... I ...

Okay, the people for whom gay marriage is more than a symbolic issue are those of us who might want to get one someday.

For him to abandon us in order to win reelection would be an awful move and I think I might even be more upset to think that was happening than to see Romney win. If we've got a Democrat as a President who won't do anything differently than any given Republican because he's trying to appease Congress and the electorate, what's the point?

Statistics have shown that support for marriage equality is increasing, rapidly and dramatically. Even if he loses in November, ultimately, that's where we're clearly headed, and he is doing the right thing by standing on the side of equality.
Originally Posted by amandamarie
In my opinion, gay marriage is more than a symbolic issue (it's an issue of equality so it's extremely important) which is why I put "symbolic" in quotes, to show that it's the author's opinion of how the Obama administration views the issue, not my opinion on the importance of the issue. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm angry that he didn't come out in support of this earlier, but does so now as part of a political strategy. It leads me to believe that he does see this issue as symbolic more than righteous and urgent.

I have marched for marriage equality even though I won't get one and take issue with the institution of marriage. If it exists, people deserve equal access to it. There are benefits attached to marriage that everyone deserves.
Originally Posted by diaspora
Diaspora, I wasn't really sure what you meant by that comment, so thanks for clarifying, but I wasn't too concerned about it, because I've seen you express your views in other threads on this site. I was pointing to NorahBugg's comment that "gay marriage is waaay more than a symbolic issue for the middle."

This attitude bothers me simply because if I did marry a woman, my marriage would have no effect AT ALL on anyone's marriage but my own. I can't conceive of a reason other than pure bigotry that would cause someone to actively oppose marriage equality when it would not have any direct impact on their lives. Certainly, Catholic priests wouldn't suddenly be required to perform what they consider to be the sacrament of marriage for gay and lesbian couples. It isn't eroding the sanctity of Catholic marriages any more than keeping divorce legal or allowing people to get married in a courthouse is.
Originally Posted by amandamarie
What you quoted isn't my viewpoint, it's a political fact of life. I don't look at social issues very closely when voting for a President like I said before because the choices are usually both pretty close on those issues, and I do tend to look at economic issues more. I'm also on the fence on many social issues or I have a side, but open to changing course like I am on this one.

Gay marriage is an issue that's tough for me. My issue with legalizing gay marriage is will it force churches to marry gay couples? If our religion doesn't believe in it, our Church shouldn't have to marry gay couples. Likewise, I don't think churches should be involved with the government, either, as in we should not accept funds if we don't want to the government to tell our institutions what to do.

It's kind of a confusing issue because it seems like every state is different. There were civil union states, and gay marriage states. Now I don't know of any civil union states and there are states with gay marriage bans. Since my state (Ohio) has a ban in place, I don't expect it to come up to vote any time soon. I haven't thought a whole lot about it because of this and since the economic issues are so real in my life and in my state's economy. I know that may frustrate you amandamarie but this has given me a lot to think about and I assure you I'll be doing a lot more thinking about it.