home

Obama Opposes Ban on Gay Marriage

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:08:00 AM EST
Tags: gay marriage (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sen. Barack Obama today wrote a letter to stating he opposed a ban on gay marriage.

In a letter to San Francisco's Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, the presumptive presidential nominee said he opposed "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution" and similar efforts in other states.

Good on Obama. He's not afraid to change his mind.

Obama is skating gingerly past his previous position on the issue.

The Illinois senator has said repeatedly that he believes marriage should be only between man and a woman. When the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in May, Obama released a carefully nuanced statement saying he respected the court's decision, believed states should make their own decisions on marriage and "will continue to fight for civil unions as president."

We're behind Obama on this one, all the way.

< Federal Judge Rules Against Bush on Wiretapping | FISA Decision Should Shame Congress >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Opposes Ban on Gay Marriage | 183 comments (183 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    F.L.I.P. F.L.O.P. (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by shoephone on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:19:33 AM EST
    Wonder if he's no longer frightened of having his picture taken with Gavin Newsome?

    I wonder (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Chisoxy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:05:03 AM EST
    If he's as committed to this as he was to a FISA filibuster.
    Just another strong show of support..for something that would happen anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Would happen anyway (none / 0) (#155)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    I hope that is true....Recent polls suggest it will be close but that the initiative to reverse the ruling will probably fail....There is a poll showing the initiative passing.

    The defeat of the initiative is no slam dunk....The Religious Right will gin up their rusting machine one more time....

    [ Parent ]

    "States' Rights" (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:24:31 AM EST
    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  I'm not sure if this is one of those times or not.

    [ Parent ]
    Like the way he 'fought' for reproduction rights (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Ellie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:00:13 AM EST
    Stuck a bland statement on his web page in support of a Planned Parent clinic --- on the day of it's opening (it was delayed 2 wks in a last-ditch zoning kerfuffle).

    Way to get our backs there, Barack! Glad we didn't have to wait for the daughters to be grown up!

    [ Parent ]

    also (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:27:25 AM EST
    his being not afraid to change his mind seems to have been pretty well established.


    [ Parent ]
    He's not afraid to change it multiple (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:21:46 AM EST
    times, over and over again, if he wants to.  Can his speech, supporting marriage being between a man and a woman, be far behind this letter?  

    And, of course, if any of this comes up for a vote, he'll vote Present or skip the vote.  ;-)

    I think I've figured this pol out.    

    [ Parent ]

    CampObi spin flip flops as Standing Up To The Left (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Ellie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:54:08 AM EST
    ... which has been Teh Main Problem lo these Bush-long years. (Pesky libruls!)

    And THAT's why Obama has to pander to the hard right.

    :: snivel ::

    Was there ever a braver man?

    [ Parent ]

    The best summary I have seen on who (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:00:19 AM EST
    Barack is and who he represents is in Anglachel's Journal dated July 1, and titled "No Where Else to Go."  What a writer and thinker!  She puts my feelings into words and describes the schism in the Democratic party today.

    [ Parent ]
    agreed (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:38:09 AM EST
    terrific post

    [ Parent ]
    When Michelle Obama thanked Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:54:44 PM EST
    on stage for "bringing to their attention the plight of so many Americans" I knew Anglachel's journal was on to something.

    [ Parent ]
    excuse my ignorance (none / 0) (#121)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:38:10 AM EST
    but, how do i find the "Journal" you are referring to?

    [ Parent ]
    here you go (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    Link

    [ Parent ]
    zero points (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by boredmpa on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:29:57 AM EST
    It's zero points because a) the governator is against the ban, b) he hasn't stood up for gay rights, c) he obviously wouldn't send the same letter to a state where the voters aren't majority pro-gay-marriage.  He's only doing this because it's a pander with a few liberal points and no downside because even the repub governor is against the ban.  Hell, he can still advocate state's rights on this.

    In my mind, this is a negative, because he's using a gay issue (which he absolutely has sucked on) to appeal to the dem base (that won't realize he sucks on gay issues) and in doing so exploiting a minority population that he will otherwise completely ignore.

    i shouldn't say completely (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by boredmpa on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:55:00 AM EST
    he will probably do something very minor, if elected, that costs no political capital of his own -- or go along with other dems.  but that's all i'd expect of him.  possibly some federal/exec changes and that's it.  i dont buy a change in DADT if he sees any resistance.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by JimWash08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:24:53 AM EST
    he obviously wouldn't send the same letter to a state where the voters aren't majority pro-gay-marriage.  He's only doing this because it's a pander with a few liberal points
    He lost the state of California and the larger region around San Francisco (I believe) ... it would be a DEFINITE loss if that were to happen again in November. Surely he cannot depend on the Hollywood types and Latinos to carry him in the state.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama carries CA (2.66 / 6) (#17)
    by sher on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:49:07 AM EST
    and Latinos in recent polling data.  As well, Obama carried San Francisco in the primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    Who Cares (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by JimWash08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:27:54 AM EST
    about 'recent poling data?" It's July.
    By how much did he carry SF?
    He lost the state by 10%.

