« Poll: Two Major Republican Incumbents In Serious Danger -- In Alaska! | Home | SurveyUSA: Democrat Way Ahead In Race For Open GOP Senate Seat In New Mexico »
Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions
Barack Obama is sticking by his defense of same-sex unions, despite the likelihood that it will flare up as a general election issue because of today's California Supreme Court decision legalizing it. Here's the Obama camp's response to the court decision:
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
The Republicans are likely to seize on Obama's respect for the court's decision as proof that electing Obama would bring about gay marriage across the country. Of course, it's also worth noting that Obama stops short of embracing gay marriage, putting him out of step with many on the left.
No statement yet from Hillary Clinton. John McCain's spokesman, however, has weighed in with this:
"John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."
Late Update: Here is the Clinton campaign's statement:
Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
Advertisement
Excuse me for being dense but, what is the difference between a civil union and marriage from the government's point of view?
May 15, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's exactly the point of the gay community and that was the point of today's decision.
If the rights and duties of a civil union are similar in every way to the ones of marriage, as they are in CA, then denying the word "Marriage" to us is a gratuituous and therefore discriminatory move.
"Seperate and therefore not equal"
May 15, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reply.
The use of the word marriage where? On government documents?
I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but to be honest I am leaning towards the word marriage being a religious terminology (not 100%, but more than 50%) and letting the standard definition stand as far as the government was concerned. Admittedly, I do see holes in that argument, but having the government messing around in religious terminology doesn't seem right either.
Just so you know I am not a religious person and my argument is not based on religion.
May 15, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn Greenwald explains it :
May 15, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are wrong her (or, rather, the quoted individual is wrong):
"(San Francisco, California) The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Prop 22, the voter approved initiative used to block same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
The court also said that California's domestic partnership law is not a good enough substitute for marriage."
The court ruled that no 'separate but equal' institution would be tolerable under the state's Constitution. To recognize a blanket 'religious' exception to recognizing (note I did not say SUPPORTING or PERFORMING) would not withstand scrutiny, violating as it would the religious 'establishment clause'.
What the court is saying, in effect, is that ANY TWO adults who wish to marry must have that union recognized by the state of California - and that no marriage benefits can be withheld or denied based on the gender of the marriage partners.
May 15, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not read the judgement and tend to trust him but I would agree with them more if they followed your logic than his. I think this is one for the lawyers to decipher.
Here is another take closer to yours:
May 15, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly - inasmuch as that is what marriage actually is - a state sanctioned relationship.
May 15, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that gay couples should get all the rights and privileges as a traditionally married couple but isn't this just a matter of definitions.
Couple(same sex): called marriage
Couple(opposite sex): called civil union (or whatever else)
Rights are assigned at the Couple level, every thing else is just descriptive. Just like you get a license to drive as a person, but it still lists your race on your license.
Legally I don't know if that is anywhere close to the truth but it is how I see the situation.
May 15, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your race is on your license? Ick! Isn't that against some kind of law or something?
May 15, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I are stupid
Hmm... I never looked. I just assumed it would be there along with your height and weight as a security measure to match your photo. Oh well, now I need another analogy.
May 15, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Birth certificate might do. Or, in some states, marriage license?
May 15, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It ruled the difference wasn't legally defined. That is different from ruling differences can't be legally defined. It opens the door procedurally to a Constitutional referendum to define differences, which the court would then enforce.
This ruling could also be considered a poison pill against same sex marriage and wedge issue for 2008 politics.
Politically, in most people's minds, the difference between civil unions and marriage is already defined. On a gut level I think it has to do mostly with children.
Polls have the vast majority of Americans against same-sex marriage, and split on civil unions.
May 15, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
But polls show a majority of Californians now in favor of gay marriage and we have had very generous civil unions for years. Once again, CA Constitution is different from the US Constitution and Ca public opinion is different from US public opinion. Which is why the national pols getting involved in this are idiots. They have no idea what they talking about.
May 15, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that. It's one thing to be vaguely in favor of gay marriage hypothetically. However, not many people feel a gay married couple is equivilent to a hetero married couple in regards to raising children, all else being equal. Not even very many gays I know and meet in SF, CA.
