Yes, it does apparently seem in line with Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean. Or at least Governor Palin says so. But that's not exactly what I had in mind.
Here's an exchange on Tuesday between ABC News' Jake Tapper and Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary (emphasis added):
Q Okay. And the second question on a completely different topic -- the President opposes same-sex marriage, but he supports giving same-sex couples the same rights as married people.
MR. GIBBS: And benefits.Q Same rights and benefits. What's your response to critics of his policy who say this is exactly separate but equal?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to the any number of times that he was asked this during the campaign and addressed it.
Q I don't think he was ever asked is this separate but equal.
MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, it was asked on multiple occasions, and I can pull you something on that. It's the President's belief -- he strongly supports civil unions, and supports ensuring that they have access to the rights and benefits, such as hospital visitation and things like that, that are enjoyed by others.
First of all, kudos to Jake Tapper for pressing the issue. President Obama is a constitutional law professor. That he doesn't openly acknowledge the separate but equal nature of civil unions is ridiculous. As I intimated in the final paragraphs of my most recent post here, the position isn't fooling anybody.
But, for now, the White House is perfectly happy telling me and millions like me that we should be satisfied with (the promise of) the same rights as everyone else, just without being allowed to call it what society would otherwise recognize it as: marriage.
Same rights, different name. Same rights, different vehicle. Same rights, delivered in a different way. Same rights, but....
Now I know what it sounds like:
UPDATE:
I emailed the Media Affairs office at the White House to see if they would provide me with the information that Gibbs indicated he would provide to Jake Tapper. The two references are below, but I don't think they are any better than what Gibbs said in his press briefing. The second reference is particularly pitiful because he flat out says that civil unions are not separate but equal.
"Visible Vote '08" Presidential Candidates Forums Sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and the Logo Network, Federal News Service, 8/9/07:
MR. SOLMONESE: But on the grounds of civil marriage, can you see to our community where it -- that comes across as sounding like separate but equal?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, you know, when my parents got married in 1960, '61, you know, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South.
So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it's something that I care about.
But I would also say this, that if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it's less important that we focus on an anti- miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non- discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state.
Now, it's not for me to suggest that you shouldn't be troubled by these issues. I understand that and I'm sympathetic to it. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country, that those rights are recognized and enforced by my White House and by my Justice Department.
CARLSON: Before I go to Melissa with a question -- I've been working with the LOGO people for a couple of days, so I have more of a feeling for what troubles them -- it seems like religion owns the word "marriage" or you're letting religion have marriage, and then civilly, you get civil unions.
But you got to get married and I got to get married, but Joe doesn't get to be married. And that really does mean that it's a lesser thing. It looks like a politically feasible thing to do, but...
OBAMA: Well, as I've proposed it, it wouldn't be a lesser thing, from my perspective. And, look, semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I'm interested in is making sure that those legal rights are available to people.
And if we have a situation in which civil unions are fully enforced, are widely recognized, people have civil rights under the law, then my sense is that's enormous progress, and that is the kind of progress that I think HRC would be proud of and I would be proud of as president, and that's what I'm going to try to lead.
Copley News Service, 10/27/04:
"During Tuesday's debate, Obama told moderator Phil Ponce that he thought homosexuality was 'for the most part' innate. Ponce then asked Obama if denying gay people marriage wasn't 'separate, but equal' treatment if their sexual orientation is not a choice. 'No,' Obama said. 'I think there are a whole host of things that are civil rights, and then there are other things, such as traditional marriage, that I think express a community's concern and regard for a particular institution.'"
Transcript here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7363718/2004-Debate-Three-Alan-Keyes-and-Barack-Obama; relevant portion starts on pg 21
So, you see, folks, it's kind of silly to talk about how bad ANY of us have had it, because someone has always and always will have it worse.
can't we work together to find some common ground and come together on our similarities instead of working to drive one another apart, when we are all trying to find the same thing, Happiness??
Well, they are. Did you forget about a million pink triangles....? It was not just about the Jews. Gypsies, the disabled and Gays were a big part of the Holocaust. Never again.
The women's rights movement was also a singular entity. But, it was also a movement for women's CIVIL RIGHTS.
