Ah ha, I knew it! Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage after all. (Or at least he did before he set his sights on national office.)
That's the eye popping news this week from a gay newspaper in Chicago.
The Windy City Times dug through its archives and discovered two candidate surveys conducted in 1996, when Obama was running for the Illinois state senate.
In the first, Obama responded to a question by writing "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
In the second, Obama was asked if he supported a document called The Marriage Resolution, which states "RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage."
Obama wrote his response by hand: "I would support such a resolution."
As we know, Obama went on to run for higher office, and went on to oppose gay marriage. He's not alone.
Most progressive Democrats running for higher office run away from gay marriage. In fact, last year all the leading presidential candidates opposed equal marriage rights, including liberals such as Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, and Edwards. Only Kucinich and Gravel supported it.
This despite polls showing that 40% of all Americans, 50% of Democrats and 69% of self-described liberals favor legalizing same-sex marriage, numbers that have trended upwards year by year.
Lots of gay folks like me can be forgiven for wondering whether candidates like Obama, Biden and Clinton really, truly, deeply oppose gay marriage, or simply claim to oppose it because they think they can't get elected otherwise. I mean, is it just an odd coincidence that the Democratic Party's major progressive candidates simply happen to be more conservative than half the party and almost half the country on an issue of fundamental human rights?
Of course it's impossible to say for certain about everyone. But I have long suspected many progressive candidates for high office are...well, lying. I suspect that lots of them privately support marriage rights, but are not willing to get out front on an issue they think might cost them votes. Especially for a minority whose members are probably going to vote for them anyway.
The Obama revelations powerfully support this suspicion. But here's the rub.
A new study by the group Freedom to Marry came out just days earlier, and it decisively shows what happens to politicians brave enough to openly support and vote for gay marriage. They win re-election. And if they decide to run for higher office, they win that too.
The study looked at all 1,100 legislators from 21 states who either voted in favor of outright legalization of same-sex marriage (in California, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts) or voted against bills to make it illegal (in mostly red states like Texas, Virginia and Tennessee) over the past four years.
Of those who voted to legalize same-sex marriage in the first four states, 100% won reelection, or won election to higher offices like the House of Representatives.
And not one of the 667 legislators who bravely against voted measures to ban same-sex marriage in more conservative states lost reelection because of their vote.
This is not to say that same-sex marriage is far more popular than we thought. In fact, in most of those red states the anti-gay marriage measures ultimately passed. And we all know what happened in liberal California when the issue came up for a popular vote.
But it does suggest that the issue is not one of those culture war hot buttons that decides elections. Voters may disagree with a candidate's open support of gay marriage, but if they like that candidate anyway, it appears they'll vote for him or her anyway. Even in places like Texas.
And that suggests that progressives who, because of so-called political pragmatism, refuse to support gay marriage publicly even if they believe in it privately are capitulating to a threat that doesn't really exist.
Since we're talking about a fundamental human right, that's not just a shame. It's a cowardly travesty.
So memo to all upcoming progressive candidates (and the President Elect): Take a look at the Freedom to Marry study, take a look inside your heart, and take a stand to do the right thing. You know you want to. And now you know that it won't even hurt.
Darren Hutchinson: LGBT Activists Beg Obama to Shift on Same-Sex Marriage: Why?
Tracy Baim: Obama and Marriage: Do We Need a Secret Gay-Decoder Ring?
Clinton seems to be doing more for GAY RIGHTS right now in the state department. Her changes will lead to gay partners receiving same benefits, training, and security as straight partners receive.
In order to work in her area, it was suggested in another article interviewing one of her staffer, that it would have to move into other federal government agencies. Her changes could lead to the REPEAL OF D.O.M.A. on the GROUNDS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
AND IT HAS A MAJOR STANCE. One reason, gay partners can be left in foreign countries if there is an emergency. They are not entitle to government security, or evacuation in an emergency. What happens if they are kidnapped or taken? Sounds like they may be tortured for information, would know some, and it may lead to ransom and extortion. The security problem is not that they are gay, it is that they do not have the same CIVIL RIGHTS to be protected by our government.
GO CLINTON...move your @$$ OBAMA.
The law is equal if it states no one can marry someone of the same gender, it becomes unequal in its protection by giving monetary benefits to those that get married, especially when not every citizen will marry in their lifetime. Not to mention that marriage is and can be religiously driven. The Federal government's interference on the matter is bordering on violating its role under the First Amendment.
This article is looking at this bassackwards. It is not that citizens have a right to be married; it is that the federal government does not have a right to provide tax cuts, make laws, or influence how citizens live by providing benefits towards an institution.
Ax (The Real Axiom)
Federal Government needs to oversee all Marriage related issues. Marriage entitles one to federal benefits; citizenship, taxes. medical.
If you really thought that Federal Government needs to stay out of marriage...WHY is there DOMA?
D.O.M.A. eliminated gays from any federal recognition of marriage. Eliminate it from your marriage if you feel so strong.
Oh, and the idea that WE have the same right to marry as you as long as we marry someone from the opposite sex.... Well, maybe that is why you have Republican congressmen trying to pick up male cops in bathrooms.....
To be allowed IN THE CLUB, one has had to listen to YOU and other conservatives and present an image that you can, or are willing to, understand.
I would rather people living and loving who they want and being who they are, instead of the lies, hiding, and fake societal norms which adds to 50% straight divorces, or cheating, or a politician attacking GAYS more because he is trying to hide his own indiscretions.
Maybe if we learned to love each other for who we are instead of what we think is normal, maybe people could really find the one they love and not have to worry if they are the right sex, not pretty enough, too fat, doesn't look right, doesn't fit into the mold, .....UGGGH
Why should we have to worry about what others think when we choose the one we love?
Saying he is against marriage but for full civil unions is just code for: I'm working on it, hang in there.
To paraphrase someone from Join The Impact: Personally, I don't care if it's called "civil union" "marriage" or "pineapple upside down cake", I just want full equality for everyone.
Carol
If this president doesn't stand up for the separation of church and state, he will never be reelected. It is the only thing that can prevent our progress toward fascism.
Other politicians, sure. But not Obama.
(Note please: sarcasm.)