03/29/2007
Barack Obama on Homosexual Morality and Gay Marriage
Barack Obama talked to Wolf Blitzer on yesterday's The Situation Room and clarified his actions and statements following Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Peter Pace's remarks that homosexuality is "immoral". Obama and Hillary Clinton were criticized shortly after Pace's remarks for refusing to say whether or not they agreed with him.
Said Obama: "I'm not sure that the story got out there properly. I mean, what happened was I was leaving a firefighters' union meeting and trying to get in my car and did not respond to a reporter's query at that point. I wasn't responding to reporters period because I was trying to make a vote. Subsequently I made it very clear. I don't think that gays and lesbians are any more moral or immoral than heterosexuals and that I think it is very important for us to reexamine the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy because it's costing us millions of dollars in replacing troops that by all accounts are actually doing a good job but are simply being kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation."
He also reiterated his feelings about gay marriage and civil unions:
"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."
You may have missed...
Unofficial Obama Spot Called 'Watershed' in Campaign Media [tr]
Creator of Anti-Hillary "1984" Ad Reveals Himself [tr]
Posted 10:33 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Election 2008, Gay Marriage, Military, News, Peter Pace | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
That is really excellent. It's been a long time since we've heard a politician so eloquently state his non-bigotted opinion.
I do like that he's addressing the civil v. religious aspect of marriage in his advocating civil unions for gay people. I think 3/4 of the battle is getting people to recognize that a large number of hetero marriages are really just civil unions being deemed "marriage" by laws that didn't adequately make that distinction in the first place. I would even be so bold as to predict that if civil unions were put in place, many cool straight people if given a choice would opt instead for a civil union as opposed to a "marriage".
Posted by: Rey | Mar 29, 2007 10:44:16 AM
*prepares for him to be ripped to shreds*
Posted by: Jason | Mar 29, 2007 10:48:29 AM
Oh, oh. A black man for civil unions as opposed to marriage. Soon folk will use this as an example of "black homophobia," or maybe say he and Isiah Washington are exactly the same. I can't wait until someone here calls him an "ignorant nigger."
Posted by: James | Mar 29, 2007 10:50:09 AM
James, you just did call him "that".
Being a gay guy married in Massachusetts - I have NO problem having my union called a Civil Union - as long as the term civil marriage goes away for heterosexual couples as well.
If marriage is religious then the state should not be in the business of religious blessings.
Kind of makes sense and is logical.
BUT the straighties want to maintain not separate but equal - but separate AND UNequal.
If you proposs the logic they twist it into saying gays are trying to do away with marriage.
Bigots may be assholes but they are smart enough to use the false logic that gets them backers.
FUCKERS :)
Ask any of your straight married friends who were joined by justice's of the peace if they are ok with going along with a change that would say they are not are not married but just in a civil union.
I doubt most would.
Posted by: rjp3 | Mar 29, 2007 10:58:50 AM
Wasn't the discussion about whether "homosexuality" is immoral not whether gays conduct themselves anymore or less morally than straights ? Seems like a shift in the discussion , or do I have that wrong ?
Posted by: aidanc | Mar 29, 2007 10:59:49 AM
That's the whole problem with this country, its way to mired in its dysfunctional use of "religion" to create hate, be it gay rights, racial fairness or anything else. That bald face lie of being founded on "religious: freedom is the mantra that is going to doom this country. These right wing hacks who seem to think gay men and women's lives revolve around sex are as foolish as those who think that theirs revolve around the Bible, which most don't know, because if they did, they would let people live and let live.
You know that the USA is a joke when even Catholic Mexico is more open to treating gays and lesbians with more fairness that this place. The fear that the Dobson's and Robertson's keep putting into the minds of their uneducated church members, and the ones with money who like to keep people divided, who vote in every election, will keep the glbt community at the bottom of society for many years to come. Over coming this "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality is next to impossible to change with people who have sex once a year in the missionary position to "procreate," since gays are doing it all day and night and in many different ways, well, all but me it seems!
And, he may be onto something, civil unions are about as good as its going to get in this country, the Bible belt and the ones who lie to pollsters about being for gay marriage ain't never going to allow it to happen nationwide. Does anyone here think that with the way the US Suprme court is stacked with rightwingers that they would say, its illegal to say some can't get married?
Posted by: Luke | Mar 29, 2007 11:08:39 AM
Senator Obama: Leggo my Eggo! "reexamine" DADT, you "don't think that gays and lesbians are any more moral or immoral than heterosexuals," you seem to find a diffence betwen "civil aspects" and "civil rights." Sorry, Senator, but I don't vote for waffles or any other breakfast food (any of the Republican flakes).
