership with each other. You'll be lucky to come out with your head attached.

In all seriousness, civil marriage and religious marriage are already separate. Imams aren't required to marry two Christians to each other in their mosque. Priests aren't required to marry a Buddhist and a Hindu to each other in their church. They can religiously marry whomever they want; the fact that they can legally marry people is a convenience offered to them so that people don't have to have a separate civil ceremony with a judge like couples have to do in Europe. The difference between civil unions and civil marriage is, quite simply, a word. Not that you agree with this point, but people who support civil unions and don't support civil marriage could be construed as violating the freedom of speech of couples who want to say they are married but can't.

JackieRabbit: non-issue of gay marriage

lol

8/10

CapeFearCadaver: /psst, it's from March

Psst - that doesn't demonstrate support for legalizing gay marriage.

bdub77: Well...I'm voting against the stupid amendment in NC but I'm anti-marriage in general in a government sense. Civil unions for everyone, marriage should not be recognized by the state outside of the civil union. Marriage is the religious side of the equation. Separation of church and state - marriage by the church, civil unions by the state. You can have one or both.

So you just want to change the word "marriage" to "civil union" in all the lawbooks? That's...not very helpful. We all know that anti-gay bigots don't care about the word as much as hurting homosexuals.

wow moonie times on the front page?

gilgigamesh: Ah, yes. Nothing drives my enthusiasm to get out to the to the polls like being taken for granted.

It's either that or get bent over the hood of a rusty Pinto and gang raped. NTTAWWT if that is your bag.

Your choice is be taken for granted and get at least some lube during your pounding, or protest vote and run the possibility of getting a 60-grit condom with no lube.

gilgigamesh: DROxINxTHExWIND: OregonVet: Slaxl: I hate that honesty is the worst policy in politics today. I also hate that being tolerant and accepting of different people is also apparently a bad thing.

Agreed. There is a number of things that he's afraid will cost him the election so he's keeping them in "evolution" mode. That's a shame. I think it be better if he just came out and stated his position. Afraid of losing some Independent voters? How about those of us who support gay marriage? I felt he did a better job than Clinton regarding gays in the military. I honestly was proud of that as a veteran who saw the fearful life my friends had to endure. Perhaps he supports equal opportunity for the gay community just short of marriage.


He's not going to lose you to a candidate whose party would gladly put homosexuals in jail for kissing in public.

/He knows this.

Ah, yes. Nothing drives my enthusiasm to get out to the to the polls like being taken for granted.

Oh, come on. Obama's been the most pro-gay President ever. Including in foreign policy. You have Hillary Clinton going around the world telling everyone gay rights are human rights and actually doing something to prove it. Obama ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They stopped defending DOMA in court. If we're realistic about the political calculus of gay marriage at the federal level it requires re-electing the political party that is gay-friendly but who certainly can't be expected to campaign on gay marriage, because they'd lose races.

The more important thing is stacking the House and Senate with people who will vote to repeal DOMA and enact federal legislation recognizing gay marriage so Obama can sign it. Once all the ducks are in a row, Obama can cajole the remaining people into "evolving" into the direction of marriage equality and they can all pat themselves on the back for finally "coming around" just as their constituents slowly have. That's how this game works.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Biden has made some hilariously awkward statements in the past, but this isn't one of them.

I heard the audio. He was very matter-of-fact and clear. This is nothing like some of his classic gaffes.

This is just one a list of things that I am disappointed with in Obama. Part of me wishes there was some reasonable, credible candidate that could oppose him in November, but there has been nothing of the kind once Huntsman was jettisoned.

The only tiny hope for the GOP is that the "hate Obama" voters outnumber the "like Obama enough to actually cast a ballot for him". Romoney has all the charisma of John Kerry with none of the principles.

Evolving? To really pander, shouldn't he say his views are "intelligently designed'?

The president and vice president aren't in lock-step on the issue of gay marriage - and this is what's passing for a political hot potato these days?

Wake me if they find a dead hooker - otherwise...

I don't like Biden for a different reason. He's been helping push the platform of the MAFIAA.

Gaffe?

[inigo}

I am sorry but Joe is never going to come up with something this epic:

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

Serious Black: In all seriousness, civil marriage and religious marriage are already separate. Imams aren't required to marry two Christians to each other in their mosque. Priests aren't required to marry a Buddhist and a Hindu to each other in their church. They can religiously marry whomever they want; the fact that they can legally marry people is a convenience offered to them so that people don't have to have a separate civil ceremony with a judge like couples have to do in Europe. The difference between civil unions and civil marriage is, quite simply, a word. Not that you agree with this point, but people who support civil unions and don't support civil marriage could be construed as violating the freedom of speech of couples who want to say they are married but can't.

Yup.

