Melody Barnes's Semi-Endorsement Of Gay Marriage Causes Discomfort In White House

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Melody Barnes's Semi-Endorsement Of Gay Marriage Causes Discomfort In White House stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 11-16-09 03:03 PM   |   Updated: 11-16-09 05:20 PM

What's Your Reaction?
Barnes

It's a poorly kept secret that inside the Obama White House, plenty of of aides, staffers, and high-ranking officials support gay marriage. In fact, the assumption within gay-rights advocacy circles is that the president himself supports the idea -- though never publicly.

So when one of Obama's top advisers, Melody Barnes, suggested that she personally supported gay marriage before a crowd at Boston College last week, it could have been a minor story. But it became a bigger one when the White House press office responded defensively, first insisting that no such support for gay marriage had been offered and then not signing off on the release of the video of Barnes's appearance until the dead-news hours of Friday afternoon.

Barnes's statement was actually a bit ambiguous. The domestic policy adviser was asked by Paul Sousa, a gay rights activists at the school, whether she personally supports "equal civil marriage rights for gay and lesbian Americans, and if so, are you speaking or will you speak with President Obama on this civil rights matter?"

Barnes, clearly searching for words, responded that, with regard to her own views, "based on the relationships I've had with friends and their relationships that I respect, the children that they're raising, and that is something that I support."

When reports first surfaced on Monday afternoon -- first on Twitter and then on the Huffington Post -- aides at the White House hadn't heard or seen the remarks, they said. And when they reached out to Barnes, who was on her way back from Boston, they said even she seemed surprised that they had been interpreted as a personal endorsement of gay marriage. Indeed, about two hours after the first story was posted, the Huffington Post was contacted by Kent Greenfield, a law professor at Boston College, who said that Barnes's comments were far from definitive.

"I kept expecting her to say more and be more explicit with her views," Greenfield said. "It was the kind of statement where people got the impression that they wanted to get from it."

In light of the confusion, two White House aides encouraged the Huffington Post to update its reporting to reflect that Barnes was being less than explicit. We obliged. One of those officials, refusing to go on record, offered a comment that, in retrospect, wasn't quite true. Barnes, the official said, was not discussing "her personal views on marriage equality or other issues."

The official added: "As she clearly stated at the event, her personal views on issues are irrelevant to her work of advancing the administration's agenda. In response to the questioner, she did provide an overview of what the president is doing to help advance equal rights for LGBT Americans."

Story continues below
advertisement

Another official expressed concern that it would unfairly leave Barnes and the White House open to attack from both sides of the gay rights debate.

By Wednesday, the confusion over what Barnes had actually said had not dissipated. Boston College officials had yet to post the video, despite having told attendees they would, Sousa said. Moreover, it was the White House that was hold things up, having not given the school clearance to post the footage.

"We have sent a copy of the video to members of the White House staff to view, but no decision on posting has been made and nobody has asked us not to post it," Boston College Law School spokesman Nate Kenyon told the Huffington Post. "It takes us a few days to post video from any event, sometimes longer if there's a backlog. And it is our policy to require permission from anyone we tape before we post, and if they don't want it public for whatever reason, that's fine. I have no idea if that would happen here, but it's happened before."

Sousa and others, including John Aravosis of the popular gay-issues-themed political website AMERICAblog, accused the administration of "temporarily" censoring the video. It took two full days until Kenyon got the nod to publish Thursday morning. And it would take until Friday afternoon to get the footage live. "We have one AV staff person," Kenyon told the Huffington Post. "We have three other projects in queue."

By then, however, it was clear that Barnes had been addressing her personal views of gay marriage. Ben Krohmal a law student who attended the event, had posted on a school-related website copious notes he had taken from the exchange. The transcript, a Boston College official told the Huffington Post, was essentially accurate.

The video would be the final say in the matter. Footage was finally published (by ABC News) at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, three hours before Kenyon said it would be released. And in it, Barnes implied that there was a difference of opinion between her and the president.

"When I walk in to the White House," she is recorded as saying, "I work to put all arguments in front of the president, I also work for the president and we have very robust policy conversations."

There's nothing controversial about that. The president, after all, has embraced the notion of having divergent viewpoints within his administration -- a dynamic that, logically, would extend to the issue of gay marriage.

