Really? Do I really want to come out on this subject, on this forum. Words should be chosen carefully, as the previous sentence shows. I've used the term third rail before suggesting a topic is too hot to touch. For those not living near a subway system, let me remind you that the third rail is the electrical power source running alongside the two train tracks. If someone shoots you in the toe with a 45mm handgun, you will lose your toe. Should your toe touch the third rail, you will lose your life. THAT is how touchy I consider this subject. Oh, I have an opinion and will share with anyone in private. But only real men, real masochists and real politicians dare make their case in a forum like Athens Patch.

I think there is no doubt that this has already energized Obama's base which had been looking for something to get excited about; i. e. some of that "Change to Believe In" magic from 2008. This is an issue that resonates loudly with Progressives and particularly younger voters. It also draws a stark contrast between Obama (who appears to be much more in touch with how the electorate has evolved on this issue) and Romney (who now seems even more out of touch with the struggles of average Americans) with Independent voters.

Wouldn't it be sad if you loved someone and were in a committed to each other - but weren't allowed to be married? Every religious institution has the right to determine who can or cannot can marry in that institution. Letting people marry the person they love doesn't threaten any religion, and certainly has nothing to do with any other couple's marriage. With so much violence in our world, why not respect and support love?

I'm with Newcomer here. I don't see how personal relationships are any concern of the government. Marriage is for a church. If any particular church decides one way, the people concerned are free to go to another. They don't have that same luxury with the government. If the tax code and financial issues like healthcare weren't set up to favor one relationship over another, this wouldn't be an issue. I don't even have a say in who my children should marry, why should the government have any say in who anybody can marry.

I fear that sometimes even these critical issues get lost in semantics. The Govt. should have nothing to do with who gets 'married'. That's the church's business as it is a religious effort. The Govt, does have a right to say who gets to inherit estates, adopt children and visit the sick in hospitals. And for me, I don't thing those opposed to gay marriage are against those rights. But maybe the Govt. should stay out of religious activities.

What else does he have to run on? Change and Hope is played out and proven to be a farce. He's renaged on every campaign promise he ran on in 08. Smoke and mirrors. I personnally could care less if anyone wants to get married. It won't affect me one bit. What same and opposite sexes do behind closed doors is none of my business. I, do however see right through the political ploy though.

An interesting poll pulled over the weekend in Georgia on this subject: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/poll-shows-most-georgians-are-opposed-gay-marriage/nN4Z8/

U.B. I agree he has nothing else to run on...so all of a sudden he has "evolved"? Politics stink sometimes. What about our economy?