Obama Announces Support for Marriage Equality

TylerIE

I'm shocked, and delighted, I assumed he would wait until after the election.


I would have put it in the "what gives you hope" thread but feel its so significant as to warrant its own thread!

From The Advocate

President Barack Obama has officially evolved.

Amid furious Beltway speculation and growing calls for an unequivocal position on marriage from LGBT groups and the national media, President Obama said in a Wednesday interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, "It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

The president's decision, he explained, stemmed from his own experience with gay staff in committed relationships as well as the continued discrimination against gay service members, who can now serve openly in the military following repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” but are denied the same basic equal rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

“I’ve stood on the side of broader equality I hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient,” the president said. “But 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,” Obama said.

Obama's conclusion in favor of marriage equality also reflected a generational shift that cuts across party lines, he explained. "When I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk with college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, or on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality, or sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They’re much more comfortable with it."

The groundbreaking comments mark the first time that a sitting president has publicly voiced support for same-sex marriage, and come just three days after Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview with NBC that he supports such rights for gay and lesbian couples. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden said.

Biden’s comments and the intense media speculation they unleashed perhaps left little room for Obama’s continued “evolution” on the matter, precipitating Wednesday’s interview with ABC that described by some as “hastily arranged.”

Though multiple national polls show a clear trend in marriage equality support — a recent Gallup poll showed 50% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, with previous polls as high as 53% in support — it’s unclear how the president’s position will affect his reelection bid, particularly in critical swing states, including North Carolina.

In a statement released soon after the president’s remarks were aired, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese, said, “Today, President Obama made history by boldly stating that gay and lesbian Americans should be fully and equally part of the fabric of American society and that our families deserve nothing less than the equal respect and recognition that comes through marriage. His presidency has shown that our nation can move beyond its shameful history of discrimination and injustice. In him, millions of young Americans have seen that their futures will not be limited by what makes them different.”

Chad Griffin, who will take Solmonese’s place at the LGBT organization next month, said that Obama’s marriage equality endorsement “will be celebrated by generations to come.”

But on the campaign trail earlier today, presumptive GOP presidential candidate Romney drew sharp divisions between his position and that of the president, telling a local Fox News affiliate in an interview, “I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate, but that the others are not.”

Following the president's remarks, Romney weighed in further at an Oklahoma Republican Party event with Gov. Mary Fallin, reiterating his anti-marriage equality position and explaining, "I know other people have differing views — this is a very tender and sensitive topic, as are many social issues. But I have the same view that I’ve had since, well, since running for office."

The topic wasn't so tender at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in February, however, where Romney quipped that his "severely conservative" record as governor of Massachuetts prevented the state "from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage.”

As an onslaught of press releases from public officials flew throughout the course of the afternoon, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus also drew contrasts between the GOP and Obama on Wednesday afternoon, asserting that the White House announcement was nothing more than cynical politics. "While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear. We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that."

Though Obama’s comments have no immediate impact on the actual state landscape of marriage rights, the presidential imprint on the freedom to marry is perhaps incalculable in its historic significance. The remarks come more than a year after the Obama administration took the bold step of declining to defend the antigay Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and bars couples from a multitude of rights and responsibilities.

On Monday, Education secretary Arne Duncan joined Biden in publicly supporting marriage equality. Another cabinet official, HUD secretary Shaun Donovan, voiced his personal support for same-sex marriage last fall, while other cabinet members have avoided comment on the subject.

Minutes before the ABC interview was to begin, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, when asked by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell about the president’s position, said, “If he’s going to endorse [marriage equality], I respect him for having the guts to say what he believes.”

Obama’s confusing position on the issue, where he has opposed state initiatives to ban gay marriage yet evaded stating his own beliefs for some time, had drawn increasing fire from both sides of the aisle. Some Republicans have slammed the president for what they see as a cynical equivocation on the issue and sought to equate his position with that of Mitt Romney. That framing is patently false, Obama supporters charged back, given Romney supports a federal marriage amendment barring equality and would uphold the Defense of Marriage Act.

The “evolving” nature of the president’s position was first explained to AmericaBlog’s Joe Sudbay in October 2010. Two months later he said in a White House news conference on the subject, “My feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this. I have friends, I have people who work for me who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions. And they are extraordinary people. And this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.”

Previously, the president said that he was in favor of civil unions, but not marriage, though in a 1996 questionnaire while running for state Senate in Illinois, Obama said he would favor legalization of same-sex marriages.