But for a White House that has been extremely cautious when it comes to cultural issues, the endorsement of gay marriage by even one official apparently presented a very unwelcome diversion.

Indeed, even after the video surfaced, the White House seemed particularly eager to move on to a new topic. The Huffington Post asked several times to talk with Barnes for this piece. The requests were denied.


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

It's a poorly kept secret that inside the Obama White House, plenty of of aides, staffers, and high-ranking officials support gay marriage. In fact, the assumption within gay-rights advocacy circles i...
It's a poorly kept secret that inside the Obama White House, plenty of of aides, staffers, and high-ranking officials support gay marriage. In fact, the assumption within gay-rights advocacy circles i...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
1623
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (15 pages total)

Hate is is ignorant bigotry. Many in America over our 350 years of history were vehemently opposed to equal rights for the Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews, Blacks, Latins, French, Japanese, German, Arabs, Persians, Indians, Asians, bi-racial, mental or physical handicapped, homely, Catholic, Amish, Hindu, short, fat, bald, Congregationalist, Unitarians, etc.. Gay Americans are just now in the forefront. None of these other groups were required to gain equal civil rights by the ballot box. If so, they would be in the exact same situation that America has placed their millions of Gay citizens in today. Don't think for a minute that civil rights for Blacks would win, even today, at the ballot box. Legislation must be passed now to ensure civil rights for all Americans.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 AM on 11/18/2009
- CAMBEL I'm a Fan of CAMBEL 15 fans permalink

In the year 2000 Alabama put up it's anti-interacial marriage law up for a vote. The law was superceded by Federal law but the state govt. thought it was embarassing that it was still on the books so put it up for a vote. This was the year 2000 and approximately 40% of the state voted to keep it on the books. YES, FORTY PERCENT voted to keep a law banning interacial marriage on the books. And WHY is interacial marriage legal? People didn't get to vote on it, the Supreme court decided to make it legal in the case "Loving v. Virginal". So to everybody sitting there saying "Well too bad, people aren't voting for gay marriage" give me a break, no other civil rihts were granted by a popular vote. But unlike today's politicians, Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights legislation even though he KNEW it would cause his party to lose votes in the South. Too bad todays' politicians aren't as brave.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 11/18/2009
- bannorhill I'm a Fan of bannorhill 32 fans permalink

"Don't think for a minute that civil rights for Blacks would win, even today, at the ballot box."

So in today's political climate it would be impossible for a black to win at the ballot box for something like President?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:20 AM on 12/01/2009
- jmpurser I'm a Fan of jmpurser 164 fans permalink

The "discomfort" is caused by having an administration that hopes no one will notice it's led by a black man who favors "separate but equal" as a civil right's "solution". Once you see that the very idea of calling Obama a "centrist" becomes laughable.

He's a right wing corporatist and his views on civil rights, justice, the economy, and war all reflect that. If you didn't want a cross between Clinton and Bush running the country then you shouldn't have voted for Obama. A lesson I learned too late.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 AM on 11/18/2009
- T Specter I'm a Fan of T Specter 131 fans permalink
photo

What on earth does his race have to do with ANYTHING regarding this issue?

Your motives are crystal clear, you're not fooling anyone.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:15 PM on 11/18/2009
- Dice Klay I'm a Fan of Dice Klay 3 fans permalink
photo

i applaud the Obama administration's not supporting gay marriage. I look forward to the day when he signs the bill banning it forever.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 AM on 11/18/2009
- KIVPossum I'm a Fan of KIVPossum 56 fans permalink
photo

And I look forward to the day he signs a bill banning bigots to a deserted island.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:19 AM on 11/18/2009
- T Specter I'm a Fan of T Specter 131 fans permalink
photo

Hickory dickory dock,

you can't hide the fact that you love . . .

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:14 AM on 11/18/2009
photo

There will never be a bill to do that. In case you haven't noticed, marriage equality already exists in several states.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 PM on 11/18/2009
- CAMBEL I'm a Fan of CAMBEL 15 fans permalink

The only reason to be THAT scared of it is that you are gay and can't deal with that. Other than that, to be so against something that in no way effects your life is just bizzare.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 11/18/2009
- sprtakis69 I'm a Fan of sprtakis69 20 fans permalink
photo

One day this will be in front of the SCOTUS and they'll be forced to view it the same as Loving V. Virginia.

