President Obama doesn’t even have the courage to “come out” and endorse gay marriage even though he clearly supports it. The guy simply doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. The fact is that he talks out of both sides of his mouth on this (and most other sensitive issues). Here he sounds like he supports marriage as defined as the union between a man and a woman just like THE PEOPLE OF NORTH CAROLINA.

Yet as the controversy builds we are fed a line that his position is “evolving”. Really? He’s a grown man. What is it about this issue that needs to evolve for him? For the record, just because you support the traditional definition of marriage (between a man and a woman) doesn’t mean you have any animosity towards those in the gay community. Straight couples have every right to stand up for their beliefs like everyone else.


19 Responses to COWARD IN CHIEF

  1. Wyatt Earp says:

    It’s like I wrote in my upcoming post, “Was he lying then (as a 2004 Senate candidate, he was against gay marriage) or is he lying now.

    It’s not even a “gutsy call,” because only half of the country is in favor of this. Who is he pandering to? People who will have voted for him, anyway.

    Personally, I’m all for civil unions and give them all of the rights of a married couple. But leave the institution of marriage alone – because it’s not about “marriage,” it’s about forcing their beliefs upon others.

  2. flyersfan444 says:

    “Straight couples have every right to stand up for their beliefs like everyone else.”

    What beliefs are they standing up for by forbidding others the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals couples?

    This is typical Christian rhetoric and crap! I sure that your God and Savior, Jesus Christ, would be totally against same-sex marriage. My bad, he treated everyone equally; actually he typically steered himself to those who were less-fortunate, oppressed or outcast from society.

    Keep hiding behind your “Christian beliefs”.

    And I hope the people of North Carolina burn in hell when it’s time to meet their maker; bigoted a-holes.

    • Wyatt Earp says:

      Disagreement = bigotry. Got it. Why not call him a racist, too?

      • flyersfan444 says:

        No, not affording people the same right and opportunities because of their race, religion, sexual origin = bigot.

        And hiding behind the crap of “I don’t have a problem with gay people, I just don’t think they should be allowed to be married.” is total bs. You are classifying them as 2nd class citizens and you don’t view them as equals.

        This sanctimonious “I’m Christian and I hold to my Christian values” is ridiculous. If you were truly Christian, you would welcome “different” people in society with open arms just like your Lord and Savior.

        • Wyatt Earp says:

          Yeah, like our gay cousin “welcomed” me by calling me a homophobe – in your living room, btw – simply because I voted Republican in 2008. Puh-lease.

          Civil unions should afford people the same rights as others – they don’t now, and that should be changed. But just because you have a tremendous problem with the Catholic Church – you can leave if you hate it so much, you know – the government should force churches to go against their beliefs? Negative.

          What makes your beliefs more important than theirs? And why do liberals always scream “separation of Church and State” … until it doesn’t benefit them?

          • flyersfan444 says:

            I do have some problems with the Catholic church (sorry, I’m not a lemming); particularly their stance on gays in general & the protecting of pedophiles to name 2). I’ll also bet that I practice Catholicism more than 95% of the people who read this blog.

            By legalizing gay marriage, how does that force churches to go against their beliefs? No one needs a church to get married.

            My beliefs certainly aren’t more important than someone else’s beliefs. Why do you care even a little bit if someone else gets married? It has ZERO effect on you or your marriage. It doesn’t lessen the importance of your marriage. If anything, all of the “hetereosexual” divorces in the county cheapen marriage.

            Put yourself in the shoes of someone trying to get married but being denied because of their sexual origin; you’d probably think people against same-sex marriages were homophobes too. Again, there’s no good reason why you or I or anyone else should give a shit why 2 people are married. Shit, half the time I question why 2 people are married because either they appear to despise each other or don’t even act like they are married.

    • dustoff57 says:

      Keep hiding behind your “Christian beliefs”

      Like O-dumber’s all these years. This fool flip-flops around like a fish out of water.

      Now the gays want to dem’s to not have their convention in NC.

      Yeah, really piss off the voters by another dumb move.

