Obama's Marriage Position Sounds Eerily Familiar

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

Comments

[sleepdawg]

If it isn't separate but equal, then there won't be any problems with codifying all state and federal code as "civil unions" and leaving marriage to the members of individual churches, as non-official ceremonies.

[PlaceboStudman]

Somewhat off topic here, but as a disabled gay man, I'm sick of this whole moral relativism "My atrocity is bigger or worse than your atrocity" stuff. If you wanna talk about atrocities, how about lets throw the disabled in the mix, some of whom are gay and black and all 3 at once. Which is worse, being beaten, stabbed or murdered, or simply being left to die by family members who feel it;s okay to simply pray for a baby who is born disabled, rather than seek the necessary medical treatment that child requires to live? And you wanna talk about being discriminated against, how about living with the knowledge that a whole bunch of people think Im retarded (yeah I said retarded, deal with it) cause I can't walk. How about the fact that almost every single man or woman I've tried to become intimate with has considered me "half a man" because I can't walk or (ahem) "perform" the same way that an able bodied person does. And we won't even talk about the whole gay thing when I started coming out.

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??

[jcwtts1]

Look, I get what you are saying but people like me aren't the ones trying to bring up the past. The LGBT community has latched onto the civil rights movement as their touchstone as their mantra and as their best most compelling argument and frankly I find it offensive. I understand why people what to use the civil rights movement, it is a unique moment in history, but people paid for that with their lives man. It isn't a cartoon it is real life to some of us. It is like saying things are like the Holocaust. No, things really aren't. The Civil Rights Movement in the US is a singular entity. People fought and died for it, to attach yourself and your movement, which is basically a fight for the right to call your civil unions marriage, is both idiotic and insulting. Stop doing it and we'll stop telling you that your pain is less than ours.

[jimmydarhling]

"It's like saying things are like the Holocaust."
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.

[NCMan]

Yes, the "Civil Rights MOVEMENT" in the US is a singular entity. But, "Civil Rights" without the movement identifier is a generic term for ANYONE'S equal rights.

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.

[jcwtts1]

Next we have violence. Yes, gays are bashed on a failry regular basis. I admit it happens, but is a fraction of the violence blacks went through during their 80 year struggle. A fraction. The key difference to the violence rather than the frequency is the access to agency. The cops were the ones killing us, beating us, torturing and lynching us. They were a part of the systemic institutional violence against blacks, especially in the south. LGBTs are generally both more affluent than and more educated than the general population. The access to help to institutional help when faced with discrimination let alone violence is so radically different that to attempt to link them is both idiotic and insulting. You guys are lawyers and judges and cops and just about everything. Blacks were none of those things. We had no judges, we had no access to the level of agency that gays take for granted. To compare these two things is insane. I am sick of it. On the Huff today there are 5 gay blogs, over the last two weeks there have probably been 20. In all that time there have been 5 maybe 10 black blogs. Even now while you are being "oppressed" because you can only civilly marry you have access to agency. Stop making idiotiic links to the civil rights movement.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

The question regarding "Separate but Equal" is not one of who suffered or suffers more than whom, but rather what is the rationale for creating a parallel universe for one group apart from the whole.

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.

[SD Indy]

KJ,

Now why did you have to go and use logic. You're gonna make these people's heads hurt.

[jcwtts1]

K.J.,

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.

[jcwtts1]

So, while I support civil unions and gay marriage with a church exception, the LGBT community has a choice to make. Either grant the exception at the writing of the law, take civil unions, or prepare for a battle that will last another 10 -20 years. Me, I'd take civil unions and fight it out in court. But your argument that somehow this political fight is analogous to the civil rights battles of the fifties sixties and seventies is simply wrong and frankly offensive. I'll be online all afternoon so please respond I'd love to continue the discussion.

[jdiamond]

No one is saying a gay man cannot marry a gay woman. It's not about being gay. The argument is hardly religious. In fact it is much, much stronger than that and goes to core biology and the essence of life: male/female reproduction.

[sleepdawg]

So, are you deciding what is or isn't a religious prejudice? I think you're going to get some disagreement with that.

[jcwtts1]

OK, here are some basic problems with the above piece. First, separate but equal was demonstrably unsupportable. We had tried it for 80 years before we even got into court to challenge it. By that example we should try civil unions until the 2090s before we make any decision on them. Second, since you want to link these too so much, if your school was built in the 1880, and the white kids school was built in the 1950s and it is 1955, then guess what, there is a demonstrable measurable difference in the access to agency of the black and white children. What is the difference between marriage and civil union? Let me be more specific. There are straight civil unions all the time. They are preformed by the state instead of by a church. It is called civil marriage. It works just fine. You want the title of marriage rather than the function of it, that is problematic, it is almost as if you want a symbolic victory in order to do something else rather than a functional victory.

[SD Indy]

jcw, what the heII do you think we are fighting for? What you seem to NOT understand is that EVERYTHING revolves around single or married in our society. Many times, employers will cover a legal spouse on their insurance, but not a domestic partner (or civil unioned same-sex couple because they can legally get away with it due to them not being "married"). With civil unions, one partner can be forced to testify against the other in court because they are not "married". With civil unions where one partner is not a US citizen, that partner can be deported because the couple is not "married". By simply opening up the government recognized term "marriage" to gays and lesbians ALL of these rights are automatic under current law. So why create an entirely new government institution for which any new expansion in civil marriage rights must be written into both governmental recognized institution?

[jcwtts1]

SD,

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.

[chocolatecity]

"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."

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.

[SD Indy]

I can see you right now going down to the county courthouse asking the clerk for a civil union certificate right? Unless YOU are willing to go down to the courthouse and SETTLE for a civil union, then you have no argument. Simply put, suppose prior to Loving v Virginia, the state simply told Loving, we will give you the same rights in the form of civil unions, but in this state you cannot be legally recognized as married, do you really think that argument would have flied? I highly doubt it.

[jdiamond]

Well said. And don't forget, many men and women are not allowed to marry for other reasons.

[jimmydarhling]

So would you be comfortable checking "other" rather than "spouse" on any form requiring your familial designation?

[NCMan]

Are you under the misguided impression that gays have not been beaten by the police? What do you think the "Stonewall Riots" in NYC were all about? It was because of police brutality against gays.

[zest]

Hello America! Get your religious beliefs out of my civil rights.

[jdiamond]

Obama is correct on this.

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.

[superstition]

Your reasoning fails until you round up everyone who is sterile, including post-menopausal women, and take away their marriage licenses and tattoo "can't marry" on their foreheads.

Marriage is the recognition of the pair bond.

[jdiamond]

That's kind of a ludicrously extreme view of things. I'm just pointing out why marriage is defined as a man and woman and that such a definition is quite reasonable.

Even man/woman is limited: age, relative, multiples, marriage status, etc.

[TheBaffler]

So by your logic, straight people with no interest in having children should also be forbidden to marry.

[jdiamond]

Not by my logic. But you're welcome to make that ridiculous comment.

[dennissinned]

Here's a dollar. Go buy some logic.

[PlaceboStudman]

You are also denying marriage to those of us who have been born disabled and therefore physiologically incapable of reproducing

[RainbowPhoenix]

Same argument used against interracial marriage.

[jdiamond]

That doesn't make the argument wrong in this case.

[oafishcad]

No one is saying the gay rights struggle and the struggle of blacks for equality are the same. They are however both civil rights struggles. While blacks were enslaved as less than human and not allowed to marry, anyone found to have committed a homosexual act was executed. After slaves were freed and suffering segregation and jim crowe, homosexuals were imprisoned or tossed into insane asylums. About the time of the legalization of interracial marriage, gay sex in private became legal in most, not all, states. Now we have a black President and many blacks still suffer discrimination on many fronts. And gays are considered less than human and not worthy of marriage. But they can openly live as gay and be in committed, usually not legal couples, knowing that eventually history will evolve enough that someday both blacks and gays will be considered full human beings entitled to human respect and equal rights. Without having to beg or ask someone else for their God given life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

[JackNasty]

I am sick of homophobes who pretend that the civil rights of gay people are somehow not civil rights. It's especaily disgusting coming from Barack Obama and others who have benefitted from laws protecting their civil rights.

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.

[jcwtts1]

They are similar in a general way. But they are no where near the same. To take something like sep but equal or jim crow and try and fit it into the rubric of lgbt is getting old.

[jcwtts1]

hold on hold on how many homosexuals were in the closet during this insane assylum time. Seriously you are arguing, or implying rather, that all homosexuals were being confined, I can tell you that ALL blacks were suffering jim crow, the violence the rape the lynching the torture, all under the color of authority, all by the cops by the legal system. Killing a black, claim self defense and no one will convict you. Lynchings weren't solitary things, people had picnics while they hung or burned a black man, they had their children and wives there celebrating. There were PHOTOS OF THE THIS and the cops response was, what. You guys have to come off it. During this time how many lgbts were even out of the closet. Where was our closet? Or did we live our lives openly and live or die with the consequences. Look, you guys need to stop it. Really. We are talking about generational systemic violence. Look, a black couple has a black kid and that kid is a part of the same systemic insititutional violence. It is not the same, it isn't even close.