President Obama visits Los Angeles on a campaign swing Thursday, one that will include a mega-fund-raiser hosted by George Clooney that will be attended by national marriage equality supporters including director Rob Reiner, a board member of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which organized the federal lawsuit against California’s Proposition 8.

Pedant

Merely an election ploy. Obama has gone against his election promises so many times during in his presidency, it's unreal. Wouldn't vote for him if I were American (the economy trumps marriage equality in terms of importance and ramifications if it fails). Wouldn't vote for flip-flop Romney either. I can only dream about Ron Paul, but it's only a dream I pray he'll leave the Republicans, re-join the libertarians and run as a third candidate.

TylerIE

Pedant wrote: »

Merely an election ploy. Obama has gone against his election promises so many times during in his presidency, it's unreal. Wouldn't vote for him if I were American (the economy trumps marriage equality in terms of importance and ramifications if it fails). Wouldn't vote for flip-flop Romney either. I can only dream about Ron Paul, but it's only a dream I pray he'll leave the Republicans, re-join the libertarians and run as a third candidate.

Per other research in light of the North Carolina amendment being passed its actually very much against Obama's re-election interests for him to support it.

Something around 14% of those who support Marriage Equality feel its an essential stance, while over half of those who oppose it feel its an essential stance (for their chosen candidate).

So its support is hardly likely to gain him many votes, particularly as those that support Marriage Equality were hardly going to vote Romney in the first place. It may gain him some donations, but I cant see it increasing his votes. If anything It could negatively affect his votes.

Pedant

TylerIE wrote: »

Per other research in light of the North Carolina amendment being passed its actually very much against Obama's re-election interests for him to support it.

Something around 14% of those who support Marriage Equality feel its an essential stance, while over half of those who oppose it feel its an essential stance (for their chosen candidate).

So its support is hardly likely to gain him many votes, particularly as those that support Marriage Equality were hardly going to vote Romney in the first place. It may gain him some donations, but I cant see it increasing his votes. If anything It could negatively affect his votes.

I'm sure Obama's support for universal healthcare (something he advocated before his election) didn't go down well with conservatives either, yet he still got elected.

Obama didn't support full marriage equality in last time so he could satisfy the socially conservative electorate.

Obama is so desperate this time, because he realises a lot of his previous liberal supports are jumping ship, that he has no choice but to push the gay marriage card to try and convince them to stay.

Hoochiemama

I think is an amazing thing for Obama to do. Alot of the Vote that Obama has is black people and hispanics and a HUGE majority of these are extremely religious and as a result are anti gay marriage. So I think he is alienating alot of his supporters by making this announcement so you gotta give credit where credit is due. Well done Obama!

kilternan

This is such great news - where America leads ...

Azure_sky

Pedant wrote: »

Merely an election ploy. Obama has gone against his election promises so many times during in his presidency, it's unreal. Wouldn't vote for him if I were American (the economy trumps marriage equality in terms of importance and ramifications if it fails). Wouldn't vote for flip-flop Romney either. I can only dream about Ron Paul, but it's only a dream I pray he'll leave the Republicans, re-join the libertarians and run as a third candidate.

You would vote for a man to govern you who believes the world is six thousand years old? I'd rather have Pope Benedict as my ruler.
At least he knows what time it is. (Pardon the meta' pun).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Pedant

Azure_sky wrote: »

You would vote for a man to govern you who believes the world is six thousand years old? I'd rather have Pope Benedict as my ruler.
At least he knows what time it is. (Pardon the meta' pun).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Firstly, I've seen that video before and there has been much skepticism about it, seeing as it cuts off before he finishes what he was saying.

Secondly, Ron Paul is a medical doctor and I highly doubt that he totally rejects evolution as a scientific theory based on his scientific background (he also has a degree in biology).

Thirdly, no matter what religious beliefs Paul has, he has said time and time again that he wouldn't let them impact on his policy making. He has stated clearly that he wants power to returned to individual states and that the power of the federal government and presidency should be reduced. He believes in the right for individuals to choice their own path in life and that they should be give the power to do so. This stems from his concrete libertarian ethic.

