Obama on gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I get the sense that Obama publicly says he' against gay marriage to make him appear more conservative, and that's not his true belief.

Thoughts?

Obama backed same-sex marriage in 1996

A document has emerged suggesting that Obama had taken more public, liberal stands in the past than had been revealed in the digging of reporters and opposition researchers over two years of campaigning, the latest of several pointing to a rightward shift as he moved into national politics.

In a 1996 questionnaire filled out for a Chicago gay and lesbian newspaper, then called Outlines, Obama came out clearly in favor of same-sex marriage, which he has opposed on the public record throughout his short career in national politics.

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” Obama wrote in the typed, signed, statement.

There was no use of “civil unions,” and "no compromise whatsoever," the Windy City Times story today notes.

On another questionnaire the same year, Obama said he would support a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

The editor of the Windy City Times, a successor of Outlines, Tracy Baim, said she hadn't deliberately held onto the news until after Obama's election. Baim, who had been the editor of Outlines at the time, said that just before the election, she ran across the old Outline story saying Obama backed same-sex marriage, but only dug his forgotten questionaire out of an old box this week, having assumed that she'd lost it.

Obama now says he opposes same-sex marriage, though he backs giving gays and lesbians a parallel package of marriage-like rights, and opposes a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

This probably supports Chase's theory. Unless Obama has changed his mind in the last 12 years. Or he was falsely claiming to support gay marriage back then, but that seems unlikely.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This isn't something that you can make a states issue because of comity/full faith and credit. If even one state sanctions gay marriage or civil unions, then people getting "married" or "unioned" there must have their rights observed in their home state. It's an issue that refers to an ongoing relationship and it's not like something like abortion which, as a single act, can be successfully banned within the borders of a given state even if a neighboring state sanctions it.

Well Congress did pass the Defense of Marriage Act which barred states from having to recognize gay marriages performed in another state.But one can definitely make an argument that the DMA violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution and should be struck down. I doubt you'd be able to sell that argument to the current Supreme Court, however.

DOMA challenged

Same-sex spouses challenge US curbs

March 3, 2009 03:46 PM

By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff

Fifteen gay and lesbian residents from Massachusetts who wed after this state legalized same-sex marriages filed a discrimination suit today, challenging a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands have died -- one of the deceased was retired congressman Gerry E. Studds -- said in the suit that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act treats them like second-class citizens and is unconstitutional. The 92-page complaint was filed in US District Court in Boston.

The suit, which legal specialists described as the first serious challenge to the federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, contends that the statute has deprived the plaintiffs of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Those benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees, tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns, and the ability to use a spouse's last name on a passport.

"It hurts," said Dean T. Hara, who was married to Studds from May 2004 until the retired congressman's death in October 2006, as he discussed the federal government's denial of a $255 lump-sum death payment and thousands of dollars in benefits as the surviving spouse of a retired federal employee. "But at the same time I realize that I, as a man, need to stand up for what I believe in. This is a nation of laws, and we're all supposed to have equal treatment under the law."

Mary L. Bonauto, the civil rights lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who was lead counsel in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health--the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in 2003 that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States for the first time--said the suit asks the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimination.

"This is a case that should go to the Supreme Court and in all likelihood will go to the Supreme Court," she said.

If the plaintiffs win, she said, it would not extend same-sex marriage beyond Massachusetts and Connecticut, the two states where it is legal.

But it would dismantle a federal statute that affects more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits, and it would be a huge victory on symbolic and practical levels for supporters of same-sex marriage, according to legal specialists.

"We've got this major federal statute that inflicts really substantial harm on very large numbers of gay people just for being gay people," said Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor. "The federal government declares to these people that it regards their marriages as worthless and would not give those marriages the protection and recognition that it gives to all other marriages. It's quite significant if that is invalidated."

A handful of federal agencies and officials are named as defendants in the suit. A spokesman for President Obama, who has spoken of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act but does not support same-sex marriage, said the White House had no comment.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, said the lawsuit represents the latest effort to export gay marriage to other parts of the country. He noted that Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, known by its acronym GLAD, has a "Six by Twelve" campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in all six New England states by 2012, and he said some gay-rights groups want a federal constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

But the tide of public opinion is strongly against them, he said. Voters in 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, Mineau said, including California, which in a November referendum overturned a state Supreme Court decision that had recently given gay couples the right to marry.

