Obama not on board with gay marriage?

[Infinite Hope]

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid39485.asp

Here's part of the article:

"As a supposedly bipartisan politician who understands and reconciles opposing views, and a non-doctrinal Christian whose personal identity and life journey shaped his lens to include those on the margins, why then, I ask, is this presidential hopeful not united with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer voters on the issue of marriage equality?

“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,” Obama wrote in his recent memoir, The Audacity of Hope.

But Obama’s audacity is not only his unwillingness to support the issue, but also his misunderstanding and misuse of the term “gay marriage.” The terminology “gay marriage” not only stigmatizes and stymies our efforts for marriage equality, but it also suggests that LGBT people’s marriages are or would be wholly different from those of heterosexuals, thus altering its landscape, if not annihilating the institution of marriage entirely.

But Obama’s remarks in a recent interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press spoke somewhat encouragingly about granting LGBTQ couples not marriage equality but certainly civil union rights.

However, having lived outside of America during its turbulent decades of the Jim Crow era and legal segregation, Obama may not know on a visceral and lived experienced level what those decades had been like for African-Americans.

But he ought to know, as a civil rights attorney, that granting LGBTQ Americans only the right to civil unions violates our full constitutional right as well as reinstitutionalizes the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson. As a result of that decision, the “separate but equal” doctrine became the rule of law until it was struck down in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.

However, Obama doesn’t understand that regardless of one’s gender expression or sexual orientation, we want equal status to be institutionalized within our marriages as well.

Although not a cradle Christian, Christianity became Obama’s newfound religious identity late in his life. And his affinity to conservative Christian beliefs not only informs his decision on the issue of marriage equality, but it also solidifies his decision about us in a community of believers like himself."

[xchrom]

1. it'll be interesting to see what gd has to say.

i posted part of this in a thread the other day and no one responded.

dwickham -- i think -- originally posted in glbt.

[GoneOffShore]

2. Not a supporter of gay marriage

And voted for the Bankruptcy Bill?

Things that make you go hmmm.

Where does he stand on separation?

[jefferson_dem]

7. Obama voted AGAINST the Bankruptcy Bill.

Roll call vote here -
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

Also, while Obama has stated that he personally opposes same-sex marriage, he believes it should be a matter for the states to decide (the same position Kerry/Edwards took in 2004, and almost every Democrat takes today). For what it's worth, i disagree with him on this issue and would love to see more politicos take a positive stand in support of equality for same-sex couples.

He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_of_senator_barack_obama_on_the_federal_marriage_amendment/index.html

[GoneOffShore]

10. Okay

Thanks.

I still don't trust him.

[Infinite Hope]

15. Same here. Opportunistic. n/t

[Big Sky Boy]

31. I don't trust him either

I suppose I shouldn't say that without having read his book. But really? Who is he and what is all the hype about?

He ran basically ran unopposed for Senator in the bluest of blue states. A dead yellow dog would have won that election.

I haven't seen him take the lead as a co-sponsor or sponsor of any major piece of legislation. He hasn't really emerged as a champion on any issue. He doesn't even speak all that articulately on the talk show circuit -- So why is he a "Rock Star" other than because the media keeps telling us he's a "Rock Star."

[Kagemusha]

3. I'm sure you're aware that prior to the 70's...

homosexuality was considered a disease, so no supreme court cases in earlier years were believed to have anything to do with homosexuality when rulings on "separate but equal" were made, such as when the legal doctrine was struck down. That's why, whatever people think about the morality of it, these are not considered legal precedents in support of ramming gay marriage into law through the courts. We say, "granting... only the right to civil unions violates our full constitutional right (sic)". But there is no definitive court case declaring sexual orientation to be the legal equivalent of religious affiliation, racial identity, etc; as far as the law is concerned, gays and lesbians have the same right to get married to a member of the other sex as anyone else, and that constitutes equal treatment. We shouldn't pretend that people have a legally affirmed right to gay marriage. They should, as far as I am concerned, because I view marriage as a civil union first and a religious union second (because no matter if you're Catholic or Mormon or Jewish, marriage is marriage under the law, so I see that as a sensible position). But, should is not the same as, already have.

[bliss_eternal]

4. If he does not support same sex marriage--I can't support him.

Period. :)

[jefferson_dem]

8. Did you take that same position in 2004, with Kerry?

Just curious...

[bliss_eternal]

11. Does it matter...?

:shrug: Given this is 2006, we're discussing a different candidate and there seems to be a WAR on equality. The issues Kerry had to address (given we were at war in Iraq) were different, were they not?

It is still my belief that * tossed out the issue of "gay marriage" as a smoke screen to distract the nation from the issues, scapegoat the lgbt community and polarize the country. Prior to his "announcement" of creating an amendment to the Constitution redefining marriage, most straight people (as far as I know) didn't give the issue much thought.

