ABC News has broadcast a preview of President Obama’s remarks from an interview with Robin Roberts today, and the President affirmed his support for marriage equality, saying that same-sex marriage should be legal. Here’s the full quote:
OBAMA: I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point 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.
Before this, the President said that he previously endorsed civil unions because he “thought that would be enough” to give gay and lesbian couples the rights and benefits that go along with a loving relationship. But then there was this evolution, to use the parlance, in his thinking. Actually, it’s a circular evolution, since Obama wrote “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages” in a questionnaire for the state Senate in Illinois all the way back in 1996.
This concludes one part of a years-long struggle, where LGBT activists demand, and then achieve, support for equality, inch by inch. It’s very clear that this would not have happened without activists pushing at all levels. In addition, the well of LGBT fundraising support in this election cycle has been vital for the President, to the extent that it’s replaced much of the dropoff from Wall Street in 2008.
Joe Biden jumped the gun on this a week ago by pronouncing himself “comfortable” with marriage equality. This heightened the ridiculousness of the President’s attempt to play all sides of the issue, making it a question of character and principled belief, and forced this disclosure out into the open. There’s political calculation all over this, as there normally is with any Presidential decision. At the end of the day, however, the flip-flop went to the side of more justice and more rights. And ultimately, this will not have much impact, if any at all, on the Presidential election. If it did, Obama wouldn’t have done it, no matter how much controversy ensued.
ABC will broadcast the bulk of the interview on their news program tonight and on Good Morning America tomorrow.
More from David Corn. And here’s another interesting excerpt from the interview:
“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and (Michelle Obama), you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.
More reactions over at Pam’s House Blend.
UPDATE: An important point from Richard Kim:
Obama, however, stopped short of lending full support to the multi-state legal and political campaign for marriage equality. According to ABC News, the President stressed that his is a “personal position,” and he continues to think that states should decide the issue independently.
In at least one crucial way then, Obama’s announcement stops short of a full reversal of policy. In the past, Obama has said that he thinks that “gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections that straight couples already enjoy,” but does not endorse same-sex marriage per se. This is not a coherent position. There simply is no legal category outside of marriage that grants same-sex couples all the rights and legal protections that straight couples enjoy—not civil unions, not domestic partnership arrangements. Only marriage recognized at the federal level and in all fifty states would do that.
The President has in the past opposed all discriminatory amendments to state Constitutions that would ban marriage equality. But he’s still taking a “state’s rights” position on the issue, regardless of his personal beliefs.





150 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
On edit — this is in response to 4 below.
I have been in agreement with this most of my life. Leave ”marriage” to the individual religion to define for itself. But the reality is the term has always been to some extent and now it is become secularized by all sides and I accept that now the term must be applied in secular law.
I agree this represents a victory for the culture and the power of proud people standing up for and demanding their rights as human beings. The president is wise to understand that as a done deal and, as is his character as a politician, take up his position of leading from behind. I suppose we should be grateful to at least have one candidate that responds to liberal movement pressure.
Sorry — I inadvertently dropped the link to dday’s News post, so initial comments posted to front page may be missing. My bad.
How about that. Stop the presses. A black man who has evolved to the point where he finally states his support for equality and civil rights. Probably looked at the polls and realized he needed “progressive” support after all.
I cannot abide codifying religous beliefs in order to steal another citizen’s equality.
Every citizen is free to have any religious beliefs they wish, or do not wish.
Equality under the Constitution should be self evident.
Tsk tsk scarecrow… ☺ ☺
My comment at 1 is in response to oki dude at 4 expressing the opinion that marriage should be left as a religious sacrament.
You’re a day late, OilBomber.
Fuck you.
On edit – I’d like to add to that ‘Fuck you’ a ‘, you punk fucking coward.’
Marriage is a civil contract and religion should only intrude if those participating desire it. People don’t go to “divorce church” when they end a marriage, they go to “divorce court”.
Seriously.
This is a start (albeit a cynical one). I found his whole
‘evolutionary’ (finger to the wind) stance completely offensive.
He still has to do a helluva lot more to win my vote.
Yes. That is what I am saying as to how the term is now used. It is now appropriate to consider it a civil contract.
I really don’t care how he got here, whether it is heartfelt or political calculus, at least now he is on the right side of history.
I’m happy for the LGBT community. This took a lot of hard work.
The fact that he could’ve made this stance, this belief, public YESTERDAY and potentially changed the outcome in North Carolina doesn’t matter to you?
Really what ever happened to Separation of Church and State? The Evangelasses Repukes would rather that our Constitution contained all Christian laws and suppress all other religions or nonbelievers from having any rights and just be second class serfs and not be citizens at all!!
whoops.
my comment @9 meant as reply to
holeybuybull@3.
I agree with you, ratfood … better to applaud him for his evolution than smack him for taking so long.
No other Preznit, even on his last day in Office has made the same statement.
KrisAinTX@13
If you think making the announcement yesterday would have changed the outcome in NC you are kidding yourself. In any event, YES. Better late than never.
This statement is just a cynical election year ploy to capitalize on the political backlash.
