President Barack Obama portrayed his ''evolving'' view of gay marriage in a way familiar to many Americans. He pointed to his experience, relaying to Robin Roberts of ABC News what he has learned from friends and colleagues who are gay, many ''in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together.'' He spoke with his wife and daughters, who have friends with gay parents.
The president even framed his decision to support gay marriage with his Christian faith, ''you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.'' He placed the decision in an ordinary day, away from the bubbling political controversy, making the question less about an argument and more about the humanity we share.
Does it matter that the president spoke out? Not in a legal or constitutional sense. The aim isn't to push legislation through Congress. What is significant is the office he holds, elected by a majority, seeking now a second term. He might have held back, but he concluded the better way was taking a stand, mirroring how far the country has moved.
Cultural attitudes are changing, and now the president has joined in recognizing the right thing to do.
Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal
House Republicans worthy of scorn
Anyone who wonders why the national approval rating for Congress hovers around 10 percent should consider the latest gambit by House Republicans. They are now trying to avoid the automatic budget cuts triggered by collapse of negotiations when the debt ceiling was raised last year. More specifically, they want to keep the automatic cuts opposed by Democrats and cancel theirs.
That's ridiculous. Last July's deal was designed to motivate both parties by triggering automatic budget cuts in January - half from defense, half from social programs. Yet now House Republicans want to reduce more spending on the social side and roll back some financial reforms instead. That plan will go nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
If Republicans or Democrats want to avoid ''painful'' budget cuts in January, they should put forth a realistic plan now. If they don't, those spending cuts are better than nothing, and they should proceed.
Beaumont (Texas) Enterprise
Visas for foreign talent needed
Each year, Washington awards visas to immigrants who bring skills and qualifications prized by high-tech companies. This is an eminently sensible policy, since highly trained immigrants add greatly to the nation's stock of human capital and as a group, they have a high propensity to start companies of their own. That creates more jobs for Americans.
There's one problem. The number of these special visas, called H1-Bs, is too low - only 65,000, with 20,000 more awarded each year to foreign students with master's degrees or higher from a U.S. university.
This means that our world-class university system, supported to a great extent by tax dollars, is training thousands of smart foreign students, who then take those talents back home and start companies that compete with U.S. enterprises.
You can thank Congress for this because Congress caps the number of H1-Bs. But Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, a Republican, and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat, have drafted a bill aimed at easing this bottleneck.
Their bill, called the Startup Act, would make it easier for new companies to raise financial capital by rolling back certain taxes, but its most significant provisions would greatly expand the number of visas available to foreign-born talent. It would authorize a new visa category for 50,000 foreign students who earn a master's degree or higher in a technical field - science, technology, engineering or math. A total of 75,000 additional visas would go to foreign-born entrepreneurs who register a new firm or raise $100,000 in capital while in the United States on another category of visa.
What's a mystery is why more of their colleagues aren't willing to sign onto a bill that will bring more technical and entrepreneurial talent to our country.
Kansas City (Mo.) Star
