Obama "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."

[FreeState]

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/06/as-ca-legalizes.html

"In an interview which aired this evening on ABC World News, Jake Tapper asked Barack Obama whether he was bothered by California's legalization of same-sex marriage today.

Obama said "no," but reiterated his position that it's a matter best left to the states, affirming that he is in favor of civil unions."

-----


Looks like we have a lot of work to do in the coming days....

[newmajority]

1. Leaving it up to the states is exactly what's working.

You have two states which have legalized gay marriage. You also have Vermont which has legalized civil unions. You have the governor of New York saying that he will recognize marriages from other states as valid.

All of these are steps in the right direction, and it's reasonable to conclude that many more states will follow. Unfortunately some states won't be so quick to join the 21st century, and we can all guess which ones. But they, along with their bigoted beliefs will be left in the minority, and eventually by the time it reaches the Supreme Court, the only argument left against marriage equality will be Fred Phelps style bigotry.

Obama can probably see this playing out exactly as I have described. So "leave it to the states" is a reasonable answer. It means that no church, or no right wing bassackward state, can claim that he would try to force them into something that they think "God" doesn't want them to do.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. His parent's marriage was illegal in 18 states because of "leave it to the states"

He, of all people, should know how "leave it to the states" leads to bigotry and repression.

[newmajority]

7. The bigotry and repression already exist

Even in our supposedly "liberal" state, how many years did it take to get the anti-discrimination bill passed?

Civil rights shouldn't be a struggle at all, but unfortunately it has been :(

[FreeState]

5. 15 years after Hawaii and only 2 states have marriage equality

yeah leaving it to the states is working for the ant-gay family crowd. Never mind the fact that things like family leave and insurance are federal rights that ZERO gay people have rights for.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

8. That's precisely why it has to work its way

to the Supreme Court. There are states that now recognize gay marriages. There are states that don't. That's how cases get to the Supreme Court. Should the Supremes vote in favor of gay marriage - a crapshoot, at best, in reality - things like Social Security and other benefits available under Federal jurisdiction would be available to all couples.

It takes time, which is hard to hear, I know, but it took a long time to get to Roe v. Wade and Loving v. Virginia.

[FreeState]

20. I know that - but the OP was saying Obama believes its a States right

and it is not. Its a states right as far whom the state allows to marry - however there are federal rights attached to marriage - that must be granted by the Federal Government - marriage is not as Obama believes - purely a states rights issue.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

46. Well, actually, Obama's right,

and that's what I was trying to say. It's a state's prerogative to issue marriage licenses or not, until the matter is taken, as I tried to explain, to the Supreme Court, which is when Federal jurisdiction kicks in. Until then, there is no controlling Federal law.

Marriage, looked at in legal terms, without any romanticism, is nothing but a contract matter. It's a contract between you and your partner and the State. That's all. And contract matters are, by tradition, the purview of States.

[gaspee]

50. No

Obama is wrong. He is so very wrong on this issue. He, personally, has a problem with gay people. Well, my grandfather had a problem with black and white people marrying. He was wrong too. So very, very wrong.

[keepCAblue]

57. Racial & gender equality was not dependent on the U.S. Supreme Court

...so why should LGBT equality have to wait, wait, wait for the USSC to decide if we are "worthy" of first-class citizenship? In 1964, at the urging of LBJ, the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, a legislative package ensuring rights and protections to Blacks and women.

An act of congress, assuming we had a congress with any balls, is all that is needed to mandate marriage equality (and presumptively, provide minority-status protections) to LGBT citizens.

[newmajority]

12. So what approach would you suggest?

I believe you have mentioned in the past that you came from an LDS background. Do you think there's a snowball's chance in Hell of Utah ever passing gay marriage? And should other states who want to pass it, be held up by the religious domination of Mormons in Utah, or Pentecostal snake handlers in Alabama?