The SCHEME of the corrupt political partys has always been…
To give their brainwashed followers a few crumbs on “social issues”… in order to keep the continued allegiance of these dupe followers…
All the while… both corrupt partys WORK TOGETHER to loot the country.
It’s an election year scam…wake up… they’re PLAYING you… again.
Bingo.
What if he’s just forcing Romney’s hand?
Actually, that might be interesting. Romney taking a position on something?
I gotta see that.
Since the Biden kerfluffle I’ve heard a lot of pundits discussing the fact that Obama should do this because it wouldn’t cost him many votes among Dems and independents. They completely miss the point. IMO one of his major considerations was NOT motivating dispirited evangelicals who may have had trouble holding their nose and voting for Romney. They won’t have any difficulty now. So, it took a little political courage, not something I typically associate with Obama.
his statement today affirmed he believes the States have a right to decide the matter individually, so any statement yesterday would have been along the lines of “I personally believe same sex couples should have the right to marry and South Carolina has the right to vote on the issue.”
not a real inspiring rallying call.
Agreed ! But I don’t think Biden’s statement was a gaffe … I think it was an intentional act by the Obama campaign.
BAH HUMBUG!
When it comes down to it, Obummer’ll slink away to be Mr. Bipartisany & will ask some other majorly homophobic asshole who’s to the right of Rick Saddleback Warren to do the invocation (or whatever it is) at his inauguration if he wins. And then he’ll do fuck all for LGBT rights in his 2d term.
Second Verse: WORSE than the first. Guaranteed.
Seriously? Who ARE you going to vote for? I can tell you that because of Obama, despite it taking longer than it should have, DADT is history. Because of this, I can speak with my Afghanistan-deployed girlfriend with impunity. Finally. Obama’s “evolution,” is valuable and most welcome. I will vote for him easily this cycle–which is something I struggled with only a few months ago. Get over yourself; I mean seriously, is there another choice for president?
That’s funny. Obama won North Carolina in 2008. He still is relatively popular in the state. You don’t think he could’ve influenced opinion or turnout?
You’ll have a hard time convincing me that anything Biden does or says is intentional… “g”
Wouldn’t have made up a 20-point deficit. Ye olde confederacy will have to come kicking and screaming into the present century by Federal law. Just as it was in the last century. And the one before that.
Yeah. I think he must lose his shirt at poker every time. That’s one thing I like about him.
I’m with the group who wanted North Carolina to enact this Law, then have it overturned by SCOTUS.
Yes it’s a scheme and maybe intended as a scam. It certainly does not elevate my personal opinion of Obama’s convictions or any indication of any move from his pro business elite agenda.
But no matter the political outcome it cannot be put back in the bottle and I think it will prove to be a significant step in the drive for guarantees of civil liberties.
Excellent point.
Question, did he just alienate 60% of the NC voters who voted for the amendment????
I agree. This could cost him more votes than it gains him. It wasn’t without risk.
No one has to fall in love with Barack, or forget all the bad/evil in his administration to appreciate the importance of what the President of the United States said. It’s an international event of great magnitude.
This was the right thing to do. It was the courageous thing to do. I thank President Obama for doing this.
Yesterday, in a key swing state a constitutional amendment passed outlawing same-sex marriage with an astounding 61% of the voters appproving it. The next day President Obama, who opposed this constitutional amandment, comes out in favor of same-sex marriage, and some of you think his statement is cowardly or some sort of cynical politcal ploy? You have to be kidding.
On the last day? Of course not. Months or at least weeks ago, maybe.
Much of his support in NC is in the AA community and statistically they oppose same-sex marriage by a MUCH higher margin (over 60 percent) than the general population. Hopefully this will help reverse that trend.
Hear ! Hear !
He could have left this on the back burner until after the GE.
Hello
I edit my comment and it was one the first and now it gone. Is anyone else having this problem or was it just deleted?
Thanks
It’s too little too late for the same-sex couples in North Carolina.
I bet his words are incredibly comforting to the folks either a)hoping for divine Federal intervention via DoJ, Congress, or Executive Order or b)facing a years long battle in federal courts or c)crossing their fingers and hoping for a favorable, broad-sweeping ruling from SCOTUS on the Prop 8 case.
Yes… Jill Stein [Green Party]… or you can write in [on your ballot] a candidate of your choice.
That you dont know there are other choices… shows just how clueless you are about our political system…
And that you think it to be a good idea to vote for a corrupt politician… is beyond dumb… doing that is EXACTLY what has given us the government we have now… totally corrupt.
You have surrendered… given up… you have accepted the corrrupt two party scam… NOT ME.
Ahhhh… a voice of reason from up north!
And I certainly agree with your comment down thread that Biden’s comments were anything but accidental.
I don’t know whether you’ve read bmaz’s posts regarding Prop8 but SCOTUS was given a very narrow ruling to consider. Challenges to DOMA will be more useful.
I have a hard time imagining the current SCOTUS ever being on the right side of history and making the wrong decision on Prop 8 will do a lot more harm than an amendment to the NC state constitution. I hope I’m wrong.
Gay marriage? Seriously?
I know this issue is important to some people,and contentious,but on a list of problems facing my country, it’s down around #15 for me.
Failure to prosecute criminal bankers for fraud would be #1.