And for you to say that the rights that gays are stuggling to attain is limited to calling civil unions marriage is insulting. There is more than marriage at iisue with full civil rights for gays. There is DADT, there is ENDA, there is adoption, there is hate crimes and more. Do you know there are still states in this country where is is LEGAL to deny renting housing to someone simply because they are gay? Other than food and water, what is a more basic CIVIL RIGHT than to have full access to housing? There are still states in this country where you can legally be fired from your job just because you are gay.
The two movements may be different, but they are BOTH struggles for CIVIL rights.
Brown vs. Board of Education which overturned the Marbury vs. Madison decision of "Separate but Equal" was not predicated on the systemic violence perpetrated on African Americans. It was based on the fact that separate laws, identifying citizens as "others," were inherently unfair.
It is unfair to pit the violence one group experiences vs. another. It has nothing to do with the legality of this decision.
More to the point; to answer your question "What is the difference between marriage and civil union?" perhaps it will be necessary to interview the children of gay parents 10 years down the road and show them pictures of "married couples" with children and "civilly unionized" same sex couples with children and ask them if they think they are equal?
Finally, there is no rationale for creating a separate franchise for gay people other than religious opposition, which should be automatically negated by the concept of Separation of Church and State. Having said that, it should be incumbent on those in opposition to extending civil marriage to gay people to provide a rational explanation why gay people should not be extended the same franchise. If no such argument exists outside of religious prejudices (which by definition should not be part of the discussion), then marriage must be extended.
Now why did you have to go and use logic. You're gonna make these people's heads hurt.
A couple of quick things. First of all there is a need to create a new franchise. If marriage is a legal condition as well as a religious condition there needs to be a demarcation between the two so that religion doesn't get dragged into the middle of the battle. Let me paint a scenario. Lets begin with Civil Union being legal. A LGBT person decides to join their life with another they go to city hall, or they plan a wedding that doesn't take place in a church and they get married. Now, change that scenario to this, gay marriage is legal. So, conversely discriminating against gay couples is illegal. The LGBT couple has been attending a church for the last five years. They may have even met there. But they are, as far as the church is concerned, closeted. But they are members of the church. This couple has an absolute right to all the amenities given to straight church members. That means they can get married their, they can baptize their children there, they can bury their parents partners and eventually themselves there. But the doctrine of the church says homosexuality is a sin and the minister doesn't want to perform the marriage. But because the law states that gay marriage is legal, and conversely discriminating against gay marriage is illegal the church MUST perform the ceremony. If they do not they lose their tax-exempt status.
The president's position and mine as well as everyone I've talked to is that civil union is the descriptive term for marriage without a church. No employer would be able to continue this practice. In fact everything would be exactly exactly the same except one would civil and one could be but would not have to be religious. There is no difference except the name. Now if people challenge that, if employers decide that they don't want to recognize a federal law there are repercussions, including prosecution by the justice department. EVERYTHING WOULD BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THE NAME. The Marriage statute would read Marriage or Civil Union.
No it's not a lesser thing it's a different thing. Two men or two women getting married is different than a straight couple getting married. Not lesser just different (or as Rev. Wright says different buy not deficient). The picture with two separate sinks for straight and gay are an insult to the many black folks who had to suffer true Jim Crow racism. Sitting on the back of a bus, not being allowed to vote, being beaten by police and having dogs and water hoses turned on them. What suffering comes from a gay couple having the same rights as married couples with a different name? Black people then did not have the same rights by a long shot. It is a despicable comparison that will make more black people less likely to support Gay Marriage. Can someone explain what suffering occurs by gay or lesbian couples by not having the same wording yet having the same rights extended. What rights are they denied in their daily lives by having civil unions. This argument is so bogus and condescending to black people it makes me sick.
Any unmarried of-age man, gay or straight, can mary any unmarried of-age woman, gay or straight. It's not a religious thing. It's the rooted in the most basic aspect of life, reproduction.
Marriage is the recognition of the pair bond.
Even man/woman is limited: age, relative, multiples, marriage status, etc.
We gay men and women have our own discrimination stories to tell. It's time for the Barack Obamas of America to quit rationalizing and start listening.
Obama's position is eerily familiar...I heard it several times during the campaign.
1. Gay people have equal rights under the 14th Amendment.

2. The 1st Amendment makes religious attitudes irrelevant to our law and marriage secular.


3. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, like heterosexuality. It is not a disorder.


