President Obama endorses marriage equality

[Mr Bean]

Shep Smith proves again why he'd be great on CNN or MSNBC
Huffpo

ox News' Shep Smith seemed to strongly endorse President Obama's newly announced support of same-sex marriage on Wednesday.

Amidst much hype and baited breath, Obama told ABC News' Robin Roberts that he has completed his so-called "evolution" on the issue and now believes that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed.

On his Fox News show, Smith played the tape of Obama speaking, and then said, "the president of the United States, now in the 21st century."

A couple of minutes later, Smith was speaking to his colleague Bret Baier. He asked Baier if the GOP would campaign against same-sex marriage "while sitting very firmly, without much question, on the wrong side of history on it."

Smith closed out the segment by noting that the issue of gay marriage is still up to individual states. He said that Obama's endorsement "makes no legal change for now, which may sound familiar to a couple of generations ago, but that's where we are."

He's a better token liberal then the actual token liberal IE punching bags they feature regularly on Fox News. And he's an excellent conservative.

OAN yes Nitram the Log Cabin Republicans are an excellent example of being a prop. A highly paided prop to spout the propaganda selected by their owners.

[Pelranius]

The hate-obama portion of the left will come up with some excuse why this doesn't count within the end of the day. Mark my words.

John Cook over at Gawker is complaining about Obama saying legalizing it on a state to state basis.

Top Stories

Barack Obama's Bullshit Gay Marriage Announcement
civil rights
By John Cook
May 9, 2012 4:15 PM
20,095 193
Get our top stories
follow gawker

Barack Obama’s Bullshit Gay Marriage Announcement

ABC News has only released one brief clip of Obama's conversation about gay marriage today, but it seems fairly clear from the network's coverage that his announcement amounts to much less than meets the eye. He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?

The key language in the ABC News write-up is this:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

On this afternoon's special broadcast, Jake Tapper echoed that point: "The president said he thought this was a state-by-state issue."

Well, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery. There are 44 states in which gay men and women are currently barred from marrying one another. Obama's position is that, while he would have voted the other way, those 44 states are perfectly within their rights to arbitrarily restrict the access of certain individuals to marriage rights based solely on their sexual orientation.

That is a half-assed, cowardly cop-out. There are currently at least three cases winding their way toward federal courts that address the issue of whether (among other things) the equal protection clause of the constitution guarantees gay men and women the same access to marriage rights as heterosexual men and women—the Proposition 8 case, in which David Boies and Ted Olson challenged California's ban on gay marriage, and several challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars gay men and woman from receiving federal marriage benefits and allows states to refuse to recognize valid gay marriages. Obama's Justice Department has admirably declined to defend the constitutionality of DOMA. But the position he enunciated today is in opposition to Boies and Olson: Obama is saying that if he were a judge, he would have rejected Boies and Olson's constitutional arguments and affirmed the right of Californians to enshrine bigotry in their state constitution.

http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas ... nouncement

Of course, it apparently hasn't crossed Mr. Cook's mind that if the issue is to bedecided nationally, it means that theoretically marriage equality in NY and elsewhere could be axed. Things are dicey enough as it is that we're safer off sticking to the state by state strategy until national trends are more favorable (barring a SCOTUS ruling).

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, maybe its a risk, but God damn it, its time Obama did something daring and liberal and stopped trying to appeal to the right. On the other hand, is it worth the chance we'll end up with Romney as President? But then, Obama has a big problem with the dislike of liberal voters (how many times have we seen some version of "just like Bush" posted here about Obama?). So maybe this will help him.

[Vehrec]

This reminds me somewhat of the position of Lincoln vis a vis Slavery-his gradual shift of position, each time masterfully preparing the ground, never provoking general outcry and condemnation from his base.

though, it only took two years, not three for Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

[Simon_Jester]

Lincoln had a war going on- he could exclude the most rabid of his opponents from the domestic political process by firing canister at them, and very few of his more normal opponents were willing to risk enabling a Confederate victory by squabbling when he did things that didn't directly harm them much.