    [ Parent ]
    "He lost the state by 10%." (2.66 / 3) (#146)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:55:38 PM EST
    Well, if you're not going to pay attention to polling data in July, why on earth pay attention to a primary result in February?

    Wow, are you suggesting McCain is going to win California in November?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm Not Suggesting Anything (3.66 / 3) (#189)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    And it is from the turnout and the lessons learned during the Primaries that all campaigns plan out their general election strategies.

    So Primaries do matter, whether you like it or not.

    Considering how Obama is turning out to be a turkey candidate with each passing week, no state (maybe except Illinois and New York) is safe Democratic territory.

    And don't forget, it's either he wins or loses a state, so every vote and statistic, past and present, amount to something. It's only July. Lots can change.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, On Something We Agree (2.00 / 1) (#190)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:40:02 PM EST
    I don't follow polls until after the convention, and even then...not always so much.

    I don't seem to feel as passionately optimistic as you are pessimistic about his chances, more like cautiously so.

    Anything can happen between now and the GE, but I'd wager pretty heavily Obama has nothing to worry about in traditionally easy Dem win states like California.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#29)
    by tek on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:56:38 AM EST
    he carried Marin County.

    [ Parent ]
    Marin County does not represent the (none / 0) (#74)
    by my opinion on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:44:31 AM EST
    Bay Area. It is more conservative and wealthy.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:49:44 AM EST
    There's no way he would do or say this in GA. Of course, GA is out of contention for him but he'd be all Donnie McClurkin down here.

    [ Parent ]
    Plus he is really NOT an advocate (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by talex on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:01:51 AM EST
    of Gay Marraige. He still says he "will continue to fight for civil unions as president".

    So yeah this is just another example of opportunism - not changing his mind.

    Why is it that almost everyday this guy politically panders to the Dems and then somehow EVERYDAY ends up screwing the Dems in some fashion? He keeps driving me further and further away from him, not because what I think about him but because of his own actions.

    I am going to be sad and proud to not vote for our nominee the first time ever. Sad because I always thought it is our duty to vote. Proud because I put the future of the Party ahead of blind partisanship, and not voting for him is better for the future of the Party.

    There really is only one way to send a message to these center hugging Republican-Lite candidates...

    And that is with our vote. If we keep voting for them then we will keep getting them. If we withhold our vote then and only then will they listen to us. Sad but true. Also very patriotic.

    [ Parent ]

    "fight for civil unions" (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:18:11 AM EST
    Heck, I don't want him to fight for civil unions.

    One of the toughest arguments for proponents to overcome with people who are neutral or only slightly pro gay marriage is why civil unions aren't good enough and why just having equal benefits doesn't satisfy all these demanding advocates.

    Given the way his base stampedes to rationalize every stand he takes, no matter how new or opposite his previous statements, his support for civil unions and 'separate but equal' brand equality will only make it harder to argue that civil unions just aren't good enough.

    [ Parent ]

    Civill Unions are good enough (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:23:52 AM EST
    as long as straights are willing to accept them too.  That's the answer to the "why aren't they good enough" question.

    Then churches can do what they want.  And we all know any gay couple who wants to be married can find a church willing to do it.

    So, your follow up question back to these people should be to question why a church that wants to marry a gay couple isn't allowed their religious freedom to do so....

    [ Parent ]

    Not separate but equal (none / 0) (#84)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:08:27 AM EST
    I thought they were equal so I never worried about the language difference, but someone who understands the law wrote here that 'civil unions' do not confer the same legal rights as 'marriage' in several instances.  I remember one of the examples given was health insurance.  Apparently there is historical language that covers those that are 'married.'  I would expect corps will see if it will be more profitable to cover those with civil unions or drag out the issue with lawsuits.  

    [ Parent ]
    well, tat's why i say they are only equal (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    if straights have to accept them too.  Then ALL the other legal language which refers to marriage would have to be changed to be "unioned".

    And in the end gays would also get married in a church too and still use the term marriage.

    So, why all the stupid fuss, just give gays marriage now and be done with it.

    The whole argument is silly.  If opponents don;t want to give gays marriage based on religion, we just need to point out that there are churches that approve of gay marriage, so that's not an issue unless you plan to discriminate against SOME churches over others.

    If some oppose it because of children, then you just have to point out that "childless" straight couples get married all the time and it is legal for gays to adopt.

    There isn't any argument against gay marriage that can't be logically challenged with actual circumstances as they exist.

    [ Parent ]

    How about equal rights for everyone (none / 0) (#154)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:13:39 PM EST
    concerning hitching up with someone....and concentrating on oh, I don't know, maybe FISA!
    obama will probably have a few more changes of heart on gay marriage before this is over anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Google Anglachel's Journal (7/1/08) (4.00 / 1) (#113)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:04:49 AM EST
    for a really good analysis of what is happening in the Democratic Party today and how Barack fits into it. "No Where Else to Go."   Excellent read!

