http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7CB3043A-3C9F-4D...
Obama backs gay marriage
By: Jennifer Epstein
May 9, 2012 11:03 AM EDT
For President Barack Obama and his top political advisers, the decision to back gay marriage came down to a choice between two unpalatable alternatives: support it and brave the backlash in battleground states where the issue could be a liability – or keep silent and be accused by allies of gutlessness and putting politics over his principle.
In the end, people close to the president say, it was a no-brainer: The core of their argument against Mitt Romney is that he is an untrustworthy politician with no real core of conviction. Obama’s advisers – who are acutely conscious of the media’s criticism despite their professed contempt for the news cycle – simply couldn’t afford to have the president appear like a coward on the front and editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, according to senior Democrats.
And so the president took the final step in his “evolving” views of a major gay rights issue on Wednesday.
(See also: 11 Obama quotes on gay marriage)
“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 said in a White House interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts.
Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage, the first ever from a sitting president, came amid growing pressure for the president to clarify his previously muddled opinion, as two senior members of his administration announced personal support for gay marriage and a day after voters in North Carolina approved a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The switch was also hotly anticipated – and much sought – among many LGBT and progressive voters who were frustrated that the president would not speak out in favor of gay marriage despite the rest of his record on gay rights issues.
Obama acknowledged that he was waiting to take that last step Wednesday.
“I’ve stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community. I hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient,” Obama said Wednesday. “I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word ‘marriage’ evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs.”
Obama’s pivot came close on the heels of Vice President Joe Biden’s acknowledgement Sunday on “Meet the Press” that he is “absolutely comfortable” with men marrying men and women marrying women, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s confirmation in an interview Monday on MSNBC that he also supports gay marriage.
Roberts said during a special report on ABC on Wednesday afternoon that Obama said he’d planned to announce his changed views on gay marriage before the election in November, though perhaps not this soon. But, Roberts indicated, the president wasn’t upset that Biden and Duncan had spoken out.
Obama said Wednesday he is confident that support for gay marriage will continue to expand over time. When he visits college campuses, it’s clear that students “are much more comfortable with it” than older generations.
The same is true for his daughters. “You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples,” Obama said. “There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them, and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”
First lady Michelle Obama’s views on gay marriage were also influential in the decision making, he said.
“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do,” the president said. “In the end, the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people.”
Though supporting gay marriage could put them at odds with other Christians, Obama said that when he and his wife think about their faith, “the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.”
Obama said in late 2010 that his views on gay marriage were “evolving” and, since then, administration officials have pointed back to those comments, stressing that Obama is a supporter of gay rights who has overseen the end of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and whose Justice Department has stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act.
A Gallup poll released Tuesday showed that 50 percent of Americans said they support the legalization of gay marriage, while 65 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents said the same. But support for gay marriage doesn’t reach across party lines — among Republicans surveyed, 27 percent said they support legalizing gay marriage.
On Tuesday, 61 percent of voters North Carolina — a state that Obama won in 2008 and that’s considered key to many of his paths to a second term — approved a ballot measure strengthening the state’s ban on gay marriage with a constitutional amendment doing the same. The Obama campaign said in a statement that “President Obama has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples and is disappointed in the passage of this amendment.”
Facing a barrage of questions during his daily briefing on Monday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that “the president is the right person to describe his own personal views” – something Obama finally did on Wednesday afternoon.
Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on LGBT issues, said that because of Obama’s comments, Wednesday would “go down in the history of the gay rights movement with Stonewall as a real turning point.” Socarides said he had been hearing for at least six months that Obama had made up his mind to support gay marriage but had been waiting for the right time to speak out on his views. “After Biden’s comments on Sunday, it was clear he had to say something.”
Obama said it in the right way, said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry. “The president could not have made the case better and will undoubtedly help persuade Americans who have been wrestling with this question,” he said. “The more people who speak out for the freedom to marry and how they got there, the better it is. And when the president of the United States is one of those people, it will move the country even further along.”
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney backs a federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and was opposed to the Massachusetts state court decision legalizing gay marriage that came down while he was governor.
