Should Obama Publicly Support Jerry Brown's Efforts To Overturn Prop 8?

[stopbush]

Poll question: Should Obama Publicly Support Jerry Brown's Efforts To Overturn Prop 8?

Seems Obama has no problem supporting the rights of auto workers. Why not the rights of gays in CA?

Why not support the position of a prominent D in CA? Hell, even Arnold has said Prop 8 is wrong and that anti-Prop 8 advocates should not give up their efforts to gain marriage equality. The CA Supreme Court has already recognized the right of gays in CA to marry. How hard could it be for Obama to take a stand, right here, right now?

My wife and I are quite disheartened by Obama's choice of Warren. We really can't understand it. Obama coming out to overturn Prop 8 would be significant to us. To be honest about it, I will be extremely disappointed if he fails to speak on this issue in the very near future. This is a HUGE issue here in CA, and this is NOT the time for Obama to take a "no comment" approach, especially when he enjoys the support of progressives and the gay community; especially when he talks about equality for all and turning over a new leaf.

I've kept the choice simple and nuance free. Vote below:

[dkf]

1. I'm so frustrated with CA. NOW prop 8 is a big deal?

Geez. You are killing me.

[stopbush]

4. It was a big deal pre-election to those of us who put our $ and time into efforts to defeat it.

I, for one, am not about to stop now just because a bunch of religious bigots bamboozled a slim margin of Californians to vote for this POS. Polls today show that the margin of error that passed this fucking shit is smaller than the percentage of people who now say they didn't realize what they were voting for when they voted yes. The lies and scare tactics of the fucking Mormons and the Rick Warrens of the world were the difference here. in truth, this prop does NOT reflect the will of the people in CA, anymore than the majority of Americans supporting bush's wars based on lies told by bush reflects what Americans would have supported if the truth had been told to them at the time.

Go ahead and be frustrated with CA. Those of us who have the good fortune to live here will continue to fight for equality for our LGBT citizens. And when WE do the hard work and win this fight, the rest of the country will benefit.

[dkf]

6. They scared people into voting for Prop 8?

How'd they do that?

[stopbush]

10. Do your own research. I'm not here to hold your hand.

Get back to me and tell me what you learned.

[dkf]

12. I'm asking because I don't know what threats could possibly scare me into voting a certain way.

Heck I'm not even scared away by terrorism.

[stopbush]

13. OK, here's one.

The TV ads run by the Pro 8 crew stated that if it was defeated, CA public schools would be REQUIRED to teach kids about gay marriage. This lie was outed in counter ads that featured the CA Sec of Education, but the Prop 8ers had almost unlimited $ to get their lies out there, while the anti-8 crowd's $ support came too late to counter the message. Many CAers didn't realize that the Prop took away rights. They thought it mandated the teaching of gay marriage in the public schools.

Again, a bald-faced lie used to scare people into voting against the rights of others.

That may not be enough to scare you, but it was enough to change the outcome here in CA.

[ColbertWatcher]

17. Another issues was that it was simply confusing

If you vote "yes" you support "no marriage"; if you vote "no," you are not against gay marriage.

[racaulk]

2. He should, but I doubt he will.

I believe he has already publicly stated that the issue of marriage equality is better left to the states to decide for themselves. He didn't help to stop Prop 8 from being passed, so I doubt he will step up and speak about its repeal at this juncture.

[stopbush]

9. On the contrary, Obama issued a strong statement in July against the passage of Prop 8.

Supporting its repeal would require absolutely no change in a position that he has already advocated.

"As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6307

[racaulk]

11. Oh, very cool!

I wasn't aware that he had said that. Thank you for posting that quote!

:hi:

[PurityOfEssence]

3. should schmould; he WON'T

Isn't the MO clear after all this consistency?

[xchrom]

5. indeed. nt

[dkf]

7. Obama is for overturning DOMA.

Isn't that more important?

[Toasterlad]

19. I Will Kiss Your Internet Ass the Day Obama Introduces Legislation to Repeal DOMA.

[Marrah_G]

8. Yes- but I don't think he will

Maybe he will surprise me though.

Rarely do we find politicians with the courage to truly take on the tough issues.

Mostly because they are labeled unelectable.

[IndianaJones]

14. that may offend evangelicals. nt.

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. I am absolutely astonished that he hasn't already.

I really do not understand it. He *already* announced his opposition to Prop 8, pre-election. He said it was divisive and unnecessary.

He's said *nothing* about it post election... nothing as far as I know, anyway. All he has to do is reiterate that it is "divisive and unnecessary". He wouldn't be saying anything new and he wouldn't be "endorsing" same-sex marriage.

