1996 Obama Questionnaire Reveals a Move Away From Equality

The junior senator from Illinois broke into the national scene after a speech given at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. But for those living in Illinois, and especially for those living in Chicago, he was a man with a political history.

Today, The Windy City Times looked at some of that history and discovered that, while the rest of the country is fighting for progress, Barack Obama's views - at least on gay marriage - have only moved backwards.

Obama was a candidate for State Senate in 1996 and, as is the custom, Outlines, the then gay newspaper in Chicago, sent him a questionnaire asking his position on equal rights for same-sex couples. He stated then, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." He also wrote, "I would support and co-sponsor a state civil rights bill for gays and lesbians."

In 2004, Obama decided to run for U.S. Senate and again, as is custom, he sat down for an interview with The Windy City Times (the new Outlines). There, he began to hedge his bets on marriage: "I am a fierce supporter of domestic- partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue." He continues,

What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

Finally, he tells Windy City,

Tracy Baim: If Massachusetts gets marriage and this gives momentum to the proposed federal Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

Obama: I would oppose that.

The evolution of his views are more tactical than substantive. But the 1996 comparison does illustrate how years in politics have convinced this Senator that gay marriage isn't a winnable option. Still, for those with a warm spot in their heart for the new President, his views on rights seem consistent, even if he does underestimate the implications of legal inequality in name and the potential consequences of that inequality.

But, as we begin 2009, the resolve of the more powerful, more experienced Obama caves. In 1996 and in 2004, Obama stated that he would oppose state legislation aimed at restricting the rights of same-sex couples. In the 2008 election he had the opportunity to speak out against Proposition 8 in California, Proposition 2 in Florida and Proposition 102 in Arizona.

He did not forcefully oppose those amendments. The opposition he did express was limited to early on in the primary race.

Vocal involvement in those races, even simply to dispel the rumor that he supported a ban on gay marriage, might have made the difference between a win and loss for equal rights in those states.

This was not only a failure on the part of the President-Elect. It was a denial of a political stance he consistently held for the last 12 years.

Obama stated that he supports full equal rights for same-sex couples in the form of civil unions. He also stated that he would co-sponsor such a bill. I encourage him to re-read his questionnaire from 1996, and again, re-read his answers in 2004. I encourage him to remember that having great power does not mean that advocating equality should be replaced with middle of the road decision making.

The struggle for LGBT rights continues in the United States. Equality will come, and I can only hope that the Obama Chicago grew to love works hard to be on the right side of history.

Comments

[SunDriedTomato]

We are one of the 18,000 couples married in California and directly impacted by Prop 8. We were married in our church, which is one of the 4,557 churches in California suing against Prop 8.

Obama's actions are not abstract to us.

Obama is a politician. He does what he has to do to get the job. Words have power and connotations that can derail efforts toward a goal.

The goal here is complete and full legal equality.

I don't care what it is called by the government. "Civil union" or "marriage" or "partnership contract." The words don't matter. The legal rights do.

I do not have a problem with what Obama is doing right now.
If DoMA stays, if DADT stays, if no progress is made for legal recognition; then I will have a problem.

[AnotherTry]

Of course Obama is less concerned about the name. It isn't his partnership getting second class status. It is someone else's.

It is either marriage or nothing.

[Danigirl65]

I'm sorry, but as somebody who has happily heterosexually cohabitated for the past 7-1/2 years (with many more in my future), I simply do not understand why the term marriage is so important to homosexuals.

Obama does favor civil unions and is against a Federal ban on same sex marriages, what more do you want from the man?? I do believe that there needs to be something done in regards to hospital visitation rights, right to Power of Attorney, etc. for all long standing couples, regardless of sexual orientation. Trust me, I'm in the same boat as a homosexual in those regards. If something medically happens to my boyfriend of 9 years, I have no right to visit if he is in a "family only" unit, have no right to make medical decisions, etc.

Other than that, I'd LOVE for somebody to show me the benefits of "marriage." I've personally done it twice and the only thing it did for me was take less money out of my paycheck up front and take away deduction $$.

[ConstanceReader]

Because the legal rights accorded to married couples in one state must be upheld even if the couple moves to another state. Civil unions have no such requirement. A civil union in Vermont bestows numerous rights and obligations that the state of Texas has no obligation (or desire) to uphold.

[mercury613]

That's very easy for you to say, because you have the *choice*.

[tigerlille]

I'm not exactly surprised by the history that this article describes. I always figured that Obama's opposition to gay marriage was an expedient one. What I don't understand is why Obama cannot comprehend that equating gay marriage with an incestuous relationship or pedophilia is unacceptable. Obama is like any politician in that he will compromise his core beliefs in exchange for more power. Unfortunately, it is a slippery slope. I think that Obama is still a fundamentally good man, and I hope and pray that he will raise to the occasion as president of the United States, but he has already bailed on gay rights, and that is not a good omen.

[Danigirl65]

Sorry, I just don't see where asking Rick Warren to lead the invocation indicates Warren's thinking is not wrong-headed. Believe it or not, there are many people who think just like Warren; that doesn't make it right.

This inauguration, and the Presidency it represents, is about ALL of us, even those who wouldn't vote for him because he was a black man. This doesn't indicate his acceptance of their views, simply his invitation for them to participate in the process.

This Presidency is ALL INCLUSIVE not just inclusive of those who share his beliefs on everything.

[fobrien50]

The problem is Warren doesn't believe in inclusiveness. But that"s not enough for him he actually wants the government to exclude people he doesn't like. Obama"s invite elevates and legitimizes these un-American views that are the opposite of inclusiveness.

[FearlessFreep]

"Pragmatists" insist that civil unions are just as good as same-sex marriage. Well, then, let Congress DECLARE that such civil unions are the same as marriage! Anything less amounts to appeasing the homophobes.

[omahkohkiaayo]

Well there is a parallel with so-called "Common Marriage" a term used in law for unions involving cohabitation (not seen as any kind of marriage by many religions and even considered "living in sin" by many. On the other hand, the term marriage has another history beyond the religious meaning and it was meant to signify an arrangement in which patriarchal property rights prevailed. For example, previously in law, a woman in a legally recognized "marriage", could not charge a husband with rape for forced sexual relations--in all other unions a partner could. Further, previously a woman could not obtain her own credit standing and was tied to that of the husband. So the term "marriage" can be seen itself as a loaded and not desirable term from various perspectives.

Liberation of any disenfranchised group (women, LGBT, African-Americans, Disabled, Indians, people of "color", etc) does not come about with equal opportunity to become an oppressor or equal opportunity for "full acceptance" or "mainstreaming" into oppressive constructs and institutions. It does not mean having an "equal opportunity" to become a guard at Abu Ghraib, a corporate exploiter and oppressor CEO, etc. That is the difference between narrow and self-absorbed petit-bourgeois "identity politics" and serious liberation.

[carter2004]

Wow. That is a really good idea because it illustrates the point beautifully and will illuminate the disingenuous nature of all this "civil unions are just as good" nonsense. Because if the pro-Prop 8 people *really* believe that civil unioned (?) people should have ALL the same rights, they ostensibly wouldn't have a problem with that legislation.

Except . . . I'm betting they would. Okay, folks. Here it is: I'm willing to make a principled agreement right now that if the federal Congress were to legislate that civil unions and marriages were exactly the same in every way (including full faith and credit among all the states of the union, effectively reversing DOMA), then that will satisfy me.

I just don't think you'll do it. But prove me wrong.

[mercury613]

"Because if the pro-Prop 8 people *really* believe that civil unioned (?) people should have ALL the same rights, they ostensibly wouldn't have a problem with that legislation."

Oh, they'll have a problem with it. Don't believe for one second they won't fight it tooth and nail just like they have same-sex marriage. This is not, as they dishonestly claim, about the word.

[omahkohkiaayo]

Yes indeed, very revealing.

I look at it from a different perspective in a way but see the point being made. I do believe in strict separation of Church and State and thus believe that in terms of the law and legal rights, all unions, heterosexual or homosexual, should all be considered civil unions and the term marriage should not be used because of its loaded connotations and thus its use favoring some religions or secular ideologies and not others.

As for the term marriage, then let those religious and secular groups use it and apply it as they wish; and those who allow same gender marriage and call such unions marriage let them and let those seeking such recognition with the term marriage for same gender unions join those groups, and those who do not allow the use of the term marriage for same gender unions, leave them to their own beliefs. This, to me seems to be a sensible and Constitutionally protected position.

I do not like the "evolution" of Obama's positions on a host of positions the more he got positioned for the next "highest" move in his obvious quest for the presidency that began a long time ago as in the case of almost every president--and I voted for him.

[singforpeace]

Thanks for this post.