I was raised to be open minded and unprejudiced, by liberal social activists, grew up in SF CA, in the Castro, with many gay and lesbian friends. WASPs were the minorities in our social circles. I myself am hetero, married (though I never thought I would be) racially mixed, liberal. For a long time was in favor of gay marriage.
But, when one looks seriously at the issues and the complications of children and parenting and how it's intertwined with marriage as a social institution, it's not so simple to be for gay marriage and equality when in fact there isn't parity or equivalence on some meaningful aspects of marriage.
Sex and sexual orientation aren't just for recreation or cosmetic identity but have real implications for parenting. One doesn't have to be a religious nut to realize that. Sex and orientation have real biological implications for behavior, physicality, and life experience. It can't be dismissed as trivial.
Even in liberal NorCal, where the vast majority of people are in favor of gay rights overall, as people get serious about the issues of parenting and marriage issues, naive notions of bumper sticker equality tend to fall away.
May 15, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter kozmik-
Gays can get married, I guess, as long as they don't have children.
Pathetic. Like being straight is some kind of guarantee of parenting skills.
May 15, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's not at all what I said. Nice try at reducing issues to moronic simplicity though.
May 15, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, this whole idea that you're for L+G "having children" is a little kooky.
You can be in favor of gay and lesbian adopting. You can be in favor of lesbian women as single parents via sperm donors and then legal adoption by a lesbian step parent. All of those are descriptions of possibilities.
But you can't be in favor of gay or lesbian couples "having children" biologically because it's impossible.
Biology still matters.
May 15, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many gays, lesbians and bisexuals have children form previous relationships and marriages. Sexual orientation has zero correlation to parenting skills or suitability. In fact the studies done on the effects of, and capabilities of parenting kids for same-gender couples shows that the only difference found is less intolerance in the attitudes of such kids about gender roles limiting what people can or should do (which is a good thing).
May 16, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Having two moms or two dads is so icky and weird. Think of the children! By the way, I'm not a bigot. I have so many gay friends."
May 16, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, because a civil-union does nothing at the Federal level, form Social Security survivor benefits to filing your tax returns jointly or not...
Second, because civil-unions don't cross state lines whereas because of the full-faith and credit clause of the Constitution, marriage does.
May 15, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the federal government is barred from recognizing gay marriages by the DOMA.
May 16, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it is. Which is why repealing DOMA, which Obama is supportive of, is a key hurdle that he has cleared in showing his commitment to equality.
May 16, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And remind me again why I'm not supposed to like Obama?
May 15, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, the wording of the statement is surprisingly close to the wording of most gay rights group.
"equal rights under the law" is dog-whistle politics. It means "I am happy too but I really can't say it".
I thought he would not even go there. All in all, it is a pretty intelligent and artful way to put what is ultimately a cowardly but politically necessary position.
May 15, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is probably the best we can hope for with how far along our society is right now. I think he really supports gay marriage, but obviously a national candidate can't openly support such a measure and still expect to get elected. I wish it wasn't that way, but I'm afraid it is. I really think this is the only way we will eventually get to where we need to be, slowly but surely, and hopefully it won't be that slow. I think we are actually making some great progress, and hopefully with Democrats in control and successes like in California more people will come around to the idea of gay marriage.
Anyway, I don't fault Obama for this, even if he stated position isn't "ideal" -- hell, no candidates' stated positions of anything are "ideal" in my book, I'd like to see a lot more out of all of them, if the world was perfect.
May 15, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, sweetie.
No one has done more for same-sex couples than Barack Obama.
May 15, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Broken Record Troll
May 15, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah man, that was good.
May 15, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife - I am 100% behind you on this - breathing heavily - there is nothing funnier than making fun of homosexuals - who are different from us.
But Gotalife - sometimes I wonder if you realize how I feel about you. I keep trying to come up with the words, but -
I'm sorry - I have something in my eye - have to go!
May 15, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Gotalife would agree with me that any country that offers equal rights to all it's citizens in completely BS crap coolaid that won't lead anywhere but to 4 years of Mcsame and the spineless dems of corporate media, WV landslide...uh...hang on - I can do this...um....Whiners?....Hateful! Errr...
