Obama: California Gay Marriage Ban "Unnecessary"

Barack Obama's walking a fine, gay line.

The Democratic Presidential candidate appeared on MTV this weekend to come out against California's Proposition 8, which would overturn gay marriage in the Golden State. At the same time, however, Obama reiterated his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Said the Senator from Illinois:

"I've stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

Keep Reading

-or-

Ellen Urges California Residents To Vote No On Prop 8

Comments

[obamaSB]

Marriage is a long long road--a journey that half of couples don't make successfully, right? Anyone who wants to try it should be commended. I just don't get why people would want to restrict others in this way. While I am pro-choice, pro immigration, etc. I at least can understand the opposing arguments on those issues. I don't understand the arguments against gay marriage at all--they are so laughably weak! The one I've heard repeated the most is: what's going to happen next? Will we allow people to marry dogs? That is so silly! But then again, maybe the divorce rate would be lower. I think my dog would make a pretty good husband :)

[lazercat2008]

What is so sacred about Marriage? Most only last 2 years.

[ABCD]

As a non gay woman I think Gay people (men and women) should have to get married just like me to take advantage of things like health insurance and taxes etc.
Then when they turn up MISERABLE LIKE ME they have to get DIVORCED LIKE ME!

LOL -

[Whinger]

There's more than one way to skin a moose, the gay community will figure out a workaround!

[ThePublicRecord]

http://www.pubrecord.org/sarah-palin/442-palin-faces-more-trouble-over-troopergate-.html

Palin Faces More Trouble Over 'Troopergate'

Sarah Palin faces another likely setback in an investigation into whether she entangled her duties as Alaska governor in a family feud with her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper, according to a senior state legislator.

[Toonadude]

If Californians feels so strongly about this issue, why can't it be debated and decided in open session within their legislature? I believe they call it REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. But then the gutless politicians would need to show the electorate where they stand on the issue. IMAGINE THAT ---- someone might not get re-elected !! Californians need to either demand elimination of the much-abused referendum process or, if they are so enamored of it they can't do that, move all law making to referendum and eliminate a then obvious to all worthless legislative body.

Oregonians need to do the same.

[dayala]

prop 8 is just another way of trying to legalize hate, intolerance and bigotry under the guise of religion.
two consenting adults who want to form and partake in a partnership should call the union whatever
they want...here's is the dictionary's definition of marriage:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union

[StephenDedalus82]

I wonder whether Obama will be able to live up to the extremely high expectations he has. That his campaign exists is in itself bold, but he doesn't really take bold positions on anything. I would never expect a nominee for president to come out in favor of gay marriage, of course. He doesn't have to court liberals and gays so all he does is risk alienating voters. He calls for transformative change, but how much will he be able to deliver given the Republican pests in the senate and given his propensity to play it safe for electoral advantage?

[dcg4mn]

It's because in a 2-party system, EVERY presidential candidate must immediately run toward the moderate center as soon as s/he obtains their party's nomination; it's the ONLY way to win a majority of votes.
Multiple-party systems are similar in effect because parties have to negotiate coalitions to reach a majority.

[MrWampler]

10 years to get off foreign oil is a pretty bold goal. But I do see what you're saying...

[marytny]

This isn't a gay issue. It's stripping a certain group of people their rights.

So, who marriage do you want to vote on next?

[dayala]

exactly...it's about denial of rights because one segment of the population doesn't accept another groups lifestyle choices.

[Grunty1]

So what about those couples already married in California?

[KillTheMessenger]

They will stay married until they get a divorce.

[LemonMeringue]

Leave it to the GOP to attack people trying to love each other.

[ChaiKat]

I think a civil union ceremony should be allowed to all people. Why does a state take up a position that is basically a religious one? Separation of church and state anyone?

[dcg4mn]

Couldn't quite tell where you were coming from in your comment, but marriage is NOT "basically a religious" ceremony.
One can become LEGALLY MARRIED by obtaining a marriage license, without ever setting foot in any church.
One can NOT become legally married in ANY church without also obtaining a marriage license.
A legal marriage has nothing to do with any church, a religious ceremony is strictly optional "icing" and has nothing to do with the LAW.
Preventing gay marriage because of religious beliefs is a breach of the separation of church and state, not the other way around - right? ;-)

[huffyfan2]

You can't put a sanction on who people are supposed to love.

[hogoza]

Oh yes, Siblings, parents, etc...

[KillTheMessenger]

Did you ever read or see "Romeo and Juliet"?

:-)

[Fredo777]

There are news reports that if people vote down the line for, say, Barack Obama on the Democratic ticket, but you vote Yes on Prop 8 (Against Gay Marriage), the will of your intended vote might be flipped to the other party who supports that measure.

So, a YES vote on Prop 8 may actually cancel your Democratic vote. This issue must be made more known, or Californians may unknowingly flip the election to John McCain.

[marytny]

we don't have a "Ticket" choice. You vote for each one

[Grunty1]

"Unknowingly"? That sounds like blatant tampering to me.

[VeroucaSalt]

I call BS on this claim. We don't (in California) have party-line ballots. One must fill in the circles of their voting choices. Please stop spreading misinformation.

[milo h minderbinder]

Bull.

[JadedAggie]

You can have marriage for all or civil unions for all. You cannot have parallel "equal" unions as simply the act of naming them differently shows preference for one and disdain for the other.