Posted by: JT | Mar 29, 2007 11:13:54 AM
I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying." - Barack O bama
Posted by: Bona | Mar 29, 2007 11:18:12 AM
Statement by President Bill Clinton I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position.
Posted by: TIM | Mar 29, 2007 11:19:52 AM
The Human Rights Campaign has not made any endorsement or taken a position on any potential 2008 presidential candidates. Invitations are extended to candidates of both parties. The Human Rights Campaign has a thorough vetting process for political candidates and when any possible endorsement is made that information will be released publicly.
Posted by: HRC | Mar 29, 2007 11:21:57 AM
Hillary has had 8 years in the White House where she & Bill gave us Doma & Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What's the question then? Clearly Senator Obama has the better track record. Clearly with Hillary we should adopt a Don't Nominate, Don't elect Policy.
Posted by: Bob Green | Mar 29, 2007 11:23:37 AM
Who really knows for certain who will do more for LGBT people. I do feel Hillary will do what is best for her political career while Obama will follow his convictions, at this point in time anyway. Barak may not openly support gay rights, but he does support human rights of which we are a group. He is at least open to the idea that he may be wrong on his stand on gay marriage as well. His traditional Christian upbringing tells him that this is wrong, but if you read his book, Audacity of Hope, you'll see that he believes and works for the people as a whole, not separate classes of citizens. Also, I don't think he is a power monger like Clinton is. She may be a dem, but I don't see much difference between her money and Bush's.
Posted by: Ricky | Mar 29, 2007 11:27:28 AM
While it is true that Hillary Clinton has said more things publicly that are "pro-gay".... Barack Obama has actually done more in his career. Unlike Hillary, Barack Obama was against the Defense of Marriage Act when it was considered a career killer to be against it. Obama has sponsored many anti-discrimination laws during his tenure as a state senator and he took a hardline stance against homophobia in the 2004 campaign when he ran against anti-gay fanatic Alan Keyes. Obama is the kind of person who spends less time talking and more time walking.
Posted by: Joel | Mar 29, 2007 11:30:16 AM
What concerns me most is the constant mention of "hospital visitation". Yes, that's part of the equation, but it's not all of it. When will the politicians declare equality in taxes, social security benefits, insurance, and all of the other resources that hetero-married couples have? If they don't, then they won't get my vote. We've come a long way baby, but I still like 2008 will be a vote for the lesser of the evils instead of who I truly believe will treat me fairly under our constitution.
Posted by: Wayne | Mar 29, 2007 11:32:25 AM
I don 't think there 's much difference in either candidate regarding issues important to our community . They will both lick their index fingers , stick them in the wind , and thereby decide how to keep the largest number of potential constituents happy . That 's political reality . But for the sake of a fresh start altogether I support Barama . It 's way past time for new blood in the executive branch
Posted by: Paul | Mar 29, 2007 11:32:39 AM
Ugh, there you have it AGAIN boys and girls. The old, "Don't Ask Don't Tell should be repealed because it costs us too much money and deprives us of volunteer cannon fodder", default argument for treating tax paying, law abiding, patriotic gay Americans with the respect they deserve and with the equality that our constitution demands.
Like I said yesterday, until HRC and our supposed allies in the Democratic Party realize that the reason discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is because discrimination against ANYONE is wrong and until we stop getting rights by default, we can never expect to really be treated equally.
And as far as the religious connection to "marriage" in this country goes; I would agree with Obama IF he would say that the government needs to get out of the business of administering RITES just as the Church needs to get out of the business of legislating RIGHTS. EVERY couple should have access to, AND should be limited to a “civil union” from the state. Then they and their church, mosque, temple or synagogue can decide if they want to, and are allowed to, have a religious marriage performed by an official representative of their faith. He didn't say that. He just said that the government should stay out of the religious institution of marriage ONLY when it pertains to gays. That my friends, Democrat or Republican, black or white, gay or straight, is a statement endorsing discrimination.
By the way: Obama, LIKE MYSELF, is a member of the United Church of Christ which is the ONLY mainstream Christian denomination to endorse full marriage equality, both legally and spiritually. Does he not realize that current marriage laws and marriage amendments impinge directly upon the freedom of religious expression of his own church? Does he realize that legalizing marriage equality WILL NOT impinge on the freedom of religious expression of churches that refuse to marry gay people since no church will be forced, by the government, to perform such ceremonies? Even if you take his argument at face value it doesn’t stand up to simple scrutiny.
I fully understand why he is taking this public position and unfortunately I think it is the most progressive position that a politician running for president of THIS country can espouse. That speaks more about our country and its people than it does about Mr. Obama.
Faults and all, he is currently my candidate of choice.