"There's no doubt that the desire of the citizens of America . . . is that marriage is to remain one man and one woman, and that's what the intent of DOMA is as well," he said, using the acronym for the federal law.

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, when it appeared increasingly likely that some state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, either by legislation or a court interpretation of state or federal law.

Proponents of the statute feared that if one state legalized gay marriage, other states would be required to do so under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

Same-sex weddings began in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, and about 10,000 couples have married. Two years later, GLAD quietly began surveying couples to determine whether they wanted federal benefits and equal tax treatment currently provided only to married heterosexuals.

Among those who say they have been discriminated against are Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau, a Bridgewater couple who have been together nearly 30 years and married four days after same-sex weddings began. They have two children.

Gill, 51, who has worked for the Postal Service since 1987, has repeatedly tried to put Letourneau on her health insurance plan, but her employer has rejected her applications, citing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Letourneau, 47, has health insurance through her employer, Baystate Visiting Nurse Association & Hospice, but the couple estimates that it costs them $800 more a year than it would if she could be on Gill's plan.

"I feel like I am not being treated the same as my other married co-workers," Gill said. "I earn those same benefits as my co-workers, yet I'm not allowed to use them."

This case seems destined to go to the Supreme Court. It will be a major test of Obama's views on gay marriage.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Here's a copy of the complaint if anyone's interested.

I haven't read it yet. I just looked up the case on PACER and they drew Judge Tauro, who is a complete nutjob. I had a case in front of him and he managed to be lazy, surly, incompetent, dumb and condescending all at the same time. I guess with a high profile case like this, though, he might do a better job. He's been on the bench forever (Nixon appointee). I'm sure the plaintiffs were hoping to get one of the more liberal judges in Boston.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Here's a copy of the complaint if anyone's interested.

I haven't read it yet. I just looked up the case on PACER and they drew Judge Tauro, who is a complete nutjob. I had a case in front of him and he managed to be lazy, surly, incompetent, dumb and condescending all at the same time. I guess with a high profile case like this, though, he might do a better job. He's been on the bench forever (Nixon appointee). I'm sure the plaintiffs were hoping to get one of the more liberal judges in Boston.

I've just read the complaint. Well, I skimmed it -- it's really long. They did a very good job of finding sympathetic plaintiffs who suffered concrete harms. I think it's a tough case to defend.

 

[adonis]

This isn't something that you can make a states issue because of comity/full faith and credit. If even one state sanctions gay marriage or civil unions, then people getting "married" or "unioned" there must have their rights observed in their home state. It's an issue that refers to an ongoing relationship and it's not like something like abortion which, as a single act, can be successfully banned within the borders of a given state even if a neighboring state sanctions it.

Well Congress did pass the Defense of Marriage Act which barred states from having to recognize gay marriages performed in another state.But one can definitely make an argument that the DMA violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution and should be struck down. I doubt you'd be able to sell that argument to the current Supreme Court, however.

DOMA challenged

Same-sex spouses challenge US curbs

March 3, 2009 03:46 PM

By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff

Fifteen gay and lesbian residents from Massachusetts who wed after this state legalized same-sex marriages filed a discrimination suit today, challenging a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands have died -- one of the deceased was retired congressman Gerry E. Studds -- said in the suit that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act treats them like second-class citizens and is unconstitutional. The 92-page complaint was filed in US District Court in Boston.

The suit, which legal specialists described as the first serious challenge to the federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, contends that the statute has deprived the plaintiffs of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Those benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees, tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns, and the ability to use a spouse's last name on a passport.

"It hurts," said Dean T. Hara, who was married to Studds from May 2004 until the retired congressman's death in October 2006, as he discussed the federal government's denial of a $255 lump-sum death payment and thousands of dollars in benefits as the surviving spouse of a retired federal employee. "But at the same time I realize that I, as a man, need to stand up for what I believe in. This is a nation of laws, and we're all supposed to have equal treatment under the law."

Mary L. Bonauto, the civil rights lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who was lead counsel in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health--the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in 2003 that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States for the first time--said the suit asks the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimination.

"This is a case that should go to the Supreme Court and in all likelihood will go to the Supreme Court," she said.

If the plaintiffs win, she said, it would not extend same-sex marriage beyond Massachusetts and Connecticut, the two states where it is legal.

