North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban: Obama Says He's 'Disappointed'
Source: Huffington Post
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's campaign says he's "disappointed" with North Carolina's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Obama campaign spokesman Cameron French said in a Tuesday statement that the ban on same-sex unions is "divisive and discriminatory." French says same-sex couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.
Obama officials have been embroiled in a national discussion of same-sex marriage since Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that he is "absolutely comfortable" with gay marriage. Obama himself hasn't embraced legalizing gay marriage, saying his views on the subject are "evolving."
North Carolinians overwhelming voted Tuesday to amend their state constitution, strengthening a state law that already outlawed same-sex unions.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/gay-marriage-obama-north-carolina_n_1501766.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Fuck you Bush - after making this such a fucking wedge issue in 2000 and 2004 this is what we're dealing with now. We need an equal rights amendment, not this shit! 
He is obviously walking a fine line here. He has to deal with the reality that 30 states have voted to ban same-sex marriage, and continue to do so every time it is put up for a vote, including in my very blue state of CA. Obama is doing the best he can, and he has done more for the LGBT community than any other President. He refused to defend DOMA and got rid of DADT. That IS leadership.
Instead of expressing your outrage at the 61% of NCers who voted for this bigotry, you're pissed at Obama because he didn't walk up to a mic and say he was disappointed rather than saying it through his campaign. And until he does, you will not contribute to his campaign. Yes, that makes sense, because Romney would be SO much better for the LGBT community. 
The only way all these bigotry-enshrining state laws are going to be overturned is if we get a liberal majority on the Supreme Court. And that is only going to happen if we keep electing Dems as POTUS.
You do know what a "strawman" is? If not, here...
, and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]
1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including: 1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3.Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
We can hope... 