[Bakustra]

Of course, it apparently hasn't crossed Mr. Cook's mind that if the issue is to bedecided nationally, it means that theoretically marriage equality in NY and elsewhere could be axed. Things are dicey enough as it is that we're safer off sticking to the state by state strategy until national trends are more favorable (barring a SCOTUS ruling).

The same thing could have been said about every other rights movement- the point is that this is a position that allows Obama to gain credit with dissatisfied liberals without committing himself to any action on his part with the whole "state-by-state" thing. So don't start celebrating yet- there's not really any signs here that the President is actually going to pull a Lincoln, and a number against. For one thing, he went from being pro-marriage equality in his activist years to being anti-equality for the 2008 election, and suddenly became pro-equality again, whereas Lincoln was consistently anti-slavery before the war and shifted to believe in social equality for blacks in the course of the war.

That being said, SCOTUS is not especially favorable now, but Obama made this bed anyways by nominating centrists for the court instead of liberals.

[Vaporous]

I don't think this is a bad thing, just an irrelevant thing.

Obama isn't going to try to use federal leverage or party pressure to change anything, so his position doesn't actually matter except for political horse-race purposes and pandering.

[Bakustra]

I don't think this is a bad thing, just an irrelevant thing.

Obama isn't going to try to use federal leverage or party pressure to change anything, so his position doesn't actually matter except for political horse-race purposes and pandering.

Honestly, this is a pretty canny move- it helps him with constituencies that are feeling pretty ignored by the Obama administration already, and the wedge issue factor is unimportant if he can present a convincing alternative to "more money for us, fuck you". This probably won't happen, but hope springs eternal.

[Omega18]

That being said, SCOTUS is not especially favorable now, but Obama made this bed anyways by nominating centrists for the court instead of liberals.

This is a highly questionable argument as made.

Clearly right now there is every reason to believe that the mostly likely holdup for a 5 vote majority of the court on these issues would be Justice Kennedy, not any of the 4 more liberal appointed justices. The argument that either of Obama's appointed justices would oppose legalizing gay marriage everywhere with a ruling is speculative without much evidence at best. (There certainly is every reason in the world to believe they will support over turning Section 2 of DOMA when that issue comes before the court.)

[Bakustra]

That being said, SCOTUS is not especially favorable now, but Obama made this bed anyways by nominating centrists for the court instead of liberals.

This is a highly questionable argument as made.

Clearly right now there is every reason to believe that the mostly likely holdup for a 5 vote majority of the court on these issues would be Justice Kennedy, not any of the 4 more liberal appointed justices. The argument that either of Obama's appointed justices would oppose legalizing gay marriage everywhere with a ruling is speculative without much evidence at best. (There certainly is every reason in the world to believe they will support over turning Section 2 of DOMA when that issue comes before the court.)

A large part of the Court's opinions are socially constructed. Having more liberals on the Court would inevitably alter the nature of Kennedy's opinions because they would be bringing up different questions for the Court and Kennedy specifically to consider. Antonin Scalia was hardly as damaging on the Court in the Clinton years as he's been in the Bush-Obama years, and the chief difference there is in the makeup of the Court differing in those periods.

[Omega18]

A large part of the Court's opinions are socially constructed. Having more liberals on the Court would inevitably alter the nature of Kennedy's opinions because they would be bringing up different questions for the Court and Kennedy specifically to consider. Antonin Scalia was hardly as damaging on the Court in the Clinton years as he's been in the Bush-Obama years, and the chief difference there is in the makeup of the Court differing in those periods.

That one possible argument, on the other hand there is a counter argument that if Obama had appointed two justices who were exceptionally strongly ideologically liberal, they could come across as simply alienating Kennedy who wouldn't be inclined to generally really listen to them. In other words, if Kennedy simply views them as liberal nuts that's one thing, if he views them as reasonable and not excessively ideological he may be far more inclined to listen to them. (Scalia may be more damaging now simply because so many of the justices tend to already share his views on particular issues in the first place.)

Basically its a highly debatable issue which is inherently highly speculative, especially since we don't even necessarily know what's really going on behind the scenes.

