Obama is the best viable (sorry Kucinich+Gravel) candidate on Gay Marriage

[obamian]

I have noticed a lot of criticism on Obama's position on gay marriage. In 2004 in the interview below,he said his position was primarily a strategic issue. Since then, he has not contradicted this view, though he's shifted the language he uses. He has stated his personal opposition to gay marriage from his religious beliefs, but he also stated that his personal opposition doesn't necessarily factor into public policy. (see Keyes debate http://youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A at 0:50 , where he says he says that his religious beliefs don't necessarily translate into public policy.)

For a candidate who opposes gay marriage, this is the best possible stance. He opposes it because it isn't possible, at this time, to get a gay marriage law passed. He doesn't oppose gay marriage legislation for moral reasons, so if the country moved to a point where a gay marriage law was politically possible, he would obviously support it.

The interview from 2004:

WCT: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?

Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,’ they would say, ‘absolutely.’ And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?’, then suddenly ...

WCT: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.

Obama: Since I’m a product of an interracial marriage, I’m very keenly aware of ...

WCT: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn’t going to happen so you won’t support it at this time?

Obama: What I’m saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don’t want to play their game.

WCT: If Massachusetts gets marriage and this gives momentum to the proposed federal Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

Obama: I would oppose that.

http://outlineschicago.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php...

Interview from 2007 on gay marriage:
"Well, I think that 'marriage' has a religious connotation in this society, in our culture, that makes it very difficult to disentangle from the civil aspects of marriage. And as a consequence it's almost -- it would be extraordinarily difficult and distracting to try to build a consensus around marriage for gays and lesbians. What we can do is form civil unions that provide all the civil rights that marriage entails to same sex couples. And that is something that I have consistently been in favor of. And I think that the vast majority of Americans don't want to see gay and lesbian couples discriminated against, when it comes to hospital visitations and so on."

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/03/barack_obama_on.html

Is there a better possible stance of someone who doesn't support gay marriage?

[Clintonista2]

1. You forgot the "sarcasm" emoticon. nt.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[cuke]

19. Another Obama fan using right wing propoganda

[PurityOfEssence]

2. Man the pumps!

Jetsam is the stuff you throw overboard to keep from sinking.

Flotsam is...

Look: trying to paint the guy as god's gift to the poor wayward degenerates is a little weak at this point.

To say that he made a mistake and is mishandling it would caulk the seams a bit more, but to try to sell us pie-in-the-sky after pie-in-the-face risks ridicule. Certainly, I'm around with some serious ridicule, but this is another weak and flailing parry and it makes many of us just feel REALLY squirmy-uncomfortable.

I'm sorry your guy did this, and I'm sure it must be ripping many of you apart. He's a decent guy, but nothing short of shit-canning Donnie Dorko will do, and I just don't see him doing that: it defeats the whole purpose of playing the religion card with the Great Big, Ol' Time Snake Oil Revue.

Thrashing in quicksand.

Religion: handle with care.

[MuseRider]

3. Well said. n/t

[DemFemme]

5. One mistake does not erase Obama's history of supporting LGBT rights

There are more important criteria with which I judge a presidential candidate. Like his historical opposition to
the Iraq war and his present opposition to the provisions in Kyl-Lieberman resolution. And his hold on a FEC
candidate who oversaw GOP voter fraud in 2000 and 2004. The list goes on.

But that's just me.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[PurityOfEssence]

25. How about if it's a REALLY BIG mistake?

Surely there's some single act he could perform that would scotch the deal, isn't there? Obviously having a known anti-gay preacher-man onstage huckstering godstuff to the holy doesn't rise to the occasion, but there must be some example of ONE act that would rise to the occasion.

If not, then it's not rational support based on causal activity; if he's to be given a blank check because of past actions and whatnot, then the support is not policy-based but stems from something else.

One of the things that's really bad about this is precisely that he HAS been rather outspoken on the rights of gays in the past; this brings his word seriously into question if he's so willing to jettison some inconvenient group or other in the quest for a big bloc of votes. Had he been a little more standoffish or non-committal, it wouldn't be such a hit to his integrity.

Lest we forget, this is being played out in the arena of religion, which is the epitome of not playing fair; appealing to faith is circumventing reason and plurality and going straight for the core emotional beliefs. To dis-include a group in this arena is really bad.

Personally, I think this rises easily to the really bad mistake level, and I'm shocked people don't see it. To diminish this is to be oblivious or to put one's own needs above those of another group's. You seem rational, but for some reason you don't see the extreme nature of this.

Beyond all that, the handling has been dreadful. Adding in the gay preacher will just piss off some of the ones he's trying to get wholesale; it's a move more befitting Senator Clinton.

[DemFemme]

6. dupe

[MH1]

7. Thank you. Reality-based, compassionate activists understand this

at least the ones I've talked to.

Get the actual rights - the ability to do the things that GLBT's are currently unable to do - under ANY name. They want "marriage" too, but being stuck in a lengthy fight over a word delays help to people who need the actual tangible rights NOW.

Don't expect to see many posts on this thread supporting the compassionate path, though. Ideology seems to trump compassion with many here.

[hulklogan]

8. Interesting that reality-based, compassionate activists

Don't support full equality. We've seen in New Jersey how people in civil unions that are supposed to have all of the rights of marriages still don't get everything that married people do.

[MH1]

9. A person is dying today

And her partner can't be by her side. And this scenario will be repeated over and over until the law allows recognition of a same-sex partner that is treated as a spouse from the hospital's point of view.

