Comments on: Obama: Gays, Not Gay Marriage, Have A Friend In The White House

By: DEVELOPING: Obama Defends Defense Of Marriage Act? | The New Civil Rights Movement

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:05:24 +0000

[...] several credible bloggers and reporters, it would appear that Obama was wrong to even suggest that gays have a friend in the White House. Related Posts:DOJ: “What’s Past Is Prologue.” Indeed.Obama: Gays, Not [...]

By: OnBorrowedTime

OnBorrowedTime — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:54:00 +0000

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.

By: OnBorrowedTime

OnBorrowedTime — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:27:58 +0000

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)

By: OnBorrowedTime

OnBorrowedTime — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:19:41 +0000

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.

By: Mitchell Killman

Mitchell Killman — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:58:56 +0000

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.

By: krwlos1

krwlos1 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:59:35 +0000

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.

By: krwlos1

krwlos1 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:55:10 +0000

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.

By: qmuser

qmuser — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:28:08 +0000

Or stop recognizing all the straight marriages.

By: jaysays

jaysays — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:47:51 +0000

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*

By: DKJ63

DKJ63 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:44:04 +0000

I see him as an intelligent, fair-minded individual and I believe he'll come through for us.