Obama calls for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

Obama calls for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act

President Barack Obama on Saturday night called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) during his keynote address to the Human Rights Campaign’s 15th Annual National Dinner.

The law defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, and prohibits legally married same sex couples from receiving federal benefits.

At the beginning of his speech, Obama joked that he talked “with your leader, Lady Gaga” and went on to tout his record on LGBT rights.



He noted that with his help the Matthew Shepard Act was passed, expanding the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/02/obama-calls-for-repeal-of-defense-of-marriage-act/

[Ohio Joe]

1. Good. About time. - nt

[TheWraith]

7. He's called for it since 2007, you know. nt

[Ohio Joe]

15. No... I did not know that

In that case... This sucks because just calling for it is just lip service. We need to see more action on equal rights.

[TheWraith]

25. In that case then, I apologize somewhat for my rather aggressive tone.

I'm fed up to my eyeballs with people who willfully ignore that fact, or continuously move the goalposts... as exampled below. However, I would still object to the assertion that this is somehow weak tea on Obama's part. He can't make laws on his own, and without control of the House, it's ridiculously unlikely that anything concrete like DOMA repeal, or ENDA, could possibly pass.

[tavalon]

137. We gave him control of the House

He didn't do anything with it. He was a magnificent campaigner in 2008 and he'll be a great one now. The difference is that I have seen how weak he is as a leader. I won't be watching the campaign. I'll dutifully vote for him but he knows I will, and it irks me to no end that he knows that and that he's right. Excuse me if I don't get all twitterpated over his call for the repeal of DOMA - it's blatant campaigning and it's meant for the low information voter as will everything between now and voting time. As a high information voter, I am highly aware of how Obama governs and it is less than stellar, especially in these times.

[Maraya1969]

31. The Respect for marriage act was just introduced in marched and it

repeals DOMA.

[TheWraith]

33. This is the second time it was introduced, actually. First time was in 2009. nt

[No Elephants]

78. Please see Reply 81.

[roguevalley]

90. I hope this happens. Good job. Now, let's do it. :)

[Ken Burch]

51. Didn't do anything about it when he had majorities in Congress

n/t.

[TheWraith]

72. Congress refused to pass the bill.

But yeah, hey, blame Obama for not signing a bill that didn't even pass the House. :eyes:

[No Elephants]

80. Did Obama announce support for it before July 2011?

[TheWraith]

84. He has supported repealing DOMA since 2004, and specifically called for it in 2009.

He called for repealing DOMA around the time the first push was made on DADT.

[No Elephants]

108. He took many positions since 2004 including opposing gay marriage.

[TheWraith]

110. He took one position, in favor of repealing DOMA.

Your "flip flopper" schtick notwithstanding.

[No Elephants]

115. Please see Reply 81 and links therein.

[dbackjon]

158. He is against gay marriage

Your blatant ass-kissing of a homophobe not withstanding.

[zanana1]

164. Exactly.

Obama couldn't do much with all the Democratic wimps in the House. It's bad enough that he has every Republican from coast to coast on his back; he also has to deal with some pretty hateful Democrats. (You know who you are).

[AverageJoe90]

178. So true. n/t

[karynnj]

141. He only REALLY had 60 Senators for 4 months

- and there are many procedural moves to slow even very non controversial things down. Every bill could require a cloture vote before discussion started and to end discussion - and both votes require waiting a period of time before preceding. It was simply not possible to raise and pass everything Democrats wanted in that 4 month period.

On DOMA, the likelihood is that he never had 60 votes - some of the Democrats are very conservative and represent conservative states. Remember that in 1996, only 14 Senators voted against it - and only one was up for re-election and and he represented MA where it was not likely to hurt him. Senator Wellstone voted for it - later saying it was a bad vote. Many have changed their position, but I doubt all of them have.

[dbackjon]

156. He has also stated that it is a State's Rights issue

And has been against gay marriage.

[JRinMI]

147. Reverend Wright, anyone?

Does anyone else remember the prayer debacle at Obama's 2009 coronation with that blistering homophobe Reverend Wright? Of all the religious "leaders" in the nation to chose from, Obama chose one of the most homophobic assh0les he could find! And NOW he wants us to vote for him again?!? I'm afraid not... No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, I will NOT forget how Obama has picked fights with the LGBT community at every turn! That is, until around election time when Obama's calculated that he needs us to win. I won't be used and discarded again by such a FAKE!

[Inuca]

148. Two things

1. You are mixing up your reverends
2. Obama's "coronation"? :puke:

Hoping your stay around these parts will be a short one.

[zanana1]

165. You're showing your immaturity.

I'm 59 and I've seen alot of campaigns. I've seen alot of presidents come and go. I've seen one of them assassinated. Just because Obama isn't doing a Bush play, like governing for only his side of the aisle and ignoring half the country, you have a temper tantrum. You have to learn that, in this life, you won't always get your way. Obama is TRYING to govern for the entire country; not just you. Grow up.

