On whose behalf?
I read this earlier today, but i wanted to think about it for a bit, but the Weekly Standard quoted the president during an interview with ABC yesterday, which the media tells me to think was a “watershed moment” in American history when the President decided to come out of the closet and declare that, suddenly he’s all for gay marriage, after saying since before the 2008 election that he wasn’t so much. But, it’s the way he framed his sashay out of the closet that sticks in my craw. here, you read it;
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”
Now, why would he want to drag the troops into a discussion that has little to do with them? How many gays are the service who want to marry some-damn-body? There certainly aren’t legions of them, but it’s like the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was supposed to solve our non-existent manpower problems in the military, they need victims and bloody shirts to wave in our faces. Yeah, someone will trot out a few as examples, but seriously, how many can there really be? 10? 20? Even a hundred would be statistically insignificant.
But let’s get to the most egregious part of that quote; “…those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf….” I remember that my oath of enlistment said something about defending the Constitution, not any particular politician, and certainly not the President. This isn’t a “…for King and Country” kind of nation. Now I swore that I would follow the orders of my superiors, but there was nothing in the oath about fighting on anyone’s behalf. Unless he considers their salaries a “commutation fee” for them to fight in his place.
But, in my opinion, it was just a way for him to remind the country that he’s commander-in-chief and to stand on the broad shoulders of our fighting forces to campaign for office. I’m pretty sure they don’t like being dragged into this campaign, whether it’s by Obama or Ron Paul, especially when it’s on the gay marriage question. Just like abortion in this country, the Defense of Marriage Act is law, whether you agree with it or not, and unless they want to mount a campaign in Congress to change the law, it doesn’t really matter what the President thinks about it. But the last thing the President and Commander-in-Chief should be doing is dragging the troops into the discussion to illustrate an ill-considered point.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues
I don’t see it like that and I don’t think he meant it like that. I always say that the troops are fighting on my behalf. They are fighting for my freedom. They are fighting so that I mat sit here in this air-conditioned room and type this out on a keyboard. I sleep at night soundly because brave men are out there willing to commit violence of action on my behalf. Our troops do fight on his behalf. And on my behalf. And on your behalf. They fight and die so we don’t have to.
That was a dumbass statement for a POTUS to make.
Having jumped the broom with a Wookie could certainly explain his latest endorsement. One look at Moochelle and having change for a three would seem entirely justified.
As the representative of the Nation the President should state that troops are fighting for the Nation. Yes, I have heard plenty of private citizens referring to troops “fighting on my behalf” BUT in that case it is quite easily understood that the troops are not fighting on that specific citizen’s behalf. Saying that as the prime representative of our Nation, the phrase becomes presumptuous.
Here is my whole thing on the issue. I don’t agree with probably 90% of the people on the site about the issue, so I am not agueing the overall issue. I want to argue the entire point. Libs have been saying for years that they believed that Obama has been for gay marriage but he couldn’t say so. It was okay for him to lie about it. Now he comes out and lets his true feelings be known, and it is great because Obama has had this earth shattering revelation that it is okay? WTF? Hello? Haven’t they been saying he believed this for the last four years? So now he lies about it and it’s ok? You shouldn’t get credit for being a liar. He has been lieing about his feelings for years and now that he needs his base support more than ever he comes out and lets his true feelings be known? A true political ploy and of course his sycophants are going to lap it up as he has evolved. Not as he has always felt this way and now that it is best for him he throws it out there. I guess he is just pushing all in now.
@JPJ – But he wasn’t lying…he was evolving……/sarc
Ironically, I’m not hearing much about Romney’s earlier stand on the issue, when he said “I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens”.
Per the statement, as others have mentioned, what he said was not necessarily incorrect in the general vernacular…but what a [politically] monumentally stupid way to say it. A POTUS should couch everything as being done on behalf of the nation, not ME or the royal WE.
#5 Supposedly there’s a document showing Obama approved of gay marriage in 1996, but yeah when he was running for state senate in 2004 his religious beliefs suddenly dictated that marriage was between a man and a woman and not a civil rights issue.
