2/28/08, Obama Favors Civil Unions. Pay close attention to link #3

[UALRBSofL]

Obama on Marriage:
For the record, I opposed DOMA in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted.
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=4018


Obama and Edwards on DOMA: Just Say "No" and Just Say Nothing:
Two surprises: Obama reneges on his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act and Edwards says that he would work for its repeal.
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/05/obama_flipsflop.html


Open Letter from Barack Obama to the LGBT Community:
I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment.
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/open_letter_from_barack_obama_to_the_lgb.php

[LeftyMom]

1. Civil unions are the modern colored water fountain.

ANYBODY who doesn't support real marriage can kiss my ass.

[UALRBSofL]

3. LeftyMom

K/R

[bicentennial_baby]

5. While I completely and utterly agree with you

I can't sit this one out or make a protest vote. I hope that you understand. :pals:

[UALRBSofL]

6. bicentennial_baby, I do understand

I'm gonna borrow your Obama thingy just in case he is the nominee. I think it's pretty cool. :)

[bicentennial_baby]

7. Nice, and

thank you. :)

[Drunken Irishman]

15. What is real marriage by your definition?

I believe in civil marriage, however, it's impossible for the government to force religions to marry gay and lesbian couples. That is the religions choice and I think both Hillary and Obama have pledged to leave it up to the churches to marry whomever they want. Which is how it should be, because I think this opens the debate of allowing gay civil marriages without infringing on religious doctrine. I mean, the government can't force the Catholic Church to marry two Protestants and the government can't force the Mormon Church to marry two atheists inside the LDS Temple (you must be LDS in good standing if you're sealed in the LDS Temple).

So what we have here is essentially civil marriage, or civil unions. It just now opens civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

[LeftyMom]

16. Who's talking about making churches do anything? Only the right wing.

I don't give a fart in the wind what churches do or don't do. I just want all couples to have equal rights under the law, and separate but equal marriage-lite alternatives like civil unions aren't it.

[Drunken Irishman]

17. What do you think civil marriages are? They're civil unions.

[LeftyMom]

18. No, those are marriages. No less so because they're performed by a judge or justice of the peace.

Several states have instituted or proposed a separate legal category for cementing relationships between two persons of the same sex, known in some places as civil unions. In the best cases, for example in New Jersey, the intent is to secure all the rights of marriage, minus the contentious name (further note that your definition and line of argument is wrong: these "civil unions" are often religious ceremonies performed by ministers of religion.) Other than the obvious problems with any separate but supposedly equal institution, issues arise because existing law, employment contracts, insurance paperwork, etc, all depend on the word marriage, and because other states and the federal government do not have any provisions for recognition of civil unions, while all recognize marriage. Society knows what marriage is, and how to treat married couples, and there is not any similar precedent for the civil unionized. Even the proponents admit that all the rights of marriage are not being extended to these couples in many cases, though the law states that they are equivalent institutions.

"A commission established to study same-sex civil unions in New Jersey has found in its first report that civil unions create a ''second-class status'' for gay couples, rather than giving them equality."

" The commission held three public hearings last year at which the majority of the testimony came from people who were in civil unions and said they were still not being treated the way married couples are by government agencies, employers, and others.

For instance, the commission found that many companies in the state that are self-insured -- and therefore are regulated by federal, rather than state, law -- refuse to provide health insurance to the partners of their employees. "

"The commission also finds that many people in the state do not understand civil unions, which create a ''second-class status.''"

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid52281.asp

"...a preliminary report by the state Civil Union Commission has found major problems with the implementation of civil union rights, which has created a "second-class status."

To compile the 21-page report, the commission heard testimony from 98 people, including Ford, during public hearings in New Brunswick, Blackwood and Nutley last year. The biggest problem same-sex couples experienced was being denied benefits because their employers did not recognize civil unions. Other problems mentioned in the report include:

n Unequal treatment during medical emergencies and hospital visits.

n A designation of being "less than" or "other than" for gay youths and children raised by same-sex couples.

n A "disparate impact" for African-American and Latino couples, who usually earn less than white households and are less likely to be able to afford lawyers to draft wills and other legal documents or to lose health insurance.

n Putting military workers in jeopardy of losing their jobs under the federal government's policy that bans gays from the military."

