 by Michael Jensen
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 20 members and 825 guests online.
|
Barack Obama: Our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters
Raise your hand if you thought there was a chance in hell Barack Obama was going to discuss same-sex marriage during his speech tonight accepting the Democratic nomination for president of the United States of America. Anyone? Anyone? Face it, no matter how much progress we've made on gay rights, it's still an issue that that many in the Republican party have hammered the Democrats with over the years and that many Democrats prefer to discuss behind closed doors and off-camera. And as Dennis noted in the BEST.GAY.WEEK.EVER! this convention hasn't been terribly lavender-hued (or at least what we've seen on television hasn't). So I was pretty much stunned that while giving the speech that could very well make or break his run for the presidency, Barack actually brought up the issue. Said Barack:
Notice he didn't say he supports same-sex marriage. In fact, Barack doesn't (though he does support granting same-sex couples virtually all of the rights that come with marriage). Nonetheless, the fact that he acknowledged our existence, the fact that we are discriminated against and suffer grave injustice, not to mention the fact the he used the word "love" took me by complete surprise. And while I disagree with him on same-sex issue, clearly we are going to gain far more protection under an Obama presidency than a McCain one. In fact, I suspect the only way we're going to hear about gay issues during the Republican convention next week in Minneapolis is when they are cited as proof of the moral decline of America and the threat we pose to America. So what does the AE crowd have to say about the speech? Submitted by on Fri, 2008-08-29 00:09. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
I'm going to post here what I posted in the BGWE thread.
I just watched Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention - and while I know all of America doesn't agree with his politics, I know everyone in this community would appreciate how Obama - in front of 84,000 people in the stadium and millions of people watching on TV worldwide - mentioned gay and lesbian rights, and got a huge, positive, loud response in return.
Even though it was brief, I applaud him for being so direct - While he is searching for a "middle ground", he's not mincing words and trying to talk outta both sides of his mouth. He's straight-up telling you that he supports gays and lesbians and considers them family, just like he considers every other American. We've progressed a lot in the past few years. Hearing him mention gay and lesbian rights - it just makes me feel safe, and proud, to be gay.
Looooove it!
I hate cross posting.
...
Darling, you can do better.
Many forums forbid cross posting for good reason. But the best reason is that banning it makes us reflect on what we have written rather than piddle it around like a dog on her walk. That's my peeve. That you aren't living up to your abilities. Hate me for believing we can do better.
I love that you put so much thought into my ability to develop
Simple? Yes very.
Simple is a good word for it. Like a dog taking a leek every few minutes along his walk. He doesn't think about it, he just goes. Simple as that.
Thanks for explaining it.
Hey, I tried. But you
Obama changing the conversation
I am taking a page from Fuego and reposting my post from earlier.
I too loved Obama's speech Thursday night, and what he said about same-sex marriage was good on a couple of points. First that he addressed it at all is positive because it gets the issue on the table. That the pundits blamed Kerry's loss on this issue is inaccurate, but the Democratic Party not having a response to it certainly didn't help. Second by appearing on LOGO and listening to people around the country he has demonstrated he is willing to listen.
By mentioning hospital visits and freedom of discrimination it also shows that he is savvy. He wrote this speech. He could have mentioned distribution of property, or adoption rights but he used the two that are powerfully persuasive--being able to care for a sick loved one and the right to live free of discrimination.
By changing the way the gay marriage is presented he was able to humanize the debate and take the stick away from the bullies. I am not sure he advanced the cause in the same way Ellen and Portia’s beautiful wedding picture on People magazine last week did, but he added an element to the debate that is hard to disagree with. I think Obama represents a growing viewpoint—ones that are willing to call a rose by another name (civil unions) and say that it smells as sweet. It is not what I would like to see. But it is middle ground that I hope is just a stepping stone to true equality.
no votes
Also re-posting my reply to you from the BGWE comments
Ellen & Portia on the cover and in the pages of People magazine appeal to the heart, while Obama's measured words in his speeches appeal to the brain.
Both are important in their own way to win over middle America but they don't need to be addressed by the same people, nor in most cases, should they be. Ellen is best being her funny, self-deprecating self, entertaining women in the middle of the day, being their friend, making them laugh and tugging at their heart strings.
I hate cross posting.
It's not the posters' faults
I often read how busy the editors are and how difficult it is to get articles out for AE, and yet there is quite a bit of duplication of content/subject matter every week. I can think of three weekly 're-cap' options that contain similar content between themselves, and each of those individual recaps contain duplicate content from another feature article on AE (BGWE, 'The Wrap' and the 'AE Snapshot').
This week, Obama's mention of gay rights and Mitcham's slight by NBC are the 'hot topics' for duplication of content. Coverage of television programs and recaps are consistently 'overly-overlapped', appearing in BGWE, Queerview Television Guide..., The Best Gay TV Preview Ever and The Wrap.
I don't know if the AE editors have the luxury of being able to sit in the same room on a weekly basis to discuss and plan the week's content so that there isn't so much duplication. They may not even feel there's an issue (as I do).
I think, Nukely that you're asking the wrong question, though. I wonder - is there a need to read BGWE (which is basically a 'Readers' Digest' version of the site) if I've already read any of the other artcles?
It would be simpler (and to my mind, more organized) if BGWE were replaced with a table of contents frame that contained links to the original articles.
Bottom line - there's too much duplication of content, so don't blame the commentors for trying to keep a converstion going in any one place w/o cutting/pasting their thoughts.
-Sibelius
"It's curtains for you, Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains..."
double posting.
That said, I have to thank you for urging me to articulate. I should have said that "I don't need to read the comments at BGWE." I do read the comment sections in many of the AfterElton blogs and posts, as do thousands of folks.
Certain topics are bound to come up again and again, I don't see that as a fault at all. And there is no reason for AfterElton to coordinate that. That idea is silly. But, for instance I have been very vocal on the topic of As The World Turns, the daytime soap with a young gay couple. While I have expressed the same opinion in comments under both the blog posts and BGWE and as well in the forums, I have tried to compose my thoughts each time and learn from the exchange of ideas, even if the posts are presented just minutes apart. I guess my mind and opinion develops and grows that fast.
At the least cross posting (copy and paste) is lazy. At the worst it is egotistical and reduces your very opinion to spam.
To start a post by saying that you "know" that you have cross-posted it in another comment section belies the fact that you are aware of how tacky that is; it doesn't excuse the tackiness any more than saying "excuse me" excuses you before throwing a drink in somebody's face.
I wanted to point that out. So I did.
Thanks for the feedback. It's always helpful
to hear what works for some folks and what doesn't. Regarding what you see as the duplication of content there are multiple reasons for that. In the case of Matthew Mitcham, that was an evolving story that we covered as news broke (some of it made by us). No doubt there are times things do get repeated in BGWE, but much of it is not items discussed elsewhere. Last week I discussed Playgirl, several weeks before that Brent discussed animated movies, and other times we have included mini interviews none of which ran elsewhere.
Yes, many of the same TV shows are discussed in different places -- the Queerview, the For Your Viewing Pleasure section in the BGWE, various recaps, and liveblogs and then when we post the actual clips. It's important to remember that different people use the site in different ways. Some folks only read the BGWE so I feel it's important to give a quick rundown of what to watch that week and it's clearly labeled so folks know what it is and can skip if they don't need to know it.
Other folks come daily for a specific feature -- Brian's liveblog, the Project Runway recaps, or The Heidi Chronicles vlog. Some folks like to read about shows while others like to watch video. And we also try to present a diversity of voices discussing topics. My take on True Blood is different than Brian's and I think it helps create a great discussion to get those views out there.
But, yes, for those that are here every day and all day (which we love!) there is undoubtedly some duplication of content. I will say I wish there was a good way to aggregate all the comments for different topics into one place, but we don't have one.
Thanks again for your input. (Oh, and the editors talk to each other all the time. Okay, we IM each other all the time!)
Obama is being honest
It's progress, and it's the
It's progress, and it's the best you're going to get from any presidential candidate. If I were an American, I'd vote for him, because... well, the alternative is much worse.
I just can't help thinking "is that all"? I still think it's outrageous that in 2008 that's the best you're gonna get when it comes to gay rights in America.
