Shut the hell up

If I hear “Marriage is between one man and one woman” one more time from Obama’s mouth- or any Democrat’s mouth- I’m going to scream. Last night, while being questioned on California’s decision, Obama just had to say it. One man, one woman.

How is this change? Leadership? Hope?

Or do only straight people get to hope?

As historical as having an African-American man run for the highest office in this nation is, it is not the only history being made. The fact that the second state in this country- and a fairly big state- has laid claim to the belief that separate is not equal is just as historically significant.

Imagine that. Two states. More to follow. You can call Massachusetts a fluke but you simply can’t ignore California, now can you?

I am sick of people telling me I should be more concerned with other issues- as if I’m not. Please. I can hold more than one thought in my head at a time. I care about the war. I care deeply that we get a Democrat in office- McCain is a nightmare. The list goes on and on.

And I want equality.

And I want it now.

You know, someone should mention to Senator Obama he could simply say, Marriage is for the states to decide. I’m running for a federal office.

Then shut the hell up. Next issue.

Note from Alex: The above’s from Sara Whitman, who blogs at The Bilerico Project and on her personal blog, Suburban Lesbian Housewife. I’ve seen it on a listserve with some pretty influential people in the LGBT community, and she’s definitely not the only person who feels this way about Obama’s statements on ABC.

As one state organization’s leader said, “Marriage is between a man and a woman,” to LGBT people, is “gratuitous, extremist rhetoric.” There’s a history with that statement, it’s not the first time Obama’s said it, and we have to wonder both what his campaign is thinking and how this will affect LGBT excitement to volunteer and give cash to Obama.

NOTE FROM PAM: This is a provocative post that should stir debate about the apron that all of the Democratic candidates (save Gravel and Kucinich) have hidden behind in 2008 regarding marriage equality. The insistance on repeatedly saying that “marriage is between a man and a woman” in relation to one’s personal beliefs — versus what the law should recognize is insulting to those fighting for the right to a civil marriage. Barack Obama has clearly come out in favor of supporting full federal equality as long as it is called civil union, not marriage. He supports the full repeal of the federal DOMA. He’s on the record regarding civil equality at the federal level, and to the extent that any president can address the states rights aspect of this matter using the bully pulpit he obviously would be an advocate.

My two cents is that he can clarify that statement to add “however, it’s not about what I personally believe, it’s about equal civil rights and responsibilities,” or “this is a matter that will end up being resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court one day, as interracial marriage was addressed in Loving v. Virginia.” There isn’t a need to reinforce the murky conflation of religious and civil marriage that’s already out there among a large slice of the electorate. There is clearly a way to address such questions without inflaming or pandering to people on either side of the debate. The reality is that at this point and time in history, if we want to move that civil rights ball forward, deft political handling on this subject requires consideration of how the right will attempt to use anything Obama says against him.

Comments are closed.