But it would dismantle a federal statute that affects more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits, and it would be a huge victory on symbolic and practical levels for supporters of same-sex marriage, according to legal specialists.

"We've got this major federal statute that inflicts really substantial harm on very large numbers of gay people just for being gay people," said Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor. "The federal government declares to these people that it regards their marriages as worthless and would not give those marriages the protection and recognition that it gives to all other marriages. It's quite significant if that is invalidated."

A handful of federal agencies and officials are named as defendants in the suit. A spokesman for President Obama, who has spoken of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act but does not support same-sex marriage, said the White House had no comment.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, said the lawsuit represents the latest effort to export gay marriage to other parts of the country. He noted that Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, known by its acronym GLAD, has a "Six by Twelve" campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in all six New England states by 2012, and he said some gay-rights groups want a federal constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

But the tide of public opinion is strongly against them, he said. Voters in 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, Mineau said, including California, which in a November referendum overturned a state Supreme Court decision that had recently given gay couples the right to marry.

"There's no doubt that the desire of the citizens of America . . . is that marriage is to remain one man and one woman, and that's what the intent of DOMA is as well," he said, using the acronym for the federal law.

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, when it appeared increasingly likely that some state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, either by legislation or a court interpretation of state or federal law.

Proponents of the statute feared that if one state legalized gay marriage, other states would be required to do so under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

Same-sex weddings began in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, and about 10,000 couples have married. Two years later, GLAD quietly began surveying couples to determine whether they wanted federal benefits and equal tax treatment currently provided only to married heterosexuals.

Among those who say they have been discriminated against are Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau, a Bridgewater couple who have been together nearly 30 years and married four days after same-sex weddings began. They have two children.

Gill, 51, who has worked for the Postal Service since 1987, has repeatedly tried to put Letourneau on her health insurance plan, but her employer has rejected her applications, citing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Letourneau, 47, has health insurance through her employer, Baystate Visiting Nurse Association & Hospice, but the couple estimates that it costs them $800 more a year than it would if she could be on Gill's plan.

"I feel like I am not being treated the same as my other married co-workers," Gill said. "I earn those same benefits as my co-workers, yet I'm not allowed to use them."

This case seems destined to go to the Supreme Court. It will be a major test of Obama's views on gay marriage.

Interesting. I hope it does make it to the supreme court. Obama still seems as LGBT friendly as he ever was, and I still think he's in support of civil unions.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Hopefully this forces Obama to come clean on the record. His campaign rhetoric was very disappointing, to say the least.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Hopefully this forces Obama to come clean on the record. His campaign rhetoric was very disappointing, to say the least.

I hope he was honest about this in 1996 and was a liar out of necessity during the campaign

 

[Moe Green]

Hopefully this forces Obama to come clean on the record. His campaign rhetoric was very disappointing, to say the least.

I hope he was honest about this in 1996 and was a liar out of necessity during the campaign

Which is perfectly acceptable, with him being a Democrat and all.

 

[Da Guru]

Hopefully this forces Obama to come clean on the record. His campaign rhetoric was very disappointing, to say the least.

I hope he was honest about this in 1996 and was a liar out of necessity during the campaign

Why does Obama have a problem with the gays?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Hopefully this forces Obama to come clean on the record. His campaign rhetoric was very disappointing, to say the least.

I hope he was honest about this in 1996 and was a liar out of necessity during the campaign

Why does Obama have a problem with the gays?

Dad worked in a chocolate factory back in Kenya. He was quite the fudgepacker apparently.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianact...BarackObama.htm

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_26/

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement outlining the reasons for his vote against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:

"This debate is a thinly-veiled attempt to break a consensus that is quietly being forged in this country. A consensus between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, Red States and Blue States, that it's time for new leadership in this country - leadership that will stop dividing us, stop disappointing us, and start addressing the problems facing most Americans.

"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs...00384/-1/caucus

Obama repeated his stand that he is against gay marriage, but for civil unions that offer the same benefits as traditional marriage.

He told about 150 people at the library that he couldn't endorse traditional marriage for gay and lesbian families.

"You want the word marriage and I believe that the issue of marriage has become so entangled - the word marriage has become so entangled with religion - that it makes more sense for me as president, with that authority, to talk about the civil rights that are conferred" with civil unions, Obama said. Individual denominations should make the decisions about what to recognize as a marriage, he said.