The NDAA, and other Patriot Act erosions of our liberty would be #2.
The never ending war machine, paid for with our grand childrens’ money would be #3.
I don’t want to seem callous, but this issue seems a calculated distraction.
STTP !
How have you been, my friend ? When are you coming up here ?
I’ve got a bottle of Grand Marnier waiting … *g*
You’re correct. The Prop 8 case will also not be heard until 2014 at the SCOTUS level, if at all, if I’m not mistaken.
DOMA has much broader reach. Prop 8′s decision legally only applies to rights already given being taken away by Constitutional Amendment at the State level.
And yes, bmaz has been excellent on the subject :)
Very well put, and I’m glad you can now freely communicate with your significant other. Hope she stays safe and gets home soon!
From the beginning, marriage was used as a method to redistribute property(women) in exchange for a dowry consisting of other chattel. Organized religion just co-opted it.
That demographic is already riled up and chomping at the bit to vote against O. The young folks who voted for O the first time around will notice O’s new position. The question is, how motivating will the new position be in light of all the other blighted policies of O over the last 4 years?
First, I’m happy for the LGBT community (and their supporters) – this is a step toward equal rights for everyone being part of the common political wisdom.
Second, I would prefer that there be fewer pro-marriage laws – tax breaks, legally binding financial laws, and more. Let each partnership agree to what makes sense for them legally and financially (that’s why we see more pre-nups – to break the age-old ideas of what is the “correct” marriage contract). Also, any tax break for married couples is a greater tax for singles. [Note: I'm okay with laws favoring child-rearing individuals and couples]
Third, though I’m older than this president (the first time for me), I feel that I’m much younger and more progressive at heart than he is. Do we really have to wait until 2016 to elect a progressive for president!?!
> and he continues to think that states should decide the issue independently
Just like slavery, right O? The man is about as “evolved” as a jellyfish.
A Progressive will only be elected POTUS if support grows for the Occupy movement over the next 4 years.
Noam Chomsky wrote a great article, which I’m having trouble locating, speaking to the fantastic potential of Occupy.
That recent speech reminded me that he’s better at campaigning than governing and a lot can happen in six months.
The Chomsky.
Yes, I agree. We on the left have so few choices.
Here’s a reference to Chomsky’s new book on “Occupy”
http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/155116/noam_chomsky_on_america's_declining_empire,_occupy_and_the_arab_spring?page=entire
My MAIN Man! Almost was in position to take you up on that! A close friend (who’s birthday is Cinco De Mayo) just celebrated it in your fair city but my wife and I couldn’t make it.
And don’t think I didn’t see the “Grand Mariner French Toast” comment from you a while back! With Sarkozy gone, I guess it’s time!
Hope all is well with you and yours!
The only thing Obama could do to win my vote would be to announce that he’d decided not to run for president or to commit in writing that unless he fights to fulfill his 2008 campaign promises, except in regards to Afghanistan, and agrees to end all military actions he will spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement in place of Bradley Manning. Only then would I consider voting for him.
Thanks – your link is better, and you have it better formatted ;-)
The five big LGBT donors had just threatened to not contribute to Obama’s super-pac. They wanted him to sign the executive order banning federal contractors who discriminated against LGBT people.
This was a cynical ploy on his part. He can mouth the pro-LGBT rhetoric and yet STILL refuse to sign an order that would actually extend rights to us. He is hoping to get the LGBT community to continue to support him while he continues to operate according to what I can only conclude is his personal Homophobia.
This is typical Obama. Talk like he supports us, but act in ways that support the right wing, the corporations, Wall Street, the Oil Companies, the advocates to privatize education and the security state empire.
He will get no praise from me on this. I will give him some praise when he signs that executive order. Until then this is more empty rhetoric.
Unless you think of Hillary Clinton as a progressive, the wait will be longer than that, because I don’t doubt for a moment that she’s running.
Our best hope is at least there will be a primary to get progressive issues back on the table.
Her biggest problem will be how to (tactfully) shove Biden out of the way.
As a matter of fact!! The early church didn’t pay attention to marriage iirc until the dark ages.. When it WAS used to control the people.
Nice move–go for the ad hominem attack and call me stupid. I know PRECISELY how the political process works and voting for a green party candidate–or anyone else outside the inculcated 2-party system is basically a wasted vote. Obama’s political calculus for re-election recently has changed the political will of most on the left from anger at his passivity to a certain degree of resignation to the cold, hard facts of two-party politics. Third or fourth party alternatives to the current system will come from grassroots efforts. If OWS had taken a political stance, that could possible blossom into something substantial, but alas it seems we need more inequality to stir the masses to political action.
This. Thank you Lib.
No, sir, I’m not kidding. The time to make an important statement about what’s right is *before* a vote, not after. This is another example of O leading from the rear. We’ve got to ask more of the people who purport to represent us.
It’s simply amazing that when Obama displays a morsel of humanity and respect for the citizens his somewhat disaffected devotees rationalize it at a reason for support. Disgusting.
I’m pretty much aware of that. Perhaps you should address this with TalkingStick.
I’d vote for O, maybe, if he created a massive work program for the unemployed and started pumping stimulus money into the economy. If he could *actually do it* I would vote for him. Otherwise, no thank you.
Let’s see the Progressive Caucus lecturing Feingold on his pointing out that Pelosi was essentially either lying or selling out Medicare and Social Security with her SimpsonBowles support crap rather then doing the same. Voting for Health Reform without both the Public Option and real premium oversight. Should I go on? I think we need to make the progressives realize that certain things are not negotiable for us and should never be negotiable for them as well. This should be done along with making sure progressives make it on the ballot, including for President.
To get my vote he’d also have to bring all those dead civilians in the ME and Africa back to life.
Hillary Clinton is to the right of Obama. She’s a neo-liberal corporatist in a pantsuit. Replace the term progressive with regressive for accuracy.
I agree Johnny, it is a calculated distraction and as someone put it, “crumbs” to social progressives but in an election year, what else is there to do but vote for Obama? Any real change in our system will have to come from a revolution of thought and action. The “Tea Party” even with its highly astro-turfed effort from the right, did make a temporary impact, which I hope is truly waning, but they did sweep up a significant segment of Americans and motivate them to vote, however misguided. Substantive change will only come once democrats and independents find common cause and the impetus to promote it. A great thing might very well be an amendment to codify campaign finace reform. Get rid of the money in politics and the assholes will mostly exit the game.
Good point. Although I wouldn’t vote for anyone who creates hundreds of thousands of the living dead. That would be just plain dumb. :)
Continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils has gotten me a DLC cancer ridden Democratic Party where they chose to have their Convention in a right to work state, deride unions for supporting primary candidates that support them rather then an anti-union blue dog corporate hack. And end up with a president to the right of Richard Nixon about most things.
Eventually you have to realize that it DOES NOT WORK.
SE Asia as well, and befriend Iran and go to bat for the Palestinians, etc. In other words, when pigs fly out of my arse.
x2
(insert zombie apocalypse joke).
The ‘cancer’ you speak of is from the money i the process.
I realize ‘lesser of’ doesn’t work well but the alternative is to create a strong alternative to the two evils and that can only happen with finance reform or the poison of money will continue to make the ‘evils’ even more corrupt and purely bought and sold commodities. One issue a majority of Americans agree on is CFR. If money were taken out of the equation of politics, it would open the floor to many more voices and the potential for real change in the two party system.
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote. That was pretty much my point.
The problem is that only someone masquerading as a “Democrat” can effectively institute the policies necessary to destroy the safety net without even token opposition. When it comes to repealing the gains of FDR’s New Deal and LBJ”s Great Society, Obama is Shiva, the Hindu god of destruction.
Boy. Thoughtful, incisive comments without spewing hate at Obama.
What are you doing here?
Quickly! Run for the exits and get out while you still can!
And yet no one responds to my point that in order to have more and better choices politically we must institute grassroots change that appeals to a majority–like campaign finance reform. I reiterate, once the money in politics is no longer the main driving force, change and choice can and will occur.
Been reading (and commenting) here at FDL since 2005…just been quiet and busy for a stretch. Thanks for the warning though; I’ll watch my six.
You actually wrote that “Unless you think of Hillary Clinton as a progressive…” I thought I was helping you clarify the point that you never actually stated. Next time identify her as such and I won’t feel the need to address your comment, or better yet refrain from mentioning her name. The comment you replied to didn’t mention her.
And yet Obama campaigned and spoke against lobbyists and the corrupting force of money in politics, before refusing to finance his campaign with public funding and employing lobbyists.
That would be because most here are busy playing “I hate Obama more than you do” versus discussing the points you raise in any sort of thoughtful manner.
Don’t forget to “double-tap”.
Don’t I know it…and we on the left wonder why despite being in the majority, we can’t seem to get much done.
http://youtu.be/Pk7yqlTMvp8
Really? So I have to check with you first before I can ‘mention’ someone around here?
Incorrect assumption. It’s just that the majority here have disregarded Obama’s rhetoric and realize that he’s outdone “W” in his actions, while discarding partisanship. NDAA, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, whistle blower prosecution, increased deportation, etc.
A lot of difficulty around getting the leopard to change his spots.
Not up to me, but you are the one who brought her name into this discussion. If the tone here isn’t to your liking, may I recommend DailyKos.
Good one, kinda reminds me of my grandson’s tot basketball class, too!
The calculation has already been made that what he said today will gain more votes than he loses. He’s passing the buck to the states, meaning the yahoos in the state legislatures, or a popular vote, can decide who you can or can not marry. This is BS, and this is coming from someone who has been in a straight marriage for decades. This is a basic human right that ultimately needs to be codified for good by the SCOTUS. As it is, as tepid as Obama has been, he still has ten times the stones as Willard.
That is simply ridiculous. While I share in progressive disappointment with the rest of your list, to say that he has outdone Bush and Cheney is nonsense. That was 8 years of non-stop political disaster of epic proportions coming from 3 offices; Cheney, Bush & Rove.
Absolutely. Marriage here in the west has its roots in the Roman ritual. It was not a religious insitution originally. Historically marriage is first and foremost about regulating the devolution of property and offices from one generation to the next. The Catholic Church usurped this function of civil society-understandably, as a loose coalition of mainly christian civil institutions took on the rump of responsibilities formerly handled by the Roman “state” that was left after the disengagement of the curial class from tax collection and redistribution.