As I said, a favorable Supreme Court ruling is going to be more likely if more states have come to the reality already. And I don't see how you get there without the states making that call each on their own.

[FreeState]

21. Just because I was raised LDS does not mean Im in Utah or was raised there

but thats beyond the point. Utah will not recognize marriage equality until the Federal government makes them - thats why marriage more than Obama claims - its both a state and a Federal right. That was the point of my post.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

6. It's begun

This is exactly how Roe v. Wade became law. There were states that offered legal abortions and others that didn't. That conflict made it ripe for the Supreme Court to take up, and is, I honestly hope, how the issue of gay marriage will be handled. One sticking point is that I would go to this court with my heart in my throat, since they're so right-leaning. But, if Obama is elected and gets to appoint the Justices he wants, that might help.

It's moving along, and churches have nothing to do with it. If churches don't want to recognize gay marriages, they don't have to. They don't have to recognize heterosexual marriages, either. And, should I choose to marry my Cuisinart, I daresay they won't want to have anything to do with that, either.

[nightrain]

3. I am deeply saddened when I hear this rhetoric from Obama. He has a distance

to travel abut equality, sadly. Separate is NOT equal. Civil unions are NOT the same as marriage. I hate to think that Obama says these things out of fear, but perhaps....

[FreeState]

4. You know I would love it if there was a way

to help Obama help us by getting him on board with full equality. So far the GLBT persons I have seen that are working with him do not impress me (a lot of HRC sell outs etc). I have no idea how we would go about doing that however LOL.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. You get involved

You sound like you have ideas, and so you have an obligation to get to work to try to put them into practice.

In reality, right now Obama has to take a centrist stance on the matter of gay marriage, since he's only a candidate. I remember how Bill Clinton screwed gays by promising that he'd take out the ban on gays in the military if he were elected, and then he turned around and signed the old "Don't ask, don't tell" piece of bullshit. I think Obama is doing just the reverse - and I like him for it.

[papapi]

39. I tend to agree with you on this. The time for change will be when he is in the . .

White House. He needs to maintain his voting block to do that. I think we'll see him adjust his view of this issue once he has the power to really affect what's happening.

[nightrain]

47. Nah... he doesn't HAVE to do/say anything. It would be

really wonderful when a politician could actually be honest, or is that an oxymoron--"honest politician"? I'd rather he not pander around human rights.... That would be refreshing!

[gaspee]

51. You have a faulty memory

Bill Clinton didn't screw gay people. (literally or figuratively) Obama's good buddy Sam Nunn and people of his ilk stopped Clinton from keeping his promise.

I swear, there is so much revisionist history going on about Clinton and LGBT - it makes me ill that people believe this shit.

Clinton was willing to take a stand on LGBT issues - he was the first national politician to take that risk, so stop spreading the anti-Clinton propaganda, would you?

No, he wasn't perfect but he would have been better if he didn't have DEMOCRATS trying to stop him. He had to fight D's and R's

[nightrain]

52. so did Bill Clinton sign DOMA and promote DADT?

[Occulus]

53. Exactly. Note that the poster makes claims about "revisionist history" involving Clinton's "stand"

Holy bloody irony, Batman!

[gaspee]

55. Well, well

Aren't you just the snide one.

So Clinton was supposed to get things done with Sam Nunn and the rest of that group refusing to support him? His own party? Obama's little buddy and possible vice president?

It was bad enough he had to fight Newt and the rabid republican congress but he was also supposed to get it past the fucking anti-gay democrats (led by Obama buddy Sam Nunn) too.

How come when Obama talk about reaching out to the other side and compromising, it's a wonderful, beautiful thing :sarcasm: but when Clinton did it because the reality was that he didn't have the votes to get things done (thanks Obama BFF Sam Nunn) he sold out?

HUh? Got an answer for that one, smart ass.

This website has become a fucking pit full of ignoramuses and jackasses.

[nightrain]

58. wow, are you looking in the mirror, you're acting that way...