First and foremost, hats off
First and foremost, hats off to senator Obama for mentioning gay rights in his speech last night. That was totally unexpected, and I was thrilled that he did so.
Now, off to the issue. Legally, one of the biggest issues involved with gay marriage is the question of "where should marriage be defined?" For the entire history of this nation, the answer has been at the state level. While I obviously think gay marriage should become a reality, I have to ask myself whether or not I believe Congress would be overstepping their bounds by defining marriage at the national level.
Ultimately, the constitution makes no mention of marriage when discussing to powers of the senate, nor does it do so anywhere. Congress's only way to pass gay rights legislation is through the ever ambiguous "necessary and proper" claus. Legalizing civil unions on a nation level can be passed off in the same way as the rest of the civil rights legislation is/was: it is clearly for the promotion of equality and discouragement of discrimination in the land of the free.
The legalization of gay marriage on the national level is much harder in today's social climate to attribute to those same reasons. The president and Congress can only do so much while staying within the bounds of the Constitution. My personal desire to get married aside, I don't think the issue of marriage is one that lies in the hands of the national government. Marriage is an issue for the states, and because of that it may be a long time before we see it everywhere. Equality, however, is something the national government has tackled before and will tackle again. Like LaraMcK said a few comments above, we'll just have to settle for a rose by another name and pretend it smells as sweet.
It's still a cop-out
afhickman
"The mountain has wings."
Why is gay marriage always an issue "for the States"? When does it become a Civil Rights issue? Full equality didn't come for African-Americans at the State level. Obama's forebears had to wait for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was intended to protect citizens from discrimiation at the State level. Why shouldn't the same courtesy be extended to Gay and Lesbian couples? I marched in the '60s for Civil Rights because the state I was living in was slow to grant them to ALL Americans. It's now been forty years. When does that inclusiveness trickle down to us?
Obama see us as second-class citizens -- and nothing more
Isn't it nice that he thinks we should be able to visit our lovers in the hospital.
Well he should know that WE won that right -- by fighting off one hospital staff after another in the early awful days of the AIDS epidemic. It wasn't given to us by anyone. We took it for ourselves. That's how it has always been. The only reason gay marriage has become a reality is because we stood up and demanded it.
There has been much blather about the fact that Obama made his speech on the anniversary of the March on Washington. But there was no mention of the fact that that March was concieved and executed by a black gay man named Bayard Rustin -- who was forced out of taking credit for his work because of the march's fear of a very powerful closet queen named J. Edgar Hoover.
Barack Obama isn't a bad man HE JUST DOESN'T GET IT!!!!!!!
Am I going to vote for him? Of course I am. What choice do I have?
I think he's more liberal than he lets on
Remember, it is common for presidential candidates to campaign towards the center and then move back towards their own inclination after they win office. Never has this been more visible than with George W Bush, who campaigned as a moderate "compassionate conservative" and then veered way to the Right once he won.
My impression was always that both Obama and Clinton are more sympathetic than they let on. But they recognize that in order to win this election there is a need to avoid making a lot of noise around certain issues that would alienate potential voters in the Center and Center-Right. None of the top-tier Dem candidates therefore openly supported same-sex marriage.
There's also a certain reality that needs to be understood here: the president cannot legalize same-sex marriage. No such executive power exists. So even if they promised to do so their abaility to deliver would be incumbent entirely on the support of Congress, and potentially the Supreme Court if it came up for judicial challenge. As much as conservatives decry "activist judges" they don't hesitate to use them when they need them.
Thus Obama getting up to the podium and promising to legalize same-sex marriage would be an empty promise. Even Bill Clinton found the limit of his executive reach when he tried to lift the ban on gays in the military and ran face-first into massive Congressional opposition. We cannot assume that just winning the presidency is enough.
However, there are positives nonetheless. First and most important, Obama is likely to appoint Center to Center-Left Supreme Court justices to fill any vacancies, and some are likely soon given the some of the current judge's ages. This could benefit us immensely in any cases that reach SCOTUS. Obama is also likely to sign pro-gay legislation that comes out of Congress, as opposed to McCain who would probably wield the veto just to appease conservatives. Thus Obama in the Oval Office would likely enable Congressional Dems to kill DADT.
