Newsweek isn’t going to let Time win without a fight.
In the battle for most controversial cover of the week, Newsweek fired back at Time magazine’s now-infamous breastfeeding mom image by putting President Barack Obama under a rainbow halo with the tagline "The First Gay President."
"Obama's earned every stripe in this haloed rainbow,” Newsweek’s editor-in-chief Tina Brown wrote on Twitter.
Last week, Obama officially announced his support for same-sex marriage, becoming the first sitting president in U.S. history to do so.
"I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told ABC News.
The cover story, written by openly gay Newsweek contributor Andrew Sullivan, has yet to be released in full, but the magazine posted an excerpt on why the writer believes the president's move to support same-sex marriage was not just a political ploy.
40 Comments
Obama may well be as gay as Clinton is black, I suppose.
This cover alone is good for a point or perhaps two twoards Romney in the general election. Let the main stream media continue to hype Obama's new found stance on this issue...
More likley (like Rev Wright) they are trying to get the issue "out of the way" early...so that they can cheerlead for Obama on issues that dont effect his numbers negativley.
Cover celebrating motherhood vs. cover celebrating SSM.
I'll go with the former for my newsstand dollar.
Is there really a battle for most controversial cover? or is this just immagined? If so, I guess Time wins. This photoshop of colorful ring above Obamas head is kinda silly.
CHANGE His Address 2012 !
I could understand a caption such as "The First President to Support Gay Marriage", but "The First Gay President"? Perhaps they know something about him we don't? Either that or the word "gay" is being redefined for the 3rd time (i.e., the original definition = happy; then redefined to one who chooses to engage in homosexual acts; now redefined as anyone who endorses engagement in homosexual acts and/or same-sex marriage). Now that Newsweek has set this precedent, I wonder how the straights who support ssm are going to like being referred to as "gay"? Will they find taking on the designation "gay" for themselves as being "too equal" with that which they endorse?
This isn't a joke? I bet the folks at The Onion are sooo jealous.
Hey, it's looks like Gary Johnson wants to be the second Gay President. The Libertarian Party has selected Johnson as their candidate, a candidate that supports Same-sex Marriage and a women's right to choose. What is going on in this world, to SSM-supporting presidential candidates?
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-gary-johnson-white-house-games-on-gay-marriage-aren’t-funny
By the way, that's Obama's Gaylo!
That cover alone says it all. Anyone who cares for the protection of the institution of marriage, that same institution that recognizes the intrinsic differences between the genders, will no longer be fooled by Obama's double talk.
Gay is also being used to refer to something that is "whack" or "not cool" by the youth of today, but the NBA doesn't like it to be used that way.
So a news article on a controversial political issue is written by an activist for one side, and the editor-in-chief is also an activist for the same side (or indistinguishable from one). The opposing point of view is represented by whom, exactly ? Are we supposed to believe that Andrew Sullivan is going to present both sides as an objective observer?
Gee, why do people think that the media is biased....?
Obama is on the hook to explain how Obama #1 was right about marriage in the 2008 campaign but Obama #2 is right that Obama #1 is wrong about that.
Like most SSMers, Obama is at odds with himself on many things and many levels regarding the SSM campaign and its pro-gay bigoted ways and means.
@AW
"Are we supposed to believe that Andrew Sullivan is going to present both sides as an objective observer?"
I don't think Sullivan claims to be an objective observer, in fact, he labels himself "biased and balanced" on his blog. As for presenting both sides, there are at least a half a dozen "Ask Maggie Gallagher anything" entries on his blog where Maggie is asked, and given an uninterrupted chance to answer a series of questions.
I'm not convinced the President is "gay." After all, what exactly does "gay" mean? What are the immutable characteristics of "gay?" And what does being "gay"have to do with deciding whether or not to offer licenses for brideless or groomless marriages? Exactly which same sex couples does the President believe deserve to be married?
I second Chairm's comment. Either Obama #1 was right, or Obama #2. Either way, he is behaving like a house divided.
America's 1st Gay Perz was Buchanan! Not exactly an effective president, but he was the first. Anyway, back in 1994 Mitt promised the Log Cabin Republicans that he'd do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. I guess he's evolved too.
RAJ - But if Maggie Gallagher were writing the articles for Newsweek, I think gay activists would cry foul regardless of whether she tried to provide some balance or not. The cover image itself certainly isn't balanced : it implies that Obama is a saint for supporting gay marriage. I suspect the article provides one token opposing view and then gushes about the glories of gay marriage.
Obama handed Mitt Romney the winning endorsement that is worth much more than anything Rick Santorum could have provided. We owe O'bama a great deal of thanks for telling people the truth BEFORE the election.
Heard today on the Mark Levin show that since Pres. Obama was dubbed by The Atlantic as the first "woman" president, that that makes him not only the first "gay" president, but also the first "lesbian" president. Or, as Mark Levin put it, the "first non-Muslim, lesbian, 2nd black president (Bill Clinton being the first "black" president, and we can't have 2 firsts, can we?). Oh my, ya gotta love identity politics.