It looks like Obama believes personally that marriage should just be between a man and a woman, he believes politically that marriage isn't a federal issue, and he is in favor of civil unions. Not every state offers civil unions, but it looks like he's okay with that. So w/r/t civil unions, I think he personally believes they should be available, but politically think it's a states issue.

Question: Do you really think Obama personally believes that marriage should just be between a man and a woman? I recognize this isn't an important issue for most, and I'm not calling Obama out for being disenguous. I just think politically, it would be bad for Hillary/Obama/McCain to be in favor of gay marriage. And what's more important, when picking a candidate, is what they believe politically, than personally (e.g., if Obama personally believes that the bible is a bunch of bunk, but wouldn't do anything about that as President, it's not a big deal). I get the sense that Obama publicly says he' against gay marriage to make him appear more conservative, and that's not his true belief.

Thoughts?

You were right. He wasn't opposed to gay marriage. He pretended he was to help his electoral chances:

Despite the president’s stated opposition, even his top advisers didn’t believe that he truly opposed allowing gay couples to marry. "He has never been comfortable with his position," David Axelrod, then one of his closest aides, told me.

Indeed, long before Obama publicly stated that he was against same-sex marriage, he was on the record supporting it. As an Illinois State Senate candidate from Chicago’s liberal Hyde Park enclave, Obama signed a questionnaire in 1996 saying, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." But as his ambitions grew, and with them the need to appeal to a more politically diverse electorate, his position shifted.

In the course of an unsuccessful run for a House seat in 2000, he said he was "undecided" on the question. By the time he campaigned for the presidency, he had staked out an even safer political position: Citing his Christian faith, he said he believed marriage to be the sacred union of a man and a woman.

The assumption going into the 2012 campaign was that there was little to be gained politically from the president’s coming down firmly in favor of same-sex marriage. In particular, his political advisers were worried that his endorsement could splinter the coalition needed to win a second term, depressing turnout among socially conservative African-Americans, Latinos and white working-class Catholics in battleground states.

But by November 2011, it was becoming increasingly clear that continuing to sidestep the issue came with its own set of costs. The campaign’s internal polling revealed that the issue was a touchstone for likely Obama voters under 30. The campaign needed those voters to turn out in the record numbers they had four years earlier, and the biggest impediment was Obama’s refusal to say he favored allowing gay couples to wed.

"We understood that this would be galvanizing to some voters and be difficult with other voters," said Jim Messina, the manager of Obama’s 2012 campaign.

Caught between countervailing political forces, Obama called his top aides together and said that if asked again for his position, he both wanted and needed to drop the pretense and tell people where he really stood.

"The politics of authenticity — not just the politics, but his own sense of authenticity — required that he finally step forward," Axelrod said. "And the president understood that."

 

[bigbottom]

Lame.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I've always suspected that Obama is personally a lot more liberal than how he's governed, so this isn't terribly surprising. In this particular case, he ended up in the right spot eventually.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Lame.

Had he announced support for gay marriage in 2008, what do you think would be better?

 

[bigbottom]

Lame.

Had he announced support for gay marriage in 2008, what do you think would be better?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Would I have preferred he told the truth in 2008? The answer to that is yes. I also would have preferred it if he sidestepped the question rather than outright lying about his position. I realize that may have hurt his electoral chances and perhaps I'm too much of an ideologue on certain topics.

 

[squistion]

Hopefully this forces Obama to come clean on the record. His campaign rhetoric was very disappointing, to say the least.

I hope he was honest about this in 1996 and was a liar out of necessity during the campaign

Which is perfectly acceptable, with him being a Democrat and all.

Yeah, and it is odd that Mitt Romney lost given that he was always honest in his campaign rhetoric and never once changed his position on anything when he ran for President (such as universal healthcare).

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Lame.

Had he announced support for gay marriage in 2008, what do you think would be better?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Would I have preferred he told the truth in 2008? The answer to that is yes. I also would have preferred it if he sidestepped the question rather than outright lying about his position. I realize that may have hurt his electoral chances and perhaps I'm too much of an ideologue on certain topics.