    [ Parent ]
    Arnie isn't exactly a neocon (none / 0) (#71)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM EST
    He is the kind of Republicans Californian's tend to elect as governor - moderate. He has always been okay with gay marriage. Not quite in favor, but not going to work very hard to oppose it.

    [ Parent ]
    if memory serves (none / 0) (#122)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:41:02 AM EST
    Arnie hasn't been any too solid with his position on this eitehr.

    When the courts decided, he said the legislature needed to decide.  when the legislature decided, he said the courts need to decide.

    He finally has come around when the Supreme Court weighed in.

    [ Parent ]

    Ahnold vetoed (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:28:11 PM EST
    the gay marriage bill passed by the Democratic Legislature....

    But he was prescient about the California Supreme Court's ruling.  The case has been percolating through the system for a long, long time.  Ahnold has said for months if not years he would have to comply with the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, warning off conservatives...

    He knew what many did not.  On the eve before the ruling was made public, an openly gay Supreme Court clerk abruptly resigned.  Many thought he did so because of an anticipated adverse ruling....The ruling was somewhat of a surprise....especially because the court had invalidated the marriages allowed by Gavin Newsome.

    Let's see if it sticks....The initiative battle will be close....  

    [ Parent ]

    any money I would have donated to Clinton's (none / 0) (#162)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:40:47 PM EST
    general election campaign will now be going to help uphold marriage equality in CA instead of going to Obama or the DNC.

    If it holds up, I think within a year we will have marriage equality in MA, CA, NJ, NY and possibly many of the smaller north east states.

    NY will have it by default now because they are accepting legal marriages performed outside NY even if performed in another country.

    NJ has just reviewed their civil unions for equality and has reported the failings of that equality.  So, the courts will probably for full marriage rights there.

    And, if DOMA is repealed, I don't see how the feds can withhold benefits if you have a legal CA marriage even if you no longer reside in CA.  I don't think federal benefits depend on your state of residence.

    [ Parent ]

    The incremental approach is the best one (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:06:03 PM EST
    It may take more time but the gains will be more solid......

    [ Parent ]
    Good for him. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:50:23 AM EST
    It doesn't seem to be too big a risk--after all, even Schwarzenegger is opposing the amendment. But still, it's the right decision.

    Still waiting for the national Democratic Party to do more to actually promote marriage equality, rather than not oppose it.

    He is not for marriage equality (none / 0) (#50)
    by talex on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:03:24 AM EST
    Read the quote in the diary again. Civil Unions are not marriage equality.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:55:26 PM EST
    I meant that opposing the California amendment is really the least one can do, and that's all that most Democrats, including Obama, are willing to do.

    On the civil unions vs. marriage issue, I strongly believe that anything short of marriage is discrimination, and I remain highly disappointed, though not surprised, that national Democrats haven't led on this issue.

    Back when Vermont instituted civil unions, it was a big step forward, and a courageous step as well--just as separate but equal was a big step over separate and unequal. But we've moved well beyond that now. Civil unions now are an inadequate consolation prize.

    [ Parent ]

    Why? (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    I really don't get this.  How is a civil union different than a marriage in any form other than name?

    Perfect is the enemy of good.

    [ Parent ]

    Separate but Equal? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by northeast73 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:42:54 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    A very poor analogy (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:13:51 AM EST
    And if you read the history of segregation you would know why.

    [ Parent ]
    They are the same (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Panhandle on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:05:10 AM EST
    Marriage is something performed by a church, civil unions are where all the rights from the state come from. Should a church be required to marry a gay couple? No, they should be allowed to be the intolerant bigots they want to be, but the state shouldn't have a choice. I got ordained and perform weddings; I'd marry a gay couple that wants to.. however they have to go through the state for the certificate and official stuff, so it's the states that need to be changed. I think it's a shame that in an effort to fight for a word choice the important stuff gets lost in the argument. It should be about the rights involved, not the word choice.

    Also I find this pretty consistent as far as Obama goes. He opposes a Constitutional amendment banning it.. I thought that was the case all along. Doesn't mean he supports the word choice, cause he's probably smart enough to realize that the word choice isn't the important thing and it ruins the argument with low-info voters.


    [ Parent ]

    Marriage is not a church issue (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:40:47 AM EST
    You can get married in a church all day long, but at the end of the day, you need a state-issued marriage license to actually be married. That makes it a state issue.

    Also, defining marriage as a church issue is rather insulting to people who don't have religious ceremonies. I guess that my wife and I aren't really married, because we did not have the word "god" uttered at our wedding.

    The line "marriage is performed by a church" has been used as a cop-out by politicians who fear that saying "gay" and "marriage" in one sentence will cost them votes.

    Civil unions are only useful as a stepping stone to actual equality.