“My view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that’s my own preference,” Romney said at a brief press conference in Oklahoma City after Obama’s remarks were released. “I know other people have differing views – this is a very tender and sensitive topic, as are many social issues. But I have the same view that I’ve had since running for office.”
RNC chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement that “[w]hile President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear. We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that.”
Wednesday afternoon, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt fired back, immediately thrusting the Obama decision into the campaign.
“We’ve amended Constitution to expand rights. Romney, RNC on record saying they want to enshrine discrimination into it,” LaBolt tweeted.
Glenn Thrush contributed to this report.
© 2012 POLITICO LLC
Comments
It is politics
I am sorry to say that while Obama's "views on this subject are evolving" that he seems to be playing a nasty game of politics with the LGBT community. He has stated in the past that it does not agree with his religiuos upbring and now that his views are evolving, in an election year, now he say's that in his personal opinion, not his official one as president, that he is OK with it. All while not bothering to mention North Carolina's vote to have thier state constition define marriage as between a man and woman.
I really hate it when the press allows these things to be misrepresented.
James
Oh, yeah, it's politics
I think the idea that he was beginning to lose his grip on a previously solid voting block (the LGBT community) had a lot to do with this. I have been pushing the idea on some LGBT forums I'm a member of that if Obama didn't get off the pot that we all should leave the presidential ballot blank in November. And I was getting some agreement from others. Vote on everything else, just don't vote at all on president. I'm pretty sure most of us wouldn't vote for Romney, and not voting for Obama if he can't come out and support us could send a pretty strong message that we are fed up with the status quo. Not saying this had anything significant impact, but each little piece makes up the larger picture.
If you are unwilling to lead, get the hell outta the way!
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
Not voting
When you don't vote FOR a particular person/office, it is a vote FOR the opposing person/party. Whether you agree with Obama coming out in favor or same-GENDER marriage (let's please get the SEX out of this issue as it plays right to the opponents hands) or don't like his NOT supporting it openly, if you don't vote for him, you do not offset any votes for Romney who you KNOW will do everything he can to destroy same-gender marriage.
Instead of thinking about voting for, against or not at all with someone not actively supporting your cause, try thinking of it as voting AGAINST the guy you can be absolutely sure will oppose all you believe in. The RNC is trying to get LGBT members to think just the way you are in order to scare off voters FOR Obama so there'll be less votes AGAINST Romney.
For clarity: Romney wins the election by 75,000 votes. 150,000 LGBT members chose not to vote for president at all. Had they voted for Obama AGAINST Romney, who would have won? US!!! By 75,000 votes. We'd have defeated the definite loss of all of our rights nationwide.
He'd be pushing for a US Amendment to ban same-gender marriage. You can bank on that.
Hugs,
Erica
Too bad
As the saying goes: "If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem". I got kicked off one website because I wasn't willing to wait "until after the election". Which election, what year, what decade? Nobody specifies that minor detail. People keep voting for these guys in exchange for nebulous promises that are never redeemed due to "political expediency". Well, you know what? I'm more than willing to take them down for not doing what they promise. When I grew up, a man (or woman) didn't make promises they knew they wouldn't keep. If you don't keep your word, then you're a liar, and I don't knowingly vote for liars. In any party!
Understand, I can support a party's congressional candidates even if I won't vote for their presidential candidate. IF Romney were to be elected he still has to get his agenda through Congress. So I'm not going into a full-blown panic like some. But if Obama and Pelosi want to play politics with people's rights like they did the first two years of his administration, then why shouldn't we? Maybe four years from now the Demos will have learned a lesson.
I've waited a long time (40+ years), I've been patient. I'm old and I'm tired. I'm mad too! I want it now!
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
I have to say I agree more
I have to say I agree more with Karen's view with all respects. I wouldn't vote for Romney with a ten-foot pole, but neither would I vote for Obama. Why? Because they're politicians who play politics. As someone who worked for the state government, I lost my job because of politicians playing one-upmanship with the state budget for their own political gain meaning a budget hasn't been passed and some offices have had to let people go because of it.