He'd merely be observing that Prop 8 is "divisive and unnecessary".

I'm wondering about this brilliant inner circle he's supposed to have around him. They sound more lucky than brilliant as time goes on.

[crappyjazz]

16. I understand it ... he's elected ... what more is there to say?

He got the money, he got the votes? If this is still an issue in 2012, I'm sure he'll say something about it then ...

[Toasterlad]

18. Of Course He Should. But He Won't.

The election is over. He got his.

[Sebastian Doyle]

20. If he opposed Prop H8 as a candidate, he should oppose it as President.

The President of the United States should ALWAYS oppose an attempt to take civil rights AWAY from a group of American citizens. The last 8 years have shown us what happens when an unelected imbecile did just the opposite of that.

[Jack_DeLeon]

21. I dont think it would be good for him to take a "stand" against Democracy

I know some people will say "but gays have the right to be married, you cant vote away people's rights."

There has never been any commonly accepted right to "gay marriage," nor is there any sort of constitutional protection for it. So yes people can absolutely vote away something that has never been a right before.

I'm sure eventually though there will be another different vote and outcomes will be different.

[mondo joe]

22. There is a constitutional protection. It's a matter of equal protection.

[Jack_DeLeon]

27. That is debatable...

as marriage is generally defined as being between a man and women there are no laws preventing a gay or straight man from marrying a gay or straight women, as such they are treated equally.

I know many people who support gay marriage would like to have its definition changed, but that is how it is now.

[mondo joe]

28. And your position on same sex marriage is....?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maven]

30. That is a RW lie.

Loving v. Virginia established the Constitutional right of citizens to marry the person of their choice. The Supreme Court explicitly dismissed the argument that marriage discrimination did not exist because whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. Then, the issue was race. Now, it is sexual orientation.

The idea that gays have equal rights because we are "free" to marry someone of the opposite sex is the sort of sophistry RW hucksters use to defend their bigotry. It's essentially the same argument, as I've already pointed out, that they used to defend anti-miscegenation laws.

"I know many people who support gay marriage would like to have its definition changed, but that is how it is now."

This is essentially the viewpoint of a conservative: things are one way now, therefore they cannot be changed. Presumably you voted for "change," thus I'm sure you can see the irony of such a statement appearing on this forum.

And I'd like to take the opportunity to remind you that just today Skinner restated the policy that DUers are expected to support full, equal rights for GLBT people, including the right to marry the person of their choice.

[Jack_DeLeon]

35. Very well then...

Apparently alot of people who voted for Obama in California also voted for Prop 8, so that really isnt strange.

However me being unaware about that policy, I will keep my opinion on this subject to myself while posting on this board in the future then.

[mondo joe]

38. I'd still like to know what you propose for same sex couples raising children, if

you feel that's the purpose of marriage.

[Maven]

29. How about taking a stand *for* fairness and equal rights?

Democracy in America does not mean that a simple majority should be able to take Constitutionally guaranteed rights from a vulnerable minority. That is mob rule, and it simply isn't the way a free society functions. The move to invalidate Prop 8 rests on the premise that the effort to take away fundamental rights by popular vote was null and invalid from the start.

"There has never been any commonly accepted right to "gay marriage," nor is there any sort of constitutional protection for it."

The California Supreme Court ruled that there is, and as the supreme authority on that state's Constitution, their view of the ambit of guaranteed rights trumps your sadly narrow one. Sorry.

[mondo joe]

34. The problem is the poster's bias against equality, not what the President ought to do.

[Maven]

37. I see that now.

I'm trying to be calmer in my approach to bigoted viewpoints as the last few days have been hell on my blood pressure.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

23. He probably should...

But I'd be really surprised if he did.

:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Yes he should, I'd say there's a chance he will but certainly not a sure thing

As I've said before, Obama's stances on this issue are overtly political. It's counter-intuitive to be against gay marriage but also be against DOMA and proposition 8. Only a politician could arrive at such a stance.

[mondo joe]

25. Should. Won't. NT

[Bucky]

26. It's a state matter, but the US DoJ could at least file an amicus brief

Schwarzenegger saying stuff like that is goes a long way toward explaining why you no longer hear about Orrin Hatch introducing Constitutional amendments to remove the "native-born" clause.

[ecstatic]

31. I think he should. So many heads would explode nt

[mondo joe]

36. Just want to say...

thanks for your well considered posts on several threads regarding Obama and GLBT people.

[ecstatic]

39. well

thank you for listening. I have learned from you as well.

[HEyHEY]

33. His new best friend may not approve