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.

ObamaSaid 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]


  1. Rey says

    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”.

  2. says

    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.”

  3. rjp3 says

    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.

  4. aidanc says

    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 ?

  5. Luke says

    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?

  6. JT says

    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).

  7. Bona says

    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

  8. TIM says

    Statement by President Bill Clinton I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position.

  9. HRC says

    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.

  10. Bob Green says

    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.

  11. Ricky says

    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.

  12. Joel says

    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.

  13. Wayne says

    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.

  14. Paul says

    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

  15. Zeke says

    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.

  16. SGR says

    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.

  17. jack off candidate says

    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!

  18. Zeke says

    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.

  19. says


    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.

  20. G says

    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.

  21. BRolls says

    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.

  22. 000000 says

    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.

  23. anon says

    He sounds about as comfortable talking about this as he would be about civil rights for the KKK.

  24. Kyle Childress says

    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.

  25. Robert In WeHo says

    I think Barak Obama should look again to his professed icon of political leadership, conviction and courage in American history, Abraham Lincoln. While Obama is not evasive in his answers to the questions about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and Gay Marriage, I did not hear the same kind of conviction as to his belief in the positions that he articulates as his own on these issues. Obama’s icon, Lincoln, never wavered nor hedged his stated position or belief in the equivalent issue of his day, slavery. Lincoln was absolute in his belief that slavery was evil and must end in the United States. Where confronted with opposing points of view on the subject, Lincoln would dive aggressively into debate, unequivocally and unwaveringly articulating not only his position but also why his opponent’s position was wrong and unacceptable. Now before people jump on the whole “how dare you compare abolition of slavery to gay rights” bandwagon, my argument centers on Lincoln’s conviction and absolute belief in the necessity and righteousness of his position on the subject. Lincoln KNEW that he lost support or at least didn’t gain support from pro-slavery people every single time he debated the issue publicly. Lincoln also knew that his chances of winning the Presidency were not assured because of his unwavering stand on the issue of slavery. When Lincoln won, it was that fear of his absolute and non-negotiable position on slavery which caused pro-slavery southerners to view Lincoln’s election as a threat to their way of life and rather than accept the results of the election, instead they chose to secede from the Union.

    My point is, that while Obama says many of the right things and clearly articulates the reasons why it’s difficult for Americans to see the issue of gay marriage outside of the religious context, if Obama really and truly held his convictions and his self professed belief in the equality and civil rights of all American citizens, Obama would, like Lincoln, unequivocally state his beliefs knowing full well that there would be people who he would not convince nor persuade of his position and which he would likely not receive their support in the election. Abolition of slavery was hardly a popular or universally accepted position throughout the northern states when Lincoln drew his line in the ideological sand over the issue. Even after the commencement of the Civil War, many northerners did not agree with Lincoln’s abolitionist views but supported Lincoln’s efforts to prevent the dissolution of the Union. I wonder whether Obama or any other candidate for President has the convictions to truly stand up for what is right, not just for what is easy…

  26. BRolls says

    Hey, doesn’t that constitution thingy say something about congress passing no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    So how is it that congress could pass a law allowing civil unions for gays, but not deny them marriage because of the “religious connotations” that make gay marriage so “difficult and distracting”.

    This whole debate is about people wanting to pass laws prohibiting gay marriage based on their religious beliefs (among other insecurities, I’m sure). And to me, that plays directly into the question of whether homosexuallity is inherently immoral.

    The civil unions compromise seems to me to be two things (1) an acknowledgement that it is immoral to discriminate against a group in the provision of rights and priviledges granted by the state (hospital visitation, etc.), and (2) a statement that gay relationships can not be morally equivalent to straight relationships.

    I respect the first sentiment and despise the second.

  27. michael says

    No doubt Barack is an intelligent guy, but some of you guys are DELUSIONAL about him. He will NEVER be elected president in this country, no matter how much smoke the media blows up his ass. White america will NEVER elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama.

    His stance on “civil unions” is neither progressive or risky. It’s strictly middle ground. As far as the rest of his ideas, what exactly are they? Running on hope for the future is not a platform.

  28. JT says

    Dennis Kucinich is unambiguous in his support for equal rights for EVERY person. He’s the only candidate who supports “marriage as a civil right. Please note that he doesn’t support “gay marriage.” Congressman Kucinich knows that marriage is marriage as long as it is between two people. I’ll continue to support him until the more “electable” candidate is chosen by the money-driven primary process at which point, I’ll vote for the Democrat.