The findings quoted from Loving V. Virginia:

The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Id., at 11-12. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. The Court's language on the latter point bears repeating:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

"Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Id., at 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). [434 U.S. 374, 384]

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

* back to me. And when that happens Liberty and Justice will naturally be the next step!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:58 PM on 11/30/2009
- bannorhill I'm a Fan of bannorhill 32 fans permalink

A few years later the Supreme Court refused to overturn a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman in Baker V Nelson.

States have the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:09 PM on 11/30/2009

I'm the straightest white woman that was ever on this earth, but darlin' what people do in their home and in their bedrooms ain't NOBODY'S BUSINESS.

"Sancity of Marriage" my rear end. Start counting how many times some of those liars have been Sanctified.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 PM on 11/17/2009
- Dice Klay I'm a Fan of Dice Klay 3 fans permalink
photo

You can mock the sanctity of marriage all you want but most people take it seriously, andthey don't think gays being married is healthy for our society. In election after election the American people have authoritatively rejected gay marriage. So do I.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:07 AM on 11/18/2009
- KIVPossum I'm a Fan of KIVPossum 56 fans permalink
photo

Straight marriage is healthy to our society? With half of marriages ending in divorce?

I am straight as they come and don't see how gay marriage would harm the sancity of my marriage.

Take a testosterone pill. It might help you avoid the gay virus you are so afraid of.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:22 AM on 11/18/2009
- T Specter I'm a Fan of T Specter 131 fans permalink
photo

So don't marry your boyfriend.

I doubt it will break his heart.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:15 AM on 11/18/2009
photo

What makes you think that the majority has the right to vote on the rights of a minority? How is that healthy for society?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:55 PM on 11/18/2009
photo

You serial divorcees and philanderers are doing just a fine job of that yourselves. Have you seen TV? Marriage is already a joke for straight people, you don't need our help. What you're doing is called projecting.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 PM on 11/18/2009
- sprtakis69 I'm a Fan of sprtakis69 20 fans permalink
photo

You can reject and protect the sanctity of YOUR marriage all you'd like. But what is comes down to is STATES issue marriage licenses to their citizens, not churches. People then take that STATE provided license where ever they choose and get married, by a church, by a judge, by a justice of the piece, whomever.

So once this finally makes it to the Supreme Court, and it will, the court will have to use the constitution as their basis for judgment. And thank God they will have to apply SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE along with the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, THE FREEDOM TO MARRY!!!

Justice will prevail for ALL AMERICANS and not just the majority!

Have faith AMERICA, have faith!

Once that happens, you still won’t have to marry a man, and you can still protect the sanctity of YOUR marriage. And God willing, if you happen to have a gay or lesbian child, they will have RIGHTS!!!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:11 PM on 11/30/2009
photo

Instead of the gay community's "demonization" of anything or anyone b/ack, why don't you try and win them? After all, their past civil rights fights were FAR more concrete and greater than yours. They could lend you some hands in fighting for victory because they succeeded, to a significant level, in their own civil rights struggles.

If you think there is a "way" for you by "demonizing" blacks and Hispanics alike because of Prop 8, I wish you good luck 'cos it's NOT gonna happen. That's a fact. On the other hand, if you seek their support, you stand to pull it off.

But the choice is yours.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:17 PM on 11/17/2009
- GayMark I'm a Fan of GayMark 47 fans permalink
photo

Your post is homophobic and banal.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:19 PM on 11/17/2009
photo

What's homophobic in my post? It's a fact that gay people blame black people for every misfortune that befalls them. Have you heard Dan Savage running his mouth and almost calling black people by racial slurs just because of their votes on Prop 8?

BTW, it's good to be banal, if that would make you guys understand that there are far more pressing issues right now than gay marriage.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 AM on 11/18/2009

Gay Rights have not won at the ballet box because your issues are ruled by victim complex people and not people who know how to build a strategy to win. Blame everyone but the real reason. Blame the Obama and the boycott the DNC but never call out the millions of LGBT and their families who sit at home. Sounds healthy!