[Bakustra]

That would require that Obama find solid judges with liberal perspectives, allowing Kennedy to respect them as judges even if he disagrees with their political views, then. But you're right that this is fairly speculative.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Also keep in mind that the marriage equality issue has shifted tremendously amongst the politically independent demographic. While Republicans are generally stubborn in their homophobic pit, it's the independents that Obama really needs to win over to achieve reelection. In that sense, all the nasty things the right-wing nutjobs are going to be spewing out may not move independents that much. It could even backfire and push independents towards advocating equal rights if the anti-gay conservatives start using more extreme language.

[Bakustra]

Also keep in mind that the marriage equality issue has shifted tremendously amongst the politically independent demographic. While Republicans are generally stubborn in their homophobic pit, it's the independents that Obama really needs to win over to achieve reelection. In that sense, all the nasty things the right-wing nutjobs are going to be spewing out may not move independents that much. It could even backfire and push independents towards advocating equal rights if the anti-gay conservatives start using more extreme language.

Yeah. Gay marriage worked as a wedge issue because of the invisibility of gays in American culture as a whole and the illusion of prosperity to give it the necessary umph as a narrative. With the recession, it's significantly lost power even though gays are still fairly invisible in much of the country.

[SirNitram]

The reason he says it's up to the states is most likely the fact he's got a conservadem party and a flat out insane party in the Federal government. I wouldn't trust those bozos to legalize marriage from the top up. So it's a sensible thing to say, barring some unprecendented sweep of liberals into power.

[Aaron MkII]

He may as well have said nothing then. He's in favour of gay marriages but wants to leave it in the hands of the same shitheads.

Whoppee Barry, thanks for coming out.

[Jim Raynor]

The president doesn't pass laws, he can only sign or veto legislation that the (extreme Republican-controlled) Congress passes. I know lots of people are dissatisfied that Obama isn't the liberal messiah, but he's president in the real world and can only do so much at a time. Him openly expressing support for gay marriage is a tiny baby step. But it's a step forward from that noncommital fence sitting about his "evolving" position on the issue. He's the first US President to do so - that's where he's coming from.

[weemadando]

Something to think about:

In 08 Obama won California with a similar margin to the Prop 8 outcomes.

And too many bigots/idiots are single issue social conservative voters across ethic, religious, age and party lines.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The president doesn't pass laws, he can only sign or veto legislation that the (extreme Republican-controlled) Congress passes. I know lots of people are dissatisfied that Obama isn't the liberal messiah, but he's president in the real world and can only do so much at a time. Him openly expressing support for gay marriage is a tiny baby step. But it's a step forward from that noncommital fence sitting about his "evolving" position on the issue. He's the first US President to do so - that's where he's coming from.

On top of that, his Justice Department has made several strides to set up the legal groundwork for equal rights for the LGBT community.

This is more of a spiritual victory for the LGBT community. Was this done as a political calculation for his reelection chances? At this point, I just wanna ask "Who the fuck cares??"

Something to think about:

In 08 Obama won California with a similar margin to the Prop 8 outcomes.

And too many bigots/idiots are single issue social conservative voters across ethic, religious, age and party lines.

As Nate Silver pointed out in his recent blog, there's no longer an enthusiasm gap between the two sides. Being against marriage equality laws was once an easy thing for a Republican to do to score political points. Today, it's becoming increasingly toxic to do the same.

[Lord Zentei]

This article is relevant to these matters: Linka

In GOP, support for same-sex marriage is growing


(CNN) -- Just in case you thought you had time to catch your breath from the culture wars, the issue of marriage for gay couples is back at the ballot box this year. On Tuesday, North Carolinians voted 61% to 39% to ban all forms of relationship recognition for same-sex couples.

That's right, this amendment doesn't just prohibit gay marriage, it prevents the existence of civil unions and domestic partnerships under North Carolina's Constitution.

Shockingly, the state's Republican House speaker, Thom Tillis, who was largely responsible for putting the measure on the ballot, called the anti-gay marriage initiative a generational issue and predicted that while the initiative would probably pass, it would also be repealed within 20 years.