    [ Parent ]

    it's word choice (none / 0) (#119)
    by Panhandle on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:38:03 AM EST
    in my opinion the reason we don't currently have civil unions is because of the argument over the word "marriage". Is that right? of course not, but stupidity is a renewable resource in America. civil unions are what the state endorses, yes, they call it marriage, but "marriage" is only a word. Are you and your wife "married" despite any religious inclinations. yes, but if it was called a civil union would it be any less of a commitment between you? instead of fighting for equal rights, it's become a fight over verbage.

    [ Parent ]
    there are already two different terms (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    states issue "civil marriage" licenses.  Churches have marriage ceremonies.

    No church is required to perform a wedding for any opposite sex couple now, so I don't understand why anyone thinks any church would be forced to perform a same sex wedding.

    Atheists are perfectly capable of being called "married" without ever stepping foot inside a church.  So, marriage is NOT a religious word.  If it were, justices of the peace, ship's captains and Elvis impersonators wouldn't be allowed to "marry" people.

    There exist today MANY churches that are willing to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.  But, the state is currently not allowing them their religious freedom to do so.  And because of this, the state is favoring some religions over others.  Which I thought was illegal.

    [ Parent ]

    this is simply not true either.... (4.00 / 1) (#157)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:21:05 PM EST
    Many of the states tat adopted constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage included language that also banned ANYTHING that approximated marriage under another name.  Thus these states have also banned civil unions and even baneed giving partial legal right to same sex couples.

    One mid west state, I don't recall which one, just forced state universities to stop giving benefits to same sex partners of employees because of the wording in their constitutional ban of same sex marriage.

    So, to claim if we just fought for civil unions and not marriage everyone would be happy to give it to us is just plain wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    do you advocate changing (none / 0) (#139)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:33:55 PM EST
    state issue licenses to "civil union" licenses for ALL couples both straight and gay?  If so, then I'll go along with you.

    And, if you check the results for civil unions in NJ, you will find out they aren't equal.  The "word choice" has been proven to be very important.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually I like that idea. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    IIRC some places in Europe have two separate ceremonies. One is a civil ceremony (necessary) and the other is in church (option?).

    If I had my way, America would give licenses for the civil transaction only and everyone would participate in a City Hall type environment to obtain the rights that go along with what is now called marriage. Only those wishing to have their union blessed by a religious organization would then have a marriage ceremony. It would be up to each individual place of worship to decide under what circumstances they would be willing to perform the ceremony.

    Don't think that will ever happen here but I like this way better than  the way we approach it now.

    [ Parent ]

    and then in those cases in Europe (none / 0) (#152)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:07:21 PM EST
    where the couple chooses NOT to have the church ceremony, is the couple still referred to as "married"?  And, are they still treated in public as "married" and do they still refer to each other as spouses and husbands and wives?

    And, if these are all true, doesn't it just prove that the term "marriage" isn't owned by the church?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm google challenged (none / 0) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:16:00 PM EST
    I can't find the info that I originally read about some European dual ceremonies. Wikipedia does have some interesting info on countries and how they handle gay marriage. Basically doing a quick read, quite a few countries bestow equal rights to gay couples using various terms such as marriage, civil marriage, civil unions, civil partnerships and registered partnerships. You need to go down to the bottom of the page and access the different categories if you are interested.

    I guess where I was going with my original statement was a way to completely separate the actual rights into some kind of civil transaction for everyone straight or gay and let the churches etc. have the word "marriage." While I agree that the word marriage should not be owned by the churches, here in the U.S. the word marriage translates to into a religious thing for too, too many people and thus in their minds carries with it the religious restrictions.

    if all rights were bestowed outside of religion using a term other than marriage, it is my understand that gay couples can find religious "marriage" ceremonies if they want them.  

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, I get it... (4.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:05:56 PM EST
    Low-info voters are the ones who don't agree with you?

    It would be nice if liberals started respecting those who hold other opinions.

    I saw that so much with the Hillary race. Those who didn't vote for Obama -- Puerto Ricans, West Virginians, older women -- were bigots, racists, low-info voters, etc.

    I think the liberal movement -- and Obama in particular -- are headed for a big kick in the can for precisely this subtle contempt. It's all over this thread.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#87)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:13:03 AM EST
    A marriage is defined by the 2 people involved in it.  A civil union is a legal relationship entitling 2 people to various rights.

    Calling a same sex union a marriage isn't going to change how people view that relationship.

    [ Parent ]

    then why (none / 0) (#151)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    are you willing to call an opposite sex union that was never religiously blessed in a church a marriage?

    [ Parent ]
    One way it is differnt is this: (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by talex on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:40:37 AM EST
    A civil union is only recognized in the state it was preformed. Unlike a marriage it doesn't transfer across state lines. So if the couple wanted to move to another state their rights of union do not go with them. That is a big problem.

    I also belive that Federal benefits are not covered in a civil union. So for instance survivors Social Security rights are non-existent as would other federal benefits be.

    [ Parent ]

    But (none / 0) (#103)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    A state doesn't have to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state if they don't want to, any more than they have to recognize (offensive analogy coming) an incestuous marriage if I can find some country that will let me marry my sister.