Yeah...dem­and marriage equality in Maine while the actvists spent thousands of hours on a March and party though DC. Sounds like a strategy to beat the Catholic Church in rural Maine. How did that work out? 200,000 can show up in DC because its fun but not in Maine because civil rights are being vote on? Are you all for real????

Some of you beat the victim drum real hard.....Y­ou run on pure emotion.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:48 AM on 11/18/2009
photo

BU//$#!T.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:27 PM on 11/17/2009
- T Specter I'm a Fan of T Specter 131 fans permalink
photo

The Supreme Court will decide the issue.

http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 PM on 11/17/2009
photo

So why don't the blacks try to win over the gays?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 PM on 11/17/2009

Because gays are running blacks out of their comunities.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 AM on 11/18/2009
- jmpurser I'm a Fan of jmpurser 164 fans permalink

The fact that blacks did have to fight for their civil rights and quite recently but so many of them still can't see that gays deserve them too is a major disappointment not only for gays, but for anyone who cares about civil rights and America.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 AM on 11/18/2009
photo

Gay people could have just voted for McCain/Palin instead. Maybe that would've saved Obama all these headaches.

And for those people who are now saying that gays were a base support for Obama earlier on, that's not true. The guy who introduced Obama in his latest speech to gays (who is a gay community leader, btw) ENDORSED Hillary Clinton during the primaries, and that galvanized gays to Hillary's campaign. That was reinforced by Donnie McClurkin's endorsement of Obama. If I remember vividly, the handful of support that Obama got from brave gays was also quickly slipping at that time. But it was also during those periods that African-Americans were turning out en masse for Obama because they thought he could actually pull it off.

If Obama has to thank any groups for winning the primaries, gay community shouldn't be included because they didn't want him to win the primary. That's just a fact. He needs to thank the people of Iowa, a handful of whites, African-Americans, and Native Americans.

Well, everyone else (including the gay community) voted for him in the general election, not because they liked him, but because he's a better devil than McCain.

Also, I notice that some comments that are defending Obama's position about gay marriage are being edited out. Incredible!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:01 PM on 11/17/2009
- GayMark I'm a Fan of GayMark 47 fans permalink
photo

You're simply wrong.

But, let's just say you're right:

Didn't he, in his victory speech, promise to be the President to all Americans, even the ones who didn't vote for him?

Look it up.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:12 PM on 11/17/2009
photo

Well, more Americans are suffering from the bad economy right now and he's attending to that first. The gay marriage issue could wait because it affects only 1% of the population. I'd do the same thing.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:19 PM on 11/17/2009
- ReedYoung I'm a Fan of ReedYoung 148 fans permalink
photo

What a lot of weaselly word play. I understand now why gays are so frustrated with the Obama administration. They're still better than their predecessors, but not so good that I'd consider him a "fierce advocate" for equal protection for the human rights of people who are gay. Not even remotely.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:31 PM on 11/17/2009

During his campaign, CA and New York voted for HILLARY. The LGBT community was not huge for Obama when it was HARD. The LGBT community did not vote for Obama like they did Kerry. These are facts. Now they stomp around all red faced all over the internet acting so low class towards this President instead of HELPING.

Start earning your civil rights...t­here are MILLIONS of LGBT in this country according to what I read..


stop acting like whiney brats~!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 11/17/2009

OMG, here come the Hillary thing...

Let's see...Hill­ary was a Senator from NEW YORK and California is known to be Clinton territory. You'd need to add Massachusetts in there to have an effective argument.

And there are A LOT of gays in Illinois and the Carolinas and in Texas. I think those states went for Obama in the primaries. Including the gays.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 PM on 11/17/2009

So if a group does not vote for the messiah during a election they don't deserve equal rights?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 11/17/2009
photo

Well, they don't deserve to push him to adopt their issue as a priority 'cos it's not. And I don't recall him saying he was for gay marriage during the campaign, which might explain why gay people didn't vote for him.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:46 PM on 11/17/2009

and why is this even a significant fact on this particular thread?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 PM on 11/17/2009
- CAMBEL I'm a Fan of CAMBEL 15 fans permalink

Actually, the gay community was one of the earlier groups to support Obama, remember, Early on in the race even the African American community was as much behind Hillary as they were behind Obama so please don't try to rewrite history.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 11/17/2009

Very true. Gays were very supportive of Obama up 'til the Donnie MCClurkin incident (and he's calling gays "vampires nowadays).