No more. I honestly wish that we would get out of this two-party system and have legitimate third and fourth parties for people to really have a choice. But that's me. Am I happy Obama came out in support? Yes in a way, though I will believe it when I see it more than hear it honestly.
Samirah M. Johnstone
If you don't
If you don't vote for Obama, you are voting for Romney. You are also voting for Paul Ryan and huge tax cuts for the rich and more "fees" and less money for the middle class and everyone else. you're voting for more "deregulation" of financial markets (remember what that got us?). You're voting for "austerity" economics (ask the Brits here how that's working for them and Ireland and Europe.) You are voting for another war. You are voting for the Koch brothers. You are voting for Rupert Murdoch and his minions. You're voting for hatred and intolerance.
Obama isn't perfect, but I never was looking for a messiah (that's a wingnut mime). He hasn't done all I had hoped; he has done things I abhor. But he has tried! And in the face of a four year Republican't temper tantrum that is something.
BTW
Republicans have only had control of the House for two years. During that time Obama let Pelosi play "politics as usual" to get his health plan passed. As a result anything the Republicans could use to trade for concessions in the health care plan was used, including full and equal rights for the LGBTQ community. And this was with both houses of Congress under Democratic control. Impressed much? I'm not.
Spare me all the sob stories about how people like me not voting are going to destroy the free world. Sounds like the Right Wing nut jobs "New World Order". Wah! Too bad. The status quo has accomplished NOTHING! Lets lob a hand grenade in the middle of it.
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
There's one point I'd like to
There's one point I'd like to make. Obama has expanded military strikes beyond what even Bush did. I read somewhere (I'll see if I can find the link) that one of the people on the Nobel committee were actually now upset they had given him the Nobel Peace prize because he was more militaristic than the last three Republican presidents.
That being said, I am a Ron Paul supporter because I support him pulling American troops back to America, I support his libertarian views and unlike Romney and Obama, he says what he means. Yes *gasp* an honest politician. He doesn't make campaign promises he isn't willing to keep. You can like him or hate him, that doesn't matter. I truly believe in my heart he's the best candidate, but that's my position.
And I disagree that because I'm TS/IS, I HAVE to vote for Obama or else I'm destroying my rights. If that was the case, I'd rather move somewhere else because that isn't what this country was like even in the past. FDR and Wendell Wilkie had several battles during their campaigns against each other, the differences between them were stark, but when FDR won, Wilkie got back to doing what was best for the country. FDR even said that Wilkie was one of those great Americans who could put aside their beliefs in order to help the country, he was a statesman. Neither Obama or Romney are statesmen, that's just a plain fact.
Samirah M. Johnstone
Shannon, Let me start by
Shannon,
Let me start by saying, I agree with you in one sense, we should all be voting based on who is the best candidate overall for the country, not on any one specific issue.
If you were to look at the specific issue of LGBT rights, then President Obama has a record that indicates he is the strongest of the candidates IMHO, even if there are areas we would like him to be better about.
There are plenty of people in this community that when taken as a whole, will support Romney or Ron Paul instead. That is a personal choice that everyone has to make.
For me that choice is President Obama. I'm not a Hawk, but I'm not a dove either. My problem with GWBs military use was Iraq, I never had a problem with Afghanistan. That is where we were attacked from. Iraq was different. Unforutnately, once we went in, you can't just pull out. And so we could not just leave.
My bigger problem with Ron Paul is that I believe that there are things that should be handled at the federal level, which he does not. Health Care, Social Security, amongst them. That is simply my opinion, and is why I won't be a Ron Paul supporter.
Romney is running on and pushing the policies I believe that have led to the economic crash we find ourseles in. I don't believe thet completely unfettered capatilisim is healthy. Again my opinion, others here I'm sure will disagree.
But we can at least agree that everyone should be voting on the overall candidate, and hopefully what's best for the country.
hugs,
Kristy.
I can understand and respect
I can understand and respect your statements, as I said mine are my own beliefs. While Obama says he is personally supportive, I know plenty of Democrats who aren't and would block him trying to institute his plans. Whether we like the President or not, it isn't him who does anything really except as a figurehead. Congress is where we have to change things.