  29. Stephen says

    Barack’s got it. He’s absolutely correct on this topic and I have been consistent in all of my posts on this site with his perspective. I’ve also made the case against gay marriage (oxymoron) without the religious aspect.

    If gays & lesbians want to balance the playing field to the extent that it can be balanced (it can be totally balanced when a same sex couple can bring forth newborn without artificial means)then they should opt for civil unions. That gives them what they want — virtually all the same benefits of married couples.

    If they continue to be as obstinate on this topic as I’ve read, heard and seen, they defeat their own goal. How intelligent is that?

  30. Acolyte says

    Kyle, you were spot-on. I said nearly the same thing here a week or so ago. HRC and BHO give the answers that they’re supposed to give, and will do what is politically most expedient. It may no doubt be what they actually believe, but their answers, well, leave me cold, for lack of a better way of putting it. Edwards’ answer is 180 degrees from theirs (in “spirit,” not in content). He says he’s “not there yet.” Yet. I realize it would be nice to have a Feingold or someone similar to vote for, but we don’t. John and Elizabeth Edwards discussed gay marriage in their interview with Stephanopolous. John gave the answer cited above, but Elizabeth, citing her more “eclectic” upbringing, expressed her support for gay marriage, and indicated her belief that in perhaps a generation, the question will be moot. So no, John Edwards is not currently in support of marriage for us, and that’s disappointing. But his candor on the subject is refreshing and I think he’s become the candidate to watch. He’s grown by leaps and bounds as a candidate since ’04, and, as odd as it might seem, he can “sell” marriage when the time comes in ways that no other dem can: He’s from the south, was raised Southern Baptist, and like it or not, he’s a white heterosexual male. His ability to connect with those most opposed to our basic rights will do more than all of the pontificating and canned words of the other two ever could.

  31. Zeke says

    I was wondering how long it would be before our friendly heterosexual marriage troll Stephen would show up to play his broken record and explain to us YET AGAIN about how we can’t breed, on our own, so we can’t marry. Of course he’s quick to explain that heterosexuals’ inability, or unwillingness to breed should not preclude them from the right.

    Since I’ve tried to engage Stephen in debate with actual facts, and specific cases in point, on NUMEROUS occassions, but have YET to receive a response to ANY of my questions, I will no longer bother myself with even considering his baseless, redundant, ad nauseam blathering.

    The thing that pisses me off most was, of all the comments made on the topic of gay marriage here at Towleroad, including those made by us who are ACTUALLY married and raising families, the Chicago-Sun Times chose to quote “Stephen from”. That would be like quoting “Jimmyboyo of”.

  32. Shawn says

    It’s nice to hear someone talking about the MARRIAGE issue, and not just the GAY marriage issue. Part of the problem with the fight for gay marriage is that “marriage” in this country is a mess right now. It’s falling apart, and why are gay people fighting to be part of something that’s falling apart?

    I totally appreciate Obama’s distinction between “civil unions” and “marriage”, and if he keeps talking about it I think it’s a major step forward to re-inventing what it means to be in a committed relationship with someone. That’s the real issue here.

    We don’t need to fight for gay marriage. We need to fight to re-invent something that has been decaying and struggling and falling apart faster and more dramatically than anyone is able to articulate.

    We should fight for civil unions, bring integrity to our relationships, understand what ‘commitment’ means before we commit, and watch “marriage” continue to fall apart until the religion is taken out of it. Then people will see a new model for relationships, which is what the gay marriage issue is really all about.

  33. Robert In WeHo says

    Stephen, please do Gays and Lesbians a favor, stop helping our cause. Your kind of backhanded take what they’ll throw us, second class citizen status is okay by me support, we don’t need…

  34. rudy says

    Martin, It is not a matter of being ‘better'; it is a matter of speaking from experience. Zeke and other commenters on this blog are actually married in some jusrisdictions (but their marriages are not universally recognized as are straight marriages) and are raising families that face daily discrimination. We should be thanking them for providing examples of honorable gay men who are persevering as dutiful citizens despite bigoted laws.

    How easy you are to take offense and to engage in ad hominem attack. What could lead you to such self-loathing that you feel compelled to attack other gay men in such manner?

    Zeke (and others such as RB) did not suggest (and have never suggested) in any way that you should be denied basic human rights because you are single. So why must you disparage your gay brethren on the front lines of this battle for dignity and respect for others and our families?

    Your comment only feeds the stereotype of selfish hedonistic gays that will not band together to seek common rights and responsibilities.

    How dare you. Have you no self respect or sense of shame?