The only significant thing he did yesterday was stop lying about his stance on the issue while giving himself an out for not doing anything too politically dangerous in an election year by saying that he believes it is an issue for the individual states to deal with. Can someone please tell me what all the fuss is about?
Generally have pretty thick skin here but heard that yesterday and took immediate offense. Thought about it later and got even more irritated. Saw it in print even later in the day and blew a gasket.
How DARE this idiot presume that any duty I fulfill is for his benefit! Well, yes, it is/was, but only in so much as he is one of millions of Americans for whom we served.
Get over yourself, clown. There is more honor in the little finger of the rawest recruit who understands who he is serving than in your entire being. You have no clue who we are. You have no clue who you owe. And you obviously don’t care that we pledged our honor to every one of you fools who cannot even bring yourselves to be a tiny bit grateful for we who serve or have served.
I know hollyweird and Europe are all gushing about Obama’s “courageous” announcement/evolution on the matter. however, anyone that has been paying attention since the 2008 campaign already knew his personal stance on this issue. He kept it under wraps for political reasons. He is now making it public for political reasons. That the mind numbed drooling moonbat idiots that love him are piling praise on him and filling his depleted campaign account with gobs of new cash is what the end game of this whole thing is. All of a sudden a reporter is “getting chills”, again, when interviewing him. Germany is fawning over his courageous decision. Ellen is thanking him endlessly for his “evolution” on this matter. Every Obama dog washer that was starting to have that gleem in their eye dimmed, is now bright and shiny, once again. Joe probably rubbed one out with gusto upon hearing the news.
It’s all theater for the masses.
Gay and lesbian troops (like myself) are there, such as that USMC Sergeant Brandon Morgan who got carried away and jumped into his boyfriend’s arms, a few months ago, at a homecoming ceremony in Hawaii after serving in a deployment in Afghanistan. How many are there? Who knows? Admiral Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while testifing for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” said “everybody counts.” There is no such thing as “statistically insignificant” when it comes to the welfare of our Service Members. The entire Active-Duty Military is just about two percent of the whole American Population. Does that diminish our relevance? President Obama used the example of our Military Personell to demonstrate that we are soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors as well as police officers, athletes, ministers, judges, doctors, lawyers, elected officials etc not just a bunch of dancing freaks in drag wearing boas on floats at gay pride parades, and completely worthy of ALL equal rights.
I don’t CARE how he feels about gays, or marriage, or gay marriage, civil unions, or a very long list of other things about which how he feels has no impact on my life. Until he brings the National Guard to my house and attempts to force me into doing any of those things, I just don’t care how he feels about any of them.
I DO care that he has inserted HIS personal military into the discussion. What about his EPA and gay marriage? Should gays at DHS feel slighted?
Stupid.
This is the ultimate in narcissism. 0bama, commenting upon his sudden public approval of gay marriage, was just shown stating that he couldn’t stand the idea of soldiers and sailors out there fighting on HIS behalf when they were not free to be in gay relationships.
Kinda’ makes you wonder who the military were fighting for before 0bama was elected.
I thought the troops were/are fighting for the entire country, every single one of us and I say Thank You!
Its funny that one of the arguments made against lifting DADT was that the gay community didn’t care about the military, but only wanted to use it as a platform to attack traditional marriage. I guess they were right.
Yeah, for once I agree. It was kind of gratuitous, and, um…tactical. What the hell took him so long?
Once again, political pontificating by the Teleprompter-in-Chief.
What’s that line from Shakespeare, about an actor “strutting his hour upon the stage, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
@14 – “but only wanted to use it as a platform to attack traditional marriage.”
What does this even mean? How is supporting [or even being ambivalent] about gay marriage, in any way ‘attacking’ traditional marriage.
The meme plays well to certain audiences, but is only slightly less hyperbolic and hollow as the cries from the fundamentalist right of gay marriage ‘destroying’ marriage.