    That's certainly true under DOMA, and before DOMA it was already true under the public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause.

    The label makes no difference in terms of whether other states are required to recognize it.  A same-sex marriage is what it is, and either states will choose to recognize it or they won't.

    [ Parent ]

    Well you have to put a label (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by talex on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM EST
    on what advocates of gay marriage are fighting for so they tent to separate the term civil unions and marriage as meaning different things.

    I don't have time to explain the entire thing but there is plenty online to read about it.

    Bottomline is people want to have the same legal and recognizable rights as heterosexual couple have wherever they may choose to live.

    [ Parent ]

    The easy fix.... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    is get the govt. out of the marriage business...which they never should have been involved with in the first place.  As far as the govt. will be concerned every partnership is a civil union, the individuals and their place of worship can call it whatever they want....marriage, partners, torture, what have you.

    [ Parent ]
    check the results in New Jersey (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM EST
    if you want to why they aren't EQUAL.  IT's because even though they are supposed to have ALL the rights of marriage, they don't really have them.  People and employers and companies find loop holes around the rights because many laws or company policies apply to the term "marriage" specifically.

    [ Parent ]
    good point (4.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Panhandle on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:47:48 AM EST
    not being personally affected by the issue, i didn't realize some of the finer points of the problem. it's hard to believe that equal rights is such a difficult concept for so many...

    [ Parent ]
    when the opposition (none / 0) (#137)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    continually defines this as "SPECIAL" rights, it's easier to believe.  

    When many blacks continually act offended if gays claim the issue as "CIVIL" rights, it's easier to believe.  

    When the opposition claims we already have the same EQUAL right to marry anyone of the opposite sex we want to and they don't get laughed off the stage for saying it, it's easier to believe.

    When politicians like Obama take a stand that we must tolerate gay bigotry because it is rooted in deeply held religious beliefs, it's easier to believe.

    [ Parent ]

    Not equal (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    I have posted on this before. When New Jersey passed its civil union law a little while back, part of the law created a commission to study this very issue. After the NJ law had been in effect for awhile, I think a year but not sure on this, the commission went to work.

    The conclusion? Civil unions are not equal to marriage. One of the problems is societal recognition. That is, society in general does not consider them to be the same. So, people feel free to continue to discriminate because in their minds marriage is what really counts.

    Let's take health insurance. Unless a company has a policy that affirmatively includes civil unions, companies have refused to cover same-sex partners. The policy says "marriage," the same-sex couple is not "married", so no health insurance. Generally speaking, only large corporations, usually more national as opposed to locally owned, include provisions for same-sex partners. And, in the scheme of things, not all that many large corps. do this.

    They are not equal. No amount of saying it makes it so.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll want to read a detailed account of (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by EL seattle on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:57:17 AM EST
    what Obama said in that letter.  Specifically what the story means by "similar efforts in other states".  Is that all similar efforts in all states?  Past and present, or only future efforts?

    The way the excerpt is written, it sounds like Obama is throwing the idea that "states should make their own decisions on marriage" under the bus in a big way.  But I doubt if this is the case.  Perhaps he's personally opposed to the bans, but as president his policy would be that he's "constitutionally forced to recognize" that this is a state's decision that he has no power over.  He can hope that the states allow the marriages or civil unions, but golly, it's not his call to make, so good luck!

    I'm sure we'll be getting more clarification on this over the next few cycles.

    Jeralyn the link for the letter (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:00:47 AM EST
    does not work for me. Would be interested in reading the actual letter before commenting. Thanks.

    MO Blue (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:11:41 AM EST
    I posted a working link below, see comment #54.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks Valhalla, Much Appreciated n/t (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:38:08 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's interesting (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:31:39 AM EST
    that Obama is taking this step at the exact same time he's aggressively reaching out to evangelicals in other ways.

    The implication seems to be that whatever else he's willing to offer the evangelicals, discrimination is not on the table, which is a great message.

    Respectfully disagree (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:45:57 AM EST
    I think it shows an enormous lack of consistency, and it would seem to point to what others are already figuring out: He really doesn't have any values, other than getting votes. He'll say whatever he needs to say to get whatever he can get -- and he'll hope the wires don't cross.

    Why pander to the evangelicals -- and that was a phony move if ever there was one -- if you're going to turn around and do this?  He doesn't seem to value the efforts of his staff and supporters who helped him formulate that particular pander -- licked the stamps, wrote the copy, made the phone calls.

    He doesn't seem to get that you can't be everybody's best friend.

    Where is the real Barack Obama in all this? Has anyone at all figured this out?

    This all really strikes me as so cynical.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:45:47 AM EST
    I think Obama is banking on evangelicals caring about things other than gay marriage.

    [ Parent ]
    Younger Evangelicals care less (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:29:45 PM EST
    about that than their parents....

    [ Parent ]
    strikes me as just the opposite (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by tben on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:56:13 AM EST
    Perhaps all you need to realize is that Obama is simply NOT accepting the stereotypical categorization of the electorate that all of us have internalized recently.