And yet only the guy on the other side sites specifics.
What did Bush/Cheney/Rove do that you think the Obama administration hasn’t done or wouldn’t consider?
My take on it is this:
1) Yes, he took a while to come around, but he did come around. It would have been more pandering for him to try and do this during the NC election.
2) And he wasn’t against it before he was for it.
3) He’s expressing his personal opinion – as POTUS, opinions from his office are still legal. Much different than LEGISLATING his opinion, as was done yesterday in NC.
But as usual, it’s never enough for some folks. Never enough.
Now, I quoted you telling me to refrain from mentioning her name, but you reply “Not up to me..”
Are you taking credit for the auto bailout after being against it, too?
And as for the tone here, it’s gonna take a lot more than you to run me off. Plenty of room to read Kos and hang out here as well.
Yeah, my comment was also an early one but didn’t show up, seems there was a problem at the time. Unless I’m mistaken, many FDL posters have cats, so it’s probably a hairball in the server.
becca656 @98
Exactly so.
Congratulations on the repeal of DADT. It is pity however that Obama traded away the repeal of the Bush tax cuts in exchange thereby costing ALL Americans hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenues.
Repealing DADT was just pandering to the Gay community as is this current political stand.
Your vote is being bought with scraps.
The quote that I highlighted and responded to was “has outdone “W” in his actions”.
Now, my understanding of ‘has outdone’ means in 3 1/2 years he ‘has outdone’ more ghastly things than the Cheney cabal did in 8 years. For starters, I don’t see how leaving Iraq is remotely close to lying us into Iraq.
Maybe it’s just me.
The courage of the man!
With a small Sherrod-like firestorm getting larger and starting to break on his bipartisan head…24 hours after a hateful amendment to a state constitution passes with EASE, and leading into it, jackshit from him except that he’s “evolving”….
After this he quickly crawls out from under his desk, arranges an interview, and STILL sounds like someone telling the American people that they really shouldn’t eat dogshit because it’s not particularly good for you, but if you must, then at least put a little mayo or ketchup or something, on it.
It doesn’t make a tinker’s damn whether or not I’m Gay, but if I were, just now I would be taking great pains to point out what a political prostitute is Barack Obama.
Absolutely agree. And in order to do that effectively, we need to find common ground with the Ron Paul libertarian right, who–in spite of being wrong on many, many issues–understand that our political system no longer an operating democracy.
“I don’t see how leaving Iraq…”
As Jane was as some pains to point out, Obama did all he could to get out of the Status-of-Forces-Agreement and keep our troops there indefinitely. Maliki wouldn’t (couldn’t!) agree to an exemption for american troops from being charged with crimes under Iraqi law, and, on the face of it, that was that.
I suspect that Maliki informed Hillary Clinton, etc., that if they arbitrarily ignored SOFA he would quietly give Sadr the go-ahead to crank up his followers for some serious street action, and if any was needed, that was the icing on the cake.
Point is, Obama wanted to keep the warbots happy by staying. Giving him cred for getting out doesn’t wash at all.
One of my MORE brilliant and poignant comments was also inadvertently purged.
Now, I’ve been reviewing all this and, my compliments to my colleagues. But I think Hillary Clinton should wear makeup.
Obama has simply made the political calculation that it benefits him more than harms him to now support marriage equality. The good news is that the general public has already moved in that direction–the retrograde social conservatives being the exceptions.
No, I think you are pretty much on target there. While many are compared to that dick Cheney, none can limbo under that bar.
Never enough???
The ONLY political risk he’s taken was sending the SEALS in to get Bin Laden. With the fairly hard info that they’d located his bolt hole, he might have been more at risk for NOT doing anything and having him slip away, again.
As for “pandering” by standing up foursquare for equal rights for Gays to marry BEFORE the vote, would to God we had some “pandering” like that.
My definition of pandering is finding out that another group of good progressives, the Gay and Lesbian community and their supporters, was coming down on his head for his political cowardice, and then hastily arranging an interview to try to convince them that he really, really, HAS crawled out of the Cambrian fen to sprout legs and a tail and announce that, by jingo, they SHOULD be allowed the same rights as heterosexual people.
So good for O for going out on a limb! I didn’t think he would, or at least not yet. Maybe the inadvertent nudge from Biden gets inadvertent credit.
Some of us have higher standards, I guess. But you are absolutely right. What O did was not enough. It was also too late and of dubious credibility.
You’re on it, Kris. He needed to do whatever he could, and as nearly always, he ducked it.
Of course, the best time to have stood up foursquare for Gay equality (instead of this “evolving” bullshit…) would have been in his first 90 days, but he was too busy stuffing prodigious amounts of political clout so far back in the closet that he couldn’t drag it out if he’d wanted to.
And, as the voters reminded him in the mid-terms; political clout is like muscle: use it or lose it.
And sweet Jaysus, has he lost it.
Exactly !
“Going out on a limb…”
Well, I needed a few endorphins. :o)
I mean: He basically said:
“Whillikers! I’d like for Gays to have the same equality as heterosexual people, but if the peckerheads in some states don’t want that, then who am I to speak up for it.”
