Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage 'Unequivocally'

According to the Windy City Times, during the 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, President-Elect Barack Obama gave statements that expressed an "unequivocal support for gay marriage."

From the WCT's press release:

President-elect Obama's answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of the phrase "civil unions". [Outlines purchased Windy City Times in 2000 and merged companies.]

This answer is among those included in this week's Windy City Times feature on Obama's evolving position on gay marriage. Windy City Times also includes his answers to the candidate questionnaire of IMPACT, at one time a gay political action committee in Illinois. In that survey he also stated his support of same-sex marriage.

During the final weeks of the presidential campaign last fall, several media outlets contacted Windy City Times because of an old internet story from the 1996 Illinois state Senate race. In that campaign, Outlines newspaper reported that 13th District candidate Barack Obama supported gay marriage. Reporters wanted to know what exactly Obama had said.

Outlines summarized the results in that 1996 article by Trudy Ring, but did not list exact answers to questions. In that article Outlines did note that Obama was a supporter of same-sex marriage and that article was never challenged or corrected by Obama. Just recently, the original Outlines and IMPACT surveys were found in the newspaper's archives.

This story will run as an exclusive in tomorrow's Windy City Times, which will include a corresponding piece from University of Chicago doctoral candidate Timothy Stewart-Winter, which will examine this issue in "the context of Obama's race in 1996 against incumbent Alice Palmer."

Comments

[RationalDubSteppa]

Of course he did!! I'm absolutely certain that Obama does NOT believe in god and things being gay is as normal as apple pie, but he is a politician in America and most American are not that well educated so they do cling to guns, religions and gays. He was speaking the truth in the primary and apparently the truth hurts(which is why I got played over and over).

But being the astute politician he played along. Hopefully one day they will be more rationalist then superstitious religious people in America then our Politicians(the smart ones at least) can drop this façade.

[aadam]

i really just don't get why someone who is straight would really care about someone else getting married. i mean why would you care if joe and joe want to get married. What does it to for you to get involved? Like What's the point of someone who has no involvement in the issue come out swinging against gay people, just becuase they are ignorant. i mean a gay marriage doesn't threating a straight marriage in any way, shape or form. it just seems so pointless for me for people who have no involvement in the issue to be so against it. in a world that has so much hate in it, why would someone be against people that are just trying to show there love for one and other?

[r3z0nate]

Complete irrelevant to the interest of this country or for any reason to vote for a president. Look what happens when you worry about these ridiculous issues when voting, you get the possible the worst president, or at least the worst cabinet in history which completely destroyed this nation in 8 years. People were so worried about two same sex people getting married while letting the banks do whatever the hell they want, and now they are paying for it with their tax money. I hope you keeping jack and john roommates instead of married partners was worth the thousands that will go into paying off bad debt instead of infrastructure, education, or the enormous list of everything else more important than gay people getting married.

[Eric8869]

don't blame gay people or gay issues for the financial crisis - that's absurd.

Kerry didn't win the presidency because he took TWO WEEKS to respond to the SWIFT BOAT smear. IT had nothing to do with gays.

[oldbrit]

The desire for freedom and fighting for it is in the DNA of all people an cannot be ignored or set aside in the light of "higher" priorities. Those that do not have full human and civil rights will fight and agitate to achieve them. This creates a bigger distraction from other things than simply granting the civil rights.

Civil and human rights for all people is a basic requirement for unity in the U. S. and peace in the world and provide the only stable foundation for civilization and governments throughout the world

Without civil and human rights for all people, anything done to fix other important issues such as the environment and the economy are built on a house of cards with an unstable foundation.

Our government and American citizens are capable of doing multiple things at once. When we have civil and human rights for all, that will be one less thing to worry about.

If we are serious about fixing the other issues, we will assure full civil rights for all people so that we can all work together on the problems.

[oldbrit]

These are real issues, but they are brought up because they are emotional issues to manipulate voters rather than provide any real light on the issues.

The Republicans use gay rights, abortion, prayer in schools and anything else they can use to get voters angry and scared so they will vote Republican, enabling the Republicans to rob us blind.

In other words, Republicans whip up fear and hatred of gays to win elections.

[Pennsanic]

More than fear and hatred of gays. GOPers also whip up fear and hatred of those with brown skin, or people who have different belief systems. You don't have to think too far back to remember Lou The Gasbag Dobbs getting his viewers in a lather about illegal immigrants from south of the border. He seemed all-for Palin when she fired up the bubbas against Muslims and African Americans.