  35. sean says

    that’s right osama, keep espousing that “separate but equal” crap. kinda ironic coming from you…

  36. Zeke says

    Martin, with all due respect, that was not my intended point at all. I’ve never claimed to be better than anyone and I’ve never claimed that single people are “less than” coupled people or less deserving of ALL of the rights that come with citizenship. I actually have a problem with the fact that a single person, in essence, gets less for his/her hard work than a person who is married or in a recognized domestic partnership is companies where benefits are given, at no cost, to spouses and domestic partners. I argued that point, on the record, MANY times when I negotiated Union contracts for the Merck Medco division of Merck and Co. It didn’t seem fair to me then and it doesn’t seem fair to me now. Discounts yes, free no; unless single people get likewise compensated.

    My only intended point was that, when you want to know how depriving certain people of civil marriage rights, benefits and responsibilities negatively affects a population you should ask those who: 1) are denied civil marriage; 2) need civil marriage; 3) want civil marriage and 4) have suffered needlessly specifically because of the denial of civil marriage.

    For the record, I also believe in racial equality but it doesn’t mean that I look down on white people or think they should be disadvantaged. I believe in gender equality but it doesn’t mean I look down on men or think they should be disadvantaged.

    This is twice now, in the last few weeks, that I have been attacked as being “familyist” or anti-single and anti-non-parent. One person called me an unchristian, judgmental, liberal hypocrite and the other called me a Focus on the Family, self-centered right-wing sympathizer. Forgive me if I fight to protect my family, and other families like mine, in light of SPECIFIC recent events that have shown me just how vulnerable we are under current laws. Forgive me if my fight for everyone’s right to marry, IF they so choose, seems selfish to you. I also volunteer with SHARE, a local food-bank twice a month, even though I’ve never really been hungry. I have worked for three years to bring justice to Sami Al-Arian, a Palestinian Muslim who was falsely accused of terrorism and even though he was acquitted has remained in federal prison for the sake of our administration’s pride, yet I am neither Palestinian nor Muslim. I, and my family, spent nine hours at a hearing to reconsider the firing of Steve Stanton, the city manager of Largo who was being dismissed from his job of 14 years because of his decision to announce that he is transgendered, yet I am not transgendered. I have spent MANY hours working with HOPE, another local organization that attempts to make the lives of the poor and oppressed of my local county, fairer and better, by trying to get the city to improve and expand public services like public transportation in order to improve the lives of the poor and disadvantaged in our area even though I have never had to ride a bus in this city.

    I don’t say all of this to toot my own horn. I have never mentioned ANY of this here before. I only want to let you know that you should consider, for just one moment, what you say about a person that you’ve never met and know nothing about.

    Alright folks, flame away!

  37. Seann says

    Gay marriage is not a winning platform, and guess what (Robert In WeHo)? Obama’s trying to win. His chances may not be the best, but that’s not the point.

    The community is going to defeat itself on the issue if it continues to clamor for something that, right now, is not possible.

  38. Robert In WeHo says

    Seann, people in the South said the same things to Martin Luther King, Jr. regarding the Civil Rights movement. Change never comes willingly or easily. As with anything in life, there will be triumphs as well as setbacks. The only real danger is in giving up or not standing your ground in the disagreement. The argument that gays should just be happy with the way things are and not cause trouble is tired, uninformed and self-defeatist. If Rosa Parks had followed the “be happy with what you’ve got and don’t make trouble” prescription, African Americans might still be formally treated as second class citizens with less civil rights and protections in this country as we Gay and Lesbian citizens still are…

  39. Zeke says

    No problem Martin. It’s all good bubba.

    The important thing to remember here is, for the most part, we’re all on the same team, even if we have different priorities, different styles and different methods and strategies for achieving equality.

    Even, to SOME degree, Stephen is on board with the push for fairness and equality for gays and lesbians; and, to THAT degree, I applaud him.

  40. Zeke says

    Oh, and don’t be hard on Rudy. He has become a personal friend to me and my family and he takes it very personally when he feels that I, or my family, is being misjudged or attacked.

    I hope we ALL have loyal friends that will always have our respective backs.

  41. Gregoire says

    No, Seann, I think you’re right. Gay marriage was barely a national issues 10 years ago. Now all of a sudden everybody here expects some massive cultural seachange overnight, and damn Obama for not being for everything that WE want and exactly like we want it.

    I find the criticism of him in this thread to be both petty and inconsequential. He is by no means perfect, and its not the answer that I would like to hear, but its *something* and a hell of lot more than almost every candidate. Except, yes, Kucinish. Good luck with that.

  42. says


    There is no gays only water fountain. Gay/lesbians are not required to sit in the back of the bus. Gays are not being denied the right to vote. Facile connections to Civil Rights movement are not helpful. Don’t get me wrong. Human rights are human rights but let’s be careful about comparing oppressions.

  43. Jack! says

    People like Stephen look at gay people and see less. He expects gay people to accept less because in his eyes we are less. That’s the attitude in this country. Gay people are less.

    Civil rights for gay people are hinged on how they will affect straight people. Obama’s answer on DADT is exactly that. We need gay people in the military because it’s good for straight people.

    Dennis Kucinich is pro gay rights. He supports gay marriage. I support him.

  44. Zeke says


    If you’re the same James from above who lobbed the flame bomb with the statement:

    “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.””

    It’s clear that you attemted to start a race vs. orientation flame war on this discussion. No one bit your hook so now you come back with another baited statement.

    Well I’m just in the mood to bite this one so here goes…

    No, gays and lesbians have never had to sit in the back of the bus and have never had to drink from separate water fountains (Unless you’re over 40, and from the South, I doubt you have either) but then again I’ve never heard of a black kid being thrown out of his home and disowned by his own family for being black and I don’t see “under cover” black people leading the charge to deny other black people their basic civil rights. Those are phenomena that are unique to the gay civil rights movement but it doesn’t diminish the fact that the basic tenants of racial and sexual orientation discrimination are the same. Just because there are various differences and nuances between the two movements does not mean that they aren’t comparable and it doesn’t mean that we are wrong to expect the two movements to be allies of each other. Racial and orientation discrimination, like ALL forms of unjust discrimination, are based in ignorance and fear and both are unacceptable in a free, just, and modern society.

    If Coretta Scott King and Desmond Tutu, GIANTS, FRONTLINE WARRIORS and HEROS of the racial civil rights movements, on two different continents, can publicly say, on NUMEROUS occasions, that the gay civil rights movement is comparable to the black civil rights movement, who are you, or anyone else to challenge the comparison?

    I would suggest that no one here has the credentials to challenge Mrs. King’s or Bishop Tutu’s statements on the matter.

    I actually had the great honor and priviledge to meet Rev. Tutu in person last year. I discussed this VERY topic (race vs. orientation discrimination) with him. I can tell you that there is no doubt in his mind that the two movements are not only similar but as far as he’s concerned, they are the SAME movement.

  45. Zeke says

    If you’re not the same “James” from above, disregard the first half of my rant.

    The rest still applies.

  46. chris says

    While we’re at this, I want to say something that’s not often said: yes, visitation rights, as Obama states, are important, but what I really want is the civil rights equality that lets me keep MORE MONEY for being a couple, as it does to heterosexuals, through tax breaks and such. Politicians are quick to grant these “soft” rights like the death and dying stuff but often stop short of what most conseratives are trying to keep away from gays and lesbians, the cash.

  47. JAY says

    You gays want other people to fight your battles. Obama’s heavily nuanced answers to the gays in the military question and gay marriage only demonstrate that he has to raise over $100 million dollars over the coming months to remain a viable candidate. Something Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln never had to do. Don’t like it? Too bad, that’s the way things work now. I don’t think too many major political donors are losing much sleep over gay marriage or don’t ask don’t tell.

    If you people want a candidate to align himself or herself more closely with your views, then I suggest you start donating more of that vaunted disposable income of yours to your candidate of choice or find an MLK of your own.

  48. Seann says

    “The argument that gays should just be happy with the way things are and not cause trouble is tired, uninformed and self-defeatist.”

    Gays SHOULD settle for civil unions (which equals marriage, but just excludes the term)FOR RIGHT NOW, and then progress to marriage.

    Marriage, in the United States, is ingrained as something between a man and woman and something with religious connotations. You can’t change (straight) society overnight.

    Whether you or I might like it, it’s going to take TIME.

    Why is there always a comparison being made between the Civil Rights Movement and Gay Rights? Gay Rights are important and straightforward enough to stand on their own.

    “be happy with what you’ve got and don’t make trouble”

    I have not seen anyone say that and I sure didn’t write anything like that.

  49. says

    These are best worded sentiments on gay/human rights I have heard from a candidate so far, democrat OR republican.

    So I feel like giving a standing ovation to Barack Obama for this.

    What I continue to find concerning is that our mainstream media no longer asks republican candidates any questions pertaining to human rights (not just gay rights) – and that’s troubling when in the media itself it has become downright scary to voice an opinion of dissent towards the current administration, without a legion of attack dogs labelling one a “traitor” or “anti-American”. What do respective candidates have to say about that? Who will be brave enough to ask?

    Every candidate should be able to come out and speak as eloquently as Barack did on matters of human rights (not just corporate benefit) or else they are not worth considering..

  50. says

    You gays want other people to fight your battles…
    I suggest you […] find an MLK of your own.
    Posted by: JAY |

    At the risk of agreeing with a non-partisan of gay rights (I don’t know you), I second what you just said.

    In fact, I’ve said similar things many times before.

    No one should ever expect other people to fight their own battles, if in turn they aren’t doing everything they can to stack up cards in their favor. It doesn’t work that way..

    No candidate who wants to win will hold a position (on any subject) that is completely unpopular with the voting public…not in the States, not in France, or in Egypt. *However* they can speak on principles in a way that communicates of their unequivocal intent to move the country towards that opinion which the voting public is not ready to accept yet. Barack did that.

    In turn we as a community have to spend all OF our energies stacking up cards in our favor and do it in a way that is smart (not just reactionary). Cause we have many other issues to worry about than the absence of gay marriage. Let’s attack those issues with the same dilligency we demand from politicians, if we’re sincere about bringing a change. Engagement, questioning and activism are effective only when they are consistent.

  51. Zeke says

    Yet another similarity between the gay and African-American civil rights movements.

    African-Americans AND gays are referred to as “YOU PEOPLE” by those (see Jay) who feel superior to us and who offer their compassion troll advice as to how we should feel, how we should act, what we should settle for and how we should quietly, humbly and gently go about pursuing equality.

    “YOU PEOPLE”s of the world unite!

  52. JAY says

    I’m far from your enemy (why else would I read this blog?), but I’m also not eloquent enough to make my point without using crude and intentionally provocative language. Sorry, flame away.

  53. woodroad34 says

    So, is heterosexuality immoral because of the preponderance of straights in jail, or doing drugs, or raping women and little girls, or disrepecting their mothers and fathers, or lying, stealing, and whatever other commandments there are? Discussions of morality are always slippery and two-sided. So Peter Pace (who Jason Alexander said has the gayest name around) ought to use the brain God gave an elephant and start rethinking his Iraq-war-winning opinions.

  54. Zeke says

    Drop the compassion troll victim act Jay. I went back and reread your comment. That is NOT the comment of an ally. It is full of condescension, insult and stereotypes that we hear daily from our enemies.

    For the record many of our enemies visit this site every day. Anti-gay websites link to Towleroad often and their readers regularly spew their homophobia in the comments so your “why else would I read this blog” statement proves nothing.

    One doesn’t have to be eloquent to understand the history of “you people” or to know that the term is provocative when used to refer to a minority group.

    Besides, I somehow doubt that a person who uses “eloquent” and “provocative” in his comment, AND spells them correctly, is as unaware of the provocation that such a term elicits as you claim to be.

    I will welcome anyone who is an ally but I have NEVER met a person who refers to people he respects as “you people”. Not even by mistake and certainly not multiple times in one comment (“you gays” and “you people” included). That’s not flaming dear Jay. That’s just calling you out.

    By the way, I, like DA, actually agreed with SOME of the things you said. We DO need our own MLK Jr., even if his wife said it was perfectly OK for us to use his words and his message in our fight for equality. However, the positive parts of your message got lost in your offensive and stereotyping presentation.

  55. Zeke says

    Actually, you said you INTENDED to be provacative with “you people”.

    So you aren’t ignorant. You’re just an ass.

  56. says


    I’m the James. My first post was an attempt at a little ironic humor (call it lame). My experience here is that when race is brought up a few of the readers here lose their minds. One (sorry but I can’t remember their names right now) in a previous thread opined that the whole Tim Hardaway mess convinced him never to hire black folk again because we are so homo hating. Another guy, who let us know how he had a black lovah, decided to call Isiah Washington an “ignorant nigger” because Washington is fond of the word “faggot.”

    As for the connection between gay rights and black rights, you will get no argument from me that they are connected. As I said human rights are human rights. My only point is we need to be careful about making facile connections. Let’s acknowledge what is similar and what is different. Hope this is clear.


  57. Jack! says

    “…gays are referred to as “YOU PEOPLE” by those (see Jay) who feel superior to us and who offer their compassion troll advice as to how we should feel, how we should act, what we should settle for and how we should quietly, humbly and gently go about pursuing equality.” – Zeke

  58. JAY says

    Lol, I’ve been called worse…and I never claimed to be your ally either.

    Your fight for equality will go nowhere as long as there is a closet (and urban gyms!). Since you are so fond of latching on to the Civil Rights Movement, do you think that movement would have gone anywhere if a large number of Blacks thought they could just pass for White? No way.

    As long as large numbers of gays think they can just “pass” for straight, equality will remain an illusion. People need to know who you really are. Not those clowns sashaying down Broadway each June or their “Queer Eye,” but their brother, neighbor, boss, teacher, best friend, etc.

    I always hear how coming out of the closet is a personal, private matter. I say BS, BS, BS! Yes, it takes courage, but so did facing down lynch mobs, fire hoses and dogs in Confederate states not long ago. And yes, more of you may die for it. Sucks, huh?

    You want equality, marriage, etc? Go take it. No one will give it to you.

  59. says

    “Not those clowns sashaying down Broadway each June or their “Queer Eye,” but their brother, neighbor, boss, teacher, best friend, etc.”
    Posted by: JAY |

    Tss tss Jay :/ LOL

    You couldn’t hide your colors for too long, could you?

    Now let me tell you something: although I seconded some of your points in my previous post (with reservations in regards to who it was coming from), I think you just displayed lack of intelligence by resorting to such transparently divise tactics.

    See, Jay, we’ve had MANY of people like you before who attempted to mine debates for Towleroad’s gays with enough bad faith to make a neo-con cum. But you wanna know what has happened because of all of you??

    -Interest in gay rights is indeed at all time high.
    -Engagement from our rights organisation has been renewed.
    -Traffic on Towleroad has skyrocketed (just look at the counter at your right, at some peaks there are 300-700 visitors at once on the site).
    -The media is increasingly more focused on what we have to say.
    -And now even you the haters have to play catch up to us (“hi to all of you!”:))

    All of the above could NOT have happened without you. Never.

    So by all means Jay, keep up the good work..keep putting us in the news..keep playing catch up with us. And watch us get our rights quicker than you’ve ever imagine.

    Now deal with THAT.

  60. JAY says

    Yes, you outed me. I do live in Manhattan. Home of the Gay. I just caught my error too, they sashay down 5th, not Broadway.

    I read this blog because it is interesting and entertaining; I suspect that the main reason it receives so much traffic is because it is a good blog, simple as that.

    What exactly do you have to say? All I hear is complaining about how everyone is against you. Some are for sure, but not everyone.

  61. Zeke says

    James, Amen, Amen, Amen and Amen!

    I totally agree with everything you said. The racism flame trollers here make my flesh crawl. Thanks for the polite and thoughtful clarification.

    Sorry for setting the attack dogs on ya bubba.

    Rock on!

    And Jay, at least you’re consistent. You consistently manage to mix just enough poison in with your peaches to sour the whole pie. That’s a damned shame. You might could make a decent point if you could just manage to bridle your need to needlessly provoke.

  62. says

    Jay sorry I couldn’t understand half of your message..but the point is this: if you want to debate us, for or against, do so in a manner that is direct, and not so blatantly riddled with bad faith. Cause then you’ll be exposed for what you are: an attack dog troll.

    “I suspect that the main reason it receives so much traffic is because it is a good blog, simple as that.”

    That too. But the haters sure helped taking it to the next level.

  63. JAY says

    Sorry for being petty and mean with my words.

    My view is that the closet is your greatest enemy, not the haters, preachers or slick politicians. The haters are cowards who will ultimately (but not easily) fall in line, but only if they know who you really are. That’s my experience.

    At the risk of sounding patronizing, I witnessed first-hand how evil and destructive that closet can be with my own brother. It was not pretty when he came out a few years ago, but eventually my family was better for it, especially him. He always told me that what held him back the most was fear and a lack of role models he could identify with. He eventually found his way, and we love him more for it.

    As you know, hate against gays is based on ignorance. As long as the closet is a comfortable alternative for a sizable number, nothing will change and you can forget about equality.

    Thing is, only gays can destroy the closet, consequences be damned. It is a uniquely gay struggle, and that’s why while MLK’s or Tutu’s words may be comforting, you need your own hero/advocate to effect real change.

    It’s late, good night. Be back tomorrow.

  64. says

    ^5 Robert In WeHo

    Your instincts were spot on! Myself I’m getting better at sniffing them a mile away.


    “It is a uniquely gay struggle.”
    Posted by: JAY |

    Well thanks for the concern Jay, and I hope your brother is doing real fine :/

    By the way..

    A quote from your previous post just reminded me of something:

    —- Jay:

    “Yes, it takes courage, but so did facing down lynch mobs, fire hoses and dogs in Confederate states not long ago.”

    —- Randy Thomas, leader of Exodus International (the notoriously attacky ex-gay movement):

    “Suze Orman and her partner worrying over their “millions” doesn’t have the same ring or impact as watching young black people being knocked down by fully opened fire hoses and mauled by tax payer funded police dogs”

    uh oh!! looks like someone just got CAUGHT quoting from the master’s book of tactics! :)

    Anyway like I said, I’d like to give a warm welcome to all the haters from Exodus and other groups checking up on us on the daily to take so much needed notes on how to conduct a proper revolution. See you at the city clerk’s office, suckers!!

  65. Rafael says

    It is sad to see candidates to the presidency debate our existence and its purpose. Senator Obama should know that we will never compromise to become a second class group as his once had to endure. The notion of equality that afforded him the opportunity to foresee his candidacy is well and alive among us.

  66. Rafael says

    It is sad to see candidates to the presidency debate our existence and its purpose. Senator Obama should know that we will never compromise to become a second class group as his once had to endure. The notion of equality that afforded him the opportunity to foresee his candidacy is well and alive among us.

  67. says

    Is marriage a religious institution?

    Maybe I’m just a whiner or overly sensitive, but I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not comfortable or satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop our belly aching about the issue of “gay marriage” until our work is done, and we have all the same rights that we deserve. Whiney or not, I am saddened to see that even many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some equal rights. This of course means marriage as well.
    We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions to me are not equal. It is a concilation prize. It’s not about doing the right thing, it’s about politics. Even the politicians that are in favor of calling our civil unions marriage are afraid to speak openly about it, with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and also what is right and what is wrong.

    We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for uneducated illiterate people. They were also a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. Besides many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. Does that then mean that married couples with children are less married? Or does it mean that they shouldn’t have sexual relations even though they know it will not produce children. I wonder then why God would make sexuality very pleasurable. It wouldn’t need to be enjoyable if it were only for the purpose of having children. Beside we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state. That’s the wonderful thing about our country.

    Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.

    Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. I’m sorry, I’m only human and I got a bit choked up when mentioning that. I love happy meals. The best part is, no one even has to get out of the car, and the best man and woman are provided for one of the most important events in ones life; holy matrimony. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil, but that may be just hearsay.

    Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays and African Americans. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nations history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document we call our nations Constitution for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being unfair and not following the principals set forth in that document Back to my original question, I am hoping someone can give me a valid reason to prevent any two people that love each other from having the right to marry. I have heard some reasons that make no sense to me. One being that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the impact of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of heterosexual marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver; Fennville, Mi 49408 For more information on issues within gay culture please read; “why gay men do what they do”, an inside look at gay culture.

  68. Adam says

    Personally it sounds to me like you still have your own issues with homophobia despite having a gay brother. Your heart may be in the right place but when you refer to us as “you people” “sashaying” down Broadway, you start to sound like a bigot. Its pretty rich for you as a straight guy to come here and tell us how we need to fight for our rights. It’s pretty naive and ignorant of our history to say we have not fought hard (ever heard of a little group called ACT UP?) and even more naive to come here and lecture us about the closet. I would wager that a substantial amount of those commenting here have long been out. I came out age 13, for instance, and fought and endured some pretty homophobic conditions in my life. I think maybe you should educate yourself a bit more and listen to what actual gay people here have to say. You may actually begin to learn about gay people instead of just making assumptions and stereotypes of us.

  69. Zeke says

    See Jay, that wasn’t so hard was it?

    That last comment, in MY opinion, was all peaches and no poison. I couldn’t agree more with what you said and I couldn’t agree more with how you said it. I suspected that this was the point you were TRYING to make earlier but just couldn’t resist spicing it up with insults and stereotypes that overshadowed your valid points and made you sound like just another all too common, Focus on the Family, anti-gay, concern troll drive by flame thrower.

    Some here may even take exception with parts of your last comment but I don’t. You stated, straightforwardly and without insult, stereotype or provocation exactly what I have stated here MANY, MANY times. The closet, and a general lack of visibility, without a doubt, IS the greatest obstacle standing in the way of our pursuit of equality and coming out IS the MOST effective and powerful and positive “political” move/statement that ANY gay person can make to contribute to the cause of gay acceptance and gay equality.

    It’s amazing and quite eye opening to hear from a straight person who has such an understanding of the relationship between the closet and the movement. Thanks for FINALLY getting around to expressing your valuable point of view in a way that opened my ears and my mind instead of raising my defenses AND my temper. I still think you have some issue with residual homophobia that you need to deal with. The terminology and stereotyping that flows so effortlessly in your comments makes that clear. I hope you will figure out where that comes from and deal with it. I think everyone will be better off for it.

    Be careful, if you deal with those pesky little homophobic flare ups and you keep speaking with intelligence and thoughtfulness, as you did in your last comment, you may become our ally after all; if you intend to or not.

  70. Peachy JAY says

    Sure I have my issues with Gays (and other people too), and were it not for my brother, I would be a big hater. Not something to be proud of.

    DA, I would respond to you, but I have no idea what you are saying.


    I just started reading this blog recently and I enjoy it. But the nastiness, while entertaining, was kind of a shock to me. I think Gays waste a lot of energy and effort worrying about what others think of them, when they have the imagination and resources to shape their own destiny.

    Barack Obama is trying to build a base as broad and deep as possible in a short time. I think it is outrageous to expect him and others to take heroic stands on gay issues, before Gays themselves force the issue directly with the rest of the (voting) public.

  71. Adam says

    I applaud you for coming here and learning about the gay community. I am sure you are a great brother. I just think you need to learn a bit about our history and the gay rights movement before making statements about out of ignorance as well as watch your language for terms that may be offensive.
    Head over to Wikipedia and do a search on ” Stonewall riots”, “ACT UP”, “Larry Kramer”, or “pink triangle”. I think it would be really useful and enlightening for you.

  72. Guero says

    Obama’s comments are the best we’ve heard from a viable presidential candidate. Period. They are spot-on for a candidate trying to win votes of a very large and diverse nation.

    Like it or not, several facts are salient: We are, at best, 12% of the population, with a good percentage of that being in the closet (uniquely homo), and another percentage that aren’t doing us any favors (like any other community). I don’t find most people to be hateful, but a many are honestly a little confounded by gays because we are different to them…and they for some reason hold the word “marriage” in high regard (usually due to religious connotations). You cannot change them overnight. Obama makes that point. The solution is, as has been pointed out, that the closet prevents people from knowing that we aren’t all that different.

    Stonewall was less than 40 years ago. We’ve come a long way since then, and the fact that we are even talking about marriage, a non-issue just a few years ago, is a big deal. Civil Unions are a stepping-stone of legal recognition for our relationships…and acceptance of us in general. Once we can establish and normalize the idea with most straights, then we shoot for the “marriage” word.

    A sea-change is coming eventually anyway, as long as we keep our heads and keep leaning. Just look at the acceptance of gay marriage in people under 35 vs those over 50. They are reciprocal. Time, and Justice, are on our side.

    Yeah, I want everything too and I want it now. But that is not realistic.

  73. Zeke says

    If you think there is nastiness here, hop on over to worldnetdaily or freerepublic or any number of conservative sites, religious sites, sports sites etc. and say something positive about “GAYS” in the comments section.

    I’ll assure you that the nastiness here amongst us “GAYS” (another lesson in loaded words forthcoming), in comparison, is tame.

  74. says

    DA, I would respond to you, but I have no idea what you are saying.
    Posted by: Peachy JAY |

    Oh I think you do Jay.

    And for everyone’s enjoyment, here are clips of Exodus ex-gay trolls being exposed on Montell Williams show. They tried to misrepresented themselves there as well! Too hillarious..

  75. says

    While it is true that all candidates support ‘separate but [not] equal’ civil unions over marriage, BARACK OBAMA IS, IN FACT, THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO HAS PROFFERED RELIGION AS HIS SOLE EXCUSE FOR DENYING CIVIL RIGHTS. Don’t ask this so called civil rights lawyer for legal reasons. It is axiomatic (that’s legal talk for a no-brainer) that if religious beliefs are the only rationale for denying civil rights then the First Amendment is violated. Again not even the Mormon candidate has so insulted the First Amendment in an effort to deny rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment

    “If a civil rights lawyer walked into court and argued that fundamental civil rights should be denied solely for metaphysical religious reasons [religion] one could fairly wonder if he were a charlatan who found his law degree in a box of Cracker Jack. Legally, Obama’s position on civil marriage is intellectual rubbish. Audacity indeed!” See “Untangling Barack Obama’s audacious mumbo jumbo,” by John P. Mortimer, Bay Area Reporter 11/16/2006 at .

  76. bryana says

    i think senator barack obama is just covering all of his bases. he doesn’t really have a position and doesn’t want to seem to much on one side of the issue. either he agrees with gay marriage or doesn’t. i’ve seen first graders more desicive when picking crayon colors

  77. bryana says

    i think senator barack obama is just covering all of his bases. he doesn’t really have a position and doesn’t want to seem to much on one side of the issue. either he agrees with gay marriage or doesn’t. i’ve seen first graders more desicive when picking crayon colors