And, as he said it, I think I heard that man sitting in the stone chair in the Lincoln Memorial say, with sadness and perfect clarity:
“You’re the President.”
I’m aware of everything you point out, and not thrilled with any of it, either.
I still come back to “has outdone “W” in his actions”.
He has not ‘outdone’ George W. Cheney’s eight years of deceit and ineptitude.
Keeping troops in Iraq cannot carry the same level of dishonor as lying them into Iraq in the first place (not to mention hiding the bodies from public view when they come home).
Now, if you want to register displeasure at how well he’s done cleaning up Dick W. Bush’s doo-doo, we can sing from that same hymnal all day long.
Per DDay on twitter – the Admin won’t change their position on Executive Order prohibiting Federal contracts from discriminating against LGBTs in the workplace.
Huh. Funny how he’s presented with an opportunity to do something and fails to do something.
Again, all talk. Precisely the point I was making above.
BTW – Dick Chenney came out in support of same sex marriage two years ago…
Did we high five him?
There is of course all kinds of history of ways to bind women to men through sexual practice. Some called marriage. But its purpose and use has gone through lots of variations and changes.
By the time this country became a country “traditional” marriage had been affirmed more often by clerics as a religious sacrament. But of course the term has also been used in secular law from the beginning.
In more recent times the term has been taken up more and more by those seeking secular law securing civil liberties, mostly rights equal to the special advantages governments give to pairs who have gone through some kind of ceremony.
I don’t know what the big deal is. I agree with you and holeybuybull. I agree as to how marriage should be defined now.
“or anyone else outside the inculcated 2-party system is basically a wasted vote.”
Thanks for proving my point. You have surrendered, given up, and self proclaimed yourself to be helpless…
You have and are apparently willing to give the 1% and those who have corrupted our entire government… everything they could possibly want from you.
You are willing to vote for one of their corrupted politicians… you couldnt give them anything more.
Not me.
There could not possibly be a bigger waste of your vote… than to vote for one of the scoundrels the corrupt political partys are running.
My wife made the wonderful point that a 5% showing by any party qualifies them for public funds for the next campaign at the federal level.
$40 million or so would be a huge boost to any 3rd party.
I’m voting 3rd party for that reason alone; to give them a better chance in the future.
AGAIN, NO RESPONSE TO CFR AND BUILDING GRASSROOTS ALTERNATIVES TO THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM.
This brand of bitching is not only insulting and alienating, but counter-productive in creating the kind of grassroots coalition that will create change in the system you espouse to despise. To those of us who are action-oriented and willing to work for change, trollish comments like this keep the inmates fighting amoungst ourselves instead of DOING SOMETHING. There is much action and inaction by this president that has angered me and nearly made me feel as if I was willing to at least make a protest vote for someone like Rocky Anderson but in his dishing out of ‘scraps,’ the momentum on the left has changed and people are still willing to vote for Obama again–especially in the face of a Mittens presidency. Your comments are acknowledged but do NOTHING to move the process forward–they just piss of your basic middle-of-the-road progressive. Grow up.
Also, to everyone who thinks this president is ‘pandering’ to the GLBT community, overlooks some very basic points: This president had already cemented the majority of GLBT votes based on his actions previous to his pro marriage equality stance and the prospect of a Romney presidency with his avowed non-support for ALL things GLBT. Additionally, while as a progressive I agree that there are many more pressing issues which should have higher priority, unless you’ve lived under and with the discrimination and violence that goes with being LGBT (especially when serving in the military), unless you have walked in the shoes of those of us whose lives have been affected by the absence of basic civil rights, I have a giant cup of STFU for you.
WE sent him an “edible arrangement”. The expensive one with Mangos. Did you forget?
Great comment…
We simply cannot continue to make the same mistake over and over and over. Doing that… is exactly what has given us the totally corrupt goernment we have now.
It’s crazy to continue doing that. The American people need to stand up to our corrupt government.
You said:
Obama campaigned on how he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and said he would begin withdrawing troops immediately. Instead, he kept the war going and tried to prolong it beyond the GWB-negotiated withdrawal date. Iraqis and US military continued to die. A country that represented no threat to the US continued to be ravaged. He wanted to continue doing this. On what moral scale does this measure as less dishonorable?
If you want to present a lesser-of-2-evils defense, you need to find something that’s actually less evil, not just differently evil.
Apparently, you didn’t read further. I am not giving up but moving forward in my estimation. Perhaps you think a Romney presidency might push Americans to make the changes necessary in order to have more than the current two party system but in modern politics so long as there is unlimited money and hidden donors, the influence will always be with the moneyed interests. Unless you have some better idea for revolution of American political thought, perhaps you should consider that rather than fighting over the shortcoming of politicians who clearly have the inside advantage, working on a single issue which could potentially unite Americans and change the parameters of American politics is a better option than a “protest vote.”
“If you want to present a lesser-of-2-evils defense…”
Yeah, Mary, I’d say that’s what the presentation is going to be, for…ahhhh…the next 6 months or so. In fact, I think it’s already become a growth industry. Problem is, the voters didn’t buy much stock in the company in the mid-terms, and somehow, I don’t think it’s very likely to take off this time around.