Fourthly, and this stems again from his libertarian beliefs, he believes that states should stay out of marriage (akin to marriage privatisation). His personal beliefs are that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, he doesn't believe that his personal beliefs should effect the personal beliefs of others. He believe that no government should have the right to effect the voluntary association between two people. He believes the people in that association should have the right to define that association whatever way they want to and that the state should stay out of it. He explains below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNrDc6NgCIY

Fifthly, I am less concerned about his personal views (for reason mentioned about). He could believe fairies and goblin but I wouldn't care about it. I am more concern with is views on economics and solving the US economic deficit. As some might guess, being a libertarian, he believes in working towards the separation of the economy and the government. Now of course, this won't effect us much here in Ireland, however, libertarian ethics may become popular again worldwide if he gets into office - a libertarian renaissance (of course, that's wishful thinking).

Azure_sky

I will admit that I like that fact that Ron Paul doesn't have the backing of the multi-mega corporations behind him, and in this respect he is certainly the best of the Republicans. However Edna, Eamonn and Bertie are Godless Communists compared to Ron Paul, and even Obama. There is no left wing, or even centre, in the U.S.A. anymore. Either way, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of representing the Republicans due to Fox snubbing him-which is disgraceful to be fair. So Americans are left with Romney (I believe) or Obama. The lesser of two evils is Obama. Terrible two party political system. He can't join the Libertarian party as he wouldn't have a hope of election if he did. He has to make concessions to the ultra religious conservatives, which alienates him from his core supporters.

Pedant

Azure_sky wrote: »

I will admit that I like that fact that Ron Paul doesn't have the backing of the multi-mega corporations behind him, and in this respect he is certainly the best of the Republicans. However Edna, Eamonn and Bertie are Godless Communists compared to Ron Paul, and even Obama. There is no left wing, or even centre, in the U.S.A. anymore. Either way, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of representing the Republicans due to Fox snubbing-which is disgraceful to be fair. So Americans are left with Romney (I believe) or Obama. The lesser of two evils is Obama. Terrible two party political system.

It'll all be decided who the Republican candidate will be come August (or there abouts). Ron Paul isn't doing as bad as people say he as, but I doubt he'll get the nomination for Republican candidate. Romney's business connections have given his the financial lead over Ron Paul. American corporatism has destroyed true democracy.

Azure_sky

Pedant wrote: »

It'll all be decided who the Republican candidate will be come August (or there abouts). Ron Paul isn't doing as bad as people say he as, but I doubt he'll get the nomination for Republican candidate. Romney's business connections have given his the financial lead over Ron Paul. American corporatism has destroyed true democracy.

I agree totally. The American Democratic system is a joke at this stage. Romney is the Republican winner by default-sadly. However I believe Obama will edge it by about 2-4%.

declantm

What was he thinking? He already had the gay vote as Romney was against gay marriage. He has completely alienated himself from the Christian vote in America which I’m sure is quite substantial. I think he has ruined his chances for a second term. What was he and his advisors thinking!

LegacyUser

declantm wrote: »

What was he thinking? He already had the gay vote as Romney was against gay marriage. He has completely alienated himself from the Christian vote in America which I’m sure is quite substantial. I think he has ruined his chances for a second term. What was he and his advisors thinking!

Ruined his chances? Have you seen who he is going to be up against? I've just come back from a month traveling around the US [lived there for a number of years, through the last 3 elections] and going on the general vibe of several swing states I'd be very surprised if Romney takes it. His Mormon background makes him an easy target as that is something the GOP has been trying to play down since the start as it's something that really grates on alot of Christian voters. Many don't view Mormons as Christians and all it takes is a few well placed magic underwear jibs and reminders of Romney's Mormon background to get many Christian voters to either swing their vote or stay home on voting day.

But it doesn't matter what way the Christian vote goes in the end as based purely on numbers it is the hispanic vote that is going to win this and it could all be sewed up before we even get to the main event depending on who the VP pick is. Without a latino on the ticket Romney has lost before he even starts, there's been several polls that have done the math. The only way he stands a chance is to get a latino on as VP but the only real option is Marco Rubio whose backed by the tea party and a senator in a swing state but he's gone on record already saying he doesn't want it. The other VP names floating around are people like chris christie who would cause issues for the Romney camp for his stance on Education, Jebb Bush just for having the surname Bush [and again already counted himself out] and the likes of Rick Santorum or mike huckabee might get him the christian vote but it will the super far right christian vote and all those people in the middle who are unhappy with Obama's first term will vote for him rather then let the likes of Huckabee anywhere near office.

And there's no point in taking about 3rd party option being a runner as the idea of voting for a 3rd party is so foreign to most americans a number I talked to actually think it's illegal. The only impact a 3rd party could make is taking votes in swing states ala Flordia in 2000 but the chances of them making a big enough impact to upset the out come at this stage is slim.