I guess it hurts when someone takes apart a point you've made. Sound like you are defending B Clinton without really noticing what he signed and promoted. His ACTIONS speak loudly.

I wasn't trying to be snide. Don't take it so personally. Your argument has holes, huge ones. Take the critique and clean it up. You can do better.

[gaspee]

54. You obviously

Know the answer to that - as do all you little parrot heads who harp on constantly about it.

But instead of spouting talking points, how's about you look for the truth.

Oh - and no, he did not, in your words, "promote" DADT --- DADT was a compromise - something is all wonderful, let's hold hands and sing when Obama wants to do it, but a disgrace, capitulation, disgusting, etc (add all the negative shit you want to) when Clinton HAD to do it because he didn't have the fucking votes.

A problem Obama won't be having, if he wins. Let's see what he's made of when he doesn't have his hands tied together behind his back from a right wing congress run by Newt Fucking Gingrich.

I swear, my opinion of the intelligence of the American people goes down every single time I come to DU - and hey, that *never* used to be the case.

This primary ruined my favorite website and GLTB forum was one of the only refuges -- now -- not so much.

But go ahead and bash Clinton some more. You don't want to know the truth anyway.

Well here's some truth for you. Obama is personally uncomfortable with GLBT folk - though I doubt that matters to you.

[nightrain]

59. The point is---- you neglected to mention that B Clinton signed DOMA and favored DADT.

Why defend him so strongly?

You're making HUGE assumptions about me and what I believe/think. Ask, don't assume. Stop the attack.

Perhaps Obama is uncomfortable about GLBT folks, of course that matters to me. You're not reading my initial post well. Try it less defensively and maybe you'll hear/see something differently. Geesh!!! Back off. I'm an Obama supporter! Save the fury for those other folks.

[demosincebirth]

15. Saying he is for gay marriage would be like shooting himself in the foot

and possibly losing the election. Which do we want?

[Toasterlad]

42. What Do I Want?

How about a Democratic nominee with some balls?

I'm getting a little tired of hearing about how supporting same-sex marriage would be political suicide. You know why people waffled so between Hillary and Barack? You know why very few people were happy with either choice in the first place? Because they have NO FUCKING CONVICTIONS. They say whatever they think it is the majority wants to hear. And they're so busy trying to second-guess what the voters want to hear, that they're ignoring what the voters are SAYING.

It's not 2000. It's not even 2004. There are seriously fucked-up things wrong with this country, and people know it. They're not intereted in wedge issues: they're interested in gas prices, lost jobs, abysmal housing markets, and current and future wars. If there was ever a time for a politician to STOP being a politician and start speaking plain, it is NOW.

[GOPNotForMe]

9. I'm not surprised. It is an unfortunately pragmatic position many liberal politicians have taken.

Including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Howard Dean, to name a few. I won't hold it against him any more or less than I have them and many others.

[donco6]

10. I live in Colorado.

I'd be happy if they would just leave us alone for half a second.

That would be nice.

[ruggerson]

14. lol

:thumbsup:

[and-justice-for-all]

13. I believe that marriage is between the 2 people involved..

and no one else.

It is not as though we are a completely different species, we are all Human animals. This all comes down to ridicules tribalism and religious nonsense. 'They' think that they are superior while others are second class, simply based on their dogma.

Marriage is a private matter and should be open to all. It should not even be debatable or questionable.

[Irishonly]

16. I am starting to think

that marriage should be defined as a civil union for everyone. So-called Christians live in pre human times. A couple could get married in a church with all of the religious ceremony they wanted but the marriage would be defined by the federal government and not religious beliefs.

I have never understood why the gay community is singled out. States recognize marriages performed by all types of religious leaders. A couple married in a mosque, a Buddist temple and probably a lot of ones I can't think of have no problems. Marriage should be defined as two people being in love and want a binding contract.

I may be too simplistic but in this day it's reprehensible that marriage can't be for everyone.