Though in practice, even if it makes more sense to have 'civil union' refer to any government recognition of marriage, it's simply a much easier change (and much less susceptible to loophole wrangling) to adjust the definition of marriage than to go through the entirety of law and change 'marriage' to 'civil union'. In theory, I'd support the government only recognizing 'civil unions', though.

Magorn: Marriage licenses are issued by individual states, the the Supreme court has long ago ruled that Family law is one of those areas where the federal government clearly intended state regulation to have primacy.

Of course, that went out the window when marriage began to have benefits attached to it at the federal level. Now, since the federal government has a compelling interest in marriage -- for example, "married filing jointly" -- they have a say in who should or should not get married. If you don't agree with that, work to get federal legislation that hinges on marriage overturned.

gilgigamesh: I'm not a single issue voter, and if I was, it would actually be on Obama's atrocious civil liberties record

Are you still running with that?

Il Douchey: Show of hands: Who here has heard that Joe Biden failed the Delaware Bar Exam eleven times before passing it?

/And he's a heartbeat from the Presidency

Cut him some slack, I have never been able to pass a bar in my life.

Slaxl: I hate that honesty is the worst policy in politics today. I also hate that being tolerant and accepting of different people is also apparently a bad thing.

I hate that the USA has a sufficiently high population of bigoted cretins (I'm looking at you, fundie "Christian" dickbags) that Obama has to obfuscate his position on gay marriage.

rcantley: beefoe: Gee, I don't know what Obama's position is on gay marriage. It's not like he signed some document saying "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit those marriages."

What, there is?

I'm sorry, but that's from 1996. If we're going by that, should we also assume that Romney is pro-choice and supports health care reform?

Yes, but at least Mitt is sticking to his flip-flops. Obama was for gay marriage, then against it, now his position is "evolving". So Obama's doing a flip-flop with a double twist which is a 2.9 degree of difficulty.

gilgigamesh: lennavan: gilgigamesh: Ah, yes. Nothing drives my enthusiasm to get out to the to the polls like being taken for granted.

So you only care about one single issue - gay marriage? Interesting.

Or, did you perhaps think Obama should completely mirror your positions perfectly? That's also... interesting.

Dude, you'll get over it.

I'm not a single issue voter, and if I was, it would actually be on Obama's atrocious civil liberties record.

I was just generally responding to Dro's point that Obama can rely on people who are mad at him to come out and vote for him anyway. Sure they won't vote for Romney... but they may stay home. That's what Obama really has to worry about.

Of course, he'd worry more if they came out and voted for someone else. Thankfully, he has the Machine protecting him and Romney from any such nonsense.

James! If you count him stating his opinion as a gaffe.

BunkyBrewman I'd rather have Biden than Dan "Potatoe Head" Quayle or Dick "I'll shoot your face off" Cheney.

BunkoSquad I'm still voting for Obama without hesitation, but I might start replying to every Democratic fundraising email with a note that "my views on donating to the reelection campaign are evolving"

PanicMan This is not a gaffe. This is a man answering a question about his opinion. That is all.


I believe these are the same dimwits that said Anthony Weiner was innocent in the sexting scandal.

cryinoutloud: Geez, at the risk of being called a Obama cock-sucker (wait--maybe I could get on board with that) I think that is a perfectly legitimate answer.

His position has been "evolving" for at least four years. I wouldn't have thought it would be so hard for him to decide whether he's for or against civil rights, but I can't speak for the man.

beefoe: And my personal favorite:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened."

No wonder why Osama figured that if he assassinated Obama, America would be f'd under Biden.

Cut Joe some slack. He was quoting Neil Kinnock, who is rather hazy about American Presidents.

The only people calling this a gaffe are partisan douche bags.

/looking at you, subby

James!: If you count him stating his opinion as a gaffe.

Heh. I'm thinking that the gaffes to which they are referring are things like Biden saying "President Romney", or referring to Obama as "President Clinton".

Now that's some funny shiat.

PanicMan: This is not a gaffe. This is a man answering a question about his opinion. That is all.

Unfortunately, in politics, answering anything honestly is almost always a "gaffe".

sprawl15: Though in practice, even if it makes more sense to have 'civil union' refer to any government recognition of marriage, it's simply a much easier change (and much less susceptible to loophole wrangling) to adjust the definition of marriage than to go through the entirety of law and change 'marriage' to 'civil union'. In theory, I'd support the government only recognizing 'civil unions', though.

Yeah, and the moment you try to do that, the same people saying "gays should only get civil unions" come out of the woodwork claiming the government wants to nullify your marriage to help the gays. It is a shell game and a waste of time.

schattenteufel: 5 Ways to Spot a B.S. Political Story in Under 10 Seconds

#5. The Headline Contains the Word "Gaffe"

Except Bush stories actually had gaffes. He was a stupid stupid man who somehow got elected twice.

The kind of people who oppose gay marriage weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. I don't know why he doesn't just come out in favor of it. He has nothing to lose.

How is stating your opinion on an issue a "gaffe"?