Personnally, I think this time I’m not gonna invest.
“Did we high-five him?”
Zinnnnggg!
And I gotta say, as much as I despise Cheyney and what he helped drag us into, coming from a conservative republican, that took a lot more courage than Obama’s tepid repeat “evolution” the day AFTER the ass-whipping in N.C.
Nope.
Obama is, thoroughly, a coward and a liar and I won’t vote for him.
> WE sent him an “edible arrangement”. The expensive one with Mangos.
> Did you forget?
You DO NOT toucha de Mango!
In related news, you DO NOT let Mississippi define the lowest common denominator for human rights. Only a fucking Republican Retard comes out with the “states rights” whiny ass titty baby argument on equal human rights.
Thank you for the reply.
I think that willfully, determinedly, squandering an historic opportunity to make real changes and utterly failing to mount a real salvage operation after those 8 years of bushCo, and instead, doing near-miraculous rehab on those people after we drove them to the brink of political irrelevance, at least for his first (Only?) term, is at least as scurrilous and wretched as anything that bush etc. did. Not as many people have died as a result (yet?) but Obama’s political cowardice is going to be a legacy that has empowered, or re-empowered, the worst of the jingoes and their adherents.
One. More. Time:
Obama inherited an either/or situation: either he walked into the Oval Office ready to confront them with the prodigious tools that we gave him, or they would eat him alive. He laid down like a poodle for them, and they have eaten him alive. He is now basically running for another 4 years of lame-duck status.
Whatever degree he IS better than Romney, neither one of them is going to plug the holes in our national Titanic, and when it really starts to go down, I’d rather it be a republican standing on the bridge raving about the perfect marketplace and how well it works, than someone whom the GOP has more-or-less successfully defined as a “progressive”.
Wrong…
As I said above… the scheme of the corrupt political partys has always been to throw a few crumbs to their brainwashed followers on “social issues”.
Neither party or it’s fake politicians have any interest in the Ameriacan people. Wile you blindly follow one of the two corupt political partys… and vote for their corrupt actors… the scoundrels you follow and vote for are working hand in hand with those you claim to oppose… to loot the country.
And you keep falling for it… over and over and over… just like brainwashed Republican followers continue to fall for the scam… over and over and over. In fact followers of the two corrupt partys have everything in common. None can think for themselves… all are willing to follow their corrupt leaders off the cliff.
Not me.
We voted for him as the guy who would speak truth to power. Now we defend him as the guy who would get killed if he spoke the truth. So today he came out in defense of gay marriage, and I salute this fact–my dad was gay and suffered life-long for it. But yesterday we drone-bombed five Afghani children to pieces, and not only didn’t the president apologize, it didn’t even make the news. Until these things BOTH have meaning for liberals I have no use for liberals.
Obama said gay people should be able to get married in states that allow it.
That is a far cry from saying he supports marriage equality and your misleading headline.
More Obysmal weasel words.
‘Yeah, I’m personally against the laws that prevent whites and negroes from marrying, but hey, if some states are for it, watchya gonna do.’
Ironic, given his background.
Would concur with the thrust of this comment johnnyred posted.
Barack Obama is a war criminal. Barack Obama seems more about Rule Of Obama than Rule Of Law.
POTUS Obama’s AG Eric Holder seems to go with Rule Of Obama much more than Rule Of Law. No crooks on Wall Street? No torturers? No war criminals? No bankers and mortgagers gone bad and deserving of a stay at the JailHouseHotel? Really? Just could not/can not find them?
But now it is an WH election year and Barack Obama and the handlers and hacks who are on point to get Obama re-elected. Picking issues to pander around or to launch election bets on the back of seeking to gain some votes. Why? So Barack Obama can get away with being a war criminal,not going after the crooks and doing what a R POTUS in a R run WH could not do?
Isn’t this at the middle of this Obama WH political calculation/action?
I am all for equality. Certainly for gays. For muslims. For the poor.
Barack Obama and his Obot apologists,LOTE– what else can we do but vote for Obama? types and the usual suspect Dbots who are in this just to get their guy into the WH so they can suck up the $$ payouts this means may think this is a great political gambit. But it is the worst of sucker punch politics intended to obscure several severely bad and wrong Obama WH record truths and facts with one good political deed during a WH election.
Surely the Obots and Dbots are going to trumpet this loud and long. Expect it. The shamelessness of the Obots and Dbots simply knows no shame.
Equality is good. Barack Obama should have done this during the first six weeks,first six months as POTUS while going after Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld and the entire CIA/Pentagon militarism regime. While busting up Wall Street and the TBTF banking empires. While working for and fighting for Medicare For All. While putting the Rs on the run in WashingtonDC and the likes of Paul Ryan on the run so Ryan could not do what he has done these past 3 years. While not going after Bradley Manning and trying to snuff Manning for Manning having told and showed fact and truth. Bradley Manning is gay — did not seem to bother Barack Obama to use this as a weapon against Manning did it?
Did not happen.
Electing Barack Obama again in November 2012 should not happen in view of Obama being a war criminal who orders innocents killed.
Equality is good. Good for gays. For muslims. For innocents. For the poor. For crooks. For war criminals. For wantonly brutal imperialists/militarists.
