This story is just now breaking in the wake of Robin Roberts ABC interview with President Obama this afternoon:
President Obama declared for the first time on Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage, putting the moral power of his presidency behind a social issue that continues to divide the country.
“At a certain point,” Mr. Obama said in an interview in the Cabinet Room at the White House with ABC’s Robin Roberts, “I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”
The comments end years of public equivocating over the divisive social issue for the president, who has previously said he opposed gay marriage but repeatedly said he was “evolving” on the issue because of contact with friends and others who are gay.
Mr. Obama’s remarks — becoming the first sitting president to support extending the rights and status of marriage to gay couples — came after long-standing pressure from gay rights activists who are among his most loyal constituent but have been frustrated by his refusal to weigh in on the issue.
What’s the Crawdad Hole reaction?
This is an open thread.
Filed under: 2012 Elections
I’ll give credit where credit is due. Waffling aside, it’s historic: The first sitting president to endorse it. We’ll see what happens next.
Well, he said it’s still up to states. So he’s OK with NC actions today. Mostly he wants hollywood money and promising to do nothing about marriage equality.
Having said that, it still matters. Much like dubya saying there should be a Palestinian state. It’s progress.
Right. Agree. I’m happy for gay people today.
Me, too. I’m disgusted with Obama acting as if this qualified statement that’s a hair better than what he said before is some kind of big endorsement , but if it moves the needle even an inch to help my gay friends marry, I’m happy for them.
And it will move the needle, I think. Not much, but progress is progress. Shifting opinions is important in pursuit of that progress, and that’s what this does. It makes people think about their positions and perhaps, in evaluating them, shifts them a bit. It will really impact the black community, I think.
Huh. It just occurred to me that if he’d done this just one week ago, he might have influenced the outcome of NC. That adds a sinister dimension.
Monday even.
I’m waiting for someone married in another state to contest these bans under the “full faith and credit” clause.
I agree, Lola, and it’s about damned time.
Well, yes, there is that. Cynical political exploitation is part of it:
Doesn’t diminish that it actually is historic, though. I’m curious what the response from the more conservative black voting block will be.
His record doesn’t help:
It bugs me that all the media outlets are highlighting the first part of his statement, and completely ignoring/not reporting the second part, that it should be left to the states. That’s basically a federalist position that both Cheney and Rick Perry, among many many republicans take.
Yes, he’s the first sitting president to say “let them marry”, but he at the same time tried to weasel it. He didn’t say it’s a civil right – only that he personally thinks its fine. But he ain’t interfering with whatever individual states want?
I so had to steal that:
I understand your point of view, but regulating marriage is not an “enumerated power” of the Federal government (unless they somehow attempted to shoehorn it in under the commerce clause). I Am Not A Lawyer ™, but I think SCOTUS would probably reject any attempt to do so.
What do our resident attorneys think?
So is the IRS going to recognize gay marriages? Are federal benefits going to all gay marriages? There are a LOT of federal laws that touch on marriage. Is Obama going to make sure those laws apply appropriately to gays legally married in states where it is allowed?
Saying that there is *nothing* he can do on the federal level is a cop-out.
I would hope that (finally) the Administration would back efforts to repeal DOMA so that legally married gay couples can receive equal treatment under the law. Personally, I don’t understand why a 14th Amendment challenge to it by a married gay couple hasn’t been tried yet. Unequal treatment of different married couples by the Federal Government would seem to be in obvious violation of the “equal protection” language. I also hope that legally married gay couples will challenge state bans under the full faith and credit clause in order to force them to recognize out-of-state gay marriages (even if they won’t allow them to be performed in-state).
I stand with Sarah on this one. Marriage is between one man and one woman. No special rights for the “creative class” in my book.
I couldn’t be more against that position. It’s basic human rights in my opinion. And to say it’s something for the “creative class” or that it’s a special right is pretty sad.
I know plenty of poor lesbian/gay people. They aren’t all living the high life.
I come from the school that what one American Human Being can do freely, so should we all.