Maybe some day we will have a presidential candidate that I can feel good about voting FOR. For the last several years ALL of my presidential votes came down to who I was voting AGAINST.
Posted by: Zeke | Mar 29, 2007 11:40:49 AM
I agree: Hillary does what's best for her political career (which is why she was for the Iraq war before she was against it), while Obama follows his convictions (which is why he saw the war as bogus from the start, and has been against DOMA and DADT from the start).
Not only does he follow his convictions, he's also practical about how to get equal rights. I like the way he detangles the various issues: Most Americans don't want to see gays and lesbians discriminated against; thanks to Christianists, trying to build a national consensus around gay marriage is extraordinarily difficult and distracting (and such discussions only give fuel to anti-gay zealots). Why not first establish civil unions that provide all the rights of marriage and cut off the Christianists, who will never agree to marriage rights for gays in the first place, from the discussion altogether and just make it a discrimination issue. And who among the candidates can better state the case that being anti-civil unions is discriminatory than Obama? He's terrific.
Posted by: SGR | Mar 29, 2007 11:43:15 AM
So basically barak Obama can FUCK OFF! I knew he would not support gay marriage. And I still believe he has a sticker on his ass that says "Property of Oprah Winfrey". And we all know she is a big homophobe!
Posted by: jack off candidate | Mar 29, 2007 12:00:03 PM
If Americans are so gung ho on civil unions for gays and lesbians then why have MOST of the Marriage Amendments that have passed, by overwhelming majorities in the MAJORITY of states in this country, included prohibitions against civil unions, domestic partnerships and ANYTHING that resembles marriage or gives ANY of the rights or benefits associated with marriage?
The ONE state that voted down such an amendment ONLY did so because voters were convinced that good, innocent heterosexual couples might be inconvenienced by it.
Once again, gay rights by default. Crumbs from the table of straight America.
Posted by: Zeke | Mar 29, 2007 12:07:13 PM
Jack,
Well of course Obama doesn't support gay marriage. He, like every other mainstream candidate, wants to win and gay marriage is not a vote winner. Doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for it but getting mad at a middle of the road pol for not coming behind same sex marriage is like getting mad at the heat in hell.
Posted by: James | Mar 29, 2007 12:14:44 PM
Some of you really need to get a serious reality check. This is the most closely worded any presidential candidate with a SERIOUS chance of winnig has ever come to flat out supporting civil unions.
You nitpicky whiners need to realize that NOBODY else in the current field of candidates is going to give you more than this.
All Im reading are people picking apart one or two phrases and completely missing the larger themes in his statement.
Posted by: G | Mar 29, 2007 12:16:03 PM
I'm still disapointed in his answer.
He says that he doesn't "think that gays and lesbians are any more moral or immoral than heterosexuals"
This statement is perfectly consistent with the position that "I think its immoral for any unmarried couple to sleep together, whether gay or straight... and oh, by the way, I don't think gay people should be allowed to marry." Result: gays are immoral.
This is exactly the position that I've heard posited by some of my "compassionate conservative" acquaintances. They don't think that homosexuallity is immoral, just that any physical relationship outside of marriage is immoral (and of course they don't support gay marriage).
I hope that this isn't what Obama is doing. But I'm not sure. It's very easy to make a clear statement about this. But he didn't.
Posted by: BRolls | Mar 29, 2007 12:19:59 PM
He's trying to have it both ways, allowing government sponsored unions for gays because he believes in a separation of church and state. But he doesn't want to call it marriage. What bugs me is his talk of "society" instead of just laying out his own beliefs. Before he said the country wasn't ready for gay marriage. Whether he counted himself as part of the country is anyone's guess. Cut the crap, there's no objectivity in politics.
Posted by: 000000 | Mar 29, 2007 12:21:42 PM
He sounds about as comfortable talking about this as he would be about civil rights for the KKK.
Posted by: anon | Mar 29, 2007 12:29:22 PM
I have tried to like Obama; still love to hear his speeches, but these answers keep me from supporting him. This answer is a rehearsed answer (as opposed to some response to a questioned yelled on the street), and the answers leave me cold. He's just another one of those Democrats who take positions that they think will win the most votes, which of course leads to the inevitable "let's believe in nothing so we don't piss anyone off" perception of the party. We need leaders, not poll readers.
I'm voting for Edwards. And, yes, I know he has the same position on gay marriage, but I am convinced (based on nothing but my gut feelings, so I can't even argue that you should agree with me) that he will be the first major candidate to realize what is right. He seems to be such a descent human being that I can't imagine his not realizing what should be done very soon.
Posted by: Kyle Childress | Mar 29, 2007 12:35:57 PM