General support for gay rights in the population is growing, as younger people (in some cases even very religious ones) have more positive views on gays. But we need some more time for those views to become dominant before we can expect nationwide changes on any significant scale. For now we're still fighting even on the state level. The fate of same-sex marriage in California is not settled yet for example. It's survival depends on who turns out to vote in November and how they vote.
Let's keep our expectations realistic and our goals attainable. Getting frustrated because pie-in-the-sky dreams can't be fulfilled this instant is counterproductive and demotivating.
I think he's more liberal also...
...however, as you mentioned, so was/is Clinton. Both of them. And we can see in history how that worked out. As liberal as Sen. Obama is I think he's also a realist. When push comes to shove and a deal has to be made out community will be the first off...then under the bus.
At the least I'm hoping he speaks to CA voters about the Nov. "Prop Hate" vote.
Keeping our goals realistic
Presidents are not Emperors (although Bush has tried to be). Clinton discovered his limits early on. I still have a grudge against him over DOMA (and this reduced my support for Hillary). But that was him throwing us under the bus to deflect the growing flack he was getting from the GOP.
A lot has changed since then however. I think Obama would be able to wield the veto pen more freely (unless he also has a mistress under the desk).
Besides, with the precedent Bush has been setting use of the veto is now a common thing.
The GOP??
Presidents are not Emperors (although Bush has tried to be). Clinton discovered his limits early on. I still have a grudge against him over DOMA (and this reduced my support for Hillary). But that was him throwing us under the bus to deflect the growing flack he was getting from the GOP.
A lot has changed since then however. I think Obama would be able to wield the veto pen more freely (unless he also has a mistress under the desk).
Besides, with the precedent Bush has been setting use of the veto is now a common thing.
Since when was Sam "Video cameras on subs, gays are icky, look how close they will be" Nunn part of the GOP. Hate Clinton all you want. The gay community as well as Clinton was sabotaged by our own party.
A perfectly reasonable point
However macro-party behaviors are a mitigating factor in American politics. Not all Republicans actually oppose gay-rights and some even (secretly) support the idea of same-sex marriage. But they dare not do so openly lest they face party wrath. By the same token, the weight of party will can be significant even on Dems that are not especially gay-friendly.
You have to be philosophical about it because the alternative is driving yourself to an ulcer, and God knows we don't have socialized healthcare in this country so I hope your insurance is good.
However, our's is one of the fastest progressing civil rights movements in history and so it is largely pointless to devote too much stress to past slights. With the lightning speed at which politics can change in this country any fixation on past grievances can only lead to yanking one's own hair out.
We must be more concerned about the future than the past. The past is unchangeable. Our focus must be on working within the political framework we will have going forward. If we sat around spitting angrily at Obama and the Dems because of Sam Nunn we would get nowhere very quickly.
Although I have to say I did find the submarine thing hysterically funny, because a friend of mine that was once in the Navy described submarine crews as "120 men go down, 60 couples come back up!"
I agree. While I was
If he said he was for gay marriage
I knew he'd mention gay marriage...
...my partner and I agreed prior to the speech that he'd mention gay marriage. And it played out exactly as we thought it would. Hey Red America...all you red fence sitters...I'm not for gay marriage. Hey Blue America...all you blue fence sitters...I'm for gay rights.
It's exactly what you'd expect from him. There was nothing shocking.
All the major speeches this week mentioned gays and lesbians. Obama did it. Both Clintons did it.
I'm fine with what he said. Not much can be done about it now anyway...he's our guy. He's better for us than McCain.
"More sympathetic than they let on" = Gutless Wonders
And that's the long and the short of it. They will NOT stand up for us. WE have to.
As we have always had to.
You would prefer he lose?
Seriously, I'm asking.
Because taking a stand for this particular high-ideal would virtually guarantee a McCain victory in November. Is that what you want? The satisfaction of having a candidate that spoke out for what you want, but a president that will almost certainly work to deny it?
Of course we have to stand up for ourselves. That's been true of every other disenfranchised group in history. We also have to build alliances because there are not enough gays to enact change in a democracy just on the basis of our own votes.
Just waiting for a Messiah is an act of self-deception.