I am content to stand by my statement. In my mind, there is a huge difference between needlessly starting a war and someone else not extracting us from it quickly enough.
When Cheney took office, there were no troops in Iraq; When Obama took office there were tens of thousands in a live combat zone. Additional deaths on his watch were inevitable; but no one had to die there if the war never began.
What also makes Cheney/Bush especially heinous is the money Darth make from those deaths via Halliburton & the ‘supposedly’ missing pallets of billions in cash that no one ever seemed interested in finding.
To your point, any death in any war is difficult to ‘justify’. When Obama entered office, 2 wars were already in progress. One has now ended.
To think he could’ve come into office in January and ordered the troops home in February just isn’t the real world.
Oh please. 5 deferment Cheney & courage in the same sentence?
And just like Nancy Reagan and stem cell research, the GOP only gives a damn about the human condition when it happens under their roof.
Where was Darth waxing poetic about the plight of gays and LGBT issues before it became well known his daughter was gay?
It seems we pretty much agree on many points, but reach vastly different conclusions.
And that’s OK, I’m not here to change people’s minds, just offer my own opinions on the topics of the day.
You realize that all Obama said is that he personally supports the right for same sex couples to marry in states that allow same sex marriage, don’t you?
He didn’t say that same sex marriage should be legal. He said that same sex marriage should be legal where it is legal, and that it isn’t the place of the federal government to decide.
I hate the priggish condescension in all this ‘ evolution of opinion’ folderol. How imperious of Obama to prevaricate while common people suffer under daily discrimination.
but what would you expect from Emperor ‘Off with their Heads!’ Obama
No one said anything about ordering them all out in February. He said he would bring them out one brigade at a time over the course of about 18 months. Instead he kept them there another year beyond that, and, as has been said twice already in this thread, wanted to stay beyond the GWB-negotiated deadline. It was the government of Iraq, not the President that ended the Iraq war.
What would you have said if McCain or Bush had done exactly what Obama did? Would it have been ok as long they had VP’s who didn’t make a profit from Halliburton?
This continues to illustrate the fallacy of lesser-of-2-evilism. If people keep finding reasons to endorse any amount of evil as long as they can point to a (real or possible, past or future) greater evil, then things always get more evil, not less.
If in your mind Obama is as bad/worse as Cheney/Bush, great. Have at it.
He’s not, in mine, for the reasons I’ve spelled out.
This is a calculated move to shore up some seriously sullen wealthy LGBT donors who are sitting out 2012. Since Obama ditched the small donor 50 state strategy that worked so brilliantly in 2008 for the obscenity of the $40,000 a plate dinner*, he is scrambling to stanch the cash bleed in the wake of Citizens United.
*(No better indicator of the 99/1 dynamic than the realization thatt both parties serve as cumrags for the richie riches).
Obama has an enthusiasm gap and a cash gap problem. The LGBT is a target rich collective of the target dynamic: well educated, urban, well represented in all aspects of productive society, generous in time and philanthropy and savvy in political organization from decades in the civil rights trenches now bearing some fruit. Oh and well north of all economic indicators.
If he can’t regain that community’s energy, he can buy their quiescence with this mealy mouthed ‘endorsement’ which I find as authentic as Frothy Santorum’s midnight email endorsement of Romney.
Congratulations LGBT’ers. You are now Kingmakers in Barack Obama’s re election campaign. Bring your checkbooks. Jim Messina has a prime spot in the Veal Pen next to American black voters and across from MooveOn
I apologize for my share in getting OT onto the war issue. But it’s always the same conversation regardless of the issue, isn’t it? The President’s critics on the left actually show him the respect of expecting him to act in a strong, courageous, principled manner, and his supposed defenders keep coming up with excuses as to why he couldn’t possibly.
Thank you for bringing the focus back to the issue at hand. We just saw the President of the United States invoke states’ rights to deny people their civil rights.
On the Young Turks tonite they also mentioned that significant gay members of Obama’s staff were grumbling that Obama insisted on dithering over what should be an obvious policy decision of courage. remind of us the statesman we all voted for in 2008.
What does this even mean if hewon’t sign the EO banning discrimination in federal contracts. what is the message, “I support you, but I won’t fight for you.”
Actions speak louder than words. Fail. Just more reelection pandering.
The GREAT news is that Obama is an unprincipled lying sack of shit. The stench of political calculation steams from this almost laughably-timed announcement. “I personally see nothing wrong with same-sex marriage — though of course states shouldn’t feel obliged to share my opinion (after all it’s not a human right we’re talking about), and Lord knows federal contractors shouldn’t feel that they can’t discriminate against same-sexers in the workplace.” This whole disgusting and insulting story of Obama’s “evolving” (“You know, a few days ago I didn’t believe same-sexers should be allowed to marry — despite the reports of my public opinion years ago”) only goes to prove that the Mayberry Machiavellis of his re-election campaign have decided Obama won’t lose any votes with such a position. That is political progress, American style.
exactly what do LGBT people get out of this? This must have been the fasted evolution of all time. What are we going to call this one? Homo Obamacus?
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media/content/image-racist
Some of Obama’s best friends are homosexual, though he wouldn’t want his daughter to marry one.