I thank you, Mr. Lilyea, for your wonderful statements:
“I remember that my oath of enlistment said something about defending the Constitution, not any particular POLITICIAN, and certainly not the President. This isn’t a “…for King and Country” kind of nation. Now I swore that I would follow the orders of my superiors, but there was nothing in the oath about fighting on anyone’s BEHALF.”
(capitalizations by me, for emphasis)
The reason I was willing to take the Oath, at enlistment:
I was “personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic.”
Like Jonn said, DOMA is the law of the land. Now, Eric [with] Holder can sit on his hands, and not defend it, Obama can disagree with it, but, it’s still law. I note that Obama did not say he was telling, encouraging or otherwise hoping that someone would introduce legislation repealing DOMA. Actually, he all but admitted that gay marriage is a state issue.
So, basically, he made a feel good statement, that, in reality, says and does nothing. Except get Norman Lear, among others, to write him a big check.
And, the military is not owned by him, he’s the titular head of the military. They don’t fight on his behalf.
And, if Barack really believed what he said, why wasn’t he down in North Carolina, telling all the bible thumping clingers to vote in favor of gay marriage?
Repealing DADT was always about pushing gay “marriage”. That was the point.
Now they can tell you that you hate the troops if you don’t support a federal redefinition of marriage.
But gay soldiers are deploying! And their significant others are back home and…and the they can’t even attend FSG meetings! So I guess we’re going to have to tell all of the 42 backward states that they can’t have their own marriage laws. They have to have ours.
“How many gays are the service who want to marry some-damn-body? There certainly aren’t legions of them”
I disagree. I bet there will be lots of them. Lots and lots and lots. More gay military marriages then there are gays, in fact.
So let’s legalize polygamy and family members marrying as long as all are consenting adults. If the prez would have said he supported civil unions then okay, since it would allow for reasoning against forms of marriage we do not desire in this country.
If the prez would have said on “our behalf” it would have sounded more reasonable. Problem is it’s all me, my, and I with him.
Seriously, YatYas? FFS.
Go read into how it IS legal to marry a family member in 32 states. Jesus.
ROS:
Those moron states probably allow 1st cousins to marry. I keeping hearing why can’t two people get married regardless of sexual orientation, but then why can’t you have multiple marriages?
And while we are at it, I’ve co-habited with my dog longer than many folks stay married. Any reason she shouldn’t get spousal benefits from whoever is doing that these days? Maybe go for some kind of disability, since her working days are long over?
OWB:
Why not, your dog is probably more faithful than myself during the first marriage. The second has been totally different maybe due to age and maturity or the fact she would kick my ass.
I came to the same conclusion:
http://plbirnamwood.blogspot.com/2012/05/military-is-fighting-for-obama.html
Still too pissed to comment without expletives.
The thing that pisses me off is that some people are so jazzed about what he said they just keep waving their hands about the fact that he has a continous history of lying to get what he wants. Any person he has a long documented history of he will lie about relationship if it benefits him a stance he will lie about if it benefits him. If he was willing to lie about his stance on this issue to get elected then once again he will dangle the carrot. He has a complete lack of character. Sure people may not like Romney, but at least he has a ethos that he sticks with.
I figured a lot of military members would be happy about this. It’s pretty obvious.
Don’t like living on base? Marry your buddy. Get BAH. Divorce when one of you gets transferred.
Spade–I thought that idea was bullshit when I was in, and I think it’s twice as bullshit now.
What I bring home twice a month should matter more on what I have on my sleeve than what I have on my finger.
Yeah, I’m not THAT old, but I still believe to an extent that if the Navy had wanted me to have a wife, they would have issued me one. More COB/XO/CO headaches on both my boats (and tender) were caused by wives than anything else.
Adam_S @#5, here’s the link, can’t copy it, for some reason. His answers to a questionnaire from a Ms. Ring of “Outlines”, specifically #6, states, “I favor legalizing same sex marriage and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages”. http://www.towleroad.com/2011/01/obamas-1996-statement-supporting-marriage-equality.html