On gay marriage, Obama’s critics and supporters alike think he may shift again

Nope, just simply playing party politics. Romney's doing the exact same by appealing to social conservatives and seperating himself from previous electoral pledges (abortion, gay rights etc) when he ran a much more micro-campaign in Massachussetts many years ago. One of the reasons I take such an interest in American politics is because political issues can change rather rapidly, and the country itself is so large and diverse that it's interesting how politicians have to mould a political message that has as much widespread appeal as possible. I think it's because of that reason that so many political figures can have their political positions contradicted, because you see politicians simply playing the game and it really doesn't become difficult to see why a Republican (in this political climate) can't run a Massachusetts style campaign under the same pledges made in the 90's and expect it to get him elected with Southern voters. It would be very easy to look at any politician and find inconsistencies in what they say (including Obama), but I think people are far too quick to attach negative labels that overestimate the intent behind it. For example, I don't think Obama was ever against same-sex marriage, nor do I think Romney really is against it in the way other political figures are, but both just simply made value judgements that helped them play to their bases. That is, to quote an Abba song, 'the name of the game'.

I would, however, not be so quick to devalue people's opinion on the basis that they aren't from America or living in it. American politics is something I take quite a personal interest in because of how interesting and diverse it can be (especially compared to the UK), and I consider one of my strengths to be that I can actually have discussions on it without being affected by the emotional bullshit that politics often brings out in people. After all, I'm not from America, so it's extremely easy for me to study American politics and its Constitutional history without having a Democratic or Republican tint in my eyes. I would have thought you'd be one of the biggest advocates for independent thought, rather than everybody conforming along party lines. I'd put it to you that those outside the US are likely to be some of the most objective people on American political issues.

I notice your avatar is of Margaret Thatcher (well resembles her ). I'm willing to bet you'd be able to give a more objective viewpoint on her political achievements than many of my family members would. Tis your lack of affiliation with the UK political sphere that would give you an advantage in such discussions. It would not, if we followed your logic, immediately invalidate any points you make simply because you arent British.

 

Well your avatar resembles Margaret Thatcher, and I seem to recall you speaking positively of her at some point in the past, so in a way you've already given a form of evaluation on one British PM. I'm also pretty confident you'd be able to justify any thoughts you have on her political career, so twould be rather silly and illogical of me to simply devalue your thoughts on the basis that your passport isn't similar to mine. There are people who will go along with rules without ever being interested in questioning them, and there are others who aren't necessarily affected by the rules but will find them interesting to learn about and discuss. Who would you rather speak with?

The HoC is an absolutely crazy placeee. Most of the politicians would be about 30 stone if they didn't have all that whack-a-moley exercise that they do when bopping up and down randomly. >.<

 

The argument that marriage is a church-based institution has some problems. For one, as Revan has pointed out, one has to have a marriage license, which is subject to various state laws, but the marriage itself can be conducted by almost anybody... a ship captain, a justice of the peace, a judge, a military officer, a person with a Universal Life Church certificate of ordination (cost=free).

So I think it's hard to argue that marriage, *as we practice it today* is strictly a religious institution; it's been historically the jurisdiction of the church, but these days a lot of ceremonies happen with no one remotely religious in attendance. And as far as I know, the IRS and just about everyone else relies on the existence of a marriage certificate, issued by a governmental body, as proof that the marriage exists.

I think it's a fair argument that the constitution does not, and perhaps should not, make any mention of marriage, but I don't think that policies about who can and cannot get a marriage certificate should be determined based on a patchwork of different laws based on what part of the country you live in; it hardly seems fair that if you are in NJ or MA or IA that you can get a marriage certificate for two men or two women... but if you happen to live a few miles away across the line, you cannot.

And that's why I feel like it makes sense to have some consistent ruling that's applicable throughout the US on the issue, whether that's a federal law, or a ruling by the Supremes that applies throughout the country. Again, it's really, in my opinion, boils down to a civil rights issue, and until the Feds stepped in, we had the same sort of patchwork about civil rights and marriage rights for people of color. So I feel like it's time to do the same thing for gay people.