I basically never agree with you, psionycx
Can't always agree
I confess that I'm dubious about the idea of winning the day entirely in court, even in the Supreme Court. That's a grand hope but one that doesn't necessarily lead anywhere.
Technically gay people aren't denied access to marriage. Legally-speaking we're only being denied the right to marry members of our own sex. We can freely marry the opposite sex, within the boundaries of kinships laws and such.
So it would require a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution to assert that there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.
One could argue that Full Faith and Credit requires marriages to be recognized between states, but even this one could get iffy if the opposition bases their argument on the definition of the word "marriage", which is exactly what they're doing. They can, and do, argue that extending marriage to same-sex couples is such a radical deviation from the historical definition of "marriage" that one state should not be able to impose such an extreme change on other states.
Now, ideally Obama, if he wins the presidency, would be able to appoint judges who would be liberal enough to see things our way. However, unless he has an overwhelming Senatorial majority to back him up that is very unlikely. Even Bush had to take slightly less conservative judges than he appeared to want to nominate. Unless the Dems can command a 60+ majority on Obama's judicial appointments he will likely have to go with ones that are Center or Center-Left.
I just get frustrated when people latch onto this election as if the issue of same-sex marriage were going to be resolved by it. It isn't. If the Dems win we will likely get some forward momentum and might shave years off the struggle. If McCain wins we likely lose years of progress. But in either case I doubt that the matter will settled quickly or decisively. It will still likely be a long, contentious fight.
most justices
Just don't forget Congress
If we can get Obama elected, great. But we also need to make sure he has a friendly Congress to back him up. If the composition of the Senate remains as it is at present the GOP could make judicial appointments all but impossible. For all their whining about Democrats "obstructing" the president's appointments to the federal bench, a lot of those long-standing vacancies were there because the GOP impeded Clinton's nominations.
Likewise, the GOP has shown a willingness to dig in if they don't like a SCOTUS nominee. Indeed, despite complaining about how Democrats were denying "fair votes" in minority, the GOP themselves rose up against Harriet Miers when Bush tried to nominate her.
So we need to keep it in mind that Obama's power to appoint liberals to the bench hinges on what the situation is on the Hill, and we need to take that just as seriously.
Drinking that free Bubble-up and eating that rainbow stew
afhickman
"The mountain has wings."
You're right of course. What was I thinking? We haven't earned our rights. We haven't suffered enough for them.
Or have we?
Two-Face
This sums up my problem with Obama. You never really know who you are going to get. I loved that Hillary Clinton mentioned gay rights in her speech at the convention on Tuesday, but many still believe she is homophobic. I love that Obama mentioned gay rights in his speech at the convention on Thursday, but many still believe he is homophobic.
The problem is politicians running for the highest office, no matter how different they want to be or say they are, still have to walk a fine line between pleasing their base and broadening their appeal.
Despite what his supporters say, Obama is a politician like any other. He wants to win. However, his homophobia is more than just a political tactic. From Rev. McClurkin to Rev. Meeks, Obama surrounds himself with people who truly hate gays and lesbians.
When Clinton said she did not support gay marriage, I knew it was because she thought it would keep her out of the White House. With Obama, I think he says he does not support gay marriage because he believes it will keep him out of heaven.
I worry that when it comes time to nominate judges, Obama will favor people who have a similar disdain for homosexuality. I know McCain might do the same, but at least the Democrats in the Senate would fight his homophobic nominees, while giving a free pass to Obama’s homophobic nominees.
Not since Jimmy Carter have we had a Democrat presidential candidate who allowed religion to influence his political beliefs to such an extent. Since I am registered in a blue state which will overwhelmingly support Obama, there is no chance my not voting will affect this election. If you live in a blue state and cannot bring yourself to vote for Obama, then I say listen to your conscience.
Female VP
McCain just chose a female VP. This now confirms he is a genius and will be the next President of the United States.
Sarah Palin
Info found on the web:
She opposes same-sex marriage; but, she has stated that she has gay friends, and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination. While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with a state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.
She supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter. Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.
Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to gay state employees and their partners. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation
Female VP does not equal victory
Walter Mondale took Geraldine Ferraro as a running mate in 1984 and still lost in a crushing defeat to Reagan.