[readmoreoften]

17. Personally I believe it's a matter best left to the districts. For straights too.

By this logic, why should states have the right to oppress counties? Why should counties have the right to oppress districts? Let's overturn ALL marriage laws and let marriages be decided district by district.

If we're going to make it insane and unwieldy and impracticle, I mean, let's go for it!!!! Fight for District Rights!!!!

[Zuiderelle]

23. I believe we should just take it down to the street level.

If my neighbors think I should be married, then I get to be married.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. why not parental level? or friend level?

my friends have been wanting me to get married for the last decade only so i wont be a slut :rofl:

[Zuiderelle]

25. LOL!

:spray:

[readmoreoften]

27. No, only the head of your right-side neighbor's household has the right to make these decisions.

All things determined by the person living on your right. That way everyone gets a say.

[readmoreoften]

26. But what if your next door neighbors are mixed on the issue of your humanity?

It could be thorny. I say, all issues of equality ought to be determined by what the head of household (Federal Tax Filings Only) of your RIGHT-SIDE neighbor thinks about you. I think this should be on all issues. Women's rights. Racial Equality. Marriage. Abortion.

"I can't get an abortion. Gary next door went fundy."

"Fucking Republican moved in next store. Now my kids can't go to school because he says the school should be segregated."

"Bruce and Raimondo won't let Becky and Joe get married because Arthur and Maude wouldn't let THEM get married--not because Bruce and Raimondo are gay, but because Bruce never gave Maude back her snow shovel."

"Well, Ms. Stevens, we were all prepared to higher you, but then we called the old man who lives on your right, he said he's against women in the workplace, so, by law our hands are tied. We're really sorry."

[Zuiderelle]

28. Right-side facing my house from the street, or facing the street from my house?

It's terribly important actually. I have some Catholic republicans next door, and some fellow gay women on the other side. Depending on your answer, we may need to move our entrance to the back.

[readmoreoften]

29. Right-side from the perspective of someone looking at you, because other people's POV is what counts

So to "your" left, but to "the" right. And putting an entrance in the back won't help. It's from the perspective of the street/state.

DEAL WITH OUR SENSIBLE LAWS!!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. this is possibly the funniest subthread ever

[Zuiderelle]

31. Whew. That was a close one. I guess we'll be getting married soon.

:bounce:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. congratulations. i guess i wont be getting married.

:(

[Zuiderelle]

33. An ex of mine thought she could get rid of undesirable neighbors by putting garlic in front of their

door. Shall we give that a go?

[readmoreoften]

35. Stop trying to manipulate the vote, you resentful leftist. Always looking from left perspective.

If you want to CHANGE something then why don't you vote to liberate the people on YOUR left, instead of complaining what the people on the Right are doing to you. Aren't there some old people on your left whose social security you could privatize?

[Zuiderelle]

36. I say, we beat them at their own game. Let's move in next door to every straight republican we know

to the right of course, and force them to divorce.

[readmoreoften]

37. That is exactly my point.

I think this is a good idea a no less arbitrary than the current system. Just more paperwork.

[friedgreentomatoes]

44. what about ppl living in apartments?

moreover, since i share my apt with 3 roommates, all our bedrooms are like houses by themselves. will i have to go by what my roomie to the right says?

[readmoreoften]

45. No. Absolutely not. This would allow all sorts of perversions. The apartment to the right.

A state advisor will come to your complex to look at the property survey and outline who properly has control over whose life. As an apartment dweller you may have more freedom. For example, you could wait until like minded people move to the apartment on the right in order to get new jobs, marry, etc. If you were married to your partner while under the rule of a liberal rightie, then a conservative rightie could challenge the marriage, but it would take years in court and they'd probably lose or move away before they completed their task.

Such revolving control over one's life can be challenging. But in most apartment complexes people don't want to be bothered so, de facto, there isn't a lot of control going on! Good luck!

