Today, we found out that Obama no longer thinks the federal government should ban gay marriage. This is not likely a change in the man's personal views -- but it does indicate a huge change in the cultural climate of the U.S.
The flip flop of President Obama on the question of gay marriage has been in the news quite a bit lately. Way back when, in the time before he was a national sensation, Obama told the Windy City Times that he supported full and equal rights for gay couples. Then he ran for president on an anti-gay marriage platform -- repeating again and again that it was a state issue.
Today, he reverted back to his original position, fully endorsing the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Those who knew Obama way back when (and I run into a number of these people in and around Chicago these days) have consistently felt that he personally supported gay marriage. He has many long standing relationships with LGBT people and is generally considered to be a social liberal -- his hopefulness about racial equality in the US did seemed to be in contrast with his position on gay rights.
I always assumed he thought being for equality would lose him votes -- another example of a moment when Obama didn't have the courage to stand up for what was right.
Obama is a pragmatist. That hasn't changed just because he has decided to come out in full support for the repeal of DOMA. He is treading carefully, this time making sure his statements doesn't mandate equal rights, but allow states to still choose whether to grant equality legislatively or abide by state court decisions demanding gay marriage. But the repeal of DOMA would significantly change the way federal systems approach same-sex couples, notably opening the door for same-sex partner sponsorship in immigration.
Obama's support for the repeal of DOMA, before the bill has even made it through Congress, likely proves that gay rights are no longer a taboo subject for most of the American electorate. Some number cruncher in the Democratic Party has done a rough calculation of dollars lost from LGBT donations and votes lost due to outward support for gay rights and found that our cash outweighs the election costs.
That wasn't the case in 2008.
If this staffer or team of staffers is correct (and we, for the sake of the future of this country, surely hope so), the U.S. has made huge strides on tolerance for LGBT equality -- a tolerance that is one step closer to acceptance and, eventually, protection and promotion.
So, today I am excited about Obama's decision to stand up for equality in America. But I am mostly celebrating America's decision to stand up for equality in America.
Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs
Tobias Barrington Wolff: DOMA Repeal and the Truth About Full Faith & Credit
Just stop.
The issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with equal rights, which is why forty-four states and the federal government have constitutional amendments and statutes supporting marriage.
My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
Mildred Loving,
Thanks to you both. Not only are your names on THE court case, but that decision continues to be referenced as THE precedent in other major court cases, including the California Prop 8 case last year.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK
Jesus did't hate anybody. He chose to hang out with prostitutes and fishermen. No doubt some of them were Gay and/or transexual.
So where exactly did Pres Obama "revert" his position?
Not allowing GLBT Persons to be considered married in every State or by the Federal Government is a violation of the COnstitution.
I pay the same Federal Tax I deserve the full protection of the Federal Government.
The "Defense" of Marriage Act EXEMPTS ITSELF from the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. I keep asking how ANY law that EXEMPTS ITSELF from provisions of the Constitution can be considered 'Constitutional' in the first place, but no one ever answers the question.
Ultimately, they were forced to confront the error of their ways. That came in the form of the quite famous Loving v Virginia Supreme Court case in 1967.
You see, the states that enacted those discriminatory laws contravened the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Anti-gay-marriage laws are destined to suffer the same fate as the laws barring interracial marriage.
http"//lauracarroll.com