COOL AID!
May 15, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You two are really sweet.
May 15, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain just demonstrated his ignorance.
The decision was the response to a suit. The judges did their job.
May 15, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That man is dellusional.
May 15, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions
Hmmmm. If I were a wingnut conservative Christian, I'd say this response is a tad, well, nuanced
Why doesn't he just come out and say "Gay marriage will end civilization as we know it and I'm opposed to that!!!@@"
Why is he passing on the opportunity for gay-baiting?
Seriously?
May 15, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain thinks he can win the wingnut, indie AND disaffected Clinton supporter vote all at the same time.
This is his "all things to all people" strategy, which is going to blow up in his face rather soon.
May 15, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama... I know why i don't support him. Where is the change for the LGBT community in Obama's presidency?
“I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” Obama said.
May 15, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's stance on gay issues actually goes further than HRC's.
Their platform is virtually identical except that Obama wants to repeal DOMA in its entirety while HRC wants to keep the proviso that allows states to not recognize other states' same sex marriage.
May 15, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does my post have to do with HRC? This is about Obama and his ridiculousness. He knows its his Christian beliefs that determine his stance on gay marriage. If he is supposed to bring about change and hope that we can believe in, shouldn't he be a little more hopeful in regards to homosexuals in America? All he is doing is propagating a notion of inferiority and "separate, but equal".
May 15, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Democratic candidates are cowardly on the issue - including Obama - is undeniable and unfortunate.
In the America we live in, it is also a necessity.
Talk to me in 2020 and if the Democratic candidates still spout that BS, I will be with you.
It is one thing to be hopeful about what one can accomplish. It is another one to be foolish.
I hate having to defend Obama on that issue because I disagree with him but trust me that he is going as far as any politician willing to stay electable can go. And actually I thought that statement he put out went a little bit further I would have thought.
May 15, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we share the same sentiments Benjamin :)
No hard feelings, i just don't like Obama.
But when 2020 comes, lets hope this divide doesn't even exist :)
Thanks for your input, its great to see someone who wants equality.
May 15, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main difference is I love the man but on the substance of the issue I agree with you, and I am actually quite certain so does he. But politics is a dirty business (even for the hopemonger).
May 15, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the whole gay marriage issue is stupid to begin with. It's the battle of the fringes.
Obama takes a principled stance, which is to be for civil unions, not pandering to either side. Gay couples should have a mechanism by which they can become partners for legal rights such as shared property, visitation rights, etc. Basically so they can become family to each other. The vast majority of people support that out of common sense and fairness.
However, that's not to say LGBT should be extended full equivalence on marriage which also has relevance to many child rearing and adoption issues as well as economic aid to aspiring families. Again, common sense so long as people acknowledge there are real differences between a gay couple and a hetero couple in regards to procreation and parenting.
You've got some affluent LGBT activists making trouble on the far left socially, but many are economically conservative DINKs in the top 2% income who would otherwise vote Republican and act Republican in most regards, including racism and laissez faire ethos. I know plenty.
On the other hand are activists on the far right trying to make hay of it to rally their wingnut base around social issues and distract them from real issues where they would otherwise vote Democratic.
None of it matters that much in comparison to other issues like energy independence, economic growth, global warming, healthcare, etc.
Regardless, it's all for naught, at best. Gay marriage isn't going anywhere nationally, but there is an overall move towards civil unions. Best case scenario is nothing changes and civil unions pass.
Worst case is gay marriage activism becomes such a burden on Democrats the base abandons LGBT activists and pick up the votes elsewhere with more socially conservative minorities like Hispanics and moderates. If that happens, then even civil unions can fail and the trend towards LGBT tolerance and anti-discrimination is reversed.
Already this is happening in SF, CA. Most of the city groans every time Newsom panders to the LGBT community. It's only tolerated because he was the business candidate and still is on most issues. So far it's mostly harmless. But as it starts to have real consequences for state and national politics, there will be a real backlash, even in SF where our local politics are utterly screwed up.
The whole issue is too stupid, ideological, and polarized on all sides.