J

[oafishcad]

You're right. Gays could "pass for white". Those who didn't suffered the same indignities that you say blacks did. Stop the my suffering is worse than your suffering crap and admit gays are not treated as full and equal human beings and never have been. Including black gays and lesbians by the black community.

[ATL78]

Separate but equal was far from equal. What was saved for Blacks was always inferior and they were also dealing with Jim Crow laws holding them back. If everything is equal but called something else where is the correlation?

Obama's position is eerily familiar...I heard it several times during the campaign.

[superstition]

Obama needs to read the Constitution. Constitutional scholar, my foot.

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.

[jcwtts1]

You need to read a little yourself. the 14th amendment covers every single person in the country. But there are specific rulings that deal with suspect classes, people for whom the presumption of bias is present. The court enumerated them and left LGBT out of the mix for a number of reasons. There is a specific ruling that does not include LGBT in the special protections, there needs to be another test case that includes them but frankly I think the court rules the same way again and excludes them again. The reasons for the exclusion still hold true today. Unless they overturn the ruling completely I think LGBTs will continue to be forced out. It isn't pretty but it is real.

J

[SD Indy]

Wrong! In the Lawrence v Texas ruling, the US Supreme Court DID rule that the LGBT community IS a suspect class.

[superstition]

I did read ... the part that says all Americans have equal rights.

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?

[jdiamond]

3 and 4 are questionable.

[RainbowPhoenix]

Not to anyone who's not blinded by their own hatred of gay people.

[bannorhill]

Your statement in item 4 is incomplete. Marriage is the social/legal reconition of pair bonding "between a man and a woman" not just two adults.

Should we allow marriage between a brother and sister? After they are two adults. How about two brothers? They too are two adults. A grandfather and his 21 year old grandaughter? Also two adults. They meet your definition.

So should there be any limits on what is a marriage?

You seem to advocate there should be none.

[RainbowPhoenix]

Thank you for that amusing non-sequiter.

[XME]

I wish that those who are for "civil unions" for same sex couples, but against marriage in that case were able to recognize that that is what makes this an issue that should have NOTHING to do with government. Obama is against same sex marriage because he views marriage as a religious act...and that fact alone shows that it should never be up to government to deny something to one American human being that they give to another American human being.

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.

[oafishcad]

Too reasonable. Will never happen.

[NCMan]

the reason this logical option won't ever happen is becaus etoo many churches will "maryy" gay couples and the right-wing wackos wouldn't ever go along with that.

[PlaceboStudman]

I will never understood how and why religious people believe that they hold the patent on the word "marriage". As if you could hold a patent on a word to begin with. When people stop identifying themself as Christian Americans, or Non-believer Americans, then maybe we can have a real discussion about why Christianity feels it owns the rights to a word that has been used to describe the legal, and sometimes...only sometimes spiritual bond between a man and a woman, that existed several millenia in the history of mankind before Christianity. And in those several thousand years before the rise of Christianity, the bond called marriage was simply one of property exchange and inheritance priveledges, which is why the whole "only marry to have children" thing came about, to ensure that property was kept within a family and that no other family could take possession of said property.

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

[donorconceived]

PlaceboStudman you said "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" but I'd like to bring attention to the fact that because of institutionalized "donor/vendor" anonymity, there are many offspring who have 100's of unknown half siblings. There is a good chance that some of them might meet, fall in love and possibly want to marry. A DNA test before applying for a "marriage" license might clear things up their blood relation but at that point their relationship has most likely become intimate. Wouldn't it be discriminating to not allow them to marry because of their blood relation? And if you say yes, then why shouldn't full siblings be allowed to marry (this has happend with adoptees). Why stop there? Why does it matter if siblings are aware of their blood relation or not? I also think the number two discriminates against those folks who practice polygamy. Why does marriage have to have anything to do with the sex act or procreation? What about two sisters who live together (as sisters) who want marriage benefits? Why discriminate against them? Do you see where I'm going here? I don't mean this in an insulting way or equating ssm to incest or marrying, say, a pet (that is ridiculous) but it is not ridiculous to discuss all the doors that ssm opens.

[AnotherTry]

If ssm opens all these doors, you must admit that it really is marriage in general that opens up all these doors. You just want to be the one to decide where to draw the line. And your only basis to exclude gays is a book written by some old dead guys. Not a compelling reason. Just look at the states who have realized your slippery slope argument is just a smoke screen for bigotry.