I don't really think sidestepping the question was a realistic alternative given the public sentiment at the time. So the two choices for Obama (and any other Democrat that supported gay marriage) were probably*: 1) lie or 2) lose the election to a candidate that didn't support gay marriage. Which do you think would have been better for the advancement of gay marriage?

Yes, I realize there's a third alternative -- support gay marriage and still win the election. I view that possibility as relatively unlikely. Maybe your assessment of the situation is different, but if so, make sure to look at it from a 2008 perspective, not a 2014 perspective. At the time, referenda to ban gay marriage were winning every time on the ballot, even in liberal states like California. It was a very unpopular position with the electorate.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Lame.

Had he announced support for gay marriage in 2008, what do you think would be better?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Would I have preferred he told the truth in 2008? The answer to that is yes. I also would have preferred it if he sidestepped the question rather than outright lying about his position. I realize that may have hurt his electoral chances and perhaps I'm too much of an ideologue on certain topics.

It also bothers me that he took the cowardly politically expedient road. It doesn't surprise me though, and it wasn't really unexpected. I don't know how many politicians-much less presidential candidates-have chosen to roll with their convictions. That's not an excuse, just an observation. Obama has been disappointing in many respects but the outcomes in some respects have still been positive. I have wish he would have led on this though instead of bending witht the prevailing winds. Disappointing still, and par for the course today really.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Lame.

Had he announced support for gay marriage in 2008, what do you think would be better?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Would I have preferred he told the truth in 2008? The answer to that is yes. I also would have preferred it if he sidestepped the question rather than outright lying about his position. I realize that may have hurt his electoral chances and perhaps I'm too much of an ideologue on certain topics.

I don't really think sidestepping the question was a realistic alternative given the public sentiment at the time. So the two choices for Obama (and any other Democrat that supported gay marriage) were probably*: 1) lie or 2) lose the election to a candidate that didn't support gay marriage. Which do you think would have been better for the advancement of gay marriage?Yes, I realize there's a third alternative -- support gay marriage and still win the election. I view that possibility as relatively unlikely. Maybe your assessment of the situation is different, but if so, make sure to look at it from a 2008 perspective, not a 2014 perspective. At the time, referenda to ban gay marriage were winning every time on the ballot, even in liberal states like California. It was a very unpopular position with the electorate.

I don't know. You're right in a sense, the outcome has been positive to this point. One could, however, wish for more leadership and less political calculation. I find it kind of cowardly, not what a progressive might hope for.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't know. You're right in a sense, the outcome has been positive to this point. One could, however, wish for more leadership and less political calculation. I find it kind of cowardly, not what a progressive might hope for.

What you call cowardly, I call pragmatic. Dennis Kucinich showed your type of leadership and lack of political calculation. In the end, do you think Obama or Kucinich did more to advance the progressive agenda?

 

[timschochet]

Talking to a relative at Easter dinner today, a guy who absolutely despises Obama. When I asked him to name the thing he hated the most, my relative said, "his dishonesty; I think he's the most dishonest President ever." I hear that a lot from conservatives. Personally I don't think that Obama is more or less dishonest than most recent Presidents. But stories like this one do tend to strengthen my relative's argument.

 

[Boston]

I find it hard to believe anyone is surprised that he flipped on this issue...did anyone really believe his position in 2008 was anything other than political...once it made sense for him politically (and financially) to come out of the closet he did...

 

[tommyGunZ]

I don't know. You're right in a sense, the outcome has been positive to this point. One could, however, wish for more leadership and less political calculation. I find it kind of cowardly, not what a progressive might hope for.

What you call cowardly, I call pragmatic. Dennis Kucinich showed your type of leadership and lack of political calculation. In the end, do you think Obama or Kucinich did more to advance the progressive agenda?

Exactly.

I struggled with Obama's position on this issue in '08, but in retrospect I give him credit for playing the hand perfectly. We are further along the path to marriage equality than I thought we would be after Nov '08.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I find it hard to believe anyone is surprised that he flipped on this issue...did anyone really believe his position in 2008 was anything other than political...once it made sense for him politically (and financially) to come out of the closet he did...

Financially?

 

[johnjohn]

obama is a tyrant

 

[Apple Jack]

obama is a tyrant

 

[squistion]

obama is a tyrant

Yes, we know you feel that way, which is why it is so important to also see that in a thread about gay marriage, even though it has no relevance whatsoever to the topic under discussion.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

obama is a tyrant