Barack Obama Still 'Evolving' On Same-Sex Marriage: White House

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama continues to "evolve" on the topic of same-sex marriage, his top spokesman said Tuesday, just hours after a federal appellate court ruled that a state's ban on such unions is unconstitutional.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the president's personal stance on same-sex marriage hadn't changed, but he added "that divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights to same-sex couples is something this president has long opposed."

Since he first ran for the White House, the president has responded to questions about his stance on LGBT rights by saying that his position on gay marriage is "evolving." Carney's remarks provided a slight twist on that vague statement. They also raised the question of how Obama can be proactively opposed to discrimination against same-sex couples but not proactively in favor of marriage equality.

"The president's position on these issues writ large are well known," Carney said. "You know his position, where it stands now, on the position of same-sex marriage. I don't have much to add on that."

As Obama wrestles with his position on the issue, the legal world -- and increasingly, fellow politicians -- continues to pass him by. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Prop 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California was unconstitutional.

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling stated.

While others in the party applauded the announcement, Carney declined to weigh in on the legal arguments or ramifications surrounding the decision -- even though Obama has done so before. He simply noted that "the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to discriminate against same-sex couples."

President Obama has, in the past, praised the idea of voters in individual states crafting their own policies with respect to marriage. When the state of New York legalized same sex marriage in 2011, he called it a "good thing" because it allowed citizens to participate in the policy-making process.

"I think it is important for us to work through these issues -- because each community is going to be different and each state is going to be different," the president said.

Comments

[stonecannon]

11:20 AM on 02/28/2012

lame lame lame lame lame.

sad that a president who promised to be a "fierce advocate" for gay rights is letting the momentum of equality pass him by. at this rate history will look back on him as an unfortunate footnote towards true equality for all tax-paying american citizens.

has obama read the declaration of independence? what part of "all men are created equal" doesn't he understand?

yet another politician letting his religious choices stand in the way of fairness.

disappointing.

[KM73]

05:55 PM on 02/18/2012

Homosexual advocates seek 'not' to redefine what marriage is for religion. Instead, they seek to modify civil marriage to include them. There is resistance to this from many religious groups who see marriage as based on sacred practice, and for government to change its definition of marriage is to reduce the sacred value of marriage. There in lies the issue. One side no less valid than the other. Calling each other names serves no good purpose nor fosters resolution.

Let’s get the government out of all our personal lives. Civil Unions for ALL would resolve the issue in a heartbeat. Their religions can call them marriages. Problem solved!

[Youngsville]

02:08 PM on 02/09/2012

I cannot understand, in this day and age, why we are voting on the rights of another adult to get married. It's 2012. When are we going to grow up and adhere to the true guidelines of our Constitution?

[Skilled4Men]

12:44 AM on 02/09/2012

In my heart, I believe he promotes True Equality. He encouraged Hillary Clinton's historic Human Rights Day speech in Geneva, and I believe this is part of a bigger strategy -which will ultimately favor Marriage Equality and LGBT Equality in the broadest sense. Listen to Hillary's speech again -and hold on to hope! It is imperative we support Obama!!!

[Skilled4Men]

01:23 AM on 02/09/2012

For those times when we feel weary...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/hillary-clinton-gay-rights-speech-geneva_n_1132392.html

[rockysparks]

02:04 PM on 02/08/2012

Evolve faster.

[FearlessFreep]

02:44 PM on 02/09/2012

The more pressure BHO feels, the faster he'll evolve.

[GDWhiteman]

12:35 PM on 02/08/2012

Prediction: Obama's evolution on marriage equality will be complete once he's re-elected. For now, he's keeping his powder dry - not giving the religious kooks a reason to show up to vote even though their presidential candidates are a sorry lot. Look for aggressive movement on his part early in 2013. Most important, we need to be sure that WE get out and vote for him and others who support equal rights - aka: Democrats. If we let perfect become the enemy of good and stay home from voting, it's the same as begging the GOP to put their boots on our necks.