Obama probably could not have been openly pro-gay-marriage and won the election. Too many middle-Americans are freaked out by the idea.

Then again, as Al Sharpton said, It doesn't matter who you go to bed with at night. It matters whether or not you have a job when you wake up in the morning...

[Kellie Altieri]

holy crap.

i'm not gay .. or married for that matter. but, i don't understand why everyone is getting so bent out of shape about gay marriage. WHO CARES! why is it anyone's business what people do in their own home. does it really effect your life if your gay neighbor is married? NO. if you don't like it, mind your business .. what the f*ck happened to EQUAL RIGHTS? geez!!

i want off this planet.

[oldbrit]

Greedy heterosexuals want gay people to subsidize the heterosexual lifestyle.

[GayMark]

They'll also look to us to PLAN their weddings, but we can't have any of our own.

WTF??

[PhiLLyinDaLLaS]

it's because the religious NUTJOBS out there take offense to the use of the word "marriage", it is simply a problem of terminology. I think the middle road in this whole debate is to just call them "civil unions" but in my eyes, who CARES what they're called...I just believe EVERYONE, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to receive the benefits that come along with being "married" I'm not gay, but I do fight for gay rights and the rights of all people to be recognized as equals and to be able to receive the same benefits. I'm an atheist and don't really care about the term "marriage" but I understand why people get so bent out of shape.

[anninroosevelt]

Marriage is not about the relationship between two people. It is about the package of (many) rights that the civil society extends to opposite-sex couple and denies to same-sex couples. The absense of these rights does not effect the 36-year relationship I have with my partner, but it does cost us lots of money and allows people who are bigots to deny us many things which married couples take for granted. Obviously, some people want to impose their limited religious views on a common civil right in order to focus not on the rights they deny us but on their warped notion of our relationship.

[RationalDubSteppa]

If you believed in god or where religious you would probably have a reason to abhor gay people, lucky for you it seems that you are free of those bronze age myths.

[Marie62866]

So what! Obama will support civil unions and he even stated he was very disappointed by the outcome of Prop 8! Just another non story!

[FearlessFreep]

You see, the gay community is supposed to be grateful that BHO wasn't PLEASED about Prop 8 passing!

[AlP]

Obama said next to nothing on Prop 8. Civil unions are not marriage, and don't offer any of the same benefits. Gays and lesbians are still not protected by government.

Separate but equal = oppression. Let's stop the bs.

[jose-polo]

Gay folks esp. white dudes showed their true racism after prop 8 passed. You should have seen them on TV. I voted against prop 8, but as an hispanic man, I was shocked by all the ha.te.

[Eric8869]

When your rights are taken away on election day you have a right to protest. You can go on youtube and see protests from all over this country. They were peaceful.

The right wing is spinning those lies.

[maush74]

No, they were full of hate with racial slurs being dropped left, right and center.

[FearlessFreep]

Anti-gay comments by blacks greatly outnumber anti-black comments by gays.

[oldbrit]

It is not anti-black to state that blacks voted disproportionately for Prop. 8. It is a fact.

[Takae]

There are a lot of reports that debunk that. Here's an example:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

[Takae]

Then again, there is one that partly confirms your belief:

http://pendulumpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/11/analysis-of-proposition-8.html

It makes an interesting read as well.

[RationalDubSteppa]

Yea that fact was actually reported here at HuffPo and from that point on I've been careful to check the stories on HuffPo cause you just never know. The Repot has been now officially debunked. You will be happy to know that Blacks can be just as close minded as anyone else.

[GayMark]

What a sweeping generalization.

You lost me at "white dudes."

[maush74]

I was shocked too. After prop 8 gay guys sounded worse that Sean Hannity and Coulter. BTW I've heard you guys have seperate gay parades for whites and people of color.Is this true??

[Kiabell04]

Oh Lord, here we go again!!

[GlennInVenice]

...and all it takes is simple justice to qwell it.

[Giada]

Simple and clear explanation .....

You Tube has a clip of Joe Biden speaking on Prop 8. He stated, "Both Barack and I are against Prop 8 on Constitutional grounds, and we worked together against a bill that was would have changed the Constitution to prevent gay marriage."

Obama has defined himself as a Christian, (personal belief), and as a public official will be sworn in and agree to, "Uphold the Constitution."

I don't believe PE Obama will have any difficulty in separating church from state.