[JI7]

2. he has always said this

[Jakes Progress]

5. Links?

[TheWraith]

8. Here you go.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/08/would-obama-pos/

[Jakes Progress]

12. Seems like that was what Sen. Obama wanted.

What about President Obama? Got links for back when Democrats controlled both houses and it could actually have passed?

[TheWraith]

17. Ahh, the joy of moving the goalposts!

Little problem of course being that the Democrats in Congress would NOT have passed it, not even close. It came up in 2009, and failed to make it out of committee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act#Legislative_history

So you might want to ask yourself why you're blaming Obama for not signing a bill that even the House couldn't pass, let alone the Senate.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

23. i think it has something to do with how the 'buck' supposedly stops with Obama

Many seems to ignore the fact it actually have to REACH him for it to stop there.

So something bad happens and its Obama's fault even if somebody else stopped the 'buck' before it arrived before him

[No Elephants]

81. It also has to do with things like what the WH sends to Congress, what Obama fights for and does not

fight for and so on.

[cliffordu]

125. The WH can say anything they want, yet they NEVER

create legislation.

Gotta have the congresscritters for that,

but sooooo many experts here are ignorant of that fact.

The bully pulpit is fucking perfect in hindsight,

in reality, not so much........

And, not to put too fine a point on this, but what you think he is fighting for or not means the same thing as what I think he is fighting for or not.

Absolutely nothing.

[Pab Sungenis]

181. This is utter bullshit.

Jimmy Carter called Obama out on that in his interview with Rachel Maddow. The White House writes bills all the time, and has loyal Congresscritters introduce them.

Every major piece of legislation in Carter's term was written in the White House.

Reagan's tax cut bills, as well as Bush's, were written in their White Houses.

The Patriot Act was written in the Bush White House.

The Health Security Act was notoriously written by Clinton's White House.

The Obama White House just recently wrote the American Jobs Act.

Not to mention the fact that EVERY BILL of the New Deal was written in Roosevelt's White House.

When something is important enough for an Administration, they write the bill in-house to make sure it's what they want.

[cliffordu]

123. Yep, if the buck never gets to Obama.....Aw, fuck it, nevermind.

Let the ignorant go back to jacking off.

[Jakes Progress]

38. Ahh. The joy of mind reading.

Little problem of course being that you don't know what the congress would pass. You don't know because the president promptly forgot his former ideals when they might have been actionable. Instead he beckoned for anti-gay hymn singers to usher in his administration and said things about marriage only being between a man and a woman. You can twist it, but your arguments don't jibe with reality. You argue that the congress couldn't pass the bill when we had both houses so he didn't say anything. And I mean anything. Now. When the election is coming, when he is campaigning before an LBGT audience, and the republicans hold one house, he calls for repeal. Why now if not then? Your argument that he kept silent before because it wouldn't pass, means squat unless you think the time is ripe for passage now. It rings of hollow campaign promise.

[defendandprotect]

59. +1 ---

[TheWraith]

73. I do know what Congress would pass, because Congress DIDN'T pass DOMA repeal.

DOMA repeal was introduced, and it subsequently died without even passing the House where we had a large majority, let alone the razor-thin margins in the Senate. That's not exactly rocket science to understand. But you prefer to continue making up reasons to blame Obama, because OF COURSE, Congress would pass ANYTHING for him if he just asked them to strongly enough. This argument is ludicrous on the face of it.

Not to mention the fact that you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that he supported repeal all through the first half of his term, and YES, called on Congress to repeal DOMA. They didn't. But that's left out, because it's inconvenient to your desire to heap all the blame onto Obama so that you have a villain.

[No Elephants]

82. You don't know what Congress would have passed in 2009 if Obama had strongly supported it.

The bill had well over 100 sponsors in Congress. Was Obama supporting it, fighting for it in 2009?

[TheWraith]

86. Yes, I do. The idea that "strong support" materializes more votes is ridiculous.

The White House strongly supported the DREAM Act too, and it got shot down. Likewise for cap and trade. And a dozen other things.

The idea that the President can just muster extra votes out of his pocket is nothing more than an excuse for blaming the White House.

[No Elephants]

93. You and I can prove he tried for the Dream Act. That's the difference.

And, I would suggest he did not try for the Dream Act as hard as he tried for health care reform (without the public option) or for the current jobs act.

And he never said in public that he did not believe in the Dream Act. He had said in public that he did not believe in gay marriage.

[TheWraith]

105. And he called on Congress to pass DOMA repeal. They didn't.

It didn't even make it out of the House. So really, what creates this idea that the POTUS can get anything he supports? Your position seems to be that on all the important stuff which DIDN'T pass, he was just either incompetent or didn't believe in it.

[No Elephants]

111. My position "seems to be?" I've stated my positions. No need to pull stuff out of your ear and

try to impute it to me.

Aain, I never said he can get anything he supports. I said he did not FIGHT in 2009.

[TheWraith]

112. You say he didn't fight, and define "fighting" as anything he didn't do.

It's a very convenient yardstick, if your main goal is to have a reason to gripe. Not so good about defining reality.

[No Elephants]

114. Bull puckie. Not what I did at all. See Reply 102.

This is the second post of yours I've seen on this thread that mischaracterizes what you claim I said. Please stop making up things that are supposedly my position. Again, my positions are in MY posts not in YOUR imagination or your posts.


Thanks ever so.

[karynnj]

143. It might have come down to getting Ben Nelson

Ben Nelson voted in 2006 for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage - something that goes far beyond what DOMA did and which would have been harder to undo - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700830.html

[Jakes Progress]

154. What a mind reader. But not the point. The point is about Obama

and what he did and when he did it.

You still don't address why he didn't push for passing back then when you say it wouldn't pass and why he is now when you say it won't pass. Do both sides of your mouth get tired when you do that?

And stop the blame stuff. I'm not blaming him. I'm saying he is opportunistically using this issue before a host of LGBT voters when he hasn't been seen doing so since before he was elected. You didn't provide the link where he said that he favored gay marriage and urged congress to pass legislation doing so while he was in office.

Now. About pushing for something even if you don't think it has a good chance. He does that when he really wants something. Like the jobs bill.

Now. Again. I'm glad that he has finally said something. I wish he would just come out and support gay marriage, but maybe that will come at another campaign stop. With Obama it always seems to be too little, too late, The problem is that we don't have better late than never, but late is never.

[cliffordu]

128. BwaHAHAHAHAHHAH

He had both houses, all right.

Full of the democratic party, including homophobes, shitheads, morons and whores.

Your post rings hollow as any purist's splooge.

YOU don't know what congress would have passed or what his aides let him know as events unfolded.

Unless of course you actually read what each D congresscritter had to say about it when we had both houses.

You obviously haven't. Try it.

Let us all know SPECIFICALLY why HE was the sole obstacle to his "Actionable details"


In the mean time, referring to that anti-gay hymn singers is the best criticism you have, just keep it up and marginalize the gains he HAS helped along, or tacitly allowed out of political expedience, or simply not fought.

Cause THAT'S how progress really happens.

tough shit.

[Jakes Progress]

157. So it's just tough shit for LGBT. Is that it?

Gee. Would be nice to have a president who acted out of principle. But now he gets to trot out his grudging support when he knows that it won't pass. It's not my fault that he is such a weak leader that his own congress wouldn't support him. That seems to be your argument. I think he is quite eloquent and could have used his first two years and the mandate from the election to do all sorts of progressive things. He spent the time courting the republicans and making sure that he would never upset them. His first two years were wasted trying to get the right wing to see how smart and good he was. To that end he avoided pushing anything that would get republican hackles up. He conceded before he started. We will never know what he might have accomplished if he had been man enough to try.

So you keep on backing up two steps for every step forward. Cause that's how progress is stopped.

[cliffordu]

179. Turn the way the real world works upside down and your

"argument" makes sense.....almost....

"It's not my fault that he is such a weak leader that his own congress wouldn't support him"

Really?? Stupid on it's face. Lots of these fucks have been entrenched for decades.



"We will never know what he might have accomplished if he had been man enough to try."

That's real mature and politically astute. Really. Why aren't you in political office??

[Jakes Progress]

184. So you prefer a world that doesn't work?

A weak leader is not followed. Obama is not followed. What is stupid on its face is to say that a great leader just doesn't have his party following him.

I assume you meant to be sarcastic when you said my statement was politically astute, but how can you argue that never trying anything because you might lose is politically astute? With your version of political strategy you would never, never win anything because you would never try. Come to think of it, maybe that is Obama's philosophy.

Why aren't I in political office? Who says I'm not? Why aren't you?

[FarLeftFist]

135. Oh yeah, I remember that majority Obama had, it was during the Depression, not the best time to call

For this piece of legislation. The entire country would have collectively said "WTF?!".

[Jakes Progress]

160. Oh?

You mean sort of like civil rights legislation? That was unpopular too. So I guess it should have been left alone.

And the polls don't support your opinion. The polls have constantly shown public support for gay marriage.

[FarLeftFist]

177. I'm all for it, but imagine durinf the depression he wanted congress to not focus on jobs and

instead focus on this. People would be pissed b/c there was so much anger and division then he brings up something that will piss off people.

[Jakes Progress]

185. That's a lovely set of reasons to avoid doing the right thing.

Just say you aren't doing the right thing for the right reasons.

[dbackjon]

159. Exactly!

[karynnj]

142. Even in the 4 months where we had 60 Democratic Senators,

we would not have had 60 for repealing DOMA.

[Jakes Progress]

162. We will never know.

Timidity triumphed principle.

[cliffordu]

180. LOL. Easy to be a member of the

101st Chairborne Brigade.

Hindsight is ALWAYS perfect.

[Jakes Progress]

186. Hindsight is better than lacking foresight.

Or principles. Or gumption. Timidity is not the thing of which great statesmen are made.

[No Elephants]

79. Please see Reply 81.

[LonePirate]

3. Where was this call two years ago when his party still controlled both houses of Congress?

It's little more than hollow rhetoric now that Republocans control the House and pretty much control the Senate as well thanks to the filibuster.

