Newsweek Calls Obama the 'First Gay President': Did the Magazine Go Too Far?

News 2012/05/14 19:00:00
Add Photos & Videos
It was kind of a big deal when Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to openly support gay marriage -- enough for the some to joke that he was "coming out of the closet," so to speak. But Newsweek took it a step further on the cover of this week's issue, dubbing Obama "the first gay president," along with an image of the president under a rainbow halo. It's a striking statement, no matter what side of the conversation you're on. But is it going a little too far?

Andrew Sullivan, an openly gay Newsweek journalist, wrote of Obama's announcement, "Like many others, I braced myself for disappointment. And yet when I watched the interview, the tears came flooding down. The moment reminded me of my own wedding day. I had figured it out in my head, but not my heart. And I was utterly unprepared for how psychologically transformative the moment would be. To have the president of the United States affirm my humanity — and the humanity of all gay Americans — was, unexpectedly, a watershed." Still, was Newsweek's cover a little too risque?

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Tink123 2012/05/14 19:33:12 (edited)
    LOL - uh, yeah.

    Edit -
    I don't know about it being too "risque." But "The first gay president" leaves one with the impression that he himself is gay. Pretty sure that would come as a shock to his wife. lol

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • ehrhornp hilllary 2012/07/12 01:22:17 (edited)
    Well you obviously are not a Christian. Wright is a retired minister I believe in the United Church of Christ. Do you call Catholic priests haters? Do you just hate religious people in general or just the clergy? Shame you hate Jesus.

    What makes you think I am a leach? I should be asking you that question. I mean using a woman's name as your ID? Are you a transexual? Are you in search of little horny boys?

    By the way I am relatively well off. I live in a home that is worth a million dollars and I have liquid assets (stocks, cash, bonds) of almost 2 million. Not the best but far from being a leach.

    If you want to know who is a leach, all you have to do is look at republicans. GW is now collecting big bucks and for what? for collapsing the economy. Clinton is also collecting big bucks but at least he put the country on the right course before you evil republicans knocked it off. Be proud of your association with Bin Laden. You both share the same goals. Destruction of the American middle class.
  • hilllary ehrhornp 2012/07/31 23:21:36
    You are nothing but a liar, a communist, Demo-Rats like to kill babies, they know they can't defend themself. and they like Gays, which God destroyed two cities because they love homosexals. this is who you are.
  • ehrhornp hilllary 2012/08/01 04:27:57
    Such an intelligent reply. lol By the way what did you think of your hero complimenting socialized medicine? :-)
  • hilllary ehrhornp 2012/08/07 23:01:03
    I don;t have a hero. It is you dumb A who piss on themselves when they see Obama who have heroes like Obummer.
  • GloriaR... hilllary 2012/06/02 15:47:30
    I wouldn't be spouting off about who is an idiot (correct spelling...not idoit) I am simply astonished that your comment got so many thumbs up! Who are you people and how to do you proceed in life with such ignorance?
  • hilllary GloriaR... 2012/06/05 21:06:30
    I worked and do not want to have my tax dollars go to sorry men and women who will not work for a pay check. You all jut want to hold your lazy hands out and expect people who work to give to you. It is not the government money, IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO WORK NOT THE LAZY WHO FIND SOMEONE AS LAZY AS THEMSELF TO HAVE BABIES ABD DRAW CHECKS. SHAME ON YOU ALL.
  • ehrhornp hilllary 2012/06/05 21:23:06 (edited)
    lol, join the club. I don't want my tax dollars to go to feed an obsolete military complex. I also don't want to fund an idiotic war on drugs which is counter productive. Tell you what, end the war on drugs and cut the military industrial complex by 50% and I will push to end welfare for the poor. But I want to end welfare for the rich first.

    I bet you are against abortion too and consider yourself to be a good christian? Am I correct? lol
  • hilllary ehrhornp 2012/06/13 21:35:16
    What a Dumb A
  • ehrhornp hilllary 2012/06/14 02:58:39
    What an intelligent statement. I think you answered my question. lol
  • hilllary ehrhornp 2012/07/31 23:24:13
    The only reason you are not a slave is because we have a strong military.
  • ehrhornp hilllary 2012/08/01 19:54:38
    lol, we may have a strong military but I believe it could be cut at least 40% and still be strong. In fact according to a retired military officer, it would be stronger. I don't believe in supporting waste. Apparently you do.
  • GloriaR... hilllary 2012/06/07 21:57:33
    Who in the hell are you talking about? me? You know nothing about me.. I have worked and brought up 2 children practically on my own. Are you trying to say that I had my children so I could get a bigger check? Who do you think you are? Are you trying to say that in some way you are superior to me? My only hope is that people who read this will see just what a joke that is.

    It would seem that you have a problem with hating whoever "you-all" is. It must be a race you are referring to and racists are the ultimate example of complete ignorance!!
    ON TOP OF THAT....it had absolutely nothing to do with the comment I made.

