PUBLIC OPINION > Newsweek's 'First Gay President' Cover Crossed the Line
SodaHead News
2012/05/15 17:00:00
President Obama's public support of gay marriage was a landmark event for the LGBT community, but Newsweek's latest cover might have taken the praise a little too far: The title story, written by openly gay journalist Andrew Sullivan, was titled, "The First Gay President." Some might say Obama was "coming out of the closet" with his views, but is calling him the "first gay president" a bit of an overstep? We asked the public.
There was a variety of reasons people voted the way they did, but in the end the majority decided it was, in fact, too far. The most obvious argument was that, well... Obama's not gay. Why would they write something like that if it's not tangibly true? Many commenters called it a lapse of journalistic integrity -- "a cheap way to get attention." On the other hand, Pulitzer Prize-winning African-American author Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton the "first Black president" in 1998, so maybe there is some level of historical awareness (and perhaps irony) present in Sullivan's title.
Liberals Don't Like It
We kind of figured this would be a divisive issue based solely on the fact that it had to do with Obama and homosexuality. However, we weren't sure which direction the controversy would go. The actual statement was made by a conservative Catholic homosexual -- an unusual demographic to begin with, and one that's (fortunately) difficult to read into. As it turns out, conservatives had Sullivan's back while liberals shook a finger.
Acceptance From Older Voters
In the same vein, there was a very sharp drop in support under the age of 35. The difference was black-and-white, with every age group below the mark showing about 76% disapproval, and every age group above showing closer to 46%. That's undeniably close to the political breakdown, so a correlation there is pretty much guaranteed. The most interesting thing about this is how quickly and clearly the politics changed at 35.
Homosexuals Won't Have It
In a 1998 issue of the New Yorker, Toni Morrison wrote of Bill Clinton, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas." Does Obama display "every trope of gayness"? That's hard to say objectively, but based on the homosexual vote, the answer seems to be no.
If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about Newsweek's Obama article. We'd love to hear from you!
Top Opinion
-
johnnyg 2012/05/15 18:42:46
We conservatives only know why Obama did it. Now I know why he didn't before now ......It's his ace in the pocket.
I still firmly believe that if we allow gay/lesbians to marry then polygamy should be recognized as well as marriage to inanimate objects (meaning dolls but heck include anything). Give a definition of marriage and be done with it.
It is a great end around by Obama. It is slow developing play in the playbook but we will see how it works out.
I personally do not know how to feel about polygamy, but what those consenting adults do behind closed doors is really, none of my business. If they are fine and happy with it how does that affect my life? Not at all as I'm not actually part of it. As long as they are all over the age of 18 then they can do whoever, and be with whoever they want. It's not my place to tell them how to live their lives.
*shrugs*
**edited for grammar in the last sentence.
That was back then though and really shouldn't have any barrings on today's society.
So you are saying today's society is much better than 100 years ago?
"That was normal back then" It is normal now for a man/woman to be married. It isn't normal for same-sex too. So we just change our definitions when we want to?
100+ years ago it was necessity to marry at younger ages. When 20 is considered middle aged there's really not a lot of working around it. 12 year olds today are nothing like 12 year olds 100+ years ago. Partially that is our own fault. They are coddled more now then they were back then which has led to the immaturity of our own youth.
Clearly it's been changed before if it is still no longer considered appropriate for 12 year olds to be married off. Societies grow and societies change. If they are two consenting adults then what should it matter? Let me just repeat the two consenting ADULTS part of this again. -__-
How does it affect your marriage? Does it make it any less valid? Plenty of people do NOT have a religious cerimony or envolve religion in any aspect of their marriage. If heterosexual couples can simply go to the Town Hall and sign a piece of paper to be married in the eyes of the law then why can't two consenting adults in a homosexual relationship do the same? That's ALL they want. The ability to legally marry their partner. Sure the tax benefits are a plus but when it comes down to it they just want the same right to have a legal marriage.
"How does it affect your marriage? Does it make it any less valid?" It does nothing to my marriage. My point which you are oblivious to is that we should expand it as well. Why not? Of course you want to tag it with "consenting adults". I want to tag it with "man/woman". You are doing the same thing I am except you want to allow just gays in. I say bring them all in. how can you be for one while against the many? That is the whole point.
Which is why defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults is more than fair. Regardless of gender.
That isn't the point though. The point is that it used to be male/female. You now want to add anyone that can consent. Why stop there? Now you are shunning a whole new crop of people. Is that fair to them?
As long as they are two consenting adults I don't care if they are homosexual, heterosexual, or an interacial couple. That's their own lives and they should all be treated equally.
Well a polygamist can't marry all their wives. This would recognize their marriage. Hell I sure wouldn't want more than 1 wife.
I personally do not care what gays do to each other behind closed doors. I don't need to be accepting or wish to.
Mine either. I am not telling them they can't do what they want. If a guy likes pole hey dude just don't invite me to the party.
"It's not my place to tell them how to live their lives." Exactly my point. Then I should be able to marry my blow up doll because I fell in love with it.
Point still stands on Biden, though.
I think gays should be married, just to make myself clear.