[Jakes Progress]

9. If he had done this two years ago, there wouldn't be all these "buts"

to go with the congrats. He could have just done the right thing at the right time. Now it all seems a little contrived. Time will tell just how firmly he means to back up this "campaign rhetoric".

Personally, I think the brave thing, the leadership thing to do would have been to call for this at the beginning instead of inviting LGBT bashers to sing at his parties.

[No Elephants]

94. And saying at Rick Warren's church that he did not believe in gay marriage.

[TheWraith]

10. He called for it then too. Democrats in Congress couldn't pass it. nt

[Jakes Progress]

14. Let's see the bill he sent over.

[TheWraith]

18. The bill was unable to pass the House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act#Legislative_history

[Jakes Progress]

39. Read your own source.

"The 2009 bill was introduced by U.S. Representatives Jerrold Nadler of New York on September 15, 2009" No mention of support by Obama.

"The 2011 bill was introduced by U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York on March 16, 2011, and a U.S. Senate version was introduced by Dianne Feinstein of California on the same day. President Obama announced his support for the bill on July 19, 2011."

Why didn't he support the earlier bill? Why didn't he propose that legislation earlier? Why did he wait four months to support the 2011 bill? Why did it take a re-election campaign before he would finally, futilely offer support?

Hey. I'm glad he did it for whatever reason. It's just that like so many things with him - too little, too late. Just as your example shows.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

83. Links to his calling for it and fighting for it in 2009?

[TheWraith]

87. Here you go. Of course, you'll just move the goalposts again.

http://sisterstalk.net/blog/2009/06/obama-calls-on-congress-to-repeal-anti-gay-doma-and-dadt/

You'll insist that he wasn't REALLY fighting for it, or that there was another magic wand he could wave that would get Congress to pass it.

[No Elephants]

91. The video is not there any more, but "I call on Congress" said at a press conference,

probably after he has been asked about it, is not exactly fighting.

Why would I not point that out? It's the truth.

[TheWraith]

106. Thanks for proving me right.

The fact is that nothing could be provided that would meet your definition of "fighting for it," because your definition implicitly requires success. Either it happened, or "he didn't fight for it." You refuse to allow for the reality that it simply did not pass Congress.

[No Elephants]

118. LOL! No, my definition of FIGHT requires more than "I call upon Congress" said once at a presser.

[JNinWB]

152. Perfect description of ODS....

"The fact is that nothing could be provided that would meet your definition of "fighting for it," because your definition implicitly requires success. Either it happened, or "he didn't fight for it." You refuse to allow for the reality that it simply did not pass Congress."

[pnwmom]

19. When did we have 60 votes? Never.

Lieberman was an Independent when we had 58 votes, plus Sanders.

And a President isn't a dictator. He doesn't have absolute power, even over the votes in his own party.

[TheWraith]

22. And we had that 58 plus 2 for what, 14 weeks?

Not to mention the fact that that 58 plus 2 included Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and other Dems who would never vote for a DOMA repeal.

[No Elephants]

96. 14 weeks? Brown was not elected for a year AND he comes from a gay marriage state.

[No Elephants]

95. Lieberman SUPPORTED leaving gay marriage to states. We had 60 for cloture.

We needed only 50 plus Biden for passage.

[TheWraith]

103. Bullshit.

Would you like to chime in and say that Ben Nelson was for repealing DOMA? And Blanche Lincoln? And Mary Landreiu? And Mark Pryor? And...

We could barely get 60 for repealing DADT, you think you're going to get 60 Senators on board for a vote that will be characterized by the right as federally guaranteeing gay marriage?

[No Elephants]

107. I responded very accurately to a comment about Lieberman.

Neither you nor I know what Nelson and Lincoln would have done about cloture.

I do know President Obama supported Lincoln for re-election against a more liberal primary candidate.

[TheWraith]

109. You claimed that we easily had 60 votes for cloture, which is bullshit.

And you know that just as well as I do.

[No Elephants]

116. I never said we easily had 60 votes for cloture on this issue (or any issue).

If you look at the post to which I was replying, it was one about the caucus in general and Lieberman in particular.

You keep claiming bullshit on my part, but it turns out to be on your part every time.

You are embarrassing yourself.

[TheWraith]

119. It's literally four lines up from your post, you claiming we had 60 for cloture.

"Lieberman SUPPORTED leaving gay marriage to states. We had 60 for cloture."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5013343&mesg_id=5013621

[No Elephants]

124. Again, try reading in the context of what I was responding to.

Posters were mentioning things like Kennedy being ill.

They were talking about the numbers in the Democratic Caucus in general, saying we NEVER had 60 votes in the Caucus. I answered in kind.

They specifically cited Lieberman, who has been used as an excuse for a lot that simply is not so. Yes he opposed health care, but not everything Democrats ever wanted. So, I pointed out Lieberman specifically supported leaving gay marriage to the states, meaning he could not be automatically eliminated from the Caucus on this issue.


They were also talking as though every substantive vote requires 60 Senators. It doesn't, so I responded in kind to that too, saying it was 60 for cloture and 50 plus Biden on substance.

Show me where I said specifically we had 60 votes for repeal of DOMA or for cloture on repeal of DOMA. You can't.

[TheWraith]

126. Now you're trying to change what you said.

It was pointed out to you how difficult it would be getting it past cloture, and you INSISTED that we had 60 votes. Specifically on that issue, since you mentioned how Lieberman supported it on this issue. Now you're trying to weasel out of that fact.

[No Elephants]

133. No, I am disagreeing with your spin on what I posted.

One of us actually KNOWS what myh post meant and the other is spinning in a desperate attempt to prove that I post things that are untrue.

Guess which is doing which.

You have quite a number of posts on this thread saying what my position is, all of them made up by you.

And now, I bid you a sad farewell as I must leave this thread for now.

[Tx4obama]

29. Sen Franklin was sworn in July 2009, Sen Kennedy died August 2009

How much shit does everyone expect for Obama to have gotten done in such a short time period since a million things needed to be done?

Since Obama has been president we have NOT had 60 democrats in the Senate - 60 yes votes are needed for cloture due to all the GOP obstruction.

If folks want to fix the problem then help the dems get 60+ senators in the Senate and help the dems take back the House.
Folks spending energy bashing Obama is not going to fix anything ;)

[polmaven]

56. And Senator Kennedy

was too ill to be present for the last several weeks of his life. It reality there were not ever 60 reliable votes in the Senate.

[No Elephants]

100. Please see Reply 109. All you need is 60 who do not opposed cloture.

You needed only 50 plus Biden for passage.

Besides, you need zero "reliable votes" in order for a President to FIGHT for something. There is no evidence Obama even tried to fight for repeal of DOMA when he might have had both houses with him.

[polmaven]

138. I am not politically illiterate.

Nor am I stupid.

Cloture is necessary on any bill which the Republicans find to be the least bit unacceptable to them. Have you forgotten the Minority Leader's statement that the first goal is to make this a one term president?

[No Elephants]

98. Kennedy was replaced by his hand picked successor. Brown is from Massachusetts, a gay marriage

state.

Lieberman favored leaving the gay marriage issue to the states.

Who is Senator Franklin?

How many excuses are left?

[barbtries]

149. yes!

i knew there had to be a reason i read through all the posts until i got to yours. :applause:

[backtomn]

43. Opposes gay marriage, but also opposes DOMA

He is clearly playing to both sides......I guess it depends on the audience.

[polmaven]

57. No,

it depends on the difference between personal belief and belief in what is best for the majority of the country.

[No Elephants]

101. He stated his personal belief was against gay marriage. See Reply 81.

Any why would discriminating against gays be best for a majority of the country anyway?

[polmaven]

140. His personal

religious beliefs may not approve of marriage, but he has mad it clear that he understands that the majority of people in the country do not share that personal belief any longer, so he is advocating for the beliefs of the majority. This is a president who does not let his own religious beliefs stand in the way of what is best for the country.

Where, by the way, did you come up with the idea that I even hinted that the president thinks discriminating against gays be best for a majority of the country? That is so far away from what I said it isn't funny!

[Jakes Progress]

4. Well. Good.

Just wish it hadn't taken two years, an re-election campaign, and a host of voting LGBT to get it done.

But I celebrate his call. I also just wish I didn't have to keep watching the next couple of months to see how hard he pushes.

(Yes, yes. I know. I'm just a big old hater. But tell me why it took til now.)

[TheWraith]

11. It DIDN'T "take until now." He's been in support of repealing DOMA since before he ran.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/08/would-obama-pos/

Here's a reference from 2007, and it in turn refers to him having held this position on DOMA since first running for Senate in 2004.

[Jakes Progress]

13. Again. Anything from President Obama?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

16. You are aware that Civilian Obama, Senator Obama and President Obama is the same person yes? n/t

[LonePirate]

26. 2008 Candidate Obama and President Obama are almost polar opposites of one another

[Jakes Progress]

37. You are aware that President Obama has more pull than Citizen Obama.

Please don't be silly. By your statement, you would argue that a citizen on the street has as much power to affect legislation as the President of the United States. Why would you say something like that?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

131. nope, all i'm arguing is that Obama is Obama whatever title is tossed infront of his name n/t

[Jakes Progress]

153. Which has nothing to do with the thread. But okay.

You got to say something. Good on you.

[No Elephants]

76. As with a number of things, Obama has taken a few positions on gay marriage.

Some of which were "at war with themselves." And some of which have been equivocal, at best.



"OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But –

I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view."




http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/08/17/full-transcript-saddleback-presidential-forum-sen-barack-obama-john-mccain-mode

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-17/news/17892613_1_same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-gay-rights

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2009/0512/obama-and-miss-california-aligned-on-same-sex-marriage

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/06/obama-argues-federalist-approach-but-states-rights-wrong-for-marriage-equality.html



Mrs. Obama as well.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57923.html

[ixion]

6. Obama, staying in the safe zone. How about doing something truly visionary for once

and calling for a repeal of the PATRIOT Act?

[pnwmom]

21. What is safe about calling for the repeal of DOMA?

Love how the goal posts keep getting moved.

[ixion]

24. because it's ultimately window dressing

and while it does help a certain subgroup (although not greatly) it does not address the very serious issues we have at the moment.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ixion]

28. I'm concerned about real change.

If that offends you, that is your problem.

I'm concerned about millions of people who have their lives ruined, or worse, simply because they chose to smoke marijuana.

I'm concerned about corrupt government that propagates endless war, and destroys civil liberties, and ruins people's lives.

I'm concerned about corrupt government that allows corporations to run rough shod over We, the People.

I'm concerned about transparency and accountability in said government.

Your snark only serves to promote the corruption of the system.

[TheWraith]

30. So you gripe because Obama can't rewrite US law by fiat.

And you insult those who point that out. That's a really effective means to bring about change, you've got there. :eyes:

[bertman]

36. No, he cannot rewrite US law by fiat--oh wait, wasn't the kill order against that U.S. citizen

done by Executive Order?

I and many others find the laissez-faire approach to Presidential leadership to be troubling at best, tragically weak at worst. IMO this President has been on the sidelines for some of the major legislation that might (yes, I know there were no guarantees) have passed had HE been a 'fierce advocate' instead of a wait-and-see administrator-type President. Instead, the potential victory was never PUSHED FOR, then a plethora of reasons were hauled out as to why the victory could not have been won, thus explaining the lack of effort to win as if that was a foregone conclusion.

One of the reasons I voted for President Obama was because he impressed me deeply with his ability to SPEAK to people and DELIVER a powerful message in a PERSUASIVE way. We will probably never know why that part of the man dropped out of sight as soon as the Inauguration was over only to resurface a very few times during the previous two and a half years.

Americans respond to solid appeals to their better nature, especially if they are presented with all of the very good reasons that back up those appeals. Now that it's campaign season we are seeing the same eloquence from Presidential re-election candidate Obama that we saw before he was elected. Why should I, or anyone, believe that this President is going to change his modus operandi during his second term?

[msanthrope]

66. No--the kill order was done by act of Congress.

the repeal of DOMA will have to be the same.

[bertman]

85. The President signed off on the order. He was not required by law to do that. He could have

refused to sign it and ordered a manhunt to capture him and bring him to trial. In today's world of expedient "justice" that was too difficult and inconvenient.

[pnwmom]

42. This is about CIVIL RIGHTS. If that doesn't concern you, tough. n/t

[ixion]

44. I didn't say it didn't concern me...

but there are bigger issues that we ought to be dealing with first, in my opinion.

[pnwmom]

45. Why first? Why not push your issues without complaining that this one is moving forward?

[ixion]

46. because there are priorities

it's like being on a sinking ship, and dealing with the fact that the electrical system is failing because of the salt water.

[pnwmom]

62. Obama can have more than one priority at a time. Every President does.

In fact, all people do.

[ixion]

65. Well, apparently the critical issues like ending the Wot and WoD

aren't among them.

[MADem]

35. No it isn't. It has a substantial effect on gay military spouses and their families.

Repeal also will have a substantial positive effects on families of federal civilian employees stationed overseas.

How would you like to be a spouse without government transportation authorizations, or protections under a status of forces agreement?

[ixion]

48. which is all well-and-good, but as I pointed out

we have much larger, more critical issues that need to be dealt with at the moment, and not only are the not being dealt with, they're escalating.

[MADem]

53. Are you saying blow off DOMA because other stuff is more important?

I don't understand what you are suggesting.

[ixion]

55. No, I'm saying worry about the critical issues first

and then worry about things like DOMA.

The so-called 'wars' on 'terror' and (some) 'drugs' have ruined millions of people's lives, killed hundreds of thousands, and helped propel us into the corporate police state in which we now exist. I'm all for people being able to partner with whomever they choose, but that pales in comparison, damage-wise, the the aforementioned 'wars' of abstraction.

[MADem]

58. I think Obama and other agenda-pushers can hold more than one idea in their heads. NT

[ixion]

60. apparently not

since they've actually pushed forward and escalated those critical things I spoke about, rather than fixing them.

[MADem]

75. Well, that's your view. nt

[pnwmom]

63. Coming out against DOMA doesn't impact those other issues that are more critical to you.

Obama is perfectly capable of moving ahead on more than one front. You should advocate for your issues without trying to diminish the importance of civil rights for millions of gay people.

[dbackjon]

161. FUCK YOU IF YOU DO NOT THINK EQUALITY FOR ALL AMERICANS IS NOT A CRITICAL ISSUE

Fuck you for being a smug, arrogant ASSHOLE who would easily dismiss the rights of fellow Americans.


It is shit like you that has caused me to be a second class citizen.


FUCK YOU AND YOUR HIGH HORSE.

[mitchtv]

168. make that a double fuck you

disgusting attitude, dripping with privilege

[Vanje]

172. Pony!

nt

[Vanje]

173. ~~~~~~~~

FUCK YOU!

[Pab Sungenis]

176. Civil Rights are the only critical issues.

That includes the right to marry.

Without civil rights there is no point in an America.

[pnwmom]

41. "While it does help a certain subgroup"???????

[ixion]

47. Yes. What part of that are you unclear on?

[Ken Burch]

88. Since DOMA repeal can't possibly pass before the election

It may simply be about peeling off LGBT voters from the ranks of an anti-Obama primary coalition-or keeping them on the sidelines in the anti-greed movement that's now growing(and that this administration will naturally be doing all in its power to stop).

[Vanje]

174. Did I forget to say....

Fuck you!



But what do I know. I am merely a member of that "Certain subgroup".

[No Elephants]

104. That depends on what your polling is telling you.

If liberals stay home again, or vote third Party, Obama's re-election is in jeopardy.

This had a much better chance of passing January 2009 to January 2011. He did not fight for it then. He can fight for it now and pretty much know it won't pass.

Fighting for it may help him with liberals and, if it does not pass, will not hurt him much with religious nutters, who are very unlikely to vote for him anyway.

No goalpost moving required, only a little thought that is not superficial.

[Muskypundit]

32. Very surprised he would mention gay marriage

During election season. That is very not Obama-after-elected. Which is good!

[No Elephants]

113. Please see Reply 116.

[MADem]

34. It needs to happen, otherwise, the DOD is FORCED--by LAW--to discriminate against gay people.

DOMA doesn't permit federal funds to be expended to PCS same sex spouses and their household goods. Unless there are children in the family, the servicemember PCS's at the single rate--way less household goods weight, and no plane ticket or SOFA status for the spouse if overseas.

State is totally ignoring the law, but they get most of their cash in a nice fat clump. DOD has to go to the well and beg throughout the year, for everything from end strength/promotion authorizations to retirement lists, to commissioning authorizations. This stuff can be held up by Congress if they don't play ball (I've seen them hold up promotion lists to be fucking shits). It's a tricky situation for DOD, and they'd like nothing better than to just fully implement the logical results of repeal of DADT. It's just too damn difficult to be telling people to do one thing one day, and another the next.

The challenge is finding a way to effectively lean on the GOP bums who like to hold DOMA up like a bloody shirt, to show their commitment to the battle against "family values." Notice I said AGAINST--because they sure as hell aren't for family values if they can continue to support DOMA.

[McCamy Taylor]

40. K&R

[SleeplessinSoCal]

49. All he can do now is use the "bully pulpit". Repetition will be the Mantra. On everything.

[ZombieHorde]

50. Awesome. nt

[barbtries]

52. good

let's get on with the 21st century.

[Mr Deltoid]

54. Bout time K&R

[TheWraith]

74. He's supported this the entire time he's been in federal government.

It was a plank in his 2008 platform.

[SpankMe]

61. Too little too late. But, I'll take what I can get.

Election season has begun. The Republicans will be having primaries as early as January now. The President is swinging left a little to get some of the base back.

[SoapBox]

64. Fingers crossed!

[Occulus]

67. Good, now I can consider voting for him a second time.

This was my own personal dealbreaker, right here.

[No Elephants]

121. By all means. vote for Obama in 2012, but not solely because of this.

Please see Replies 81 and 116 and other replies of various posters on this thread.

[patrice]

68. Civil Rights for All Americans ARE what I'm paying for with MY taxes.

[dogmoma56]

69. 65% OF MAIRAGES FAIL.. god cant keep it together or it's BIG FUCK'n SHAM..my vote is it's a Sham

[patrice]

70. It's not Constitutional to create a permanent Civil-Rights-Underclass - LEGALIZATION of Discriminati

on.

[patrice]

71. Add this to the list with LEGALIZATION of theft, financial sector SUBSIDIES to take our money & refu

se to co - operate in any of the many slightest degrees of PRACTICAL PROBLEM SOLVING.

And expect us to pay their exorbitant salaries and pay for "perks" of subsidized "leadership" . . . into killing a BUNCH of innocent Iraqis.

[AnnieBW]

77. About fucking time!

n/t

[TheWraith]

89. About time? He's supported this the entire time he's been in federal government.

He campaigned on it in 2008, called on Congress to pass repeal in 2009. Congress wouldn't do it.

[Duct Tape]

92. *

[Duct Tape]

97. Well, we all know that during

the campaign he supported the repeal but it would have been nice if he had told his justice department to back off sooner. It's a damn shame however that he doesn't support gay marriage and that he wants DOMA repealed because "marriage should be left to the states". The civil rights movement worked at the national level and so should marriage equality. At least he recognizes the terrible reduction of rights under DOMA. Obama needs to fix his reasons. DOMA should be repealed because of the terrible reduction of rights AND because gay marriage is perfectly alright.

[kestrel91316]

99. He can "call for" it all he wants. It's pointless as long as Republicans have

control of our legislature, which they seem to even when they are in a distinct minority.

[JI7]

102. DADT passed, things take time and hard work but this time Military Gay Couples can be out there

trying to get support for end of DOMA also

[Major Hogwash]

117. This is great news.

Of course the GOP will do everything they can to ensure it fails.

[Iggo]

120. Good.

[cliffordu]

122. B-B-B-UT HE'S A HOMOPHOBE AND A TOOL OF

someone somewhere along the way, I dunno, but there MUST be a way to turn this against him....

Of course there is, just wait....3, 2, 1............

[24601]

Why do the need to repeal since DOJ has refused to defend

it in the courts?

Although that sets an interesting precedent of defending only those select laws with which you agree.

If it's the courts, the next admin can refuse to defend HCR,

[24601]

127. Why do the need to repeal since DOJ has refused to defend

it in the courts?

Although that sets an interesting precedent of defending only those select laws with which you agree.

If it's the courts, the next admin can refuse to defend HCR,

[JI7]

130. that's why it needs to be repealed , so it's not up to the administration

[ieoeja]

150. DOJ only refuses to defend a portion of DOMA. The remainder, they still enforce. n/t

[24601]

151. So it's an executive branch prerogative - and the next president

could say, "I've decided that the HCR individual mandate cannot be constitutionally defended - we will not enforce that part."

[ieoeja]

166. They may have to defend that position in court. And it depends on how it is written.

Some times an item is so entwined with the rest, that it can not be separated. Not sure how much of HCR would have to fall if the individual mandate were taken out.

And the decision to not enforce can be challenged in court. DOMA is a perfect example. Republican congress-critters were putting together a legal challenge to the current DoJ's decision concerning non-enforcement of that one DOMA article. After the first flurry of activity, I haven't heard anything. So it may have been just so much hot air. But they had the right to do so.

[mrarundale]

129. Anonymous is fake

why can't people see through this stuff?

[No Elephants]

132. On the issue of gay marriage, Obama, his wife and his D of J have given just about

every different impression one could give. See Reply 81 for links as to President and Mrs. Obama.

If President Obama fought for repeal of DOMA when there was a bill with over 100 sponsors pending in the House and Democrats firmly held both houses of Congress, I don't remember his fighting.

And so far, no one on this thread has linked me to evidence of his fighting for that bill in 2009. Please see Reply 102.

But, most of us no doubt do remember the D of J's sensational and reprehensible methods in defending DOMA in 2009.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogarth/obamas-doma-defense-unacc_b_215718.html

So, now, in 2011, in the midst of his re-election campaign, with Republicans firmly in control of the House, he is fighting for repeal of DOMA? It seems convenient. Please see Reply 116.

But, it is better than nothing, because what a President says publicly is important.

Now, if he could only bring himself to say unequivocally that he supports gay marriage. that would be good. Because state or federal Jim Crow laws for any group of humans stink.

[AtheistCrusader]

134. Oh, crap. Is it election season already?

[tavalon]

136. Mr. President, I'm voting for you,

because, as usual, the alternative is worse. But please don't treat me like an idiot to boot. It's hard enough to be the dutiful party "abused wife" and this stuff is really just mockery. I have a memory that's longer than five seconds. I've had three years to understand how you govern. I saw in 2008 how you campaign. Clearly, you're back in campaign mode. Have fun. I won't. Not this time.

It is said that Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. I'm not in love anymore and I'm not stupid.

[boomerbust]

139. Obama should be calling for

EFCA

[Mosaic]

144. Asshole Naysayers

Are always saying 'we can't do this', 'we can't do that'.

They get more satisfaction of being negative assholes than finding solutions.

[Sirveri]

145. Why now? Seems strange to push this now what with OccupyWallStreet happening.

It's the right thing to do, but he could have done this years ago, why the sudden announcement?

[yardwork]

182. Election - cough - 2012

[NorthCarolina]

146. Not sure what this means. Isn't Obama still "struggling" with the idea of gay marriage? nt

[AllyCat]

155. This piece of junk needs to disappear

[nichomachus]

163. But he still thinks it should be a matter of "states rights"

Just like the KKK used to say about integration

[William769]

167. +1.

This article is very misleading. There is a difference in endorsing or repealing DOMA. He never said to repaeal DOMA & I dare anyone here to prove otherwise.




http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/10/01/Obama_Lauds_LGBT_Achievements_in_HRC_Keynote/

[MNBrewer]

169. Har-Dee-FUCKING-HAR

talked “with your leader, Lady Gaga”

:eyes:

[dbackjon]

170. No shit. Should HE be our leader - he is our president.

[msanthrope]

171. It was a joke. A funny one. nt

[MNBrewer]

183. I didn't think it was funny

It was stereotyped humor.

[Jamastiene]

175. If his actions matched his speeches, he would go down as one of

the best presidents ever. For some reason, he says one thing and does another, an awful lot of the time.

I hope this time he means it. I sure am glad to hear him say it anyhow.