[terrya]

18. So, he supports civil unions?

Senator, there's a civil unions bill in the Illinois General Assembly, HB 1826. Sponsored by Rep Greg Harris. HB1826 is stalled in committee right now. Since you're in favor of civil unions, how about you make a few phone calls to Emil Jones and Mike Madigan and while you're at it, to Rod Blagojevich and how about lobbying for this bill? You have FAR more clout in Springfield than I would ever hope to have.

Thanks. Illinois...all of us....deserve marriage. But in my state, we gay and lesbian couples have...nothing...when it comes to marriage rights. Civil unions are at least something. But dammit, we deserve EVERYTHING.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Yes, he supports Jim Crow

That is EXACTLY what civil unions are: separate and inherently unequal. As I said above, he should know better.

[galledgoblin]

22. if he gets 8 years

we'll have full equality.

this country has shifted forward very quickly on gay rights. he's a bit behind on this (at least, he is in many parts of the country, but at pace with others) but will catch up.

[ghostsofgiants]

34. I'm STILL waiting for a single good reason why it has to be a man and a woman.

I still haven't heard one. x(

[galledgoblin]

40. what don't you understand about the

"teh gays are icky!!1!" arguement?

[ghostsofgiants]

41. It's all so clear now!

[freestyle]

38. They keep asking the wrong question.

Although I disagree with his personal opposition to marriage equality, I am much more interested in his view of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution and a commitment to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand it.

The end result of a total repeal of DOMA and a shift in the Supreme Court is national recognition of marriage equality. In addition to increasing victories at the state level, nationwide recognition will ultimately come down to the Supreme Court.

[Maat]

43. Obama is a constitutional law instructor, and knows that ..

during the entire history of the United States, the courts have consistently held that marriage lies within a state's police power (jurisdiction); the basis for precluding laws outlawing interracial marriage lay in our anti-discrimination-related law (the Amendments, statutes, and court precedent). I'm guessing that we are going to either have to have the Supreme Court act in some fashion (not a chance given this Court'a orientation), or there's going to have to be some legislation passed.

There is no chance that this conservative Supreme Court is going to take marriage rules out of the hands of the states (or rule that same-sex couples are a protected ('suspect') class, sadly.

So, when Obama speaks, he is speaking merely from a personal point-of-view, and, in my humble opinion, acknowledging that this falls within each state's jurisdiction.

I say this as a PFLAGer, who is very proud of my state, California, right now, and who is continuing to fight for marriage equality; but, I do want people to consider the power of a president to change this on a federal level. As a law school graduate (J.D.), I just believe that he is articulating a ConLaw principle, in addition to speaking personally about his own belief system, rather than just deciding himself that it is a state matter (if I'm expressing myself correctly).

In Peace and Love,


Maat

[elshiva]

48. Yes, I know where he's coming from and I am voting for Obama..

But I wish he could say that marriage is a human right between two consenting adults. Leadership is setting an example of respect for everyone.

[gaspee]

49. That "States Rights"

Argument sure seems familiar. Gee, I wonder where I heard it before?

:sarcasm:

[keepCAblue]

56. Marriage equality is NOT a matter for states to dictate

There are so many federal laws which impact marriage that it is ridiculous to pawn off the decision of marriage equality to individual states. To be treated differently, in terms of civil equality, by one state versus another state, and by one state versus the federal government is wrong, wrong, wrong. The impact of the federal government on marital status -- such as filing federal tax returns, immigration laws, even filing for bankruptcy -- absolutely demands the federal government to be the final arbiter on marriage equality and any laws enacted by congress or decisions made by the U.S Supreme Court must automatically usurp any state laws which are not aligned with the federal government's position on marriage. Any candidate who passes the buck of "marriage is a state matter" is simply a coward, lacking both spine and integrity. Constitutional rights should not be left to individual states to subjectively define. This is a lesson already hard-learned by this nation forty-four years ago when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.