And yes, that had ramifications in gay support for Obama. And (very sadly) galvanized some black churchified support for him too.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:25 PM on 11/17/2009
photo

Touche!!!!!!!! They didn't want Obama in the beginning, but after their choice was defeated, they want to put all their life burdens on Obama. The guy stated it clearly that he doesn't support gay marriage, but civil unions. What don't gay people understand?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 11/17/2009
- GayMark I'm a Fan of GayMark 47 fans permalink
photo

You're touche-ing something that simply isn't true. What don't YOU understand?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:10 PM on 11/17/2009

It's only okay to talk about Gay and Lesbian rights when you need the votes.

Didn't the staff get the memo?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 11/17/2009
- igorz I'm a Fan of igorz 25 fans permalink

Obama seems to be running so hard away from Progressive ideals that it's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish him from the opposition. The problem, of course, is that we already have a Republican party and it was voted out of office. For a reason. And we don't need another springing up under Obama's leadership. After all, a horse of a different color is still a horse.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 PM on 11/17/2009
- 1shamus1 I'm a Fan of 1shamus1 22 fans permalink
photo

igorz; Saw your comment on the David Frum article.
The gate keepers are quite fickle. I'd respond her, but
it'd be a bit confusing. I am in basic agreement, however.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 11/17/2009
- GayMark I'm a Fan of GayMark 47 fans permalink
photo

It's heartbreaking.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:19 PM on 11/17/2009
photo

Blah, Balh, Blah !!!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 AM on 11/17/2009
- T Specter I'm a Fan of T Specter 131 fans permalink
photo

Perhaps it's time for PROGRESSIVES to form a new party as the DEMOCRATIC party has co opted the 1968 REPUBLICAN platform.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 AM on 11/17/2009
- johngary66 I'm a Fan of johngary66 4 fans permalink

Not perhaps T Specter, fer sure! If we had IRV, instant run off voting a third or fourth party would actually have a chance in elections. It is happening in more and more local elections and we need it in federal races. It eliminates the fear of wasting your vote. Obama is just the new leader of the corporatist party.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:47 PM on 11/17/2009
- DuPageDem I'm a Fan of DuPageDem 19 fans permalink

A White House which demands the party's big tent accommodate every Blue Dog fake Democrat's demands doesn't want to hear a peep from progressives. Shut up, take it and like it.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 AM on 11/17/2009
- Two Cents I'm a Fan of Two Cents 28 fans permalink
photo

. . . alas, it certainly seems that way. (Obama's greatest time of strength, thus far, was in the early days of his presidency. Good will was so high then that he certainly could have pushed through some of his explicit campaign promises -- but the tide seems to have turned and the Republican law makers are more than emboldened, they're obstructionists. Stay tuned . . .)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:36 AM on 11/17/2009
- GayMark I'm a Fan of GayMark 47 fans permalink
photo

Are you forgetting Rick Warren? ON DAY ONE??!


I'm not.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:19 PM on 11/17/2009
photo

Why is this such a big deal? If Ms. Barnes supports Gay Marriage, that is her personal opinion. There is a big difference between a policy decision by the White House and a personal decision by one of it's members. If that is her personal opinion, it should be respected and not made into a news story.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 AM on 11/17/2009
- MarieNat I'm a Fan of MarieNat 29 fans permalink
photo

This White House has too many people who over-think stuff. Let her comments stand and remain open for interpretation! Their effort to clarify will probably cause more problems than it will solve. Holy mackerel, high IQs too often mean low EQ.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:05 AM on 11/17/2009
- Bardmess I'm a Fan of Bardmess 13 fans permalink

Yes. It's still a "free country". Obama doesn't have to own everything every aide says.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 AM on 11/17/2009

My point exactly. If this was a Cabinet official, that would be one thing. The White House did not play this right at all! It overreacted.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 11/17/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (15 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect