You're saying I should prove what he didn't do?

No, you must prove that more could have been reasonably done to support LGBT rights.

I've already pointed to an example of what he didn't do.

What? Not filing an amicus curiae before this case (I looked through your comments)? What would the point be? To make his known opinion more known?

You're still creating straw men.

Trying to figure out your logic is not a sham argument and I didn't use it to tear you down, but to put your comments in perspective of the real world.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no matter what Obama said there would be no civil war.

Haha. Speaking of fallacious arguments, how do you get that I somehow think a civil war will erupt? I was using the civil war as a data point in reference to what has happened in the past when socio-economic systems are fundamentally changed too quickly for the country to handle.

You realize that I'm still the only one that's cited anything official right?

And it supported my point and the article I posted. The fact is that my original source was 100% correct, regardless of where it came from. (It actually got its facts from people in Obama's administration, so primary sources). You have an unreasonable prejudice toward journalism, sir.

If there was a burden of proof, any judge would laugh you out of a court room.

You specifically made the claim that Obama could have done more. So, assuming that he needs to get sleep and take care of about five dozen other problems in the country and world, what else could he have done that would not have been redundant, interfered with other objectives or come with unacceptable consequences?

We've already proven that he has done quite a bit for LGBT rights and marriage equality, but you claim that more could have been done. What?