[tintinex]

12:43 PM on 02/08/2012

I completely agree with you. He's just waiting until after the election. He's playing good politics right now

[johngary66]

11:42 PM on 02/08/2012

Please GD, as soon as soon as Obama was elected he was going to restore Rule of law. So what actually happened, he jumped right into Bush II's jack booted footsteps and became an even bigger Neo-Con than Bush ever was. How about that promise to repeal the Patriot Act? Do you really still trust Obama? He's not perfect, nobody expects him to be, but we thought he would work for main Street at least some of the time. Even his health care plan is a huge gift to the medical insurance companies that gave he and Max Bachus over a million dollars in 2008. I will vote for some one who at least was once a Real Democrat. The new Justice Party Candidate for President in 2012. Rocky Anderson. He doesn't have to evolve, he's already all for gay marriage.

[GDWhiteman]

06:41 AM on 02/09/2012

I wish I felt like we could afford the luxury of a protest vote for a 3rd party candidate, but the last thing I want to see is Democrats splitting our vote and end up with a GOP president like what happened when some of us voted for Nader in 2000 and handed the White House to Bush. Obama is far from perfect, but a Republican president would be an unmitigated disaster on a wide range of issues, not the least of which is GLBTQ rights.

I can appreciate the political reality of biding his time on marriage equality. I know the religious right is never going to vote for him, but if he doesn't rile them up, they might just stay home and not vote for the GOP nominee. The GOP would love to use marriage equality as a wedge issue to turn out their base. I don't like having to wait - in a perfect world, we wouldn't have to - but you may have noticed that the world of politics in the USA is a bit less than perfect at this time.

[GDWhiteman]

07:00 AM on 02/09/2012

Obama's original plan was pretty much a single-payer national health program. I think he was faced with choosing between an imperfect compromise and having the whole thing entirely scuttled again by the GOP. Congress - especially the Democrats - owns that, not Obama. Imperfect as it is, rather than starting over from zero again, we can focus on fixing it. As it begins to play out, we can hang the GOP with their own fiscal responsibility language. The SCOTUS decision we'll see this year will likely deflate much of the opposition with a statement that effectively says, "sorry that you don't like it, but it is constitutional".

This election could be very close. Unhappy as you and I are with Obama, I hope you're smart enough to not do something that hands the White House to the GOP. We're in a virtually unprecedented economic situation and the way the GOP has focused on trying to make Obama fail is among the ugliest things ever for the American people.

[LFox6]

12:05 PM on 02/08/2012

Translation: It's an election year, and he's saving this for last minute, in case the race is too tight nearing November. Watch him 'completely evolve' at that point, betcha

[rmax53]

11:05 AM on 02/08/2012

Anyone who has come out as a gay man or woman knows what it's like to "evolve." For many, it's a long, difficult process. If you are already a supporter of gay marriage, good for you (full disclosure, I'm a gay man legally married to my husband in NH). Whatever Pres.Obama's personal feelings are on this subject, I will allow him time to "evolve" because from what he has already said, he's moving in the correct direction.

[dhinds]

12:43 PM on 02/08/2012

Just out of curiosity (with no intent to ridicule):

Does being "a gay man legally married to my husband" mean that your marriage is composed of two husbands or is one of you considered to be the wife? (Please explain).

[rmax53]

01:45 PM on 02/08/2012

If you mean gender roles, neither of us is a "wife." We're both males: we both cook, we both clean, we both do laundry, we both manage money. If you mean sex roles, it's a cliche that one is always dominant and the other submissive. I would hazard a guess that in many a heterosexual marriage, some men assume a submissive role. Does that make them "the wife?" I know stereotypes are hard to overcome, and believe me, I respect your sincere curiosity. But it is a stereotype to assume that in gay (male) relationships, one is the husband and the other is the wife.

And for the record, I have some hesitation about using the term "husband" It reminds me of animal husbandry and procreation, which we are not engaged in. I use the term to help reinforce that it's OK for two men to be legally married, with all the legal rights and benefits that the state of NH affords us (inheritance, hospital visitation, etc) without having to hire a lawyer to codify those rights.

[truth be told again]

12:51 PM on 02/09/2012

Your claim of lack of "intent to ridicule" is, well, ridiculous.

OBVIOUSLY (to those with a brain or a clue), same-gender marriages will have either two husbands (as mine and rmax53's do) or two wives. However, I prefer two legal spouses, because the gender of either spouse is - and should be - no concern to the law or to the government or to busybodies.

Why would you refer to a man as a "wife" if you didn't intend to ridicule?