The times I tried to discuss the issue with those that were outside the lgbt community, they looked at me like I had two heads. :crazy: They didn't seem to care what "they" did and didn't understand why I should care, or why they should...

[jefferson_dem]

13. I hear you. Rest assured...times and attitudes are changing, evolving in the right direction.

There is reason for hope. A decade ago, the "two heads" look would be quite common...less so nowadays.

In fact, just today some University students delivered findings from a survey research project on the topic of same-sex marriage. Respondents were given the choice of expressing support for same-sex marriage, civil unions, or no legal recognition. You know what?! Marriage won out, at about 40%/25%/35%! Think about that. A plurality of students at a none-too-liberal University campus perfer same-sex marriage over the alternatives.

So now's the time for politicians to stand up for what's right. We sure agree on that!

[bliss_eternal]

17. I'm glad you shared the findings from the University finding...

that's encouraging! :)

I just wish more people understood and realized that when people are so "free" in their bigotry, we are ALL in danger. It's easy for some to state (even here on DU) that we shouldn't stand up for what's right, just so we can win. What exactly do "we" win when any segment of the population is not free and equal?

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts! :hi: Nice talking with you.

[jefferson_dem]

18. Nice chatting with you too! See you 'round.

:hi:

[Ninja Jordan]

14. Cool. So you won't vote in the presidential election?

If Obama were our nominee?

[bliss_eternal]

16. That's another matter altogether...

:)

[Ninja Jordan]

20. Green Party?

[bliss_eternal]

24. Ummm...

I have no clue what you are talking about. Or what your point is. :shrug:

[pinto]

5. I *expect* equal legal rights under the law. I'm not as concerned with

the terminology attached, to be honest. Civil union or marriage - as long as they both mean equality under the law - I'm OK with it.

(aside) I don't expect federal legislation to change religious doctrine, nor should it. And I realize federal legislation won't necessarily change social attitudes. Again, what I do expect from the federal government is the recognition of equality. That's their job.

[jenmito]

6. A question about terminology...

I noticed the word "Queer" was added to the usual words I see (LGBT for short). Isn't that an offensive term for "gay"? Honest question for anyone who knows... TIA :hi:

[ContraBass Black]

21. A lot of the gays I know refer to the "Queer Community."

[KingFlorez]

9. And who is?

None of the Democratic candidates or prospective Democratic candidates do support gay marriage.

[Infinite Hope]

12. At the very least, Kucinich does. n/t

[beaconess]

19. Is Kucinich running in 2008?

[Infinite Hope]

23. From what I hear...

he's sort of a perennial candidate now.

[ContraBass Black]

22. This reminds me of that Alan Keys statement....

"However, having lived outside of America during its turbulent decades of the Jim Crow era and legal segregation, Obama may not know on a visceral and lived experienced level what those decades had been like for African-Americans."

...That Obama isn't black enough to represent Americans.

[Zhade]

25. Indeed. We don't want "gay rights", we want our - DESERVED - equal rights.

If you don't support that, I don't support you. Period.

[Bullet1987]

26. Just about every Dem leader....

...says the same thing as Barack. That they don't personally agree with it, but they also don't believe in federal intervention either, and thinks it should be left up to the states.

[Infinite Hope]

28. Well, by law it has to be passed in the states I believe...

due to the Defense of Marriage legislation. That's actually probably the best thing because it'd never pass on the national level overnight because it's too drastic of a change for most to handle. By allowing states to implement equal rights for gays/lesbians, it allows society to adjust to the change more gradually. I'm not saying that's how it should be. But it's the best hope for the most permanent and secure change in rights. Anything done nationally would be subject to repeal after every election depending upon which party wins.

[Imagevision]

27. Straight or Gay Marriages, bottomline, isn't it about the Insurance right's etc...

If your straight? it's a "Marriage" - if your gay? simple! - it's a Gay Marriage, with the same laws provided to hetrosexual's - end of story, that took a lot of thought...

[Big Sky Boy]

30. It's about PROPERTY

If I die before my partner does--even though I have a will that states he gets everything I have--my second cousin twice removed (whom I have never met) can challenge that will.

He/she can say "Oh no no no. The relationship they had 'approximates' marriage, and that is illegal under their state constitution, so I as a blood relative have a greater legal claim to all of his property than his partner of ten years."

Who do you suppose a Texas judge is going to side with?

If we were married it wouldn't be an issue.

[election_2004]

29. That's fine by me

I'm obviously not 100% in agreement with Obama (since I fully support same-sex marriage), but his stance on civil unions is encouraging, nonetheless. And, if he decides to run for president, he'll be way more trustworthy than Hillary would.