I disagree with both you and Sarah on that. Arguments that raise concerns about religious freedom I can understand. But that one….. I just don’t get. I just don’t get how we would be extending a “special right” to gay people. I understand that argument re: other stuff, like diversity quotas, etc. But not on this.
Hi Emily, I don’t know if you saw the discussion in the previous thread, but based on that, I am curious:
Is it a matter of religion for you in that your faith says homosexuality is a sin; or is it a matter of being worried that if gay marriage is legal, then activists will start suing churches to force them to marry gay couples?
http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/finally-a-primary-challenger/
If that’s her concern, then I think it’s unwarranted. The government recognizes all sorts of marriages that aren’t recognized by religious authoriities: marriages between divorced people, religiously mixed marriages, etc.
I think that any attempt to force a church to marry anyone contrary to their own doctrines would be laughed out of court – just as a lawsuit to force an Orthodox Rabbi to perform a mixed marriage would be.
While I wholeheartedly support same-sex marriage, I don’t think the fear that a church would be sued if they refused to perform one is unwarranted. I would have agreed with you before the Catholic adoption agencies were told that they had to place children with gay couples or lose their contracts with the state. It wasn’t “laughed out of court”. What it takes is someone who is a committed activist to pursue it. They were out there when the adoption issue came up. The argument that they could use a different agency wasn’t good enough. I could see a scenario where the government would refuse to honor weddings performed in churches that won’t marry same sex couples. That wouldn’t bother me in the least, but it might get the faithfuls’ panties tied in a knot.
The First Amendment does not guarantee the right of a religious organization to receive a (presumably lucrative) state contract, nor does it prohibit states from enforcing contract provisions with contractors who happen to be religious organizations.
If they don’t want to follow the provisions of a contract, then they’ve breached the contract. Nobody forced them to sign, and nobody’s forcing state money on them. That’s not the same as regulating religious practice. I’ll have to check with Mrs. Propertius (since she’s Catholic and finishing up a theology PhD), but I don’t recall “adoption contracting with the state” being one of the sacraments.
If they don’t want to follow the contract, then they shouldn’t take the money.
I’m federalist on this one. There is no compelling interest for the federal government to endorse gay marriage. And yes, I cite the old children argument. Ultimately, any federal benefits should go to children and not couples and civil marriages should just become obsolete.
I’ve got a better idea – let’s eliminate special rights for heterosexuals by not recognizing marriage at all. If marriage is a civil, contractual arrangement that confers benefits under the law then it should be open to all. If it’s a tribal or religious institution, then the government has no business conferring special privileges on people who’ve chosen to participate in a religious rite.
That’s an interesting approach that I could get behind.
And eliminate all tax related issues involved. It’s always been a rather strange thing for the fed to try to “encourage” marriage via tax policy. How about not doing that please.
Making such blanket statements like doing away with all government-sanctioned marriages (making it purely a religious ceremony like baptism or 1st communion) disregards the main reason why there is government marriages: protection of property and children. A non-working spouse is entitled to a division of the property acquired during the marriage when the working spouse leaves them after 30 years. Without government-sanctioned marriage, this would not be the case. Children born during a marriage are automatically presumed to be the children of the husband without DNA testing and entitled to support from their non-custodial father after a divorce, which would still be the case if there is no government-sanctioned marriage.
The whole “throw the government-sanctioned marriage” out idea would actually result in unintended and harmful consequences to children and (in large part) women — exactly the things government-sanctioned marriage was designed to protect.
That, btw, is why the government “favors” married couples too with taxes, etc — it is trying to lessen the odds of children & women falling into penury and becoming wards of the state by encouraging marriage with its automatic protections for same.
Some of that is laziness based on common law. One reason gays want to marry is because the government confers a lot of rights just by signing a piece of paper. I would propose that if we want to extend a civil contract to two people who cannot have children without medical intervention, then the purpose of marriage is being broadened beyond children.
I understand that the presumption of paternity was an important thing before widely available DNA testing. I’d say if the “father” does not want to stipulate to his paternity, do the DNA test and let the one in the wrong pay for it.
