When the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny the freedom to marry based on sexual orientation, the White House issued the following statement:
The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law.
It was quickly noted that the statement lacked the word 'equal' or any variation of it. Under quick and heavy criticism from the gay community, the White House either issued a correction, completing the phrase, 'equal protection under the law'.
I sarcastically joked that what was missing in the statement was an entire sentence:
President Obama, a brilliant constitutional law professor, supports the separate but equal policy that is increasingly being ruled unconstitutional by State courts.
The statement was messaged to death and probably signed off by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs or one of his deputies. I can't help but think that the gay staffers in the White House wouldn't have cautioned that such a response would not be well-received.
When the Vermont legislature dramatically overrode the veto of Republican Governor Jim Douglas, the White House had nothing to say.
Today, when Maine's Governor John Baldacci became the first Governor in the history of the American nation to sign a bill granting civil marriage rights to gays, the White House didn't issue a statement (but they did issue a Presidential Proclamation for World Trade Week). ABC News' Jake Tapper must have noticed. He asked Robert Gibbs about Maine in today's press briefing (via The Advocate):
Jake Tapper: Does the President or the White House have a reaction to the Governor of Maine signing a same-sex marriage bill?
Robert Gibbs: No, I think the President's position on same-sex marriages has been talked about and discussed.Tapper: He opposes same-sex marriage.
Gibbs: He supports civil unions.
Tapper: Does that mean that he's going to say or do anything against what the citizens of Maine--
Gibbs: Not that I'm aware of. I think the President believes this is an issue that's best addressed by the states.
That's all of the acknowledgment that the gay community gets. Nothing more. We're in the midst of mind-blowing progress towards being treated equally by the law and the White House can't muster one bit of emotion or congratulatory tone. To say it's disappointing wouldn't come close.
Here's the thing: Robert Gibbs, who I have known since 1998, is a good person and I'm sure he is happy for the advances towards equality for the gay community. But, there is a mentality that anything 'gay' is controversial and toxic. The political 'ruling class' has always propagated that notion and it remains to this day. It permeates campaigns and government alike. That's why we get half-ass measly statements, if anything.
Here's the problem: Everybody knows the Democrats are for equality for the gays. The Republicans have spent a gazillion dollars telling everybody that for the past 18 years or so. So when a Democrat back tracks and falls all over himself to answer a 'gay' question, it shows fear. It shows dishonesty. And nobody's buying it.
The Solution: The White House and other Democrats should shed their feigned distaste for equal rights for gays. Now is the time. We are in the midst of a revolution. Public opinion is changing faster than ever. Even Republicans are considering embracing some of these issues because they are beginning to realize that their homophobic ranting is driving the under 30 vote away in droves. Embrace history and be a part of advancing the next big expansion of equal rights to a minority in America. We've never looked back on that with shame. Indeed, they are the are some of the proudest moments in our history.
The natural evolution of emerging rights in this country seems to be:
1) A segment of the population is discriminated against and "everyone" takes it for granted, makes excuses for it, claims biblical support for their position, claims it's NOT discrimination, and that to foster equal treatment would work some great social evil.
2) Said segment gains courage, quits settling, agitates for equality and gradually a: gets their members to become activists and b: attracts non-members to their cause.
3) Legislation to right the wrong of discrimination is proposed and fails repeatedly. Seeing the wirting on the wall, reactionaries even pass legislation cemeting the status quo. Courts split over whether the law or social justice will prevail.
4) State by state, justice wins - first in court and then the legislature, and finally the ballot box.
5) The federal government gets on board.
however, the point is that it is still perfectly acceptable to dis gays, while not so for any other group - women, blacks, jews, etc.
In his religion, marriage is defined a certain way.
He knows religious preference is no basis for law. He knows all humans must receive equal treatment.
Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ. The UCC recognizes same-sex marriages.
In other words, he's a coward. A typical politician. Even worse, a typical Democrat, unable to stand up for the position he believes in. (And this is true whether he secretly supports gay marriage or publicly supports civil unions: he addresses neither)
Real men state what they believe in and stand behind that. Obama can't seem to do that, which means he's weak.
Various Federal statutes and regulations can be tweaked, however, so that places where the feds recognize marriage (tox code, inheritance, survivor rights, spousal privilege, etc.) become places where the feds recognize marriage, civil unions, or their "legal equivalent."
Our movement for equality is like a bucking bronco; he better hold on for dear life, or he will be cast aside into irrelevance.
He already supports full equal treatment regardless of semantics - and this means that federal regs which discriminate against legally joined same sex couples will have to fall.
Clearly the President has to walk a very fine line when it comes to gay marriage because in order to get other things passed such as budgets, tax reform, healthcare reform, and the financial crisis; he's going to need the popular support of the people and the votes in Congress. He won't get that popular support from all parties if he is sidelined by an issue like gay marriage. I have faith that he will do what is right on this issue. Yes the idea of homosexuality and marriage, according to poll numbers is more widely accepted, however if that were true then you would see more states go to the polls and support such an idea. Instead it is left up to legislative and judicial bodies which have leaned favorably to gay marriage.
From my understanding, and i will admit a limited understanding, it has been my assumption that in each of the states and cities in which same sex marriage was legalized/accepted it was done so through a judicial decision or a legislative one.
So if that is the case then it goes back to my point, that although homosexuality might be widely accepted now, that does not necessarily translate to it being an acceptance of gay marriage by the populace of a given state.
because it's easy to vote against something that doesn't affect you. and people like the "tradition" of things.
Then it would truly be a state rights issue. Also UAFA if possible.
How about straight people wanting marriage for many benefits? Does marriage only consideer unification for sexual benefits leading to legal benefits, therefore entitling people to marry no matter what the reasons? How about a threesome? How about three men, two men and a woman or two women and a man? Why does marriage consider only two people? Society comes down HARD on men having more than one wife.... newsworthy TV network ratings.... several days of keeping public interest alive, talking about mormon lifestyle and police intervention... birthing of state into NWO conceptual thinking politics. A legal threesome for support purposes of whatever the gender, in helping to raise a family by regular birthing practices or adoption, especially in the economic state of the this nation, iIs society going to accept threesome marriages or more? The courts haven't begun touching upon the realities of humanity's confusional state of mind where marriage and the right to the 'whatever' people feel about themselves and what they are entitled protected the the concept of marriage. Humanity we're in for a long ride. .
Yes, Obama was the most progressive of the then-contenders for the White House and yes he has said that he doesn't support ballot initiatives like Prop 8 but it seems that many refuse to accept the reality that he is unlikely to lift a finger in bringing about federal gay marriage. . . especially since he continually says it is not something he supports (or is willing to support publically at least).
That said, I think he would be a vigilant enforcer of a federal right for gays to marry that came about either through legislation or a ruling of the Supreme Court.
I just can't understand why people are baffled by his relative silence so far on recent decisions. It is wholly consistent with his past statements.
http://manalive123.blogspot.com
He's stated yes, he supports civil unions. He does not support gay marriage. Now. What this tells me is this.
He's got a position on this matter, he will come out to support one but will not support the other because of his beliefs. That's fine.
Here's the difference on Obama's position and say the Prop 8 crowd.
Obama also clearly stated he does not feel laws should be written to prevent gay marriage. He says this is because laws should be to protect rights, not infringe upon them.
Yes, it's a shame he doesn't just come out and support gay marriage. Maybe now that it is becoming such a huge issue he will be forced to address it publicly.