[PlaceboStudman]

As the gentleman "AnotherTry" states, it is a matter of who draws the line, and where. I have no problem with the majority of the population of a state, or the nation drawing that line for the majority, so long as the federal government does not forbid the drawing of that line by society (in other words, currently, regardless of Obama basically ignoring DOMA and leaving the issue up to the state, the state still has the current ability to scapegoat the federal government in forbidding marriage equality to its residents, and that is simply wrong)

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

[NCMan]

how does your concern over DNA have anything to do with whether gays should have the right to marry or not? Do you think it is only gays who may not know who they share DNA with?

SSM doesn't open any doors at all. SSM would still carry all the other requirements of marriage such as age, relatives, only for two consenting adults etc.

If other groups want to try to get polygamy legalized, let them do the work to try to get it legalized. Allowing SSM is no slippery slope to anything else.

[kcinci]

Frankly I don't care about the separate but equal argument at this point. To everything a season. This argument only counts in situations where that actually exists. Until every state and federal government bestows these so called equal rights on all non-related adults, that 2 persons can be legally bound with the rights and benefits traditionally provided via the "civil marriage" mechanism, this separate but equal argument is moot. It's still separate and NON equal.

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.

[bannorhill]

Why do "equal" rights stop at non-related adults? Why does it stop at adults?

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.

[EducatedObserver]

Mr Hudson,

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.

[AnotherTry]

That's too easy. A corporation that only recognizes marriage will not have to offer equal benefits to their gay civil unioned employees. Seperate but equal, is not equal. the SCOTUS as already decided this.

[NCMan]

I like what you have suggested from he British approach. If what you mean is this

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?

[allonfla]

Obama has stated his position several times during the campaign - made no secret of it. So enough with the protests because you knew what you were getting.

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.

[cure077]

Here we go again. This is an invalid argument:

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!

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Well said. The idea that any intelligent person would compare the de jure and de facto segregation that Blacks faced with the marriage rights of gay couples is ridiculous. It is as if these people fail to understand or merely ignore the breadth and depth of racial segregation Blacks faced. This is offensive.

Surely we can advocate for civil rights for gays to marry without diminishing the struggles of African Americans in this country.

[rainbowblue]

Wow nice use of legal mumbojumbo. I'd laugh if weren't for the fact that it was never illegal to be black. Up untill 2003 it was still illegal to be gay in some parts of the country.

[Lynwood Walker]

I don't see why comparing the conflicts is offensive. MLK supported gay rights, The march on Washington was organized by an openly gay man and close friend of MLK and Coretta.The civil rights movement for African-Americans was always closely tied to the women's rights movement. The forms of discrimination we suffer may be different, but that doesn't make them any less real.

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.

[rainbowblue]

Okay you want to play ball, then let's play ball.

Run down schools...­.hmmm...le­t's talk to the kids who get harrassed to the point where they come down to three options: 1. suicide, 2. get killed, 3. told to leave the school for an "alternative" school

Health care...well this is almost universial you got to have $$ in order to get good health care, so i'll pass this one to the next, expect for one point: doctors and nurses can be homophobic and if you don't say that you are gay they might not consider tests that they should (i.e. a HIV test)

Employment...this one is clearly documented and why we are pushing for ENDA job discrimination exists

Let's talk housing, how about hate crimes, how about the military...the list goes on. To argue gays have it perfect in this country is to tell the world you have the iq of a duck.

[SD Indy]

Now why did you have to go on and criticize ducks?

[AfroLatina21]

Well said and great points!

[Lynwood Walker]

I hate this argument that because Obama stated a position and many of us voted for him we shouldn't complain . Its silly because it assumes that we shouldn't support a politician who doesn't support all of our goals, and thaht we cant, through protest and political movements, influence politicians.. Instead of defending Obama so much and treating his position as scripture, why not challenge him to implement policies we want.

The corporations spend billions of dollars making sure politicians hear their voices. Even on issues like healthcare, knowing where the president stands, health insurance companies are spending millions trying to influence his decisions. If special interests make sure to have a politician's ear then the public better damn try aswell--No use just sitting around the house Amen'ing every decision Obama makes.

LGJ didn't want to sign voting rights legislation. FDR didn't want to implement the New_Deal. Abraham Lincoln didnt want to free the slaves or fight a civil war. We have the power to influence politicians' views if we all stand up and make our voices heard.

I think the worst thing to come out of this election is people stopped fighting once Obama was elected. That should have been the moment we double our efforts. We have to make sure he hears us as much as he hears the elites. He needs to know our support isn't given freely, its earned--He needs to break free of the beltway_bubble and see all the suffering.