President Sidesteps, ‘Misunderestimates’ Importance Of Issue:
Video & Analysis
Last night, in Part II of the NBC News Special: Inside The Obama White House, Brian Williams asked President Obama, “Do gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry in this country have a friend in the White House?”
The President’s response:
“I think gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House because I’ve consistently committed myself to civil unions, making sure that they have the ability to visit each other in hospitals, that they are able to access benefits, that they have a whole host of legal rights, that they currently do not have. I don’t think it makes sense for the federal government to get in the business of determining what marriage is. That isn’t traditionally the federal government’s role.”
Now, let me translate:
“I think gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House” The question was, “Do gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry in this country have a friend in the White House?”, not “Do gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House?” Notice, no mention of the term “gay marriage”. He couldn’t even say the words.
“I’ve consistently committed myself to civil unions” Civil unions? Civil unions are the poor man’s gay marriage. Civil unions are to marriage what a 10-speed Schwinn is to a BMW motorcycle. Civil unions don’t give couples full equality in either rights or recognition. It’s strange how dated and out of touch his answer sounds on the same day the sixth state in the union delivered marriage equality to its citizens.
“making sure that they have the ability to visit each other in hospitals, that they are able to access benefits, that they have a whole host of legal rights, that they currently do not have.” Yeah, Mr. President, I know by making that statement you think you sound like you feel our pain, but you do not. Because marriage equality isn’t just about rights, its about recognition. It’s about being treated equally. It’s about being seen as equal. With all due respect, Mr. President, that’s something you should really feel our pain on.
“I don’t think it makes sense for the federal government to get in the business of determining what marriage is. That isn’t traditionally the federal government’s role.” Again, yeah? Mr. President, then repeal DOMA. You said you would, but now it’s off your agenda. It’s off your website, too. DOMA, the federal Defense of marriage Act, that Bill Clinton signed in 1996, does two things, and very much put the federal government “in the business of determining what marriage is”. First, DOMA tells states that they do not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, such as other states. Second, DOMA says that the federal government cannot (not, doesn’t have to, but cannot) treat same-sex marriages as marriages. Period. So, Mr. President, if, by “traditionally” you mean, pre-1996, great, repeal DOMA. If by “I don’t think it makes sense for the federal government to get in the business of determining what marriage is” you mean, the federal governement should have nothing to do with marriage, then, by all meands, get out of the marriage business and repeal DOMA. There are no other ways around the question. There are no other ways around your answer.
Mr. President, in the past few weeks you’ve started to take some heat on your gay marriage stance, or lack thereof. This is just the beginning. Gays right now are on luke-warm. We’re moving into par-boil. Next comes steam and a riolling boil. We’d all like to avoid that. You hinted good news was coming for us, and told us to be patient and wait. We’re waiting, but time’s all but up.
Mr. President, repeal DOMA. Repeal DADT. Enact ENDA. And god-damn it, make the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill law. You have the power to make these realities. You are an extremely popular president, with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. It’s time, Mr. President. It’s time. Because if much more time passes, you may not have a friend in over ten million gay and lesbian houses.
Related posts:
- What The White House Says It Says About Gay Rights
- DEVELOPING: Obama Defends Defense Of Marriage Act?
- HRC’s Joe Solmonese Sends A Letter To President Obama
- President Obama, Time To Keep Your Promise To Support Equal Healthcare Rights For Gay Couples
- Town Hall: The Gay Questions Obama Didn’t Answer
{ 14 comments }
If the federal government isn't in the business of defining marriage, then they need to recognize the same-sex marriages of 6 states.
Or stop recognizing all the straight marriages.
In the choice between McCain and Obama, I was happy to throw my support to Obama. That said, I'm somewhat concerned with his process in following through on any of his promises to our community. While I'm used to disappointment, I don't like it.
Sounds like a political answer to me. If a man whose parent's marriage wasn't recognized in so many states at the time they weren't married doesn't get this… Frankly, I do think he gets it. I think underneath it all, he gets it, he supports same-sex marriage and he consistently gives a polical answer to the question. Maybe I'm in denial, but I like to think that is the truth. I hope that once he's elected for a second term, he will fully come out for gay marriage. I hope it's not too late.
Susan Berland
http://susanberland.yolaasite.com
I actually agree that the federal government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage – but that means for anyone. Clearly, they are already in the business of doing so for some couples. The ONLY thing government can grant to ANY couple is a civil union. That's all they have the authority to do, anything that purports to be any more is an exercise of religion by the government. To prefer the religious ceremonies of one belief system and give them legal recognition over the religious ceremonies of another belief system is clearly constitutionally prohibited, and that is exactly what the government is doing by ignoring same-sex marriages.
I agree with what President Obama has stated all along concerning the federal governments involvement in defining marriage. I do believe that President Obama will keep his promises to us, timing is everything as patience is a virtue. We have options in place as far as marriage in six states, to civil unions and partnerships in others. It will be up to individual states to implement marriage and the President to insure rights.
Really? We have options?
Last time I checked, of the 1400 or so legal rights and benefits associated with marriage, only about 300 of them resided at the state level. The remaining 1,138 are all federal rights.
Anyone who thinks state-only marriage is "marriage" is burying their head in the sand. It's less than 25% of "marriage." For folks like me, affected by unequal immigration laws, state-only marriage means nothing. Immigration is entirely a federal responsibility.
I see him as an intelligent, fair-minded individual and I believe he'll come through for us.
Poor Obama. He just doesn't understand "separate" is not "equal." I can't think of a single way to convince an African American of that though… nope… not one historical example. *sarcasm*
i totally respect and understand the urgency a lot of us feel around this issue, especially those of us in committed relationships. (i, for one, am on like year 5 of being single, but i do have a faint recollection of what that means.
) BUT, i think we really need to chill. he's been in office 6 months and from the nation's standpoint as a whole, there are MAJOR crises happening right now, any one of which would command the full attention any other administration. right or wrong, issues like marriage equality were nothing more than a pipe dream for most of us across the country until random fly-over states started passing gay marriage legislation this year. as for DADT, he's expressed his commitment to abolishing it, and i don't see any reason to doubt that commitment…my understanding is that it takes an act of congress to abolish the act, so he's building consensus among the joint chiefs first, and will then present legislation to congress. it's called strategy.
Yes, being president keeps one busy.
How can a president be expected to handle more than one crisis at a time? For example, the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960s had the audacity to come to the fore during an escalating Vietnam War, a dangerous and intractable Cold War, and a nuclear crisis that could well have ended civilization as we know it.
Good thing they all shut up and went home instead of campaigning for civil rights anyway. (*sarcasm* — which I'm not very good at)
and by the way, obama never said in the election that he was for gay marriage (at least from the perspective of federal recognition). he always said it should be the states decision, so this position shouldn't be a shock to anyone. that's not why we voted for him.
For the record, what candidate Obama did say, re: federal recognition of same-sex relationships is:
"I have not said that I was a supporter of gay marriage, but I am a strong supporter of civil unions, and I would, as president, make absolutely certain that all federal laws pertaining to married couples—benefits pertaining to married couples are conferred to people who—same sex couples who have civil unions as well."
reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/page/5/
And THAT is why I voted for him, campaigned for him, and contributed as much money as I could possibly afford (and then some) to get him elected.
And now, it's time for him to live up to his own words. Period.
As far as i can see, whitehouse.gov still has an opinion on DADT on its website: "He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation." I understand first-hand the LGBT community's frustration and disappointment with the Obama administration but I also think we should be patient (but not silent) and respect the President for what he's trying to do.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }