SF Mayor Calls Obama Failure to Support Gay Marriage ‘Inexcusable’

[tekisui]

Source: The Raw Story

Gavin Newsom, the photogenic San Francisco mayor who recently dropped his hat into the California governor's race and then withdrew, expressed visceral frustration with President Barack Obama in an article published Wednesday.

The latest in a string of Obama critiques by gay rights advocates, Newsom's comments come on the eve of a remarkable upset by the Republican seeking to fill the Senate shoes of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

"Oh, I can't get in trouble here," Newsom told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. "I want him to succeed. But I am very upset by what he's not done in terms of rights of gays and lesbians. I understand it tactically in a campaign, but at this point I don't know. There is some belief that he actually doesn't believe in same-sex marriage. But it's fundamentally inexcusable for a member of the Democratic party to stand on the principle that separate is now equal, but only on the basis of sexual orientation. We've always fought for the rights of minorities and against the whims of majorities."

The Obama-Newsrom rift apparently dates back several years. In 2004, the Senate campaign of then-Illinois legislature Barack Obama (D-IL) allegedly refused to have his picture taken with Newsom. At the time, Newsom was bathed in controversy after allowing gay couples to marry.

more: http://rawstory.com/2010/01/sf-mayor-calls-obama-failure-support-gay-marriage-inexcusable/

[VMI Dem]

1. He campaigned on bigotry.

Are you surprised?

[Generator]

13. Yes but even if he campaigned on it

he wouldn't be for it now. He has the will and principles of..I don't even have the metaphor. Frankly, Obama is the nowhere man to me. Who IS he?

[VMI Dem]

17. On the matter of civil rights for gays, he is a bigot.

It is quite simple.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[paulsby]

4. sure. and we can criticize him for those opinions

i am for marriage equality. i think obama's opinion on it is wrong, and harmful to the country.

otoh, as a matter of law, i disagree with those that think marriage equality is mandated by the EPC.

feel free to criticize me on that :)

[tekisui]

5. When his opinions are bigoted, he deserves criticism.

The mayor is right.

[Terra Alta]

7. yes and when his opinions affects my rights

you can sure as hell bet I'm going to criticize him about it!!

[walldude]

11. Apparently not.

Man call the fucking irony police will ya... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Forkboy]

15. I would think gay people care.

I would think Americans who care about equality care.

I would think scumfucks like yourself don't.

[LeftyMom]

24. So let me get this straight: The mayor of San Francisco's opinion doesn't matter. But yours does,

or you wouldn't be sharing it with the rest of us on the internet.

I'm sure glad you cleared that up, Sparky. :eyes:

[Little Star]

3. k&r Gavin is right!

[xchrom]

6. Recommend

[Terra Alta]

8. thanks, Gavin.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[inna]

9. Hey, I was shocked (in a good sort of way) to find out today that...

... apparently, even Cindy and Megan McCain are campaigning against prop. 8! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x155119


Anyway, kudos to Newsom on this one. He's my mayor, and this happens to be one of the rare issues that I happen to agree with him on.

[Terra Alta]

20. Meghan has always had more sense than her dad...

could she be the next Ron Reagan?

[Orsino]

10. Inexcusable, but "I want him to succeed" seems to be the excuse Newsom's making. n/t

[winninghand]

12. Obama is the emperor--he can change the laws of the land with a mere snap of his fingers..

Newsom is a complete idiot...

After what happened last night, the last thing on Obama’s mind is gay marriage.

[tekisui]

14. He can repeal DOMA with a sign of an EO.

Same with DADT.

Obama should take what happened last night as a wake up call, and get some results--and quick. This is an easy one.

[whistler162]

22. No child he can't. It is a law....

[Tesha]

25. He can't actually repeal DADT, but he could certainly direct that it not be enforced.

If no one's asking and no one in authority is listening when anyone tells,
DADT becomes ineffective.

Tesha

[FreeState]

18. Or he could act like someone who advocates for GLBT people by using some of his capital on us or

by not having bigoted opinions and not inviting bigots to be involved in any level of his governing...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/liberal-bloggers-to-obama_b_429031.html

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[name not needed]

27. Or maybe you homophobic fucks could stop pushing your bullshit on the rest of us.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[name not needed]

34. Yep, sounds like you've got me figured out.

Guess I'll go back to the fag forum and leave you alone :eyes:

[QC]

35. Not yet, but maybe soon. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

29. Hopefully soon we'll be calling you dead man's hand. n/t

[Smashcut]

33. No, we don't matter at all unless and until you need our money and our votes.

GFY.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. No his plate is always full.

Of course he has time to go to the Family sponsored prayer breakfast to pray in public with the author of the Ugandan law calling for death for gays and imprisonment for those who do not report us. Obama is going to hold hands and pray with this man on the 4th of Feb. So he does have time for some things, it seems, does it not?

[TokenQueer]

40. Awwww... how cozy.

[Luminous Animal]

41. Does Obama have tape over his mouth?

[Bluebear]

43. Trust me, the last thing on Obama's mind has ALWAYS been gay marriage

Other than that he is against it.