This goes beyond “gays are ruining marriage” arguments. Many couples are having kids before or without marriage as well. I think the legal protections for children are more important than the protection of stuff in the form of community property.
I’m not saying gays are ruining marriage, and I agree there are costs that are going to have to be incurred that would not be otherwise incurred by just doing DNA testing. But I’m not going to agree that community/marital property is a non-issue.
PS — that ^^^ doesn’t mean I’m against SSM, I’m just against doing away with marriage as a civil contract and making it exclusively a religious thing (like baptism).
I was actually pointing out that I wasn’t approaching it from the standpoint that gays are ruining marriage. Let’s say that we should consider civil unions for all unions and leave marriage to private entities like churches.
I also think that women have to have some amount of responsibility in a relationship. The fact that the government decides how to split up assets (in some states) is a one-size-fits-all response to the case of a man leaving a woman with no jobs skills and no money. The fact is that everyone has to understand the concepts of financial planning with an awareness that things don’t always end up happily ever after and people need to account for bad circumstances.
That was actually kind of my point, Angie, but I wasn’t sufficiently clear about it. Marriage is a *civil* institution – independent of its religious significance (to those who practice certain religions) – with a *civil* purpose. It’s a contract (in fact, I believe that the oldest known written contracts are Sumerian marriage contracts). And as such, it shouldn’t be barred to a class of individuals solely because some religious institutions might not approve. The state recognizes all sorts of marital arrangements which are contrary to the tenets of various religions. There’s no compelling argument why that shouldn’t be true for gay marriages as well.
@propertius — I don’t know if we are talking at cross purposes, but I agree with what you just wrote. That is exactly the reason I have always supported SSM.
And sorry I didn’t see your response earlier, but I’ve been out having a life (pathetic as it may be).
Does this mean that Obama will start showing up at gay pride events now?
No.
I think it means he’s down in the polls and donors are bailing.
BINGO
Unfortunately, this might just get him the donations he’s after. My grandmother always said, though, “If you’re going to whore yourself out, at least get paid first.” My FB page is full of people all excited because they think this means that making same-sex marriage legal is about to become the law of the land. The hash tag #LandoftheGullible is heating up.
OFA (Obama’s Fucking Assholes) are astroturfing like mad, praising Teh Precious and urging people to donate.
It’s just like 2008
David Burge @iowahawkblog
Obama’s view on gay marriage: David Geffen’s check was smaller this year.
Expand
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Ha! Well there is that. I will say this is definitely the result of some pretty impressive power leverage by wealthy gay donors. They were flat our refusing to donate or lift a finger, and THAT’S how you leverage effectively. It didn’t even take that many people to do it.
Money talks.
Check out the comments:
http://www.towleroad.com/2012/05/president-obama-endorses-gay-marriage-in-abc-news-interview.html
(Especially the astroturf “send money” ones)
Once again, he’s backed into a corner & forced to take a stand (being boxed in by Biden has got to hurt) but whatever, yes, I’m for SSM so good that he said it however pandering & craven politically it is. Whoopty-fucking-do.
I’ve always said that Obama needs to divide, divide, divide (on gender, class, race) & maximize his turnout in hopes enough votes splinter off in his direction for him to win re-election & this is part of that “maximizing his turnout.” If he didn’t have to say this, he wouldn’t say this, and that is why I’m not overly praising him on it. As has been pointed out — it is the exact same position that Dick Cheney holds, for which the Left was highly critical of Cheney, and now they want to turn around and praise Obama for it? Bite me with the hypocrisy.
Furthermore, do you remember that survey he filled out when he was an IL state senator indicating he supported SSM & his denials & lies & passing the buck that wasn’t his position & his “staff” filled that survey out? Yeah, he has had an “evolution” now that he needs more money from the LGBT & needs to avoid talking about his record on the economy? Fuck that shit.