    Just because someone is an evangelical does not mean that person necessarily is an anti-gay bigot - even the loudest and most prominent evangelical political leaders are. So by reaching out to evangelicals, but also making clear his position on some gay issues, he is trying to carve out those evangelicals who have values consistent with the Democratic party.

    They exist in other areas as well - enviornmental issues (the "we should be good stewards of god's creation" movement), and economic as well - lots of evangelicals are working class folks who are amenable to Democratic ideas on the economy.

    And it is not just evangelicals. Too often, when Obama goes after some traditionally non-Democratic group, the shallow thinkers start screaming about how he is selling out, as if he simply wants to adopt the positions of that non-Democratic group. But what he seems to be doing is to try to find those segments of those groups that can be persuaded, and those particular issues on which the persuading can take place.

    I think the evidence of the past year is that the guy is a pretty damn smart politician - and the strategy he is persuing - of finding a reason to get people to identify with us, and then using that to flip their allegiances to us, is basic, smart, party and movement building.

    [ Parent ]

    Your last graf (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by zyx on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:07:30 AM EST
    reminds me of what Bush's supporters said about him for all those beginning years--that he was really a very smart guy who was going to make a "permanent Republican majority".

    I don't think "Obama the Great Uniter" is The One, sorry. This business of how nobody is supposed to give money to other Democratic groups, but only to Obama Himself? Get all united and all? We aren't supposed to have any other agenda except to let him set it? He can just go shove it. I don't do Big Man Thinks For Me. Then he cloaks it all in this "it's all about YOU". Gawd, he sounds like the Soviet-Marxists.

    Won't work. A few sheeple like it, but heck, my BFF, who is black, wrote me a discontented e-mail about Obama yesterday. Yes, she did confess that she thought Obama was different--sheepishly. She's angry about FISA. And she notices the campaign money and she'll notice everything else.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess you think that is a snarky insult (1.00 / 0) (#102)
    by tben on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:43:43 AM EST
    but I dont see what the problem is about Bush supporters having hoped, at one time, that W would be someone to build an enduring Republican majority. I suspect every new leader has supporters who hope that the leader will build a majority - isnt that the whole point of political leadership? And why do you think that pointing to one politician who failed miserably at that (Bush) is somehow relevant to what Obama will or will not accomplish?

    You dont think he is "The One"? Well gee, thats nice. I dont know what "The One" is, so I am not hoping anyone is that, so I really dont know what you mean. But hey, you think he is some kind of commie, so maybe you should be arguing with the regulars around here. That would be enlightening.
    not.

    Sheeple, huh? Oh, this is the part where us Obama supporters get educated about how to speak respectfully to half of our party. Hmmmm

    [ Parent ]

    Funny, you, again! (none / 0) (#169)
    by zyx on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    I mean, you don't get that when you say " But what he seems to be doing is to try to find those segments of those groups that can be persuaded, and those particular issues on which the persuading can take place" that what we're seeing is a guy who is trying to be everything to everybody. Progun, antigun, pro-this, anti-this.

    If that works for you, good for you! But count me out. No snark.

    [ Parent ]

    hey, what can I say? (none / 0) (#170)
    by tben on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:05:56 PM EST
    I think we all have a right to bear arms, and I also think that communities have a right to regulate arms. I tend to oppose extreme positions on either side. That means I can relate to SOME of the things that either side says.

    What a complicated world we live in. I got me a candidate who deals with that. So I'm in.
    See ya later...


    [ Parent ]

    Correct me if I'm ,wrong (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:13:25 AM EST
    but I think there is literally no such thing as an evangelical to whom gay marriage isn't a deal breaker, however much some may be interested in things like saving the environment and actually helping the poor.  Younger, more liberal evangelicals that Obama is trying to reach out to think the nearly single-minded focus of the James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons on abortion and gays doesn't make sense, but that doesn't mean they aren't themselves vehemently opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

    The number of gay-marriage-supporting evangelicals available to be peeled off for the Dem. Party would fit in a phone booth, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you are wrong about that (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by tben on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    Attitudes about gays are changing dramatically along generational lines, and that extends into the evangelical community as well.

    Although this doesnt fully address that issues, or all the issues I raise, this story is pointed at the general phenomenon that I am referring to, and to the opportunities (to make the Dems a real majority party again) that Obama is pursuing.

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    Good article (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:31:22 PM EST
    that says essentially what I said above.  It doesn't, however, address the issue of gay marriage.  I'm deeply skeptical that any significant number of evangelicals, even the younger folks, would be willing to accept gay marriage.  THey might possibly be willing to live with civil unions, although I'm dubious about even that.

    Having lived now in two states where the issue is high-profile, Mass. and Vermont, I've seen how deeply emotionally entrenched the feeling is among thank goodness a decreasing minority of people.  But when we've still got a sizable minority of folks in those two very liberal states who can't accept the idea at all, I have a hard time believing there's much tolerance for it in even the younger evangelical community.