  3. Old NFO says:


    • dustoff57 says:

      You said it…. If o-dumber thought he could get a few more votes. He would declare his mother was never white.

  4. Wyatt Earp says:

    Interesting. The new and improved “enlightened” Obama is running an ad attacking Mitt Romney on his “backward” stance on gay marriage. The same stance Obama has JUST ONE DAY AGO.

    The hubris, it burns.

  5. Randall- It’s pretty simple: Marriage is and always was a religious union between a man and a woman. (Everything else you threw in is irrelevant). The gay rights lobby wants to have their non-religious union called something it is not. The Hadj in Islam is a great pilgrimage to Mecca, their holy city. That is the true definition. How would the Muslim world react if we changed the name of the Indianapolis 500 to the “Hadj 500” ? I think it’s pretty obvious given Islam’s penchant for violence when offended. Marriage is a religious term just like baptism. How would you like to re-define “baptism”? Maybe child rape?You aren’t the only person who has issues with the Catholic church. Get in line. But Marriage is a holy union for most religions. And as far as Christs teachings, homosexuality has always been viewed as sinful and immoral. Jesus would never condone sinful behavior even though he actively sought out the “lowest” among us. His objective for doing so was to bring them closer to God by rejecting their deviant behaviors. Just because you sit in the first pew on Sunday doesn’t mean you are any more enlightened then the rest of us. After all Obama sat in Jeremiah Wrights “church” for twent years and didn’t see anything wrong. That explains his utter lack of morality.

    • flyersfan444 says:

      “Marriage is and always was a religious union ”

      Sorry, but that is 100% untrue. You don’t need to be married by a religious person. What about atheists? Do their marriages “not count”?

      I never said I was more enlightened & I never sit in the 1st pew; I just practice the religion much more than you and your pals who “preach” on the internets. It’s a shame that you let your political beliefs cloud your religious/moral judgments.

      • dustoff57 says:

        Sorry, but that is 100% untrue.


        The “only” reason government has stuck it’s nose into marriage, is to handle assets if a divorce or death to the other spouse.

      • By endorsing gay marriage you are 100% outside the teachings of the Church. So at least on this issue I am in the company of our moral authority. Better get to confession.The Catholic Church should have learned it’s lesson by now on what happens when you loosen your moral standards. Their current scandals are of their own making.
        I am not preaching just voicing my unbiased opinion of the Presidents hypocritical and immoral political stance.
        As for athiests it can be argued that they are in a civil union. Marriages are typically don in church etc. Atheists have no need for churches so going to a Justice of the Peace could be considered in that respect.
        Just because I don’t agree with homosexuals or condone their behavior or agenda doesn’t mean I have or wish any ill will on them. I endorse everyones right to privacy. What people do in their own homes is their business. However society has a right to define the behavior that it finds acceptable. I don’t attack them like they attack and try to threaten or intimidate those who don’t accept their behavior. I simply stand up for my beliefs which is my right.
        I guess next you will endorse bigamy. Then child “marriage” and next unions beteewn cats and dogs…Whatever floats your boat.

        • dustoff57 says:

          You just know Capt. Once you open that door, everyone else will be seeking the same laws to cover them.

  6. Wyatt Earp says:

    Some American Muslims are already pushing for polygamy because their religion allows it. Obama claimed that if two people “love each other,” they should be able to get married. That will be the Muslims featured argument.

    We have already allowed civil unions in many states, but it wasn’t enough. If we give them marriage, they’ll want to force the church to perform the ceremonies. It’s not about “marriage.” It never was. It’s about challenging – and destroying – the institution of marriage.

    Offer civil unions with every benefit a married couple has. If they decline – and many will – then at least we’ll know what they’re really after.

    Or, you know, give them the argument they give Christians all the time. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!! ELEVENTY!!!

  7. Wyatt Earp says:

    Until then, the liberals will rely on the old stand-by: Bigotry! Racism! Inequality! Free stuff! Waaaaaaa!

  8. flyersfan444 says:

    She must be one of you:


%d bloggers like this: