Newsweek stirs buzz with 'first gay president' cover

I live in the USA and support freedom of the press. If it's someone's opinion that Barack Obama is the first gay president, they are free to express it.

This has nothing to do with freedom of the press. It's about responsible journalism. That's an absurd argument - no one's saying what they did was in any way illegal, however, the cover was stupid, wrong, and obviously a ploy at sensationalism. Obama's got a wife, obviously he's not gay (bi at best?). It is absolutely stupid to say that just because someone supports same sex marriage, they are gay.

In short, freedom of speech means it's totally legal for you to express yourself. That does NOT mean you're free from criticism or being called on for saying something idiotic.

Classy move Newsweek, someone stands up for gay rights so you call him gay. Real elementary schooler logic, and it shows the mental age of the average reader.

More seriously, what's next, accusing someone who supports immigration reform of being Mexican? There is a clear divide between free speech and hate speech, and the U.S. just doesn't seem to grasp that one is desirable while the other is pure poison.

Tina Brown is a nut. Her job is to sell magazines and plug her Website, and she'll do anything to this end. Really: aside from free copies on an airplane (when all the good magazines have already been taken), when was the last time you read Newsweek?

Obama says he is pro-gay marriage to GET MORE VOTES. Newsweek says Obama is the first "gay president" to SELL MORE MAGAZINES. Pathetic.

I'm not really sure how he's gay by supporting gay rights. If I supported the rights of First Nations, I would be First Nations?

Forget to mention the intent to distract the voters from the real issues facing the nation.

Gay marriage IS a real issue. You're right that it shouldn't be - it should have been legalized decades ago and it's stupid that conservatives care so much about ruining the lives of gay people. It should go through federal court, be legalized nationally and we can be done with it, and move on to the "important issues".

Newsweek is not doing Obama any favors. Although they may not care for Romney, this will only further motivate social conservatives to get to the voting booth in November and vote republican.

RR

Reminds me of when Clinton called himself the first Black President. Now Obama first Gay President. Ridiculous.

Hojo, the moral difference is quite apparent: marriage is between two consenting adults. For consent, minors under a certain age are too young, while trees are insufficiently sentient - the same applies to animals, despite "man-on-dog" hysteria from certain quarters.

Even the extreme liberal press New York Times' poll concludes that Obama (the anointed first gay activist president) was motivated by politics to gain more votes. Forget to mention the intent to distract the voters from the real issues facing the nation. As stated, more junks to come and less about his own record on the economy, deficit, unemployment, highest food stamp recipients.... initiated by a divisive Obama. America can do better than that.

I live in the USA and support freedom of the press. If it's someone's opinion that Barack Obama is the first gay president, they are free to express it.

Its not an opinion. Its a verifiable lie which is why Obama could well sue them for liable.

Personally, I think it should go beyond that and include a jail sentence. The press can be completely irresponsible about people's reputations and it needs to end.

this is such a blatant example of how far many info-manipulator news papers and magazines have gone in the direction of money making, with no respect to reporting truth. truth has always been hard to come by. this example of NEW$WEEK is soooooo pukable.

I can't believe that in 2012 gay marriage is still such an issue. A person should be able to marry the person they love.

I'm glad I haven't been a subscriber to Newsweek for years...but it was half-way decent when Fareed Zakaria was running things.

It does not even make sense if its interpreted as "first pro-gay president". Clinton's DADT compromise clearly paved the way to letting gays serve in the military without fear of discharge as we have today. It was truly a massive step forward while the repeal of DADT and the ban on gays disappeared recently with a mere whimper.

Bad enough they would lay this poor choice of words on Obama, but downright stupid that they would overlook Clinton.

I was a loyal reader of Newsweek until it dumbed down, sometime in the late 1990s.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, asked what Obama thought about the cover, said Monday: “I don’t know if he’s seen it and I haven’t spoken to him about it.”

I'd say that was a pretty good call on Jay Carney's part to not bring this up with President Obama to get his thoughts on this.

Les Majeste! The rest of the loyal press will be outraged.

Touche, I think. Quite fitting.

Tina Brown is a nut. Her job is to sell magazines and plug her Website, and she'll do anything to this end. Really: aside from free copies on an airplane (when all the good magazines have already been taken), when was the last time you read Newsweek?

The neighborhood barbershop before getting a trim was the last time I perused a newsweek. This cover picture is going to go over quite big I'd think in all the barbershops across the nation after they get a gander at it, heck of free campaign poster for Team Obama.

This already happened when Clinton was president -- the media called him the first "black president" . By that line of thinking, Richard Nixon was the first "Chinese president" since he opened up China. Now, what about poor Jimmy Carter?

Newsweek stirs buzz with 'first gay president' cover

Showing tabloid streaks?

Saw the cover, do have to admit that the shot that they chose does make the Prez look "Fabulous" with that halo rainbow thing over his head.

There's a reason why Newsweek was sold for a $1 a few years back.

RR

They must be desperate with a title like that. "How to dumb down your readership in one fell stroke".

Then again, that TIME add on breast-feeding with a giant child was far more repugnant.

So Michelle is the First Gay Lady then, by that logic?