McCain is being astute here, selecting a famle VP because he could not risk having another white guy as a running mate, and Colin Powell and Condi Rice have both opted to avoid running for either VP or Prez. However, Palin is not widely-known on the national stage and doesn't have existing visibility to capitalize on. So she basically has two months to convince everyone outside of Alaska that she can balance all of McCain's weaknesses.
Pissed Off Women
1984 is very different from 2008.
I agree that a female VP in-and-of-itself is not enough to win, but McCain is tapping into that anger of the Hillary supporters. I am a Hillary supporter who would never vote for McCain, but upon hearing this news even I became hopeful that maybe the dream of a woman president is still possible. It is ironic that it took the Republican party to give us that dream, but McCain knew exactly what he was doing when he chose her.
As for Palin herself, from what I heard she is a very good "politician". She handles debates well, and is able to make people feel they can relate to her. She defines herself as a soccer mom, and she will tap into the female pride of even conservative women. Women already make up 60% of the voting population, but her candidacy could actually increase female voter turnout the way Obama is predicted to increase black voter turnout.
All I am saying is do not underestimate the brilliance of McCain's choice. It may not seal the deal, but it was still a smart move.
Absolutely
As I said it was an astute move. I wouldn't call it "brilliant" because a female VP candidate is something both parties were weighing. I mentioned Mondale/Ferraro just to emphasize that this isn't a trailblazing move by the GOP and we need to counter any claims that it is. The Dems put forward a female VP candidate 24 years ago.
While many women want to see a female president that does not guarantee that they will automatically vote for a woman. However this does give McCain a badly needed bump.
the women
People who don't like Obama
People who don't like Obama will grasp at ANY reason to not vote for him (e.g., he's a secret Muslim, his middle name is Hussein, etc.).
You're assuming voters think women are interchangable
Future epitaph: "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
One has been a governor's wife for over a decade, lived in the White House as First Lady for 8 years, and been a Senator for another 8. She's also run a major national campaign, toured the world, addressed the U.N., written two books, survived God know how many questions about her hair, her laugh, her politics, her investments, her law firm, her marriage, etc. etc. etc.
The other is a nice, well-spoken woman from Sandpoint, Idaho who's been governor of our least-populated state for...a little less than 2 years. Oh, and she has 5 kids. She's also pro-life.
There is no comparison. Zip, none, nada.
I heard a similar argument on NPR tonight, where I expect better
And I have to agree with you dback, it is really dismissive of women to suggest they would follow the gender line blindly. Hilary's speech at the convention addressed this directly. "Did you vote for me, or what I stand for?" To imply Democratic women would follow a gun toting, anti abortion, Christian, Republican, just because they had a vagina in common, is like saying I'd vote for Roy Cohn...just cause we're both Gay.
Nous Sommes Tous Sauvages.
Independents
Not only does he court the female vote, but he is also in good with the Independents. Paulin is a Republican governor in a very red state, but she is still willing to veto anti-gay legislation and raise taxes on oil companies. Her resume and history is quite impressive in terms of not following the party line completely lockstep.
Also, by making this choice, McCain gets to once again reposition himself as the real maverick. Huckabee and Romney probably would not have made this kind of choice. Instead of picking someone far to the right to balance his more independent leanings, McCain picked another moderate Republican. The Independents now have two strong reasons to vote McCain.
What would be really amazing is if McCain wins, but then is too weak to run again. You know if Obama loses, Clinton is going to run in 2012. We could then see vice-president Sarah Paulin run against Senator Hillary Clinton. Two women running against each other, with no male choice for voters to make. Now that would truly be revolutionary.
another perspective...
Oh, for god's sake
How can people be so critical? This is the first time EVER that a presidential candidate has so directly addressed LGBT rights, let alone at his acceptance speech, in front of millions of people. This is a RIDICULOUS amount of progress for us. People who say his words make him two-faced...don't look so much into it! He also mentioned abortion and immigration, and tried to find a ground on all of these issues that all American's could agree on.
He's not mincing words, he's just trying to make progress. We're lucky we even have a candidate that's not going to try and implement idiotic policies and bills trying to restrict our rights, like our current Idiot in Chief.
Aww, dear old Obama is
He's converting to Catholicism?!
Obama's
I was not surprise
You know what...