    [ Parent ]

    Younger Evangelicals (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    won't support gay marriage....But the thing is their peers are in favor of allowing it in such large numbers, that they know they are out of step....

    They could well vote for Obama for other reasons....and I cannot see many younger religious folk getting worked up over the issue.  Peer pressure can be a good thing....

    The tide is turning....We are very close to having a resigned acceptance among younger religious people to gay marriage....

     

    [ Parent ]

    Nice link tben (none / 0) (#185)
    by laurie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:52:26 PM EST
    Here's another on the same subject from annabellep

    makes for interesting reading;-)

    [ Parent ]

    I don't agree (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:39:15 AM EST
    There are millions of people who oppose gay marriage but don't see it as a deal-breaker, because it's simply not that critical an issue to them.

    The idea that 100% of the evangelicals in this country oppose gay marriage so strongly that they will never, ever vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage, regardless of any other issues they may agree on, strikes me as a little nutty.

    [ Parent ]

    SteveM, you exaggerate (none / 0) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:35:53 PM EST
    what I said above, so of course it's nutty.

    [ Parent ]
    You said (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:41:06 PM EST
    there is literally no such thing as an evangelical to whom gay marriage isn't a deal breaker

    Unless you mean something by "deal breaker" other than the commonly accepted definition, I find it hard to understand how I exaggerated your position.

    My position is that there are some evangelicals who will never, ever vote for a politician who supports gay marriage, but there are also many evangelicals who would be open to supporting that politician if they agree on other, more important issues.  If you disagree with me, please explain why.

    [ Parent ]

    Possible change in focus (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    I watched an interesting program on college age evangelicals.  There was a large difference in what the lived in their personal lives versus what they wanted legislatively.  The focus was on charity, social service and care for the environment.  There were a number of young people who defined themselves openly as Dems in a conservative environment because these issues were more pressing for them.

    [ Parent ]
    wouldn't the entire world be.... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:34:22 PM EST
    a much happier place if people with religious convictions decided they would live their own lives based on those convictions without feeling the need to force everyone else to live that way through legislation.

    I always thought that was the point behind separation of church and state anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    As I said above (none / 0) (#140)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    However, all major Dem politicians have very publicly refused to endorse gay marriage.  Obama's letter is the first exception to that I'm aware of.  We'll have to wait and see what the reaction is, and whether he walks back from it as "inartful" at some point.

    [ Parent ]
    But his letter doesn't endorse (none / 0) (#166)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:57:07 PM EST
    gay marriage.  It has all sorts of vague-y wording about encouraging their efforts and equality, but  1) doesn't mention marriage; and 2) doesn't contradict a single thing he's said in the past about it being a states rights issue.

    All he's opposing is efforts to amend state constitutions to ban gay marriage.  Which is better than a flat-out states-rights  only statement, but not really an endorsement.

    For major Dems, Al Gore has endorsed gay marriage.  And, I understand, so does Eliot Spitzer, but I'm not so sure about really broadcasting that now.  Of course, Gore has nothing to lose politically now, so his endorsement is not quite the same as Dems who are looking at active campaigns.

    [ Parent ]

    Lets face it (none / 0) (#168)
    by tben on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:01:37 PM EST
    Gay marriage was the most ludicrous, way out position imaginable in the very recent past (I am old enough to have been politically aware in pre-Stonewall days). Gay marriage will probably be widely accepted before I die (fingers crossed). That is an enormous distance for society to travel in a relatively short time. We are in the early to middle stage of that evolution. Obama seems to be positioning himself in a position that points to where we need to go, is somewhat ahead of the center of gravity of society, but is still rhetorically connected to that mass of people who could slow the train down if they mobilize their energy.

    We can be all self-righteous and fantasize about leaders who are ideologically pure, but they never accomplish anything. Its a very delicate balance - one can argue, for instance, that getting just a small bit too far out in front, as Bill did on gays in the military (and even there he kinda fell into that rather than leading some charge) provoked a reaction that played a big role in handing the Congress to the reactionaries for more than a decade.

    I am guessing, and I recognize it is a guess, that Obama is threading the needle in the appropriate way for now.

    [ Parent ]

    Two words (none / 0) (#188)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:01:49 AM EST
    Donnie McClurkin.

    I could buy what you're saying here except for that.

    I have learned not to trust this guy any further than I can throw him.

    Still, one of the very few things I can give him credit for is this letter, particularly given who it was sent to.

    OTOH, there's McClurkin and the refusal to be photographed with Gavin Newsom, etc.

    Personally, I prefer a politician who stakes out a position and sticks to it, even if it's not 100 percent what I want, to somebody whose position I'm constantly having to guess at.


    [ Parent ]

    How is discrimination (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by The Realist on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:40:38 AM EST
    and equality a States Rights issue? While I would disagree, i don't understand it when he says he believes in one man and one woman. Obama supporters kept claiming that his church was and open and affirming church and supportive of same sex marriage. If this is the case, where does his one man and one woman belief come from?

    "Separate but equal" = Jim crow. One would think he would understand that.      