Newsweek has long ago diminished its own reputation as an objective journal of record. Who even reads Newseek anymore? I believe that Newsweek is grasping at anything to stem its steep slide in circulation.

What a silly issue. The country is a hurting puppy dog and everyone cares about this.

pointofview,

I wouldn't mention a hurting puppy dog and Obama together, as that brings up another first for this President.

@Hôjô Sôun, with all due respect, that's absolute nonsense. I assumed I wouldn't have to state the obvious when I made that statement, but apparently I was wrong. A tree cannot love a person back. And who are you to tell two men or two women who love each other, and who are not hurting anyone else in doing so, that their love is immoral?

Keep the government out of our lives period. They only need to look after national security, liberty and a legitimate non-corrupt tax system and that`s it.

It's interesting that Obama has finally come out now. Four years ago a man was going around claiming he had a consensual sexual encounter with the future president in a limo. I wonder why he didn't come out then?

If Clinton was the first black(s') president, then Obama can be the first gay(s') president. It's logical once you see the extra punctuation.

Too bad we don't have Minnesota's Michelle Bachmann in the presidential race anymore. She could have become the first Swiss President after conveniently forgetting to notify anyone important (i.e. the public, her constituents) about her dual citizenship that she qualified for in 1978 and officially received this year. I guess it's none of our business, just like her copious farm subsidies.

"not doing Obama any favors"

No, that job is being done by people like Rand Paul, saying Obama couldn't get any gayer. Like Rand Paul should throw in his two cents--he shares his name with a psuedonymous female novelist. Politicians revealing middle school level homophobia (let's see Mitt walk this tightrope without screwing up) are gifts to Obama. A few more weeks of hearing every possible application of the word "gay" and most voters are going to be weary of it.

there is no real way to discern a moral difference between them once the morality is removed from the institution of marriage itself.

You don't need morality. You need facts.

What is John loves a 15 year old?

What if John is 15?

Age has nothing to do with morality. Further, even the Bible says nothing about age, so I scarcely know why you speak of the morality of homosexuality, a Biblical thing, then mix it with age, as if that's in the Bible too. Its not. But never mind. If she loves him back is the point ( despite the laws of some countries). Younger people have married and been quite happy about it. Its when one does not love the other and is made to marry that you have a problem.

What if Paul loves a tree? What if George loves a pillow?

When the tree and the pillow indicate their desire to marry, I would be happy to see the marriages formally recognized.

What if Ringo loves a man and a woman?

That would be polygamy. Perfectly moral according to the Bible, along with owning slaves.

The only slippery slope I see here is your made-up patch work morality. My morality is based on the solid foundation of what doesn't hurt anyone uninvolved but makes those actually involved happy is good to go. Others liking it or not is perfectly irrelevant. But if they get involved anyway? THAT would be a prime example of immorality!

the makeup of the liberal media elite is overwhelmingly white and privileged. it takes little familiarity with their antinomianism, their self-loathing, their thorough disdain for average Americans and their general cravenness to see that having installed obama in the white house they were determined to take the opportunity to use him to make a very public display (insofar as their shrinking echo chamber is still open to the public) which would allow them to once again buy cheaply the impression of moral rectitude, so dear to their collective self-image and to that of the rest of the congregation in the church of liberalism.i am a little surprised those closest to obama (the chicago entourage - maybe they underestimate or don't quite get the hollywood / east coast crowd ) didn't see that he would be set up like this. that the guy newsweek would declare was our 'first gay president' is black (to white liberals, at any rate) only sweetens the media's victory, a preemptive little coup on this matter. look for a steady stream of steaming b.s. about how the issue of gay marriage is far too important to be left to the voting public and the politicians they send to washington. no, the mandate must come down from the scotus.

"Newsweak made no apologies"

They should. Obama is not gay. If they'd annointed him "the first clueless president," they'd be more accurate.

Jay-Z may be applauding President Obama’s decision to support gay marriage, but one other celebrity is less enthusiastic: Boxer Manny Pacquiao.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76316.html#ixzz1uwuh1D6m

Gay can mean clueless and happy as well:)

Noripinhead and incognito12--you wanted Carter to launch a full invasion, right after the Vietnam debacle?

By that token, I was wondering how Bush I and II got elected to lead Saudi, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. At the least, honorary Saudi citizenship must have been bestowed on those two by now.

Farmboy,

I don't support the use of misleading or inaccurate titles in order to sell magazines, if they have to do that, they should just go out of business now.

It's a liberal rag. Are you suggesting it's even possible for them to do anything but mislead?

Bluebris,

I can't believe that in 2012 gay marriage is still such an issue. A person should be able to marry the person they love.

The problem here is the slippery slope. What is John loves a 15 year old? What if Paul loves a tree? What if George loves a pillow? What if Ringo loves a man and a woman?

The trouble with allowing same-sex marriage is that now all of these other situations will have to be allowed because there is no real way to discern a moral difference between them once the morality is removed from the institution of marriage itself.

I don't support the use of misleading or inaccurate titles

I live in the USA and support freedom of the press. If it's someone's opinion that Barack Obama is the first gay president, they are free to express it.