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/186/story/88685.html

[Horse with no Name]

2. Wow...he was in the Senate in 1996?

Or is this just another one of his retroactive off-the-record grandstands on the bandwagon?

[rug]

11. Not even the Illinois Senate. He was still working at a law firm.

I'm sure everybody at the firm picnic was impressed.

[Horse with no Name]

13. You know what REALLY bothers me

He releases statements like this saying he was ALWAYS against it...and his supporters glom on to it without a batting an eye.
Context matters...and as far as I can tell...what he may or MAY NOT have said is irrelevant IF there is no context to which it was put into a public record. I guaranfuckingtee you ONE thing--no matter what he says NOW that we know how the Iraq war ended up, if going against it risked his senate seat--he would have voted the same way most of the others did. He had NOTHING TO LOSE when he said it at his dinner party.
From watching his performance as a junior senator...he stays away from the tough stuff that may bite him in the ass--he doesn't take any firm stands or make moral statements that go against the popular vote and did pretty much the same in Illinois with his "present" votes (and I don't believe one of his never-ending "explanations" that he was providing cover for his colleagues. He provided cover...for himself.)
He is nothing but a charade.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Just like Jim Crow represented the best way to secure equal treatment for blacks.

Don't you dare demand the right to sit at a whites-only lunch counter; you will cost Democrats the election!

:eyes:

[NMMNG]

10. Of course it did, silly

[Beregond2]

8. Civil Unions

Civil unions have problems, in that they aren't currently being devised in such a way that they provide all the benefits of marriage. But in many states (including mine) they are already being improved, and no doubt will, in time, be legally identical to marriage. In fact I feel sure that one day, the state will get out of the marriage business altogether, replacing them with civil unions for all people. The sacrament of marriage will then go back to being what it was originally: a rite of the church.

I understand the impatience of gay people about this issue, being gay myself. But sometimes change has to happen incrementally. Like it or not, the term "marriage" has religious connotations that place it outside the realm of rational thought for fundamentalists. Being dogmatic about it will only delay the day when we have the legal protections our relationships need. And there is nothing to prevent us from calling our unions marriages if we want to.

I think both Obama and Clinton have chosen the wisest option at this point in time. If anyone had told me twenty years ago that I would see gay civil unions being advocated by ANY candidate, I would never have believed it. In historical terms, this huge change is happening incredibly quickly. Patience, people.

[UALRBSofL]

9. Beregond2 That's the same thing Barney Frank said in 2000

You need to get real. I suppose we should wait another 50 years or so.

[cali]

14. I think CUs can be transitional

In VT, CUs provide all the benefits and responsibilities that the state gives marriage. What people don't know or don't remember is what huge resistance CUs were met with almost a decade ago when the VT SC ruled in Baker and the Legislature came up with CUs. Now we're working on full marriage in VT and it will almost certainly pass next year. The thing is, the marriage commission here isn't being met with anything like the ugliness and resistance that civil unions were. Vermonters, now, by a slight majority support full marriage for the GLBT community. People are no longer susceptible the fear crap in the way they were 10 years ago.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Moral cowardice is NEVER a wise option

Show me one civil right that was obtained piecemeal, just one.

[stillcool]

19. 2004, Q & A,,for what it's worth..

Obama Seeks U.S. Senate seat
by TRACY BAIM
2004-02-04
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3931

WCT: I remember seeing you at gay and lesbian events, if not before you were elected, certainly after you were elected.

Obama: Before and after.

WCT: And yet, your district at the time, stereotypically, people would not consider having a large gay presence.