Even for most of the GOP's old-school legislators, there is dawning understanding that opposition to freedom to marry is on the wrong side of history and damaging to the long-term, and increasingly the short-term, prospects of the GOP, especially among independent-minded younger voters. Indeed, according to Gallup, 70% of people between the ages of 18 and 34 believe that same-sex marriage should be legal.

Vote means uncertainty for North Carolina's same sex couples

In November, residents of four more states -- Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington -- will voice their views on same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Voters in Minnesota will consider a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and in Maryland and Washington, they will probably face measures to undo new laws legalizing same-sex marriage passed by state legislatures.

Maine will, for the first time in history, have the chance to vote "yes" for a freedom to marry law. Unlike in previous years, polling shows that advocates of the freedom to marry stand a good chance to win some of these battles -- and the potential losses they would face are by much smaller margins than Americans witnessed even five years ago.

While the reigning stereotype is that Republicans are opposed to gay rights, growing Republican support in state-by-state fights belies this perception. Indeed, in New Hampshire and New York, Republicans were critical to recent marriage freedom victories. And Republicans will play key supportive roles in November at the ballot box.

There are tectonic shifts happening just beneath the surface within the Republican Party that haven't percolated to the national dialogue on gay rights. Efforts to support gay rights by GOP state legislators in several states are real and indicative of an increasing realization that expanding equal opportunity and freedom to gay Americans shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Most recently, a stunning victory occurred in New Hampshire, where anti-gay forces sought to roll back the freedom to marry. After Republicans gained three-quarters supermajorities in both chambers in the 2010 elections, the National Organization for Marriage, the chief organization opposing same-sex marriage, proclaimed it was "confident of victory" and would show "that history is not unidirectional" on the issue.

Unfortunately for them, New Hampshire Republicans who believed in the state's "live free or die" motto were quick to build a powerful campaign and harness the two-thirds of the public who opposed taking freedoms away and downgrading people's families. They mobilized hundreds of civic and business leaders and thousands of citizens to make their voices heard.

Not only did the Republican-controlled New Hampshire House defeat the repeal bill, it did so by a lopsided 211-116 margin. The most overlooked fact: A substantial group of Republican legislators, 109 to be exact, voted to preserve the freedom to marry in the Granite State. Despite the best efforts of the National Organization for Marriage, history is unidirectional on the issue, and the freedom to marry is a settled issue in New Hampshire. The trend toward greater acceptance is clear, irrefutable and happening on both sides of the aisle.

To date, 197 Republican state legislators across the nation have stood up for the freedom to marry -- and have lived to tell the tale. Republicans put the bill on the New York state Senate floor and provided the votes needed to make same-sex marriage a reality, making it the first GOP-controlled legislative chamber in America to do so.

The state senators who courageously voted for marriage risked primary opposition from anti-marriage forces but are now garnering wide support. They are well-positioned to fight single-issue attacks while running campaigns and building records of public service that respond to the core priorities of their constituents: less government, lower taxes, individual autonomy and personal responsibility. (In the interest of full disclosure, as a New York resident, I personally advocated for the passage of freedom to marry in Albany last summer.)

A few years ago profiles in courage like these seemed to come in ones and twos. Today, they are occurring frequently. A growing number of Republican legislators are choosing to stand on the side of freedom because they have gay and lesbian people in their lives who they care about.

They've done so because the politics has shifted dramatically, taking the peril out of following one's conscience. They've done so because they believe, like so many of us, that marriage is the most powerful social institution on Earth, integral to strengthening our society because it is rooted in the traditional values that strengthen our families and communities: the values of love, commitment and sacrifice.

To be sure, there's a long way to go before the Republican Party fully embraces these values and is consistent about being the party of individual freedom, but I'm glad to see more and more of my fellow Republicans on the right side of history.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That would require that Obama find solid judges with liberal perspectives, allowing Kennedy to respect them as judges even if he disagrees with their political views, then. But you're right that this is fairly speculative.

The other issue is that at worst, the SCOTUS upholds section 2 of DOMA, and permits states to make their own decisions. There are no grounds whatsoever upon which they could conceivably strike down gay marriage everywhere (IE. make them illegal nationwide). This leaves either the preservation of the status quo, or the removal of section 2.