[StillIRise]

Good post Giada. PE Obama has said that though his personal and faith convictions do not subscribe to gay marriage, he would never impose or promote his personal convictions as a barrier to the rights that the LGBT community seeks. He not only understands the separation of church from state, but he also understands the separation of constitutional rights from one's personal worldview.

[oldbrit]

But Mr. Obama will empower people like Rick Warren and Donny McClurkin to slap gays around. That way he can get his jollies and pretend his hands are clean.

[LickitySplit]

Please stop dragging PE Obama's name through the mud with this stuff. At least let the man get in office, geez!

[InformedMisery]

Why is it dragging his name through the mud to point out that he took one position in one campaign, and another position in a different campaign?

[SinisterK9]

Because Obama happens to be the guy that LicketySplit supports. You see, when its someone he doesn't care for, it called fact checking. But when it's his guy, its called mud slinging.

[Eric8869]

No one is dragging his name through the mud as far as I can see.

[FearlessFreep]

If anything, BO has been dragging himself through the mud by pandering to homophobes.

[AJBF]

How dare you call "mud" and "stuff" the civil rights of glbt people.Obama probably still supports, rightfully so, gay marriage, but backtracked during the presidential campaign because he would otherwise never have gotten elected in a country where homophobia (mostly under the guise of religious righteousness) still holds sway with a lot of people. "LickitySplit" sounds like a really appropriate name for you.

[binq56]

Reading over the comments here I am confused. What would we like marriage to mean? Or not to mean? And what is the difference with a civil union? At the end of the day it is just semantics to me as long as the rights remain the same. I am not being sarcastic here. I really don't understand this fight.

[Balancement]

binq56, it's easy: Separate is not equal.

[TheHandyman]

If the term "civil unions" is the same thing as marriages, then why don't the heteros accept their relationship as being "Civil Unions?" This is being played as merely a semantic difference but it isn't. I am of the strongly held opinion that gays just want to be normal, as do all of us. To be forced to use a differnt word for marriage is to remain "different and apart" from the rest of society.

[M1]

Thehandyman,

You have got it exactly right. I just don't see how the media can never get around to asking proponents of bans on same-sex marriage who use Civil Unions to justify their position if they would be willing to accept a Federal law that created gov issued Civil Unions for all couples both Gay and straight with identical rights and responsibilities? Then those couples could go to their respective churches and call their union what they want to call it.

This is an easy solution...it takes the word marriage out of the debate, is not separate but equal and re-enforces separation of church and state freeing up the Churches to do more importanat works like helping the homeless, hungry and sick.

[LickitySplit]

marriage= man/woman

[Coloradem]

A more accurate discription would be:

Man(1) + Woman (1)=Marria­ge...until

Woman(1) meets Man (2)

then Man(1)-Woman (1)=divorce

and

Woman (1)+ Man (2) = marriage (2)

and

Man (1) meets Woman (2) then

Man (1) + Woman (2) = marriage (3)

IOTW, Marriage today in the hands of straight people isn't so much an exercise of addition as it is an exercise in mathematic equations. Don't lecture those of us who are gay and lesbian with your bumper-sticker arguments.

[mercury613]

Marriage has also =

Man + many women
Man owning woman/women
Man + woman of only the same race
Man + woman not having a choice in the matter

Things change.

[FearlessFreep]

LickitySpl­it=ignoran­ce

[LewDan]

Your confusion is intentional. There has been a concerted effort by the extreme Right for years to confuse people. Forty years ago the phrase "obtaining the benefits of a civil union" was common and understood as the reason for obtaining a "marriage license."

The Right has been taking advantage of the fact that you create a civil union (obtain marriage rights) by obtaining a "marriage license." The name was never accurate. The government doesn't "license" marriage the way they license drivers. You don't need a marriage license to be married.

But because the word "marriage" is used, the Right has been able to mislead people and confuse them Its also no accident they chose the term "civil union" as an "alternative" to "marriage." They knew full well that civil unions are, and always have been, marriages recognized by the government.

Obscuring what a civil union is helps them redefine what marriage is. Religions may have marriage ceremonies but marriage has never before been a religious matter. Until now the Church would bless marriages, not try to control them. This is all new. And built on a foundation of lies.

It isn't a matter of semantics or choices, its a deliberate distortion and deception to falsely justify bigotry.

[Eric8869]

It's not the same thing because civil unions don't have the automatic benefits of marriage.

They are not seperate but equal right now. So that point is really moot.