And I say that as a heterosexual who has OPENLY supported SSM since the issue first came to the forefront in society in 1991 with Baehr v. Lewin case in Hawaii.
Naw, that was a set-up. Biden was sent out to raise a trial balloon.
There are no accidents in Obamanation.
IMO, you give them too much credit.
YMMV
Jeez, I just realized reading my last sentence that 1991 was 21 years ago.
Man, I’m old.
Not yet, but thankfully you’re working your way in that direction.
gmta
My husband just said that the gay response to him ought to precisely echo Obama’s:
” I personally believe that you ought to be re-elected, but I am not going to do jack-shit to make sure it happens.
Now that, I can wholeheartedly support.
Exactly what I meant in my diatribe above, but much more pithy.
Yup. I cracked up when hubby said it. Because that is, in essence, what Obama said: “I want credit and a pat on the back for my personal belief, but it’s not like I’m going to say it’s a civil right or draft any legislation or push for it or anything.”
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!
You have to see that pic. Hilarious.
Too funny! I retweeted it.
spit take
lmao that is sweet
Tweet from Melissa Clouthier:
This. This whole thing is so calculated.
Yep, calculated. As soon as the press started ridiculing the whole evolving nonsense, Axelrod knew the game was over. I wouldn’t be surprised if Barry didn’t even have a say in the matter. Somewhere in the bowels of the West Wing, after a marathon round of meetings, a consensus was formed and a carefully nuanced statement of support was crafted.
I can’t see what other choice they had.
Just got off the phone with my cousin who told me her 67 year-old mother-in-law (who just had surgery Monday) made sure she got herself checked out of the hospital in time yesterday to go vote AGAINST Amend. 1 & is super ticked off that it passed, said almost the exact same thing when she heard what Obama said today: “Where were you yesterday when it could have helped?” She is so ticked off she said that she was on the fence about voting for Obama again, but now she isn’t going to for sure — it is pure pandering to help himself, not the LGBT.
LOL! Awesome!
that is so perfect
Your hubby rocks!
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/05/09/obama-supports-gay-marriage/
Yay.
At a presser, Romney just said that he hasn’t changed his position — he believes that marriage is between a man & a woman but that states have the right to determine what benefits they allow for same sex couples.
And so, there is really not two hairs worth of difference between Romney and Obama, other than Obama’s newfound personal approval.
Yay gays. I’m sure Obama’s personal feelings are going to make a big difference in your taxes and property rights.
Exactly. Now lets talk about Judd’s showing in WV.
Obama will just HOPE for you that you get equal property, tax, healthcare, & visitation rights.
IOW, not a dimes worth of difference between Romney and Obama. Just a little dig at BTD.
Does this mean Obama will make an honest man out of Reggie Love?
Come on, you all were thinking it.
WV mullet man weighs in:
you must admit that vote in WV was historic
I have to admit, hillbillies have a hell of a sense of humor. Both with what he’s saying and with that message vote.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/09/Obama-Votes-Present-On-Gay-Marriage
backtrack being backtrack and voting present
I’m not opposed to gay marriage at all. I voted for civil unions in my state and later supported our efforts to pass gay marriage rights. However, somebody in a previous thread said marriage was a set of rights bestowed upon us by the government. Oh, hell no! Now we really are redefining marriage and acting like it’s a gift from the Gov. There is a genuinely valid argument to be made about keeping the Gov out of the marriage business.
Obama’s sudden turn of heart is of course, just political pandering. He doesn’t give a crap about gay marriage, he just wants to appeal to some more wealthy donors.
In some ways it is a gift – a gift worth thousands of dollars every year. If a special tax status was not confirmed on married people, if social security benefits were not different for married couples, if people could put non-related people on their health insurance policies as “family”, etc., there would no reason why a state recognized, but not federally recognized union, would be a legal “less than” situation for a same-sex couple.
The fed taxes being involved is where it gets sticky. Because is marriage the *only* area where the govt decides to treat citizens differently? Why should the fact that you have children give you a tax break? Why should the fact that you are rich make your tax rate higher? Why should the fact that you are a minority qualify you for various loans and programs?
