President Obama sent this message to supporters today

[bigtree]

May 9, 2012

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality.

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me.

Thank you,

Barack

http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/marriage

[Lionessa]

1. But he isn't, he's leaving it to the states.

No change at all really, particularly in light of the idea that his civil unions stance seemed to be a devolution from his Illinois days wherein documents indicate he was for gay marriage before he became Candidate Obama 2008.

[pipoman]

2. Certain changes could be made at the Federal level

for instance, recognition of same sex marriage by the IRS, social security administration and laws pertaining to privacy which have been used in the past to deny partners medical and financial information. We'll see if there are any actual changes, or if 'support' means lip service..

[HopeHoops]

5. That was my thought. If you can file "married jointly" on the 1040, the battle is going well.

[Lionessa]

6. Well he did justs bypass signing one didn't he that would

require non-discrimination from gov't contractors? Curious that was just a week or so ago and GLBTs seemed pretty mad, but he makes a nice statement and everything is forgotten.

Rachel last eve however did a very good job of reminding me what he has done to date, which is no small amount. Then Cory Booker joined in and reminded us of all the things not yet covered that will only be covered through marriage equality. Cory's list sort of blew her list out of the water, though, in that it hits home how incomplete Obama's efforts have been. Steps are important, and his pronouncement would've been important if he hadn't qualified it with states rights over human rights.

[bigtree]

7. you act as if the President is singularly responsible for all that needs to be done

Seems to me that you could now accept his explanation that he's interested in changing the law, not just making an executive action which could be overturned. You also ignore the fact that he said he hasn't precluded executive action on contracts. In effect, he's just not stepping on the Frank bill, just yet.

In fact, you'd think there would be some room to trust the President on these issues after he managed to get Congress to actually pass a law to repeal DADT. I'm not understanding your campaigning against the president on LGBT issues in these threads. His support and efforts on LGBT issues has been unprecedented for a sitting president and he's still in place and willing to go further. He's not the only arbiter of those changes' however.

[Lionessa]

9. He had an opportunity and let it pass.

That's a fact. I've not indicated in anyway that he can solve everything single handedly, but in the case mentioned, all he had to do was sign and he refused, and from what the GLBT community mostly reacted, it seemed his reasoning for not signing was convoluted.

[cali]

3. It's a huge change. And I haven't seen one prominent

GLBT leader say anything to the contrary. Yes, he said leave it up to the states but he knows this will be settled in the courts and I believe that when the time comes, if re-elected, he'll have the opportunity to appoint pro-equality judges and justices. Does he need to "evolve" further? Yes, of course. But his impulse is toward equality.

However, having said that, I believe this position could lose him the election. No matter what happens, I support his declaration of support and wouldn't have it any other way (except his further "evolving", but there is one important state that I believe he'll lose because of it: Florida. Why? Because Florida has a very large percentage of elderly voters, and we KNOW that elderly voters are the most likely to disapprove of marriage equality. In most states, his support of ME won't make a difference, but there, I'll venture that it will.

[lonestarnot]

4. A change will be made against haters. Gays and lesbians will see a legislated right to discriminate

change soon. They will become a protected class and see equal protection under the law as it should be. No second class citizenship for any American which is justice as it should be!

[Scurrilous]

8. Thanks.