May 15, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets put your Social Security survivor benefits up for a vote, let's put your right to have your spouse be legally empowered to make emergency medical decisions on your behalf up for mob rule, let's make the right to even claim the body for burial of your spouse up for popular vote of bigots, and the list is literally thousands of rights, protections, benefits and obligations that are denied same-gender couples because of gender discrimination marriage law. You seem to be under the delusion that your fellow non-heterosexual citizens should be denied equal protection under the law because of the genders of their spouses.
Grab a clue jackass.
May 16, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary says the exact same thing about not standing for gay marriage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3huRVrckY8
Enough said.
May 15, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's great for Hillary, but has Hillary run on this silly campaign of "words". For homosexuals, the words "Civil Union" does not mean about the same thing as "Marriage". If Obama wants to run on a campaign of words and change, why doesn't he say that this is more than semantics, that it is an issue that deserves equality.
May 15, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama... I know why i don't support him. Where is the change for the LGBT community in Obama's presidency?
“I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” Obama said."
Actually, this is a bit of a trap for right-wingers.
Obama's point is that HIS religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman. The problem is that other people's religious beliefs can say differently and the law has to respect that.
The gay marriage debate in Canada got settled not because the federal or any provincial government passed a law supporting them, but because the United Church of Canada broke from the other denominations and not only openly supported the marriages, but began performing them in their churches.
The government was put in the position where opposing gay marriage meant denying members of that church to practise their religion. Every smart conservative in the country got out of Dodge when that happened.
And look. Ahnold has already bailed. John McCain doesn't realize it yet, but he's in ten times the trouble now that Obama ever was because of Rev. Wright. Republicans are in the habit of assuming that all Christians oppose gay marriage and are going to have a major civil war when they find out they don't.
May 16, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I help? I used to do some Domestic Relations work.
A wedding is not necessary to a legal marriage - all that is necessary for a legal marriage IS a civil union.
Example: my nephew and his partner actually had a legitimate church wedding with a Methodist minister officiating but they are not married as far as the government is concerned.
My mother and father, on the other hand, were married by a Justice of the Peace. They were legally married.
Did that help?
May 15, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is the license from the state.
All marriage is is a legal relationship. That's all it is. The government is involved because it's a contract and the government says what constitutes a valid contract. It is also a property issue because it directly effects property rights.
May 15, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind of absurd the way LGBT marriage activists always try to avoid mentioning children in relation to marriage.
Marriage is also an issue of prospective families.
Joint tax filing and child tax credits for examples. The child tax credit is available to anyone with a child, be they LGBT, single parent, hetero unmarried couple, etc. Public schools are similarly available to anyone. Social programs which target the child specifically, after the fact, tend to be completely non-discriminatory.
However, other proactive policies such as joint filing, or family planning counseling services, are designed to be proactive in encouraging and helping families, targeted at heterosexual reproduction.
Also there is the issue of adoption and other legal status, based in the working presumption ingrained in our culture that a married couple is heterosexual.
For example, if a gay married couple applies to adopt and an otherwise equivilent hetero married couple is given preference, the gay couple could then sue, claiming it was illegal discrimination. Most people would not support such a legal conundrum.
May 15, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be under the delusion that protection is a perquisite of what defines a marriage and also under the delusion that gay lesbian and bisexuals are never parents.
May 16, 2008 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your obsession with gays not having full parenting right is a wee bit disturbing.
And by wee bit, I mean really creepy and fucking annoying.
Gays ARE parents. Gay parents are deserving of all the societal support and protection given to straight parents. Children of gay parents are deserving of all the societal support and protection given to children of straight parents. It's that simple.
(Well, actually, all children are deserving of far more support than our society currently provides, but that's a whole 'nother issue.)
May 16, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does McCain think of state legislators making these decisions? The California legislature has twice passed laws to make gay marriage legal but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed them.
"In his veto message, the Republican governor said it is up to the state Supreme Court and then, if necessary, voters to alter Proposition 22, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman in California."
May 15, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are misrepresenting Schwarzenegger's position actually.
He said he vetoed the laws because he wanted the Supreme Court to be the one to decide. He said - and confirmed it today - that if the Supreme Court held that the ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, he would stand by that decision and acti