Just playing devil’s advocate here. You can argue that the federal govt has no vested interest in promoting hetero marriage. But perhaps they do. If hetero marriage is the means by which families with children (who end up supporting the state financially) generally come about, then they can argue the govt has an interest in preserving that. ( I disagree, but it IS an argument to be addressed.)
But you really can’t argue that the federal govt treats all citizens exactly the same in every way when it comes to the tax code and other things. They don’t. They treat various groups differently all the time. Is it a violation of my civil rights that Joe is taxed at 10% and I am taxed at 25%? Are we not both citizens? Is it right to tax a single person more than a married person? Single people are being denied their civil rights!
My point exactly. The federal government makes it advantageous to get married. Anecdotal, but true, we had some friends who lived together for several years. It was the early 70′s and “they didn’t need a piece of paper” to prove they were committed to each other. Then their tax accountant pointed out to them that they could save enough money on their taxes in just one year to buy the boat they wanted if they got married. We stood up for them at city hall the next week end.
I can to some degree accept that the govt may have a vested interest in protecting/promoting nuclear hetero families – not from a “values” standpoint, but just from a sociological and practical standpoint. But I don’t think that interest outweighs the interest of gay people being able to marry.
Actually, if I believed that being gay was always a choice, I might be more likely to want to keep marriage hetero, for fear of that becoming the norm. But history shows us that gays are a consistent minority in every civilization. The number of gay people does not grow substantially, nor does it decrease. It hangs in there at around 10%. I hesitate to use this word*, but I mean it in the strict scientific sense, NOT as a slur: Homosexuality is a consistent (and entirely harmless) *aberration in the human species. It crops up regularly, and is limited by evolution to a minority. No, it’s not something that is useful for the propagation of the species, so it’s never going to become the norm. Neither is it going to go away. It’s a harmless anomaly in the human species. What’s the big deal?
Ironically, gay marriage could reduce the gay population. If homosexuality is genetic as opposed to just biological, gay people who have gay marriages will usually not have children with their genes. If gays who would have married the opposite sex in the past to fit in instead have SSM it would take the “gay gene” out of the gene pool.
I agree with this: http://gawker.com/5909002
Speaking of Tweets:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/my-behalf_644310.html
backtrack statement on TV today discussing the Gay issue and then something that many missed
the military fighting on HIS behalf???????????
there really is something wrong with him
I noticed that when I watched the whole video. He said our men and women in uniform are over there “fighting on my behalf”.
What a narcissistic tool.
Breaking News: White House: Russia’s Putin cancels plans to attend G-8 meeting and hold summit with Obama, Medvedev to attend in his place.
http://freebeacon.com/libs-petition-to-move-dncc-out-of-nc/
petition to move the dncc convention out of NC
I am not sure that NC would be that unhappy to have it moved. I had read a while ago that they did not plan to use much local business and labor, they wanted to import union labor
Lordamighty! Obama admits he chose Robin Roberts to give story to because she’s black.
Can you *imagine* if Romney said he chose to give stories to white reporters?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76139.html
So does that make Obama a racist or a bigot or just a panderer?
Yes.
we are getting stuck with him again on Thursday
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2012/05/some_updates_on_obamas_vi.php
oh what underwhelming joy
And like a charm, BuzzFeed reports Obama raised $1 million in 90 minutes after his historic announcement & that millions of young people got out their wallets — “electrifying” his campaign.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gay-marriage-reversal-means-cash-for-obama
Anyone want to wager what money making issue he’ll take on next? I say it’s legalizing marijuana.
I doubt that given the War on Drugs powers that accrue to police departments. Whatever will they do when they can’t confiscate a pot dealers car & cash?
But this was a calculated move, in total BO style. How does he get to the point of appeasing the smallest group of people and making everyone else celebrate it? That’s his strategy. Same thing with DADT. He had to be drug kicking and screaming to that Jesus moment, too. And everybody was like, “Awesome!” when in reality he delivered rights to less than 1% of the entire gay population. Now he’s delivered verbal support to 5% and hope and change are back in style.
I take solace in the fact that things are so bad they had to play this card so early.
I think he’s using this to call the GOP homophobes. Racism is getting stale and the sexism charges are reflecting back on Obots.
After giving it some thought and reading posts on my FB page, I’ve decided this is actually a bad thing that happened today for the lgbt community. Up until today they had hope that Obama would give them some real support. But he threw them crumbs, and it seems to be enough once again. “Gullible” appears to be written on a lot of ceilings.
look I said what you wanted to hear now send me money
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/05/09/obama-to-supporters-after-gay-marriage-flip-donate-to-my-campaign-if-you-agree/
Still, the question remains, no help from Obama today…..What should the government policy be regarding same sex marriage? Obama says, personally, that he now supports it….he didn’t say, presidentially….and it should be up to the states…..that’s already the federal perspective….so, in effect, he added nothing but his personal opinion….didn’t resolve the problem….but I heard this earlier today and it starts to make some sense….
Let any two (and more than two drew some concerns) consenting adults form a contractual partnership….by contract. The only time the “government” would be involved would be for a judge to become involved in a breach of contract issue. If the couple wanted a spiritual/tribal marriage, they could do that according the the principles of that group. In effect, government recognized “marriage” would be abolished. No IRS requirements.
Time to really think about how to make this work with a little less divisiveness. This, to me, is leadership. How should we resolve this? A great leader would grasp this issue that way….Obama has come out in favor of one way…..that is not leadership……it continues his divisive nature.
oh oh joe
backtrack and bunch a tad upset with Joe Biden. His timing sucked
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=15AFE150-6103-495D-A433-5AA6910BE863
this also may be part of the “act” to get rid of Joe so Hillary can run as VP…
Aha! I see I was right about them playing this card early. Article states they’d hoped to announce it closer to the Convention.
That article is a crock, filled with planted codes like the repeated use of the word historic.
Giving it just a quick once-over, my favorite line in it is, “Two of the most consistent advocates for marriage equality were two of the most important women in Obama’s life: his wife, Michelle, and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett,” which is a premium crock of shit.
What Biden said, where and when he said it, was planned by the Obama campaign. And this superior victim act is classic Obama. Getting Obama a second term will happen because they can play Americans better than any con artist in history; and while they fiddle our future burns.
Here’s a thought. The 20% no-preference vote & the 40% convict vote stories got buried. And if you think about it, Obama’s announcement would be the perfect progressive snub to NC voters who passed Amendment 1 AND delivered that 20% vote. And he would take it personally, too, because the convention is there.
Remember how much press David Duke got when he won a Republican nomination?
Saw this tweet today (hubby is a Mad Money fan)
Saw this great question:
I’m anti-marriage and think it should be abolished so I always have mixed emotions about LGBT marriage. On the one hand, I’m glad Obama finally kindasorta stood up for a liberal ideal. OTOH, I’m still cynical and see it as pure theater. And there’s still no way I’d vote for him.
I’m gay and I could care less about the marriage issue. Just give me and my partner the tax, survivor-ship rights and healthcare benefits married couples get and you can call it anything you want. Couples of any sex living together for the long haul should ask for the same thing. The last thing I need is a minister’s blessing of my commitment.
My sister and I sometimes joke that if we are ever older and without spouses, we’ll push for sibling “marriage” as well, and move in together. We want the contractual benefits – the fact that we don’t sleep together and never will has nothing to do with it.
IMO, any persons who want to should be able to become contractual “life partners in a household”, with both the benefits and risks involved. IOW, if we split up, my sister should be able to sue for support and equitable distribution of assets. Sex is not the govt’s business – whether two people are having it or NOT having it.
BINGO!!1 and God Bless.
Check out this total misogynist’s reaction to the Obama announcement: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7408126n
Now, he says, not only can little boys dream of growing up to be president, they can grow up with the dream of marrying the president. Lesbians can, apparently, suck it.