Obama Believes Gay Marriage 'Best Addressed By The States': White House Official

WASHINGTON -- As President Obama gets set to host a high-profile fundraiser at an LGBT gala in New York City Thursday, two potentially awkward developments confront him.

New York's state legislature seems poised to pass a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage, both expanding the legal right to marriage and drastically altering the political debate.

In Washington, D.C., meanwhile, questions have again emerged over the president's past support for same-sex marriage, specifically as to whether a nameless former staffer or Obama himself signed a 1996 questionnaire favoring marriage for same-sex couples.

The president will likely confront questions on the issue as he heads into Thursday night's event. There will also likely be protesters at the gala demanding a clarification of his position.

At a White House briefing on Monday, Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed that the president had been nothing but consistent in saying that his position was "evolving" on the topic.

"What I know is what his position was during the campaign and what it is now," Carney said. "He’s been very clear about it. He was very clear in the campaign. He’s very clear about the fact that his position is evolving. I don’t have anything to add to that."

Monday afternoon, a White House official offered a slightly more concrete answer in an email statement to The Huffington Post.

"Although the President believes that this is an issue best addressed by the states, he also firmly believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal protection under the law," the official said.

Respect for states' rights with regards to marriage is a position shared by many prominent officials and politicians, including Republicans like Dick Cheney. While it falls far short of a full-throated endorsement of same-sex marriage -- a gap that will keep LGBT activists rankled -- as it comes just days before Thursday gala, the White House official's statement offers both an indication of where Obama's evolution currently stands and a hint as to how the president will handle the inquiries that will be coming his way.

Obama is reportedly looking for politically comfortable ways to take a more open stance on same-sex marriage. Stressing states' rights, with a basic federal guarantee of benefits for same-sex couples, could be the path he's looking for.

Comments

[Joe Menor]

01:58 PM on 06/24/2011

"Gay" equals Men having anal sex.
If they called it "Girl on Girl Marriage", most woman would ignore the issue, and Angry Straight White Men would think it was HOT.

[talkstocoyotes]

09:05 AM on 06/23/2011

***In Washington, D.C., meanwhile, questions have again emerged over the president's past support for same-sex marriage***

Interesting wording that. "Questions have emerged" has the same effect as the passive voice (e.g., "mistakes were made"): it avoids any responsibility. Questions have emerged from where? Who's asking them? Are they serious questions or just a White House attempt to dismiss a downsizing of support in an effort to avoid alienating people who would never in a million years vote for Obama in the first place?

[daltexdude]

10:29 PM on 06/22/2011

I don't do crumbs.

[dkinton49]

05:56 PM on 06/22/2011

Why do we pay so much attention to such a small segment of society? It is not like they are a significant portion of the population.

[lilly091]

08:43 PM on 06/22/2011

Because apparently our country loves to ignore the real issues such as job creation or the economy to focus on the little things like gay marriage.

[RedBirdy]

08:36 AM on 06/23/2011

I believe blacks are 13% of the american population and gays are around 10 or 11... are blacks insignificant because of the number? no. neither are gays.

[dwangelo]

03:53 PM on 06/22/2011

Bush's Fault.

[rascalcat]

02:40 PM on 06/22/2011

Repealing DOMA requires 2/3 support in the GOP House and Senate where you can't get 60 votes on anything. Just not going to happen, at this time. The only other choices are the states, where progress is being made, and the courts. About the only thing the President can do is to state he believes DOMA is unconstitutional and refuse to defend it. He's done that.

[David Landry]

03:05 PM on 06/22/2011

It doesn't take 2/3 support to stand up and be a fierce advocate for equality, to make sure that equality is a consistent and strong theme in all presidential speeches.

FYI: DADT was repealed, and gays are still not able to come out for fear of being fired .... so "not defending" DOMA amounts to exactly nothing ... remove all federal laws that discriminate against gays, then maybe he can talk about the issue being a "states right" issue ... just like Wallace did when he was trying to protect segregation.

[rascalcat]

02:29 PM on 06/22/2011

With a GOP dominated House, our Federal Government has become dysfunctional due to the extreme partisanship in DC. If you want to see progress on anything, not just this issue, it is probably more likely to happen at the state level.

[David Landry]

03:07 PM on 06/22/2011

I bet that was what the Wallace's "5th column" was telling MLK when he was fighting for equality for Blacks.

[redsox4]

03:40 PM on 06/22/2011

OMG...I am so sick of the MLK reference....NOT even remotely similar!

[KitchenCabinet]

02:11 PM on 06/22/2011

How very disappointing to see President Obama do the pol pretzel twist. I worked for him because he promised to be straighforward & open. I will vote for him but I will not be knocking on any doors. He has gone out of his way to accomodate the fright wing but left us liberals out in the cold. I hope he thinks he can count on republicans for re- election. That seems to be who he favors but I don't believe they appreciate it one bit.

[Linda Sutton]

01:40 PM on 06/22/2011

We'd still have SLAVERY if that were left up to the states.

Yes, the progressives in the party are DISAPPOINTED in him...but that is a total understatement. Others in the party are biting their tongues off most of the time.