Daughter of Eve #15
I know it may be hard for you to believe but some people actually grow and change. As they gain more knowledge, they let go of previous beliefs (like Santa or the Easter bunny). Obama has said all along he believes in equal rights for ALL Americans, not just some. He had personal issues with the marriage idea but now realizes that is is discriminatory.
Obama supports sexual perversion.
Marriage is very evolved institution. Neutered "marriage" is a step backwards. It's de-evolution.
LonesomeRhoades
Actually, he doesn't. Just the same rights for ALL of Americans, not a select few.
Barb Chamberlan
Please define what you mean by "neutered marriage". I don't think neuter means what you think it does.
MarkOH: Given that Obama has spent the last few years trying to undermine the Defense of Marriage Act, his recent admission (of the obvious) can only be seen as a political calculation, not an evolution. His position hasn't changed, he's merely more honest about it now. I've seen a video of him finally admitting he was born in Kenya, too.
Here are several parodies of the "First Gay President" cover:
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/newsweek-cover-obama-is-the-first-gay-president-t8991.html
And that website has lots of other good parodies of all things related to the Obama administration.
Thanks be to God that civil unions failed in Colorado. The gay lifestyle is immoral, unhealthy and destructive. Numerous scientific studies have shown the debilitating effects of the gay lifestyle. A recent 2010 report from the CDC (Center for Disease Control) in the U.S. declared an epidemic rise of HIV/AIDS among youth in gay population. These same youth who do not know that they are infected are spreading this disease to the heterosexual population through the bisexuals. So-called gay marriage is no human right. Just as the practice of homosexual pedophila, incest, rape, bestiality, and polygamy is not a human right.
Craig, your arguments are so tired that not one of them was presented by the defendants in the Prop 8 trial. Not a single one of these arguments. If they are compelling arguments, why were they not presented?
Woody: When the Prop 8 case came before the Ninth Circuit court, the attorneys used legal arguments they thought might convince the overwhelmingly left-wing justices on that court. That doesn't mean other arguments are invalid.
AW,
All arguments are invalid because you want to equate what people do with what they are. Doesn't work. For example, all this nonsense about gays spreading diseases. Homosexuality does not spread diseases, people do. Catch up.
When son Billy brings his first date home and it's a boy, the parents will experience shock, denial, anger, grief. Why? Because homosexuality is abnormal, and an aberration.
It is a natural expectation that a son will bring home a girl, and a girl, a boy.
Even a twelve year old can tell you that boys are for girls and vice versa.
Homosexuality is just plain wrong!
Eliasasm: Even the left-leaning medical community admits that gay men have a vastly higher rate of AIDS than the rest of the population, due to the fact that anal sex spreads HIV more readily than vaginal sex. As for your claim that "you want to equate what people do with what they are" - actually, gay activists are the ones who claim that a specific sex act is the core of their "identity", whereas I view it as a sex act.
eliasasm said to AW:
"you [AW] want to equate what people do with what they are. Doesn't work."
Right, it does not work but that is the basis for gay identity politics anyway.
AW wrote a good reply to eliasasm:
"gay activists are the ones who claim that a specific sex act is the core of their "identity", whereas I view it as a sex act."
Good reply.
"Homosexuality is just plain wrong!"
And that's why you are lonesome, LonesomeRhoades. Your hate, ignorance, and bigotry keeping eating away at you. I feel sorry for you when there is so much in this world to be happy about.
MarkOH: The tired "bigotry" claim has been repeated so often as to become a laugh-line by now. Opposition to sodomy is not bigotry.
Fitz: "Let the main stream media continue to hype Obama's new found stance on this issue..."
There is no way that the media is going to follow up on this cover. They're homosexual master don't want them too. Check Google. Only a handful of print or TV media sites have carried this story.
Opposition to sodomy makes good health sense. Even the CDC has the sense not to accept blood donations from men who have sex with men. I suppose the CDC is homophobic, too?
Gay activists and apologist always have a hard time with reality. It is the nature of the gay lifestyle that must be camouflaged and reconstructed. The effects of the lifestyle are immoral, unhealthy, and destructive. Even gay medical associations note the harmful physical and mental aspects of the lifestyle. A recent 2010 report from CDC (Center for Disease Control) in U.S. declared an epidemic rise of HIV/AIDS among the youth in the gay population. These same youth who do not know or care not to know that they are infected are spreading this disease among heterosexual population through the bisexuals. Gay activists and their propaganda need to dissemble about the harsh reality of the lifestyle.
Someone on TV made the comment that here Time shows Obama with a halo and it's unlikely they'd ever depict Jesus with one.......................
Leehawks: That's because the media worships Obama and not Jesus.