Obama: That probably dates back to my college days. My favorite professor my first year in college was one of the first openly gay people that I knew. This was back in 1979. He was a terrific guy, though we’ve lost touch. He was a political science professor. ... Because of my friendship with him, I became, early on, attuned to some of the issues and struggles that were facing the gay and lesbian communities. I think, because of those personal relationships with people like him, friends of mine I’ve known and worked with in various capacities, I’ve always been concerned and interested in how we promote social justice for all people.

WCT: Have you ever experienced any backlash, in terms of your re-election, when you supported gay issues?

Obama: I have not. I’m really pleased with the cultural shift that’s taken place just in the last decade in our society. I think that Chicago, and Illinois, in a lot of ways have been leaders in the country, particularly in the Democratic Party, where I think there has been a lot of progress made. We don’t have a lot of gay-bashing taking place within the Democratic Party, from any camp.

WCT: One of the things that supporters of the state gay-rights bill have been saying is that some of the supporters of certain Senate candidates, yourself included, were not coming out full force for the Senate bill this time. Do you feel there’s a litmus test for people whose supporters aren’t fully 100%?

Obama: You raise an important point. Although your initial question was whether there’s been a backlash against me, I see none of that within the Democratic Party. I think there are still geographical differences in terms of attitude toward gay and lesbian issues. I think downstate, there is a difference. On the Southwest Side, the Northwest Side of Chicago, where the Catholic Church is still a significant institution, there is a difference. And, to a certain extent, within the African-American community, because of the strong affiliation with the church, there is still some resistance.

My attitude is that candidates for office, persons in elected office, are ultimately responsible for what they say and what they do. I think the question is, are they forceful, clear, strong advocates on behalf of these issues. Are they doing everything that they can to lobby on behalf of these issues. They’re not always going to be successful, even within the Democratic Party. And there are going to be people in this U.S. Senate race who support me who may not feel the same way I do on gay and lesbian issues. That’s going to be true of the other candidates as well. The important thing is, what do people see me saying publicly, how am I acting publicly, how am I voting publicly. Because what I do think is unacceptable is saying one thing in one forum, and saying something else in another. What you do have to expect is consistency, and not playing to a particular audience.

WCT: Can you talk about the supporters of you who do not support the gay-rights bill . Is it your sense that the choice they are making is a moral choice for them, or is it a political choice?

Obama: The overwhelming majority of my supporters not only support SB 101 but are co-sponsors. There are going to be some of my supporters who may not have voted for it yet ... . I think it probably varies. I think there are some downstate Democrats who are just making a political calculation, that this is really a tough one. That they will experience significant political backlash in districts that are closely aligned, and in which the Republican Party is very much using this as a wedge issue. I think there may be other supporters of mine who are still asking questions about the contents of the bill. I’m confident that if we can get this to the floor, and get close, that I can change some minds.
-----------------------------------------------
WCT: You have a large list of gay and lesbian supporters.

Obama: I’ve been a strong supporter of gay and lesbian issues for a long time, which means I have a lot of personal relationships in the gay and lesbian community. Initially, our committee formed of its own volition and is continuing to expand.

WCT: Can you talk about your plan on domestic and international AIDS issues?

Obama: On issues like prevention and care, we need to significantly increase funding, and we put out proposals to increase funding by at least $1 billion.

WCT: If Bush does get re-elected, and the Republicans maintain control, how can Democrats have an impact?

Obama: It depends on what the margins are in the Senate and the House. If the Democrats continue to be the minority in both Houses and the Republicans control the White House, we have less leverage. Part of our job, at this stage, is to lay the groundwork for a long-term working majority. This country is at a crossroads. Whether it’s an issue of AIDS funding, or tax policy, or healthcare, or the environment, we have a 5- to 10-year task ahead of us in rebuilding a working, progressive Democratic majority that can win elections. So on issues like AIDS funding, I see my job as not only getting more money and passing bills, but also changing and reframing the debate. I want to be able to reach out into the African-American community, where there may still be resistance and homophobia, and talk as a U.S. Senator about the importance of funding.