I will agree with you wholeheartedly about Romney. I can't stand the guy, I think he is no better than Rick Santorum who is a danger to LGBT people in my estimation. What I am hoping is that if Ron Paul can continue adding his delegates (as he did with Maine and other states), then maybe, just maybe the Republicans will realize people don't want the same exact politics. Will it still be Romney vs. Obama? Yes, at this point I don't think anyone is denying that.
But I won't vote for Romney, even if I have in the past worked for the Republican party and even if I vote a straight Republican ticket otherwise here in Virginia. I'll write-in Ron Paul if I have to for President. But here's a funny thing that some people don't realize as much because of how GWB has been demonized...
GWB was considered quite moderate in Texas as governor, he actually had the most bipartisanship in the state as far as it goes (even winning the total support of Bob Bullock the Lt. Governor who was a major Democrat who endorsed Bush over the Democrat candidate in Bush's re-election as Governor). What changed when he was President? The whole culture. That's what we should be fighting. The who lobbyist crap that cares only for their bottom dollar and not the lives of American citizens.
I just wish we could disband all these political parties completely and make people stand for election on their own with no party machinery to be beholden to. That would be something I'd love. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Samirah M. Johnstone
Meanwhile in the UK...
Today was the State Opening of Parliament and the Queen's Speech, outlining what Dave Cameron and chums plan to do in the next parliamentary session:
As for Obama's statement, according to an article elsewhere on BBC News, a recent US opinion poll cited 50% in favour of same-sex marriage and 48% against. Same-sex marriage has been passed in New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, Washington DC, Connecticut, Maryland and Washington; while thirty-one US states have banned same-sex marriage through law or constitutional amendment.
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
Legal Issues.
Legal Issues.are at the core of this discussion. We were founded on a Decision that our System of Governance is based on Legal issues and not Religious pretests and hatreds. The people were allowed to worship as they see fit with out the government interfering or promoting any religion. All decisions concerning the areas of Government were based on the foundation of Constitutional Law.
In recent years a group of rebels have been trying to steal our country in its entirety by ignoring the Secular aspects of our union of states, and ignoring the fact that law is not based on there say so, but the weighted decision of written Law not mob opinion.
Marriage in the US is of the arena of States Rights and it is the state and local governments who set the legal boundaries and requirements. The local Authorities issue the permit to get married and it is up to the individual to decide if there marriage will be in a city hall or at a church. But the contract of marriage is a legal contract between the couple being married and the state Not the church.
We have the right to be married it is the law which needs to be drafted and the state to recognize it as a legally binding contract. The church has nothing to do with this. The Church is protected by the fact they can not be demanded to perform a gay marriage and within there walls they may not accept it as a religious action but in public they must treat this form of marriage as any other.
With those with open eyes the world reads like a book
...all I get are
...all I get are promises...promises...This is where those promises, promises end...
Love, Andrea Lena
Thank you, Andrea
One of the few sensible things I've seen all day!!! Ain't it the truth?!
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
The bottom line is ...
... who cares why he did it? At this point, do any of you think the President can just "take it back?" Tell everyone he didn't mean it?
Whatever his reasons might be, Obama drew a line in the cliche-filled sand and stood alongside the people the far right love to hate. There is no turning back from this for him. He's chosen a side.To advocate turning away from him now because you think he acted too slowly or made his choice for the wrong reasons — for "politics " — is to help elect people who hate anyone who fits their definition of "not us." They don't 'play' politics. They treat politics as a deadly serious business, lie loudly and often to whoever will listen just to stay in power, and have as their main goal either to preserve the status quo (at the very least), or turn back the clock if they can throw physics out along with evolution and invent time travel!
You know which side of that line you should be standing on. As Captain Mal Reynolds once said, "why are we still talking about this?" *grin*
Randa
Of course
He can. "After further evaluation I have come to the conclusion that full marriage equality would be a mistake at this time. I still believe it will come eventuality but right now it would disturb the precarious equilibrium we have established in the country." Lines in the sand are easily erased. As for treating politics as a deadly serious business, you think the Democrats don't do exactly the same thing? It's just that Obama is too green to actually play politics at this level.