I will also note that section 3 is also under judicial review.

The federal legislature also does not have the power to make states license gay marriages, because the marriage contract is covered under the 9th amendment. However, it does have the power to force them to recognize out of state ones (full faith and credit clause). The only thing that can make the states do otherwise is ruling based on either the due process clause or equal protection clause. However, as mentioned before, that can only go in one direction.

[Zinegata]

Shep Smith proves again why he'd be great on CNN or MSNBC
Huffpo

ox News' Shep Smith seemed to strongly endorse President Obama's newly announced support of same-sex marriage on Wednesday.

Amidst much hype and baited breath, Obama told ABC News' Robin Roberts that he has completed his so-called "evolution" on the issue and now believes that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed.

On his Fox News show, Smith played the tape of Obama speaking, and then said, "the president of the United States, now in the 21st century."

A couple of minutes later, Smith was speaking to his colleague Bret Baier. He asked Baier if the GOP would campaign against same-sex marriage "while sitting very firmly, without much question, on the wrong side of history on it."

Smith closed out the segment by noting that the issue of gay marriage is still up to individual states. He said that Obama's endorsement "makes no legal change for now, which may sound familiar to a couple of generations ago, but that's where we are."

He's a better token liberal then the actual token liberal IE punching bags they feature regularly on Fox News. And he's an excellent conservative.

OAN yes Nitram the Log Cabin Republicans are an excellent example of being a prop. A highly paided prop to spout the propaganda selected by their owners.

That's just awesome.

[Lord MJ]

Exxxxccept.....

Let us not forgot, this could very well hurt Obama quite a bit...
Blacks and Latinos often vote Democrat but are VERY religious. Already there is talk among many black pastors and groups saying they simply may not go and vote for Obama if he supports Gay Marriage come election day.

That is very true; there are many conservative black and Latino religious groups in the Deep South. I don't think Obama has much chance there anyway, and he knows it. Losing Georgia by one vote is the same as losing Georgia by a million. At the same time, the members of those conservative Latino and black religious groups still have to reconcile the notion that not voting for Obama may lead to there being an administration which is openly hostile to both groups--the former with insane anti-immigration legislation, and the latter with legislation to weaken or repeal affirmative action.

In short, I don't think that this will be the wedge issue that causes black and Latino voters to stay home en masse on Election Day.

I'm already seeing the backlash from the black community. A minister at my church is openly discussing whether we should vote for Obama after this on Facebook. And the feel of what she and people agreeing with her position is saying is, "a president can have good or bad abilities on the economy, foreign policy, etc. But I can't support someone that would back something as unrighteous as Gay Marriage. Obama is not getting my vote." And "I'm not going to support what I know is wrong just because the President is black."

On the other hand she also made an observation that the divide between people supporting Obama and people denouncing his decision falls along age boundaries, with younger Christians supporting this decision while older Christians denouncing.

I would imagine that this Sunday the pastor may decide to break with the normal message to comment on the issue.

If this is repeated in Churches throughout the country, it could in fact alienate Obama from the group that is his biggest supporters.

[Xisiqomelir]

The hate-obama portion of the left will come up with some excuse why this doesn't count within the end of the day. Mark my words.

Our boy has disappointed me deeply in some ways (amnesty for wiretappers and war criminals, hyperactive DEA and Justice Dept. assaulting innocent, law-abiding dispensaries), but one only has to imagine what Bush and Cheney would be doing in an imaginary 3rd and 4th term to accept that there is simply no plausible alternative.

[SirNitram]

The hate-obama portion of the left will come up with some excuse why this doesn't count within the end of the day. Mark my words.

Our boy has disappointed me deeply in some ways (amnesty for wiretappers and war criminals, hyperactive DEA and Justice Dept. assaulting innocent, law-abiding dispensaries), but one only has to imagine what Bush and Cheney would be doing in an imaginary 3rd and 4th term to accept that there is simply no plausible alternative.

I don't disagree that Obama has made some serious wrongs in his term. But since the GOP has publically announced any wins are just repeating the Bush years.. Yea, fuck that.