[rascalcat]

02:32 PM on 06/22/2011

You are right, of course, but at some point you have to take what you can get. There is not enough support in the GOP House to repeal DOMA, so do you wait for that support or work at the state leve where there has been some progressl?

[David Landry]

02:58 PM on 06/22/2011

No, this is about principle. Does a Democrat president, a Black Democrat president, support equality? ... does the Democratic party itself support equality?

In truth equality will come from the courts even if the Democrats decide to abandon gays, so as far as the overall fight goes, the war is already won.

Does Obama and the Democrats want to be on the wrong side of history? Do they think that this transparent cop out of claiming it's the domain of "states rights", while ignoring the multitude of federal laws that discriminate against gays is fooling anyone (well except Obamabots, who are going to vote for him anyway no matter what anti-democratic, anti-freedon, anti-equalit BS he pulls?)

I don't care about the GPO, they don't support gays, and they never will. The question is do the Democrats, and from the looks of it they are only willing to throw gays a few scraps believing that that is all to takes to fool gays into thinking that Democrats really support equality.

They don't even have to win (as I said, I firmly believe that the courts will be the ultimate answer to equality no matter what the Dems and Reps do.) But if the Dems are unwilling to be fierce advocates, to stand up and loudly, firmly and unambiguously support equality, then many gays and progressives will remember that.

[David Landry]

03:17 PM on 06/22/2011

The problem is that in "taking what you can get" give gays inequality ... and moving the fight to the state level while DOMA and all the discriminatory federal laws are still in place is meaningless.

[redsox4]

03:44 PM on 06/22/2011

Read your history, no it would not be...Very tired argument. South was looking at in 10 years time to let go of the slavery issue.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1606700/would_slavery_have_ended_without_the_pg5.html?cat=37

[Real Patriot]

12:27 PM on 06/22/2011

Okay then. Reverse DOMA so the state's determinations can be honored.

[rascalcat]

02:35 PM on 06/22/2011

That takes an ammendment that would require support of 2/3 of the GOP House. How likely do you think that is?

[David Landry]

03:13 PM on 06/22/2011

The what's the point of letting the states handle it if DOMA still exists? Sounds to me like this is just a ploy to tell progressives to go waste their time on someone other than Obama ... Like "dad" telling the child to "go ask your mother" knowing full well that "mother" will say no.

[dwangelo]

03:54 PM on 06/22/2011

DOMA doesn't put restrictions on the states. Just federal.

[Real Patriot]

04:31 PM on 06/22/2011

Read it. No state,for example, is compelled to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, whereas they are with heterosexual marriages.

In Mass, for example, you can be legally marriaged as a federal employee but can't get the same benefits as your heterosexual peers (why it was ruled unconstitutional)...

[Murphdogg]

11:47 AM on 06/22/2011

"nothing but consistent in saying that his position was "evolving" on the topic."

That clarifies it. What a coward.

[rowvee]

11:42 AM on 06/22/2011

Evolving is consistent. Tell us what the meaning of "is" is.

[michael429]

10:30 AM on 06/22/2011

Applying the same reasoning, he would have argued that States have the right to decide legality of slaverywithout Federal intervention...sow some political courage sir.

[Real Patriot]

12:31 PM on 06/22/2011

Civil marriage has long been seen as the purview of the states, an element of state civil law.

It is just that due to the supremacy clause (and the civil war), state laws cannot violate the US constitution or federal law.

Therefore, it should be left to the states, which may include the high court of the state, and DOMA should be reversed so that the decisions of the states can be honored.

[michael429]

01:19 PM on 06/22/2011

Your response is a legal argument in defense of states rights. the Constitution and the Bill of Rights insure that the states and that the Federal Government will not pass laws restricting the rights of individuals as guaranteed in those documents. so it is the same old argument about whether or not denying individuals to marry is a violation of their basic civil rights. some of us believe that the Federal govt. Is obliged to intervene and guarantee what we view as nothing more than a basic civil liberty. your position is similar to the one that resulted in George Wallace attempting to keep James Meridith from attending the Unuversity of Alabama. Something he lived to be ashamed and embarrassed of toward the end of his life. there are some ( like me) who view marriage as a religious ritual that the government should have no voice in. civil Unions should be available to all couples regardless of sexual orientation.

[ChicagoVoice]

10:30 AM on 06/22/2011

Another lost vote here, I can't believe this!...

[glddraco]

03:28 PM on 06/22/2011

go and vote republican and surely they'll stand up for your rights.

[talkstocoyotes]

09:13 AM on 06/23/2011

Yeah, because the crop we got in 2010 when voters decided to "make a statement" has done the country soooooo much good.

[talkstocoyotes]

10:26 AM on 06/22/2011

"Although the President believes that this is an issue best addressed by the states, he also firmly believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal protection under the law," the official said."

So, Barack, how about interracial marriage? Do you believe that your parents' marriage should still be illegal in several states, or is the support for "states rights" reserved for matters that wouldn't inconvenience or embarrass you personally?

I'm curious too as to how The Fierce Advocate would react if one of his daughters turned out to be gay and wanted to marry another woman. Would he just tell them to avoid certain states, even though they're US citizens?