[Cheshiremoe]

10:29 AM on 02/08/2012

If you have to move, say for a job, to a different state it is not fair to gay couples that their commitment is not recognized across state lines.

[truth be told again]

12:53 PM on 02/09/2012

That is yet another reason why the mis-named "Defense" Of Marriage Act is UN-Constitutional. It specifically EXEMPTS ITSELF from the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause.

So many people don't even know this.

[Redv14]

10:00 AM on 02/08/2012

The Presiden has been disappointing to me on this issue. I wish he could just take a firm stand and say is in favor of gay marriage. He is probably afraid that if he did he would loose votes. Politicians have to walk a tight rope on so many issues but it seems to me being in favor of equal rights for all people is not something anyone should be afraid to support.

[truth be told again]

12:54 PM on 02/09/2012

Agreed. But until he is safely back in the Oval Office as the President, we all should understand the possible ALTERNATIVE and its implications.

[FearlessFreep]

04:59 PM on 02/09/2012

Progressives have to at least THREATEN not to vote for Obama if they want him to take them seriously.

[shankapotomus]

09:45 AM on 02/08/2012

Hes not evolving hes trying to let people think hes not for it because it would destroy him.

[FearlessFreep]

01:05 PM on 02/08/2012

Really? The polls show the US public is already shifting.

[shankapotomus]

01:14 PM on 02/08/2012

I hope he endorses it.

[truth be told again]

12:55 PM on 02/09/2012

Supporting equality wouldn't "destroy him". The rabid frightwing billionaires and their SuperPACs would.

There's a difference.

[johngary66]

06:30 PM on 02/09/2012

Obama raised more money for his run for President in 2008 than had ever been raised by any candidate in history. the vast majority of it was from Wall Street. He is just as likely to raise the most in 2010. Republicans hate him because he stole thier biggest benefactors, but businessmen do not. He has been so good for them that they have had record profits during his tenure thus far. The social neanderthals will give to super pacs against him, but business will stay with him. This is not hard to research. Goldman Sachs last year had already given him another million dollars in thanks for keeping their executives out of jail. The well documented and easily checked site obamatheconservative.com is an excellent research site despite what certain not so brainy posters here suggest.

[Kentonio]

09:37 AM on 02/08/2012

From wiki..

"In March 2011, Democracy Corps conducted a survey of 1,000 likely 2012 election voters in 50 congressional districts considered political battlegrounds. It asked respondents to rate their feelings on the same-sex marriage issue on a 0-100 scale, with 100 being "very warm" or favorable feelings, and 0 being "very cold" or unfavorable feelings. 42% were on the "cool" or unfavorable side, and 35% were on the "warm" or favorable side."

That'll be why he's waiting folks.

[johngary66]

11:46 PM on 02/08/2012

Why? because he uses polls to determine his policies? Fail!

[Kentonio]

05:09 AM on 02/09/2012

Politicians who don't pay attention to polls lose elections and don't get to make any more policies.

[AdamWest1313]

03:48 AM on 02/09/2012

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

Polls are polls.

[Kentonio]

05:08 AM on 02/09/2012

Those are very different things. A majority may support it, but what matters in an election is how those people are distributed around the states. The polls show steep division in the battleground states.

[KenInd]

09:01 AM on 02/08/2012

Sitting on the fence......................

............we will see if he has 'evolved' after he wins re-election. The cynic in me says that he is avoiding a tricky issue.

[GDWhiteman]

12:37 PM on 02/08/2012

The realist in me says that he's avoiding riling up the religious kooks who might stay home without this as an election issue.

[FearlessFreep]

02:45 PM on 02/09/2012

What if he loses anyway?

[LetMeOut]

08:58 AM on 02/08/2012

EVOLVING means=flipflopping and waffle waffle

[KenInd]

09:01 AM on 02/08/2012

He has two good roll models: Kerry and Mittens.

[dhinds]

10:19 AM on 02/08/2012

If you bought into the Swiftboating lies foisted in the public (because unlike Bush, Kerry actually fought in a war - and fought bravely) for electoral purposes, you'll swallow anything.

[RationalityPlease]

08:31 AM on 02/08/2012

It seems President Obama isn't just a national Rorschach test for bigots to project their most deep-seated fears upon but also one for others to project their hopes upon...

But, hey, at least he is isn't a Republican, right? Except, of course, for all those times when he's behaved like one.