I'm sure you've heard the joke how to tell if a politician is lying? He has his mouth open. Like Obama did today.
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
Obama's LGBT achievements
FEDERAL LEGISLATION SIGNED INTO LAW
POLICIES CHANGED
RESPECT & INCLUSION
Thanks, Frank
It's an impressive list, made more so by the fact that he didn't have to do any of it.
You know, folks, the enemy of your enemy may not exactly be your friend ... but you don't throw him to the wolves just because he didn't turn to fight them when you WANTED him to. Maybe he was fighting them in other ways all along, and you just didn't see.
Besides, as a wise Klingon captain once said, "only a fool fights in a burning house." *grin*
Randa
How
Show me how he didn't do any of it. Can I have some links please? Or at the very least some explanation. You can't make things true by saying them unless you have, at least, a radio show.
uh...
She said he didn't HAVE to, not that he DIDN'T. Big difference of meaning.
Abigail Drew.
Didn't HAVE to???
...oh...that's quite different...
Love, Andrea Lena
Ohhhh
Sorry. I look at too too many wingnut blogs and it makes me all grrrrr too much, but I want to so peeps can't say I live in a bubble (once and a long, long while they have a point). I need to take a reading comprehension course I guess.
S'k
I think all of us need some remedial work on our reading comprehension sometimes.
It's part of human nature to see only what we "want" to see... even if consciously we'd much rather see something else, sometimes our subconscious makes other decisions for us. If you've been reading too many blogs by people who're negative, then I can see where the whole expecting to see something negative would come from. Even if you'd REALLY rather see something positive, your subconscious has already been programmed to read things negative.
Well, rejoice, for this time, it WAS something positive! ;P
Abigail Drew.
Thanks Frank
Thank you for putting out this list.
Certainly there were politics involved in putting this out today, and it is clear that the VP's comments this weekend, pushed it sooner. But I think his record speaks pretty clearly that tthis is the direction he has been headed for some time. And if anyone really thinks that voting for Romey is going to be a better alternative on this issue... Just sayin...
Think what you like about the President, but no President has done more for this community.
Just remember
The statement today was his personal opinion, and did not commit the Office of the President to push anything forward to make it happen. I've got a lot of personal opinions but I don't act on very many of them. He made a non-binding statement which, while it was very nice to hear, changes nothing.
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
But...
Given thirty-one US states have banned same-sex1 marriage through law or constitutional amendment; and increasing numbers of states are implementing their own laws in various other areas of legislation that are contrary to federal legislation; is it actually possible for any President to successfully implement a nationwide law allowing same-sex marriage? Even if they did, do so in such a way that would prohibit courts being hit by a barrage of appeals?
Realistically, Obama's statement means absolutely nothing other than he'd like to see same-sex marriage at some indeterminate point in the future. Even then, there might have to be a preliminary first stage, for example "Civil Partnerships" (as in the UK), which are legally identical to marriage but by virtue of being an entirely separate legal structure and being called something different, are more acceptable to some with conservative religious beliefs.
The irony over here is that although civil partnerships and marriage are legally identical, because they're encoded in separate legal structures it's a pointless duplication (and has been stated here previously, also causes problems for couples with a TG partner as to keep their relationship legal, they have to annul their marriage and take up a civil partnership). In effect, practically the only difference between the two structures is semantics, but those opposing the obvious simplification of the law try to make it out as much more (usually citing the same arguments with regards to their deity, biological procreation, etc.)
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
I understand that Karen, but
I understand that Karen, but what exactly do you think he and Pelosi could have done?
Federal Law cannot make marraige legal in all 50 states. The best he could do would be to repeal DOMA, and the fact is even when they controlled both houses, that would not have gotten thru the Senate, and would not make it legal in all 50 states.
The only thing that could do that quickly would be a Supreme Court ruling that nullify's such laws. And President Obama is much more likely to appoint judges that would do that, then the alternative.
It sucks that this is still an issue, as it is so clearly un-constitutional. But it is overall a major social change, and regardless of the laws on the books, changing societies view on this issue is not easy, but it is happening. And no this doesn't help us today, and that sucks, but its a necessary step.