Which is compassionate:

1) passing a domestic partnership law within the next year, that requires hospitals to recognize and work with a domestic partner as if they are a spouse;

2) fighting for "full marriage equality" that may or may not become passed in the next decade, and may or may not cause "backlash" laws to be passed that PRECLUDE option 1;

3) Option 2 PLUS undermining every person who wants and will fight for option 1 now.

That person is dying today. And tomorrow. And next year.


Edited for typo. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. Preview...

[hulklogan]

21. Sorry to be undermining the fight for separate but equal

I don't see how demanding full marriage equality and refusing to settle for imperfect civil unions (or "counterfeit marriages" as the fundies here in Colorado call them) undermines the fight for full equality in any way.

I don't want a civil union, I want a marriage with all the associated rights and benefits.

And I won't support Obama because he doesn't see how the separate-but-equal idea of civil unions is contrary to American values.

[MH1]

23. If a person could have the rights they need tomorrow but you take that away

You have hurt them.

Getting "full marriage equality" a decade from now (or a century) is too late for the person whose partner is in the hospital NOW.

[hulklogan]

24. You won't make me feel guilty for demanding my civil rights

No matter how hard you try.

You should be ashamed of yourself for blaming the oppressed for their own oppression.

[Pushed To The Left]

30. I would go for #1 and #2 at the same time. Get #1 done, but never give up on #2 n/t

[flvegan]

10. All I need to hear: "I am not a supporter of gay marriage "

Don't want to tick off the fundies.

I do appreciate, as a lesser of two evils, that it appears he would support SOME gay rights and civil unions.

[MH1]

13. It reads to me that he supports civil unions with same rights as marriage, except

to call it "marriage."

If you can get that kind of civil union now, why not fight for the word later?

You see, I have a brother who is quai-fundamentalist. I say "quasi" because his church is not all Bush bots and they opposed the Iraq War. But they do think that sexual morality issues are the most important problems facing our society (I know, crazy!) and this is how they make political choices. We've had conversations about this, and I feel I understand why the word "marriage" is such a sticking point, and as long as people who think that way have significant political influence, you won't win that fight - or at best, it will take a very, very long time and engender backlash.

But meanwhile, if you enumerate specific rights (hospital visitation for example), often the person who is against "gay marriage" will support a specific right based on human decency. As long as you aren't asking them to violate their religious dogma, you are fine.

I'm not saying we should condone bigoted dogma, I just think that people will be helped more quickly in tangible ways, if you worry about the rights first and the word later. I also think that people who fight for gay marriage and spurn civil unions hurt the cause of tangible benefits for people who need them now. Just like "hand counted paper ballots" zealots are preventing the immediate implementation of necessary controls on voting machines. The perfect is the enemy of the good, as the saying goes.

[flvegan]

14. Kucinich openly supports gay marriage.

"I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. For that reason I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice."

I'll be happy to support Obama if he gets the nom. Like I said I appreciate his stance on civil unions, but in this part of the race, it isn't enough. I don't want to wait until 2013 to start thinking about getting the troops out of Iraq.

Aim high, shoot for marriage. Settle for civil unions, termporarily if need be.

Fuck religious dogma. An opinion, which is all religion is, shouldn't trump basic rights.

[NMMNG]

15. Right on!

Religious dogma was formerly used to support slavery and discrimination against black people. That's no longer tolerated, and the use of religious dogma to support discrimination against LGBT people should no longer be tolerated. And it certainly shouldn't be supported by our politicians.

[sniffa]

17. stop being so seLf-induLgent

some of us in the reaLity based community know what's reaLLy important and it's not you.

fuck obama. and fuck cLinton. no votes for them. no money for them.

[NMMNG]

18. *I'm* self-indulgent?

Says you. :P

[LWolf]

20. Yes, and I believe Kucinich to be just as "viable"

as any of the rest.

[obamian]

31. Why?

[LWolf]

36. Because he has the best platform,

and the best record of walking his talk. He has shown, repeatedly, that he is willing to work for what voters are asking for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3648055

[phen43]

11. I agree

Thanks for the post:patriot:

[Colobo]

12. Obama is the best candidate overall.

[calteacherguy]

22. He's absolutely right. Marriage is a religious institution; there should not be marriage licences.

[rucky]

26. Here's Biden's stance:

Q: In November 2003, you were asked, "Do you believe gay marriage is inevitable?" And you responded, "I'm not sure. I think probably it is."

"...Well, I think it probably is because social mores change. But I don't think the government can dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions. But government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination. And there's a distinction. I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct."


http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Joe_Biden_Civil_Rights.htm

[JerseygirlCT]

29. That's more clear, I think.

And clarity is desperately lacking on the issue.

[obamian]

32. Obama's position is essentially the same

We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions

It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that in part out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people.

That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the Senate. That's why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible.

When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that's unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church

Q: You have said in previous debates that it is up to individual religious denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage. What place does the church have in government-sanctioned civil marriages?

A: It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I don't think that the church should be making these determinations when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same sex couples. My denomination, United Church of Christ, does. Other denominations may make a decision, and obviously, part of keeping a separation of churches and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm

He does say further that his stance is strategic.

[illinoisprogressive]

27. Obama is the best on all the issues.

[obamian]

34. What about bullshit?

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Well to me that reads as essentially a follower position, not a

leader.

I won't support it because enough people don't support it.

This is the president we're talking about it now. Lead. Do the right thing, regardless of where people are in the polls.

[obamian]

33. You can't lead, if you're not elected.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. I'm not sure about that

From a moral position, many of our greatest leaders have not been elected officials.

I think this is, plain and simple, a civil rights issue.