4. Marriage is the social/legal recognition of pair bonding (strong intimate bond between two adults).


That's it. Everything else, including Obama's religious opinions, is red herring.
J
You should combine Section 1 of the 14th with the 1st Amendment and the fact (circa 1956) that homosexuality isn't a disorder.
The legal rationale against same-sex marriage is what again?
You don't need "suspect classes" to recognize people's constitutional right to marry. How silly. Do heterosexuals have to be considered discriminated against in order to marry?
If marriage is a religious act, then the government should ONLY offer civil unions to ANY couple, and marriages should be left to be what they are: religious rites.
so, folks, no, Christians do NOT own the patent on the word mariage, and any 2 non-blood related consenting adults should have the right to marry and take advantage of the benefits of marriage in taxes inheritance and hospital visitation, etc
You do make some interesting points with your examples, and I'm not sure if I object to many or any of them personally (yes I've been called a hedonist on more than one occasion), but I am also smart enough to not get into politics where my personal beliefs would be taken as a reflection of where I believe the country should go, as is happening with president Obama
See to it that I can be "legally bound" (whatever the name) in my state and have it honored in every other. See to it that my significant other and I can share in all the same rights, responsibilities and benefits as provided in civil marriage.
Then I'll be ready for this separate but equal conversation. Until then it's just separate. Just unequal.
What is unequal about defining marriage as between a man and a woman?
A man gay or straight may marry an unmarried woman.
A woman gay or straight may marry an unmarried man.
A man gay or straight may NOT marry a man.
A woman gay or straight may not marry a woman.
Every man is treated the same. Every woman is treated the same.
You are breathtakingly naive. You argue at considerable length with great piety about the utility of gay "marriage" (as opposed to I presume civil unions), without offering one iota of evidence to support your claim that there is any fundamental difference between the president's aims for homosexual couples and the reality of traditional marriage (apart, that is, from the word "marriage").
Might I suggest that you have a look at how the British approached the question? They enacted Civil Unions legislation which accorded the same rights and responsibilities to couples (gay and straight) who were unable to, or unwilling to marry.
That is what counts in the end.
ALL couples, gay and straight are given a legal civil union. That gives all the legal rights and responsibilities to the couples.
Any couple, gay or straight, that chooses to "marry" in a church is free to do so as long as the church approves. There is no legal benefit at all to the church wedding. And, there are no laws PREVENTING a church from performing a wedding for any couple gay or straight.
In the end, any gay couple that wants to be "married" can be, because there are churches that approve of gay marriage.
Sounds pretty simple and straight forward to me.
And, since any couple that wants to be "mattied" ends up "married, why bother will all the dancing around it and just call it civil marriage like we already do? Straight couples who never step foot inside a church are still called "married", so why shouldn't gay couples be called married as well since there is no religious requirement to get married anyway?
Separate but equal? when your behinds have to attend run down schools, blocked from good health care, not allowed to get high paying jobs, loans, credit, etc. THEN you can cry separate but equal. It isn't just a phrase, it was a way to keep a group of people from advancing in this country. Gays are hardly suffering on any of those fronts.
You are being discriminated against, but not as much as black people were so therefore, you aren't being discriminated against.
I went to Iraq to "fight for freedom." Do you know what my worst fear was? Something happening to my partner because in our great military, I would not have been able to go to her if she lay dying. I wouldn't have even have been able to tell anyone because in our military, I will be fired if people find out I'm gay. Gays are suffering, every, single, day, of every, single, year....thanks for the support!
Surely we can advocate for civil rights for gays to marry without diminishing the struggles of African Americans in this country.
The point is that groups that have suffered in this country for being different should support each other--An injustice anywhere is an injustice to all.
We accomplish nothing sitting around trying to figure out which race/religion/people/etc had it worse. --It doesn't matter! It all is bad! It all leads to a feeling of isolation. Where one is locked inside their own head unable to fully experience or appreciate the world. It all leads to fear of powerless for those who wield the power. And invariably it leads to the weak taking up arms to resist the powerful, for power concedes nothing.
Rather than focus on differences, how about we focus on what unites us-- a common struggle to pave our destiny and not allow race, gender, identity, sexuality, disability, etc, etc, etc limit what we can do, because we as a people have shown time and time again a great innate power that we can tap into and force the wheels of destiny to break away from the wagons and chart a new , more inclusive, and fairer path.