    As far as the cost of social services go, they are a drop in the bucket compared to many other deficit issues. If the rich paid some taxes, THAT in itself would take a big bite out of it. You want the poor to pay their fair share but you don't think the rich should do the same?
  • ehrhornp GloriaR... 2012/06/05 21:18:37
    I am frankly simply amazed how easily today's republicans will kick their past leaders under the bus. I mean all these phony conservatives bitch about Obama and his health care plan. Don't they realize that he got it originally from Richard Nixon? I mean I am a democrat so Nixon was not my favorite president. But come on at least he was willing to work to improve the country, not just make the rich richer. I wonder how much Hillary will be willing to subsidize the very rich?
  • hilllary ehrhornp 2012/06/13 21:39:24
  • ehrhornp hilllary 2012/06/14 03:02:03
    Lol, love it when incompetents have to resort to calling names. Keep it up. You are just verifying what a weak argument (actually no argument) you have.

    So the rich pays most of the taxes. Won't be the case if Mitt gets in. But in any case the rich receives most of the benefits that society has to offer so they should pay the most taxes.

    Why do you want to subsidize the rich?
  • temp_user 2012/05/15 20:58:48
    I always knew Michelle Obama wore the pants in that family.
  • dispatcher 2012/05/15 20:54:25
    What do you expect from the liberal moron media outlets...
  • Rubyking 2012/05/15 20:52:56
    they are simply stupid
  • Mike J. Hirak 2012/05/15 20:52:04 (edited)
    Mike J. Hirak
    It wasn't blasphemy, it was saying he is like a god in the eyes of gay people. That's why the halo is a rainbow. The choice of words made it sound stupid, but I don't think their intention was to say that the president is actually gay
  • kcoat 2012/05/15 20:50:27
  • joshua ben-ami 2012/05/15 20:48:14
    joshua ben-ami
    Supporting a privact issue and constitutional right doe not imply sexual orientation
  • Ted 2012/05/15 20:47:14
    Hello gay people! You are being used!! If the poles were not as close as they are and if Obama's first term had gone better he would not have made this statement.

    This statement in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, or 2016 means something. This statement in 2012 is a political calculation... period.
  • heeheemee 2012/05/15 20:44:11
    Pro-gay does not equal gay. What morons do they have running that magazine?
  • Autumn heeheemee 2012/05/15 21:29:29
    I would assume Republicans.
  • Bob DiN heeheemee 2012/05/16 05:54:46
    Bob DiN
    Liberals of course.
  • Maria 2012/05/15 20:33:15
    didn't go too far because Obama want someone to remember him by ....that's why he didn't do the real big job lately...
  • me 2012/05/15 20:32:09
    Yes, the cover went too far, not the article. It wasn't "risque". It was misleading, cheesy, exploitative and dopey, but not "risque". . I doubt the author of the article had much if any control over the cover selection. Newsweek covers seem to be getting more and more into shock value and trying to make people want to buy the mag just to see if there is something inside that really supports the cover. Like the National Enquirer covers that announce "woman gives birth to (choose one or more: alligator, space aliens, three headed turtle), Newsweeks more recent covers go for the shock reaction, hoping for the "I gotta buy this to see if its true".. Its also misleading because it implies that there is some support for saying he's actually "gay" when there is not. (except maybe to the aforementioned space aliens born to that woman in the Enquirer some thirty-five years ago). The article appeared to be sincere and emotional response from an openly gay writer for the mag who was moved by the president of the United States expressing his acknowledgement that gay and lesbian people are first and foremost, people, and moreover, people with hearts and emotions, values and patriotism, dedication and a desire to spend their lives with someone they love. The cover appeared to be a cheesy, misleading, and exploitative marketing gimmick to sell magazines.
  • Professor Wizard 2012/05/15 20:29:11
    Professor Wizard
    Naaa... it is a cover - - designed to get your attention - - and designed then, to get you to buy a copy.

    If Putting a Rainbow Halo on Obama sells copies of News Week... Go for it... Obama knew he would get some flack for his statement. It goes with the territory!
  • supercar55 2012/05/15 20:22:53
  • Souldog 2012/05/15 20:22:50
    the media headlines are designed to draw attention, to sell more copies of news print. However once u read a story u will find out the real meaning of the headline.
  • Mary Ann 2012/05/15 20:09:07
    Mary Ann
    I thought it was frigin hysterical! Now did Time, Yes in deed. That boy is screwed his whole life!
  • bonnie 2012/05/15 20:04:27
    That is so rude and disrespectfull
  • rosebud 2012/05/15 20:02:11
    This area will love him. San Diego will get a parade up for him in Hillcrest! I can hardly wait till he makes his entrance into the holiest of holies.
  • Old Salt 2012/05/15 19:52:10
  • EllЕ Old Salt 2012/05/15 20:33:43
    Also he will loose Muslim & Catolic votes.
  • Old Salt EllЕ 2012/05/15 21:11:24
  • Barb EllЕ 2012/05/15 21:44:03
    Not that many Catholic votes. None of my friends in the church are opposed. Hierarchy and conservative Catholics, yes, but they are not the whole church.
  • EllЕ Barb 2012/05/16 00:06:08
    Yes, Catholics are more progressive now, with all these scandals with little boys.
  • Barb EllЕ 2012/05/16 14:14:38
    Again, hierarchy.
  • FatherL... Old Salt 2012/05/15 21:01:57
    Nope, they will all change their minds now to accept gay's in order to continue support for Lord Obama, the first "black" President and La Raza conspirator.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/06 11:46:47

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals