WASHINGTON, DC - Like millions of Americans, I was so happy to see the president's bill signing ceremony. Don't Ask, Don' Tell created nearly 18 years of government sanctioned and enforced discrimination. Now that it is on its way out, the president seemed genuinely happy for the first time in months.
See how great it can be to do the right thing. All that excitement and emotion at the signing ceremony was seen and heard around the world.
Barack Obama was probably one of the first prominent Americans to support gay marriage way back in 1996 when he was first running for state office in Illinois.
"I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages," Obama wrote in the typed, signed, statement 14 years ago.
Then he switched his position, to opposing gay marriage, when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
The president is undoubtedly the only person to ever change his position on gay marriage the wrong way. Every day, gay marriage opponents are switching their positions and supporting full marriage equality, but no one has ever gone the other way.
Now President Obama says that he is "evolving" (again) on gay marriage.
I hope that the president will continue to evolve and help our community end all the hate and discrimination that is hurled at us. There are way too LGBT Americans who do not feel equal. I know. I felt that way for far too long.
The lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender community is at least 21 million strong in this country, and we will no longer be second class citizens.
Gay marriage sends a very loud and clear message to LGBT youth that they are equal. When gay marriage is the law of the land, that will become our civil rights bill. What a strong message to younger people when that day comes.
Like the president said in his speech yesterday, "We area a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal."
President Obama, please come back to the right side of history and lead. Support full marriage equality for everyone in this country, and let's repeal the Defense of Marriage Act next year!
Follow Fred Karger on Twitter: www.twitter.com/fredkarger
2) President Obama, simply put, is about where most of the country already is on the issue. In a perfect world, where marriage wasn't already co-opted by secular government, every legally recognized couple would receive a civil union, conferring all rights, benefits and protections to all couples, with religious institutions left to deal with marriage rituals.
With that not being a reality, the President has taken a positions that he, in and of himself, is comfortable with. The federal government has no right or responsibility to redefine marriage, but the federal government has every responsibility to ensure that secular civil protections are conferred to all legal couples. Civil unions for all, with the explicit belief that the definition of marriage ought not to be changed.
In a country where 70% of the population is polled at having some belief in religion or religious activity, how could you expect any different?
I'm not sayin'; I'm just sayin'.
You can sit there and question the man's "courage" all you want, the fact still stands that whenever he would actually put his foot down on anything, if the stance that he took was opposite of what you wanted him to take, you'd still be crying about his lack of "conviction in character".
Having said that, what are the objections to having civil contracts between LGBT couples that the are recognized as sufficient for obtaining the same benefits as heterosexual married couples? What else is there to achieve other than a recognition of mutual commitment and equal benefits?
Marriage is a pretty retrograde institution, all romance aside. People should stay together for as long as they want. Why get the state involved? If we had equality in every sense, through tax laws and in other matters, we would not need or desire marriage at all.
What you have identified is the same logic that produced the "separate but equal" discrimination of the last century. Essentially, you want gay couples to drink from one fountain and straight couples to drink from another. Fortunately, the Supreme Court struck down that discriminatory practice. Separate but equal is not equal.
Moreover, if civil unions or a contract by any other name were to be identical to marriage in every possible way, why do we need two names for the same thing? Is six of one thing really different from half a dozen? Can anyone be that delusional?
Another key point to consider - equality is about equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities. Equality is not about making everyone the same.
Collins(R-ME), Snowe(R-ME), Brown(R-MA), Voinovich(R-OH), Kirk(R-IL), Murkowski(R-AK), Burr(R-NC), Ensign(R-NV), Webb(D-VA), Pryor(D-AR), Lincoln(D-AR), and likely 2-3 other conservative/centrist Democrats didn't vote for the repeal of DADT because "activists and news commentators made sure it stayed a big issue".
The repeal became a reality because the strategy laid out was clear, executed well, and all folks played their part in the process.
President Obama and the White House, from the very start, were in favor of the repeal. The Obama Administration did the bulk of the "inside work", most importantly getting the military hierarchy, in a joint front, in favor of the repeal, even though such a front came with some reservations. Adm. Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, went to his committee testimony and proceeded to elevate the issue of the repeal beyond just being about gay people, and turned it into a conversation about the utter integrity of our Armed Forces. The Obama Administration also gave full leeway to Congress, to figure out the most reasonable path towards the repeal, with Senator Lieberman taking sole focus in the Senate and Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran, staking his political career to carrying the effort forward in the House.
Adding to that, the pressure coming from the activists on the outside and the fact that the courts were starting to make the decision for Congress, and the repeal was finally pushed through.
I seriously think that you overestimated the impact of the "activists"
that, "...establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial. "
http://www.propublica.org/article/white-house-drafts-executive-order-for-indefinite-detention
Obama does not care about gay marriage, he cares about having power / getting re-elected so he says what is politically expedient at the moment. He calls it being pragmatic.
Try again.
Asked what other gay rights legislation the White House might be expected to take on in the next few years, the president responded:
I have been struck -- let me take the former -- repealing DOMA, getting [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] done, those are things that should be done. I think those are natural next steps legislatively.
Obama continued, explaining that he would look for a legislative solution to combat DOMA, which also allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states:
As I said before, I have a whole bunch of really smart lawyers who are looking at a whole range of options. My preference wherever possible is to get things done legislatively because I think it -- it gains a legitimacy, even among people who don't like the change, that is valuable.
Despite the positive rhetoric, the president conceded that Republican control of the House would likely mire progress on these issues, though he insisted that attitudes toward the gay community "are changing rapidly."
He has been working on the repeal of doma (a law that we have courtesy of Clinton leadership). It will happen.
I see progress marching on; eventually, sensibility wins out, even if it may well take a long time due to entrenched resistance from people overly enamored with their little abstractions, such as religious objections (aka. "My Imaginary Friend") or their psychological bugaboos (aka. "Them two guys kissin' makes me feel funny in a way I ain't ready to cope with."
Viva. The dominoes are falling. Openly gay active duty military is going to put gay marriage over the top and I hope most of the culture warriors stay alive to see it. Maybe they'll even realize that they were wrong, but I doubt they'll start doing that so late in the game.
I've always considered it a patriotic duty to advocate for gay rights, because the more rights a minority has, the more rights I have. It's nice to finally see something get done on this front after so many frustrations.
Gay marriage is more inevitable then it ever was now, and the GOP knows it now. Gay service men and women serving openly will say "I risk my life for this country. I should able to spend my life with who I want." How can you argue with that? You can't. Gay marriage is coming. Maybe in the next two years. It wouldn't surprise me. In any case one step closer to true equality for all Americans and living up to what this country stands for.
Though expect to see children used front and center in this fight as despicable as it is. Once gays are allowed to marry and have all the legal and social status that comes along with marriage adoption, foster kids, etc. will be on the table. Expect the Right to use that as a last ditch effort to block it.
And, simply put, for the bulk of religious folks, seeing that core tenant changed is taken up as a battle for their own faith in their religion. As long as that stays the reality, which I don't see changing anytime soon, we're probably going to be stuck facing these same debates for the next decade, with the 50th President of the United States likely being the first national voice to take up the debate in any serious way.
We probably don't agree on this issue, or a host of other issues, for that matter, but the tact that I have tried to promote on this site for the last near 2 years is a quite simple one, especially for folks who would seem to be supportive of President Obama:
"Mr. President, I support the direction that you're trying to take the country on (XX), but I want to make it absolutely clear to you and your allies that there is room for you to do more on (XX). And I can show it."
Regardless of whatever the issue is, if folks had actually brought that constructive debate from the beginning, the message on what the President was trying to do would've been far clearer.
For him to "Evolve", his handlers have to first decide what his base is in support of,,,form that spineless process will come his "evolved" position...
"I was in favor of it before I was against it....." where have we heard that before....?
Until gay marriage is legal, the LGBT community needs something, so civil unions have some value as a stopgap solution.
In the meantime, the gay community needs something, so civil unions have value as a stopgap system.
In fact, here in CT there have been reports from B&B owners, Innkeepers and wedding venues that their business is UP due to out of Staters coming here to celebrate nuptials.