What the President really said was nothing.

Whether he agrees or not is not the problem. That he was saving this wondrous news, by his own admission, until just before the election says volumes. He started out with marriage is between a man and a woman. Then he was wrestling with it. Finally, after discussing it with wife and kiddies, he made the decision everybody should be able to marry. (Not one mention that Biden let the proverbial cat out of the bag.) By the way, if Mrs. Romney can't talk to hubby about economics that worry women because according to the left she never worked a day in her life, then why can Michelle and the girls talk about gay marriage since they aren't, to our knowledge gay or lesbian? Oh, I forgot, the president sent out the head chef to take about national security. Obviously he knows a lot more than cooking, right?

I bet the head chef knows a whole lot about security. Poisoning a head of states meal has been killing important people for 1000s of years.

Hmm, point well made except he gave a speech on obesity being a major national security issue. By the way, I was wrong about his first thought on gay marriage. He was for gay marriage, then straight only, then struggling, then after being put between a rock and a hard place by Biden, he suddenly came up with the wife and kids setting him straight. So he evolved backward and then forward. Never saw such an evolution before (except in politics).

After seven years of living together, common law couples can be considered married and can get the same rights as those married in church or city hall. But then if you want a special person to marry you to your beloved, all they have to do is go online to become a minister - no schooling required. That's how some leaders of the masses got theirs.

But just having a minister perform a ceremony does not mean it would be 'recognized' legally. The license is what makes it legally binding. And as a person who tends towards libertarianism, licensure gives government the implicit power to make the rules governing who can legally enjoy the privileges of marriage. Since it is pretty much tradition what those privileges are, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to change the rules on who can be considered 'family'? Hospitals could allow visitors, insurance companies could be made by law to accept someone's word on who was family, etc. As a society, we've pretty much accepted that EVERYONE has equal rights as human beings. It is just one small step for our institutions (hospitals, schools) to be legally required to recognized gay couples as family. Going to the federal level to me, seems counter productive to what they are looking for, recognition.

And yet if any other candidate 'evolves' it is called flip-flopping, especially if he's come to the conclusion years before that any marriage is okay, the goes back to man-woman only, then to 'gee, I'm really struggling with it' for his first term, then when set up by a fellow politician so you can't say anything else, you suddenly evolve because mama and the kids thought it was a good idea. If Obama evolved, great. Somehow I think he could have stayed evolved years ago when he originally thought any marriage was okay. At least Romney still believes the same thing as before on marriage, although he has nothing against legal unions between same sexes. Absolutely it's no skin off Obama's nose, which is how he plans everything. It's always the other fellow or woman who can be blamed.

ROFLMAO!!!!!! Holy..... Wow.....just, wow....words fail me on this one.

The news media couldn't wait to scream that Obama made $15 million at George Clooney's bash shortly after making his fab announcement. Yet, another lie to make us think the world was waiting breathlessly for him to approve gay marriages. Seriously, 140 people attended the party at $40K a plate. That does not come anywhere near fifteen million. They added in all the contributions received over the last few months to make the number grow. It's a lot like touting the lowering jobless numbers which are really lower only because people are dropping out of the jobs market because there aren't any jobs available. If we were truly putting people back to work, our tax contributions to the feds would be increasing. They are declining for the third year in a row. All I want for Christmas is a politician who knows how to tell the truth. Of course, if he/she tried that, they would never get elected. Instead we go for the one that offers to make us more dependent on the government to live. Love those freebies! Of course, prisoners receive free clothes, meals, a roof over their heads, exercise rooms, television, movies, basketball courts, but they can't do a darn thing on their own unless the warden gives the okay.

The main reason for Obama to even bring this up is to get the gay vote and to try to turn the country away from the real problems such as paying $250 billion just on interest on our China loans. If the interest rate goes up very much, we will be paying a trillion in interest only. If that happens, we will forever be afraid to face them for fear they will call in the loans. If he could do anything about it, it would have been done the first term. Still wondering how his wife and children qualify to make up his mind. Obviously, by the Left's own standards, a spouse on the right must never speak about anything unless they are professionals in the field. Why then should a spouse on the left have any input?

The whole problem of gay marriage at the federal level is just that. They may not be able to legalize it since marriage is a state matter. However the federal gov does have some say so when it comes to having states recognize the validity of a license issued by another state, that whole reciprocity thing. If you really want to get technical, by no way of logic, can any state not recognize a marriage issued by another state because it's gay unless they choose not to recognize any marriages issued by that state. Then of course, you get into a whole new problem of state's not recognizing each others authority. As I also said before, there's no valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve religion. As it stands not recognizing a gay marriage is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, and it's a precedent which is leading to violations of all others being upheld.