[dapperd72]

I'm pleasantly surprised that Obama formerly asserted firm support for "gay" marriage akin to that which Dennis Kucinich has unequivocally supported for years. I only wonder how he came to alter his position more recently. Obama's position regarding "civil unions" as a semantic difference from homosexual marriage was one key point of contention I had with him, despite my overall support for his candidacy. I had no such problem with Kucinich OTOH. I only hope this revelation is another of his nuanced positions on a controversial social issue which until now I understood to be a common bond he had with Rick Warren. I only hope some of the earlier posters on this article are correct that his social progressivism will emerge with flying colors in the near-future months. Until all citizens have their Constitutional rights in the 1st and 14th Amendments fully respected by all segments of society, our nation will have a long way toward a perfect union or a truly democratic society. I also hope Obama won't make any concessions to homophobes as Clinton did in 1993 with his "don't ask, don't tell" provision for military service. Please, Barry, show you're a bona fide man of the people and that you really did earn our votes.

[diogenes1967]

Thanks to LewDan and the rest of you who are contributing to the discussion. I have only a vague awareness of all the legal terminologies behind this stuff and I am learning a lot from your posts.

[amakda]

I believe, and have believed, that Obama is really more to the left, more progressive, more liberal, than the positions he took during the campaign. I hope he shows this side more as president.

[InformedMisery]

So basically he misrepresented himself during the campaign in order to get elected. And that's being a different kind of politician how?

[Pennsanic]

Maybe different because he's better at it than most??

[FearlessFreep]

I'd rather judge a president-elect by the actual campaign positions he took than by what I want him to be.

[lioness39]

Obama has probably been holding a good deal close to his chest until election and now inauguration. I think he is going to surprise everyone with his liberalism unless he makes the choice to be 'popular' with everyone. This is a path I hope he won't choose. As they say, you can please some of the people some of the time but ..... etc. This country was taking a turn toward the liberal when Regan stopped it cold. With Bush things degenerated into a hopeless right wing mire. I say, sit tight until Obama has had a few months in office. I believe O will be very liberal. I certainly hope he will.

[TheHandyman]

There is nothing in his past poitical carrer to suggest that he will nor , given his appointments to his cabinet, that there is any evidence that he will now. One cannot tout change and new ideas when someone surrounds themselves with old ideoloques and the promoters of the old ideas that got this country into this situation. We are where we are not because of Bush, but rather from a series of Presidents who took us down the wrong path, starting with Reagan. Bush brought the inevitable economic catastrophy with his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Money that probably would have kept this crisis at bay for a few more years was sucked up by war and war profiteers!

I really hope that I am wrong for the sake of our country but I think we will see more of what we have seen for the last 40 years except the Demowon'ts will be in charge of the dismantling of the US rather than the Repugs.

[JohnBisceglia]

Until Obama can decide whether or not he wants to INCLUDE US in America, and for those gays who are SICK AND TIRED of all of this "having to make the case for equality", I say EQUALITY TAX PROTEST.

Let's see how long the entire country will "need" to decide IF they still want our contributions, financially and otherwise. EITHER LET US IN, or we'll save our hard-earned money until we ARE INCLUDED.

[oldbrit]

I agree. If you don't have equal rights, you shouldn't have to pay taxes that provide those rights to others.

Here's another solution:

All gays should marry a person of the opposite gender, have a bunch of kids and then abandon their spouse and the kids. Refuse to pay child support or alimony.

I'll bet it wouldn't take 5 years before those who are opposed to same-sex marriage would be begging gays to marry each other and stop marrying heterosexuals and ruining their lives.

While you are married to your opposite sex spouse, fatten them up really good and tell them how sexy they are at 350 pounds, that way when you abandon them, they'll have no possibility of finding someone else.

Sound mean? It is no more mean than denying same-sex couples marriage rights and I guarantee you, it is the fastest route to full equal rights for gays.

[janinius]

nice!

[LewDan]

Dream on. The Right's not that rational. You'd only give them an excuse to build more jails, reinstitute slavery, and FORCE you to support all those spouses and kids!

[JohnBisceglia]

Loving the "outside the box" possible solutions. SICK IRONY: I have met numerous Q's in my lifetime who have hooked up with the opposite gender for rights (esp. immigration). OTHER SICK IRONY: I went from tax protester to welfare case, so no $$$ held here, but Charles Merrill's U.S. Tax Court case is moving along. Too bad everyone in the LGBTIQ "community" hates each other enough so NO ONE has joined Mr. Merrill in his protest.....

If GOVERNMENT were BUSINESS it would be CRIMINAL to treat our families this way, but unfortunately government's throat seems clenched by theocratic tyrannists.