[QC]

45. But there mere fact that he is not personally blocking us from getting married

is supposed to make us feel all warm and squishy inside, according to something I just read here on DU.

[Bluebear]

49. I'm all a-tingle with hope.

[amborin]

16. K&R

[kohodog]

19. Was it the Obama failure or the Emanuel failure?

Who is running things?

[theHandpuppet]

21. Emanuel is the Dick Cheney of the Obama adminstration

But even the Heart of Darkness himself supports gay rights.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Obama opposed marriage equity during the campaign, when Rahm was still supporting Hillary

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Obama and his whole circle are a lot of flat out bigots

And Gavin is correct to call him out on it.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

30. This is 2010. Gavin Newsom is correct. We have an AA President. Surely the "common folk" can have

gay marriage.

[TexasObserver]

31. Recommend

[RZM]

36. It's going to take a while . . .

But I think that time is on the side of gay marriage proponents. I know that is little solace to people who want their rights recognized in the here and now, but it's just the way things are. Generational and cultural shifts are pushing American society towards gay acceptance, but it's like glaciation - inexorable, but very slow-moving. The constant agitation we see from the pro-GLBT community accelerates the process, but no amount of advocacy from the (still proportionally small) community that enthusiastically supports gay marriage can 'fast-track' cultural change -- just as no amount of anti-gay advocacy from the other side (also proportionally small) can hold it back forever.

I think a large portion of the American public cares relatively little either way about gay marriage -- that includes the (mostly straight) political class. It's hard to tell what politicians 'really' think about gay marriage. Some clearly have strong convictions about it on both sides, but had Gavin Newsom made his political career in Oklahoma and not SF, he probably wouldn't be singing the exact same tune (I don't know him -- maybe he would, but I wonder . . . ).

As for Obama, he probably tepidly supports it personally, but he apparently thinks that there's not yet a critical mass of pro-gay marriage sentiment in the country for him to publicly support it and feel comfortable about his level of competitiveness in national elections. Until that critical mass is reached, we won't see many mainstream politicians publicly supporting gay marriage -- and that critical mass will take time to arrive, though I think it eventually will -- probably within one generation (though the sooner the better IMO). It will also happen in stages . . . first marriage-like benefits, followed by the right to actually marry.

But hey, that's just my opinion :)

[Yurovsky]

48. But how long?

Seriously, it's 2010... 41 years after Stonewall and a gay couple is still subject to discrimination.

You would think that the President would be a strong support of equal rights... well I guess there's always the second (lame duck) term ... (sigh)

[RZM]

50. Obama cares far more about getting a second term

than he does about gay couples having the right to marry. After he leaves office, however, who knows? He may be more vocal about championing the cause . . . but we're getting ahead of ourselves.

I agree that 41 years since Stonewall is a long time, but that was one incident in one community -- gay rights/awareness (or at least a grasping of the issues) have since gone coast-to-coast. Think about Prop 8, which passed 52-48. What would the numbers have been 20 years before, even with a strong pro-GLBT campaign? There's no way to know, but 70-30 or even 80-20 are plausible IMO. That's a long way in a (relatively) short time. I think California is going to pass gay marriage in a ballot initiative within 10 or so years. Then we'll have a national debate on the 'full faith and credit' implications of that outcome, which could very well result in some sort of grand, 19th-century style compromise regarding civil union-type benefits for gay couples on a national basis. But activists won't give up the fight and the fact that the sky didn't fall when civil unions went national will set the stage for full acceptance of gay marriage sometime after that.

By the time 'Generation Y' is at retirement age, I think it's plausible to envision gay marriage being generally ACCEPTED (not just recognized) in all 50 states -- and that's a pretty conservative estimate. I can see the process moving a lot faster too -- there's always chance and contingency at play as well. We could have some sort of captivating gay rights figure emerge -- who knows.

[donheld]

37. k & R

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. " There is some belief that he actually doesn't believe in same-sex marriage."

President Obama has said exactly that:

"I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."

http://www.equalitygiving.org/Barack-Obama-on-the-issues-Equality-Quotes-Gay-Rights

[QC]

42. That's the only issue his purported religious beliefs seem to shape.

When it comes to things like peace and economic justice and other minor little concerns like that, we never hear anything about the blessed peacemakers, or the least of these, but when the subject turns to queers wanting to be treated like people, suddenly Obama becomes a down home Baptist.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[TokenQueer]

46. word

I love everything about your post.

[QC]

47. Thank you! n/t

[ruggerson]

44. Yep, isn't that disgusting

that he deliberately conflates religious marriage with CIVIL marriage and confuses the average voter who doesn't understand that the issue is solely about the legal piece of paper a couple gets from the Justice of the Peace.

If all the anti marriage equality laws and amendments were all declared unconstitutional in one fell swoop and every state had to recognize same sex marriages - if all that happened, every single church that didn't want to perform them could still legally refuse.

Obama knows this and yet he still plays to the bigots.