¿Estás a favor del matrimonio entre parejas del mismo sexo como Barack Obama?

[teamab]

Barack Obama se pronunció a favor del matrimonio legal entre personas del mismo sexo. En entrevista para la ABC, Obama dijo, "para mí, es importante afirmar que las parejas del mismo sexo deberían poder casarse", además de que hizo referencia a los miembros gay de su gabinete que crían hijos juntos y tienen relaciones monógamas.

Más en Univision.com

¿Estás a favor del matrimonio entre parejas del mismo

sexo como Barack Obama?

[inti1966]

A FAVOR CIENTO POR CIENTO PORQUE FUIMOS VICTIMAS DE LA CRUELDAD DE LAS LEYES AL NO ACEPTAR MIS PAPELES EN INMIGRACION DESPUES DE ONCE ANOS FUI DEPORTADO, DESTRUYENDO ASI ECONOMICA Y MENTALMENTE A DOS PERSONAS, EL NACIDO EN U.S.A YO EN ARGENTINA. PASE UN MES PRESO, LLEGUE SIN NADA EXCEPTO TODO EL AMOR DE MI PAREJA LA CUAL LLEGO UN MES MAS TARDE PARA LUEGO CASARNOS A LAS TRES SEMANAS, EL OBLIGADO POR SU PAIS A DESPOJARSE DE TODO, POR NO TENER OTRA OBCION, AHORA EL ESTA EN UN PAIS EXTRANO SIN SABER HABLAR ESPANOL, SIN TRABAJO Y SIN CASA, SOLO NOS UNE EL AMOR POR SOBREVIVIR EN UN MUNDO CRUEL. AHORA SOLO DIGO GRACIAS ARGENTINA PORQUE AQUI CUALQUIER PERSONA DE CUALQUIER PAIS SE PUEDEN CASAR NO EXISTE NINGUN IMPEDIMENTO.

SI ALGUIEN NECESITA ALGUNA INFORMACION SOBRE EL TEMA CON GUSTO RESPONDERE. MI EMAIL ES inti35@aol.com

[inti1966]

muchos creen que es capricho de querernos casar pero no es asi !! necesitamos leyes que nos protejan. estamos recorriendo por el mismo camino que recorrieron los negro y vamos a ganar como ellos y como el resto de personas que fueron discriminadas por diferentes razones.

[trudy405]

No estoy de acuerdo....  es un problema de moral que la mayoria de las personas, no solamente los religiosos, no aceptamos....  dicen que es porque necesitan leyes que los protejan, no sé de que hablan porque se les ha dado todo lo que han pedido como es la cobertura médica como parejas....  yo misma me he beneficiado de esto porque no me casé la última vez sino que me mudé con mi novio y no tuve ningún problema en obtener cobertura atravez de su compañia médica....  tienen leyes que prohiben que los maltraten por ser gays.... tienen mucha protección....  a veces pienso que tienen más protecciones que nosotras las mujeres.... yo creo que el problema mayor es que ellos no se aceptan a si mismo, y en el fondo saben que son diferentes y no se sienten bien consigo mismos, porque al resto de nosotros no nos importa lo que ellos hagan, pero nos molesta siempre oirlos quejándose....  creo que hay muchos otros problemas más importantes que el matrimonio entre gays, y además es un asunto muy dificil de ganar, porque no es un asunto federal sino estatal....  cada estado hace sus propias leyes....  mejor será que nos ocupemos de la economia antes que la Nación desaparezca....

[manu7go7]

Estoy mil por ciento encontra, porque el matrimonio es establecido entre un hombre y una mujer, y este es el primer presidente que hace tal tonteria, el hemoxesualismo es pura necedad y rebeldia hacia la naturaleza en que fuimos creados, no soy religioso pero creo en un Dios, que hizo las cosas perfectas, y el creo la primer pareja varon y hembra,

cuando nace un ser humano se reconoce por su sexo, y el ser humano recien nacido, si nace con el sexo de hombre se dice es un varon, si nace con e sexo de mujer se dice es una hembra, haci que reconoscan los hombres que son hombres y las mujeres que son mujeres y vivan como tales.

[lafacefinal13]

ESTO ES ASQUEROSO OBAMA  ,ES MEJOR MANTENERTE CALLADO,,SI ERES ESO,,,,,, PUES EL UNICO DERECHO QUE TIENES ES LO MISMO,,TRAGATELO,,PERO EL MATRIMONIO SE HIZO PARA EL HOMBRE Y LA MUJER,,LO DEMAS EL UN ASCO Y UNA FALTA DE MORAL ANTE ESTA SOCIEDAD,, CUANDO ESCRIBO ASI NO ME ENFOCO EN EL PRESIDENTE,,ES A SU POSICION..

[siboneyes]

OBAMA OUT OF THE CLOSET: Obama’s Gay Marriage ‘Evolution’ Deception

By Bruce Thornton On May 10, 2012  In Daily Mailer,FrontPage

Reconciliation with boyfriend    Barak

Join the club.

In yet another act of election-year cynicism, Barack Obama has  just   announced, “I think same-SX couples should be able to get  married.” This   statement follows similar pronouncements by Joe Biden  and Education  Secretary  Arne Duncan. To hear Obama tell it, this  change reflects his “evolution” away  from his previously stated pposition  which he made clear  in 2008 a few days  before the election: “I  believe marriage is between a  man and a woman. I am not  in favor of  gay marriage.” That same year he  told Reverend Rick Warren that   marriage is a “union between a man and a  woman,” adding that it is a “sacred  union” with “God in the mix.” Both  statements contradicted  what he had told a  Chicago gay newspaper in 1996  while running for  the Illinois state senate: “I  favor legalizing same-sx  marriage.” No  wonder this year’s electoral conversion  smells suspicious  even to  Obama cheerleader MSNBC, which on its First Read blog  brushed past   the personal “evolution” pretext and zeroed in on the political  calculus: “Obama’s shift not only speaks to a broad swath of the electorate,   which  has exhibited increasing acceptance of same-sxmarriage in opinion  polls,   but also gay and lesbian voters who compose a core part of  Obama’s base,  and  have been major fundraisers for his  re-election.”