    How many gay marriages were (none / 0) (#167)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:58:20 PM EST
    performed at his open and affirming Church, I wonder?

    [ Parent ]
    Count me on among the cynical (5.00 / 12) (#20)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:42:49 AM EST
    Given Obama's history, this looks like pandering that he's trying to keep as quiet as possible. A press release containing a "carefully nuanced statement" looks like something he can parse and back away from if the heat is on.

    When he wants to start allowing his picture to be taken with gay-rights leaders, I'll start believing he's turned around on this.

    When he wants to start to appearing at gay-pride events, like Hillary unabashedly did, I'll start believing he's turned around on this.

    When he wants to give a speech supporting gay rights in clear, unequivocal language, I'll start believing he's turned around on this.

    Principles, beliefs, and commitments mean nothing until you're in a situation where they can cost you. A press release containing a "carefully nuanced statement" would be hard to use against him. The stuff I bring up would. When he wants to go Hillary Clinton's route and effectively say, "Go ahead. Use it against me. I don't care. Right is right," I'll believe there's something to it.

    well said (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by northeast73 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:18:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    nipping this in the bud (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:10:27 AM EST
    if this a strawman, my bad.

    If I'm missing some snark, my bad.

    Let us rise and give a standing ovation for the brave obama who takes a stand against...... Discrimination.

    Let us rise and give a standing ovation for the brave obama who takes a stand against..... A constitutional ban on gay marriage.

    What about a standing ovation for being against sending more troops into Iraq?

    A round of applause for being against lower taxes for the upper two percent?

    I hope the point I'm making here is a strawman.

    I hope I am missing some snark.

    It would be the neat trick of movement to pillory one politician for not going far enough and then to cheer on another politician for bravely doing the bare minimum.

    Its a breath of fresh air to see the kids get brought up out of triple A but I'm not one to stand up and cheer when they work a walk.

    not to accept your metaphor (2.00 / 0) (#85)
    by tben on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    as having anything whatsoever to do with the political situation today,...

    but I certainly am one who cheers on a rookie just up from AAA when he works a walk. Its because I have some sense of the learning curve that rooks are facing, the pressures they are under, and I have this deep abiding hope that they succeed. Working a walk is actually a very good sign - it shows an ability to stay within yourself, to be calm in the face of a diversity of incoming, to exercise your judgement correctly as to the quality of that incoming - not to flail away at things in a desparate attempt to make your mark - and a willingness to advance the teams cause in the small way that happens to be appropriate at that particular moment in the game.
    In other words - it shows maturity and basic competence, and is a very good sign of things to come. So yeah, I stand and cheer.

    Baseball is cool. This has nothing to do with todays political world though...

    [ Parent ]

    I don't (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:23:30 AM EST
    I think its nice I wouldnt say swing at the bad pitches, but I still think a .300 avg with a .350 obp is better than a .250 avg with a .350 obp.

    That's what I cheer for.

    I also think the analogy applies.

    [ Parent ]

    Changing your mind just so you can be elected (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Saul on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:15:46 AM EST
    is not a very good trait.  Is there anything he won't do now to be elected.  I have more respect and trust for someone who sticks to their initial gut feelings and beliefs than someone one who is virtually changing before the voters eyes on what he initially  stood for.  I say a person like that cannot be trusted because you can not be sure he is sincere even if the change is in the right direction.

    Really? (none / 0) (#153)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    Before this was Obama going to lose votes because of his previous position, because that former position seems to me to be the general default Dem stance held by many of them.

    Who, exactly, is going to vote for him now in large numbers who weren't before he wrote this letter?

    [ Parent ]

    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    I would hope that at least some liberals and members of the LGBT community feel more enthusiastic about Obama now than they did previously.

    [ Parent ]
    Probably So (none / 0) (#178)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:40:48 PM EST
    But I was inferring from what you wrote that he would do anything to get elected that you felt there were people who wouldn't vote for him until he came out with this position.

    My sense is not many people will be voting for him after this who wouldn't have been before. Vice versa too, of course.

    [ Parent ]

    For how long? Next week it may change (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by koshembos on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:25:17 AM EST


    Pandering? One of my closest friends, a huge (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:32:02 AM EST
    Obama supporter, told me the other day that he is extremely disappointed in Obama.  Says he is pandering to whomever on any given day, and that he'll say whatever is necessary to win.  My friend is not happy, and he was drowning in the kool-aid during the primaries.  I wonder how much Obama's support is softening because of this.

    wan't the "say anything to win" (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:04:01 AM EST
    one of the BIG complaints that his most ardent supporters had about Clinton?

    Has Obama now decided that his loyal base now doesn't have anywhere else to go just like he decided about Clinton's 18 mil supporters?

    [ Parent ]

    That's it exactly. (5.00 / 11) (#41)
    by Mike H on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:25:05 AM EST
    Clinton at least had a long record in the public eye.  Even as First Lady, she had positions, stances, and effort on the national and international levels.  She may have evol