WCT: Is there a comparison to when Republican Pate Philip was heading the state Senate and you were trying to get bills through?

Obama: Absolutely. The Republican Party has its own tensions. There are very conservative, intolerant wings, and then there are mainstream wings. My experience is that if you’re clear and principled, they are also willing to work with anybody and seek common ground. You can actually win some occasional victories. You’re not going to win everything, you’ll probably going to lose on most issues. But on issues of AIDS funding, I think it appeals to people’s core decency and values. I think that even voters and elected officials who may object to SB 101, can still be persuaded that we need to make sure that people are healthy and safe.

WCT: What about the military’s ‘don’t ask’ policy?

Obama: I think it needs to be eliminated. ... I think it is safe to assume that we have a significant number of gay and lesbian soldiers in Iraq. The notion that somehow they should be treated differently is contrary to what this country is about.

WCT: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?

Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,’ they would say, ‘absolutely.’ And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?’, then suddenly ...

WCT: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.

Obama: Since I’m a product of an interracial marriage, I’m very keenly aware of ...

WCT: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn’t going to happen so you won’t support it at this time?

Obama: What I’m saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don’t want to play their game.

WCT: If Massachusetts gets marriage and this gives momentum to the proposed federal Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

Obama: I would oppose that.

WCT: Talk about your record on hate crimes.

Obama: I have been a strong advocate for hate-crimes legislation at the state level. I would continue to be an equally strong advocate at the federal level. I absolutely think that sexual orientation has to be included in all hate-crimes legislation.

WCT: Gender identity as well?

Obama: Absolutely. The transgendered community has to be protected. I just don’t have any tolerance for that sort of intolerance. And I think we need to legislate aggressively to protect them.

WCT: Do you support adding gender identity to the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act?

Obama: Yes. I think this is a difficult question because it touches on, for example, the rights of schools or other public institutions that may be concerned about a transgendered person in positions of authority. I would think the political resistance on that would be fierce. I’d have to look at the language.

WCT: Adoption and family law is very inconsistent. Is this a federal or state issue?

Obama: I think that’s really a state issue. I think that one of the things, as an advocate on behalf of gay and lesbian issues, I would like to be able to do, is throw issues of state’s rights back in the face of Republicans who, for example, try to pass constitutional amendments or federal laws that prevent states from adopting their own policies.

WCT: As a constitutional lawyer, do you have a comment on the dozens of state anti-gay marriage acts—will they survive a constitutional challenge?

Obama: I think that there is a complex issue that is going to be percolating in the courts with respect to “full faith and credit” and how those cases are treated. The federal government has the capacity to override state laws, through the supremacy clause. It is unusual for a federal law to override an underlying principle that states should recognize each other’s laws. So I don’t know how the federal government is going to come out on this. I think it’s going to be argued all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

--------------------
WCT: Why do you feel the LGBT community should support you over another candidate for the U.S. Senate?

Obama: I think that the Democratic Party in Illinois, particularly in Chicago, has made enormous strides in embracing the issues that confront the LGBT community. I think that any of the Democratic candidates would be an improvement—or would better serve the LGBT community—than the Republican counterparts. But ultimately, I think one of the questions that this community has to look at is, who’s not just going to be a good vote, but who’s going to be a passionate advocate on behalf of their issues? Who’s got the capacity to reframe the debate, who’s able to articulate and present these issues in ways that change people’s hearts and minds? That’s something that I have consistently been able to do in the state legislature. I’m not just talking the talk or filling out questionnaires, I’ve walked the walk on every single issue that’s been important to the LGBT community. And oftentimes I’ve delivered. I have never shied away from these issues. It’s that kind of consistency and willingness to fight that is what I think is needed in Washington right now. Particularly because no matter what happens in this next election, there are still going to be forces at work that are promoting intolerance and are resistant to change. One of the skills that I think I have is an ability to translate my passion for equality and justice into a language that a broad audience can relate to and understand, and I think that’s going to make me effective when I get to Washington.