This latest about-face, then, clearly shows that Obama’s 2008  opposition  to  gay marriage was devised to make him appear a centrist  during the  presidential  election, and that now he believes he can  speak honestly and  shore up his  progressive base.

That Obama would say one thing while believing another is well  established  by  his long track record of shifting his policy  positions depending on  whether he  is pandering to the center or the  left––consider extraordinary  renditions,  military tribunals,  Guantanamo, or the surge in Iraq, all of  which he  vociferously  opposed until he supported them. Some might think  that he is a rank   opportunist who believes in none of these positions, his  public statements  based  on tactical calculations reflecting polls and  political  necessity. Remember his  principled opposition to the evil Bush  tax  cuts, which he then extended a month  after the 2010 electoral “shellacking,” as he called it?

[siboneyes]

PART 2

But consideration of the world from which Obama emerged points us to what  he  really thinks. It beggars belief to think someone who has spent his  whole adult  life in the progressive purlieus of academe and community  activism, where gay  marriage, like abortion, is a sacrament, could  sincerely be opposed to it. Like  taxing the greedy rich, America’s foreign  policy sins, endemic white racism,  redistributionist economics, global  warming, the evils of carbon-based energy,  deficit spending, conservative  misogynism, and all the other scriptures in the  progressive psalter, the  rightness and justness of gay marriage are revealed  truths that require  obedience, not justification.

Indeed, gay marriage is particularly expressive of the progressive  gospel,  for this issue concentrates all that sect’s fundamentalist  doctrines. First, it  exemplifies the progressive idea that the traditional  wisdom and beliefs of the  masses are benighted remnants of their ignorant,  superstitious past from which  we should be evolving. The collective wisdom  of the human race developed over  centuries is automatically suspect and to  be rejected as irrational  justifications for oppression, exclusion, and  the defense of unfair privilege.  Progressive moderns, supposedly armed  with advances in knowledge discovered by  the “human sciences,” are better  able to arrange society and human relations so  that they reflect the  reality hidden to our religion-addled ancestors, and thus  can ensure  justice and equality. So the belief based on faith, tradition, and  natural  law that marriage is an institution joining a man and woman is to be   rejected, and society to be reshaped according to the truths possessed by   enlightened progressives.

[siboneyes]

PART 3

Next, gay marriage is an important component of the identity politics  that  dominate the liberal university. Like the other so-called minority  victims of  historical prejudice, oppression, and exclusion, homosexuals  are owed  affirmation and reparations in the form of faculty positions,  gay-centric takes  on traditional disciplines like history or English, and  their own departments,  majors, minors, or programs. Outside the  university, laws and behavior  uncongenial to the gay agenda must be fought  through the courts and the federal  government. To work, though, grievance  politics requires grievances, for no  matter how successful or powerful a  victim-group is, no matter how much progress  is made in eliminating  prejudice or exclusion from institutions and laws, the  group must still  find an injustice to fight in order to justify its existence  and  privileges. For the gay lobby, traditional marriage is the most important   target, for it is passionately supported by those constituencies,  especially  conservatives and people of faith, who stand in the way of the  progressives’ agenda of reshaping society and human nature according to their  utopian  ideology.

Finally, legalizing gay marriage necessarily requires empowering   anti-democratic federal bureaucrats and judges in order to override the  stubborn  ignorance and bigotry of the people. Whatever polls might say  about increasing  support for gay marriage, its proponents aren’t about to  put the question to the  people’s vote. Remember California’s Proposition  8, which in 2008, the same year  Obama overwhelmingly won California,  defined marriage in the state constitution  as solely between a man and a  woman? It passed in this progressive bastion, to  be overturned later by  the State Supreme Court. Progressives prefer to achieve  their aims not  through democratic elections that reflect the will of the people,  but  through unelected judges and bureaucrats who share the progressive   world-view that the people need to be coerced into believing so they’ll do  the  right thing. Obama’s current flip-flop on gay marriage is another sign  of his  preference for using coercive federal power to bypass the will of  the states,  where such highly contested social issues should be  adjudicated through the  democratic process.

Obama, of course, for three years has been regularly using presidential  power  to bypass the people in order to shape policy. Marriage laws may be  the purview  of the states, but don’t think that that cannot change.  Remember, Obama ordered  the Department of Justice not to defend the  democratically passed Defense of  Marriage Act, which was passed in part to  protect the integrity of state laws.  He also has gone on record as saying  the issue will ultimately be determined by  the Supreme Court, one or more  of whose justices the next president will most  likely choose. It’s not  unthinkable that some future Supreme Court will find the  Defense of  Marriage Act unconstitutional and override the 32 state laws  defending  traditional marriage.

Given how thoroughly the issue of gay marriage expresses the  foundational  progressive beliefs that define the university and that  underlie most of Obama’s  policies, it strains credulity to think that  support for gay marriage hasn’t  been Obama’s actual pposition all along.  Like his breakout 2004 speech at the  Democratic National Convention in  which be proclaimed, “There is not a liberal  America and a conservative  America––there is the United States of America,” his  support for  traditional marriage was just one more patch of camouflage hiding  his  progressive agenda.

[gato montes]

Absolutamente.

Hace dos años contraje matrimonio con el hombre con quien había vivido en relaciones "pecaminosas" por 31 años, y creo que todos merecen el mismo derecho.