The way the excerpt is written, it sounds like Obama is throwing the idea that "states should make their own decisions on marriage" under the bus in a big way.  But I doubt if this is the case.  Perhaps he's personally opposed to the bans, but as president his policy would be that he's "constitutionally forced to recognize" that this is a state's decision that he has no power over.  He can hope that the states allow the marriages or civil unions, but golly, it's not his call to make, so good luck!

When he wants to start allowing his picture to be taken with gay-rights leaders, I'll start believing he's turned around on this.

When he wants to start to appearing at gay-pride events, like Hillary unabashedly did, I'll start believing he's turned around on this.

When he wants to give a speech supporting gay rights in clear, unequivocal language, I'll start believing he's turned around on this.

If I'm missing some snark, my bad.

Let us rise and give a standing ovation for the brave obama who takes a stand against...... Discrimination.

Let us rise and give a standing ovation for the brave obama who takes a stand against..... A constitutional ban on gay marriage.

What about a standing ovation for being against sending more troops into Iraq?

A round of applause for being against lower taxes for the upper two percent?

I hope the point I'm making here is a strawman.

I hope I am missing some snark.

It would be the neat trick of movement to pillory one politician for not going far enough and then to cheer on another politician for bravely doing the bare minimum.

He's not afraid to change his mind.

No, he sure isn't.  And it must be so freeing for him, you know, that he can take a position today and change it whenever he wants, and can just act as if there was never any other position.

I've also been wondering if he thinks he's got some kind of Get Smart-style "Cone of Silence," that makes him think that what he says to one group or in one venue is not heard anywhere else.  Ties in nicely with the ever-changing positions, though.

Seriously, all snark aside, Obama may be the closest thing to the Hollow Man as I have ever seen.  His early speeches - including the one he gave at the convention in 2004 - were so well-crafted that millions of people were able to believe that this was a man of unparalleled integrity, who was the embodiment of deep convictions and strong principles.  After years of unprincipled leadership and deep erosion of the democracy, he appeared to be "the" answer for what ailed us.

Some still believe this man is different.  That he is the new politics.  That he is going to change the way things are done.

I don't understand this, at all.  I don't see it, and Obama isn't actually doing it - he's not living his words, or acting on these alleged beliefs and principles.

Remember when he said he was a blank slate that others could project their hopes and dreams on?  That may have been the only thing Obama has said that you could take to the bank.  He is a blank slate - and whatever is written there on any given day is what he will represent.

there's nothing inherently wrong in changing your mind, in response to new information, or perhaps a re-analysis of previously available data. that's the essence of true intellectual inquiry, the "scientific method" if you will.

further, there's no law, cast in stone, requiring that X amount of time passes, before you're allowed to change your opinion, based on whatever new information or analysis becomes available. to argue otherwise is just, well, um, stupid.

then we come to sen. obama. his changes of position (indeed, if they actually are!) seem predicated, not on receipt of new data or critical re-analysis of old data, but strictly for the purpose of appearing to agree with a specific segment of potential voters.

as well, there's nothing inherently wrong with having a personal opinion on an issue, but supporting the rights of all to not have that position shoved on them, by legislative fiat.

gov. kaine, of va, had this problem with the death penalty. he expressed his personal opposition, based on his catholic beliefs, but stated that he would, as gov., follow the law. he won.

the big problem with sen. obama is his failure to clearly articulate that which is personal belief, vs that which he supports for the population as a whole. he appears to be either supporting, publicly, two polar opposite positions, or changing positions, in the twinkling of an eye.

How many days until Obama flip flops on Iraq?  I still think he is waiting for after the convention (can you imagine how dispiriting it would be for DNC delegates to show up in Denver and listen to Obama promise not to make a full withdrawal from Iraq?) but not too long after.

I wonder if any of you here think that there's any real chance that Obama, if he wins the Presidency, will actually be able to get us out of Iraq in less than five years?

I think not. Among the reasons I don't think this will be easy is that he'll have folks like some of you and a whole bunch of Republicans at the ready to brand him (and the Democratic Party) as defeatocrats. There is also the possibility of a genocidal bloodbath in the wake of our withdrawal from Iraq. Because we don't want that to happen (given our responsibility for creating this catastrof*ck) and because no President wants that kind of stain on his record, (see William Jefferson Clinton - Rwanda) this is going to be a long haul, IMHO.  

Obama has given a clue as to how he might set the strategy, in the statement, "We must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." In the context of a Middle-East strategy that involves diplomacy and working with out allies, it's quite possible we'll still be in Iraq for at least another decade. But the truth is, no one knows what the situation will be in Iraq on Jan. 20th, 2009. For example, we may be at war with Iran. (see Seymour Hersh)

Of course, for many of you here, that won't stop you from denigrating whatever position Obama takes on Iraq as the campaign moves forward. He can't change his position to react to events on the ground, because then he's a "flip-flopper." But he has made it clear that the strategy will be different, and that's all he can do until, and if, he takes office.

As far as the ban on gay marriage and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military, he's clearly against them, and he has always supported civil unions (a position which fulfills most of the legal requirements for gay couples to enjoy the same rights as straights.)

Again, people here and elsewhere won't be satisfied until he takes positions which make him virtually unelectable. It's a great strategy, if you goal is to lose in November.

Therefore, to this day people think Kerry expressed strong opposition to those gay marriage amendments on state ballots. He didn't. He expressed lukewarm support FOR them. It's just that the people who are motivated to vote by the desire to discriminate tend to vote GOP.

So Obama's unequivocal opposition to CA's proposed "marriage amendment" is progress compared to Kerry's.

Link

Here's the money quotes:

That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. [sic] issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Which is it, Barry?  State control of marriage or federal mandate over ALL marriage laws in the United States?  Does the State of California determine the laws of the State of Alabama?  Does the State of Massachussets determine the laws of the State of New York?  

He said for the longest that the individual STATES only had the right to determine marriage laws, not the federal government.  Now he wants the feds involved?  And this is going to play well to the Republicans and conservatives he's been kissing up to???

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

And, neither of those two reasons has anything to do with logic.

1.  It is political suicide to support marriage equality.

2. man on man sex is icky.  Note, this reason doesn't apply to girl on girl sex which is most often seen as a turn-on to heterosexual males.

It seems to me that those concerned about gay marriage would welcome support from any and all quarters.....

Sen. Barack Obama today wrote a letter to stating he opposed a ban on gay marriage.