« HRC Responds to Accusations of Candidate Bias During Primaries |
Main
| Same-Sex Marriage Legal in California »
06/16/2008
As CA Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage, Obama's Position is Unchanged
In an interview which aired this evening on ABC World News, Jake Tapper asked Barack Obama whether he was bothered by California's legalization of same-sex marriage today.
Obama said "no," but reiterated his position that it's a matter best left to the states, affirming that he is in favor of civil unions.
I've clipped it, AFTER THE JUMP...
Posted 7:28 PM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, California, Gay Marriage, News | 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.
Way to sit on the fence there Barack. Or should I say Barry!
Posted by: chicken shit supposed liberal | Jun 16, 2008 7:37:17 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CWAWSoQeBbQ
mccain opposed to even civil unions
CSSL
You take what you can get and fight on as vs getting NOTHING from mcshame
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 16, 2008 7:47:00 PM
Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary!
Posted by: Bud | Jun 16, 2008 7:50:45 PM
And her hubby gave us DOMA. Good riddance.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 16, 2008 7:54:10 PM
I'm with JIMMYBOYO!
Posted by: JP | Jun 16, 2008 7:55:15 PM
I have no problem with Barack Obama’s saying what he needs to say to get elected (not coming out in favor of marriage equality because it would lose him votes), but let’s not pretend that he is anything but a run-of-the-mill politician (i.e., no better in this regard than Hillary Clinton, despite many Obama supporters’ claims that he is some sort of “new leader”).
Posted by: jmg | Jun 16, 2008 7:56:17 PM
;-)
JP
Warning though, I'm a known crazy person
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 16, 2008 7:57:00 PM
And yet my vote remains...unchanged.
To be honest--and I know I'm going to get slaughtered for this--the marriage issue isn't the most important thing in the world to me. Being able to marry legally anywhere in the country isn't going to magically solve all our problems. In fact, it might even present a few new problems we haven't even thought about. If "traditional" hetero-marriages have taught us anything it's that marriage is most definitely NOT a cure-all.
That said, I congratulate those marrying in California today and those who've already gotten married in Massachusetts. Good luck and best wishes in your partnerships/marriages.
Posted by: Chas | Jun 16, 2008 8:00:55 PM
Was he supposed to change his position all of a sudden? He always said the states should handle the issue and that's exactly what California did.
Andy, what was the point of posting this story? I know you want to present "fair and balanced" reporting but this story is pointless and will only encourage more moronic comments.
Posted by: soulbrotha | Jun 16, 2008 8:10:53 PM
IMHO, we gays should leave well-enough alone in regards to Sen. Obama and fight for marriage rights on the state level.
helping us out here in CA to defeat the anti-marriage amendment this November would go a looooong way toward making the right to marry possible in every state in the union. let's think big picture.
baby steps, people. baby steps.
btw, i voted for Clinton in the primary, and i'm psyched about supporting Obama in the general.
and if any of you think Sen. Clinton would have said anything different from what Sen. Obama said, you're fooling yourselves.
Posted by: buzz | Jun 16, 2008 8:31:58 PM
No, but Hillary represents old politics and Obama doesn't...or does he? That's the point. This belief he is anything other than an opportunist will lead to many disappointed voters before it is said and done.
And McCain supports a state's right to determine. So regardless of whether he personally supports civil unions marriage or nothing, technically he has ZERO difference on this issue than Obama. If a state chose to ban civil unions, gay marriage or any such relationship in legal standing, Barack Obama would according to his own words support the state's right to do that.
Please stop trying to paint his stand on this as anything different than any other Democrat (and many, many Republicans) or as anything progressive. It isn't and neither is he.
Posted by: Banne | Jun 16, 2008 8:58:46 PM
So if we had national recognition of civil unions, then gay married/unionized couples would get the federal benefits of marriage (social security, joint filing, etc.) wherever they live, even in states that don't recognize gay relationships, right?
Posted by: Milton | Jun 16, 2008 9:05:49 PM
I attended a private meeting with Obama sponsored by the NH Freedom to Marry group: "He believed that couples in civil unions should have the same rights that heterosexual married couples have. He would not push for same-sex marriage because the country was not ready for it and that the issue would be the lightning rod (source's words) that Republicans would use to rally opposition to his campaign. Martin Luther King was attacked by some black people because he was not pushing for an end to miscegenation first. King felt that equal voting rights was more important and that he did not want an end to miscegenation to cause the defeat of the rest of the civil rights agenda."
http://nh2008.blogspot.com/2007/12/obama-meets-with-nh-freedom-to-marry.html
Obama thus wants full marriage equality. IT might not be as much as we want, but it is a start.
Posted by: Putney | Jun 16, 2008 9:22:13 PM
Thanks Banne for smacking that nail firmly on its head.
I supported Clinton and now fully support Obama, but Hillary was scorched by commenters here regarding gay marriage when their positions were basically the same. Neither was for federal gay marriage.
Now we're supposed to A. accept whatever we can or B. never discuss the issue lest it hurt Obama's chances.
Unreal. I'll never vote for McCain and again will proudly vote Obama this November but the hope and change crowd really needs to come down to earth and accept Barack as a man who IS a POLITICIAN.
Some antibiotics for raging cases of Clinton Derangement Syndrome some still suffer from wouldn't hurt either.
Posted by: Marco | Jun 16, 2008 9:23:31 PM
"And McCain supports a state's right to determine. So regardless of whether he personally supports civil unions marriage or nothing, technically he has ZERO difference on this issue than Obama."
Wrong. There IS a difference. McCain also supports the right of CA voters to overturn the Supreme Court decision, something their Republican governor does not support, nor does Obama. McCain does not support Civil Unions, unlike Obama. He supported the failed right-wing amendment in his home state, AZ.
Obama is not perfect on this issue and deserves criticism, but to say that McCain is his equal on gay rights issues, including marriage, is utter bullshit. Furthermore, the President has a bully pulpit, and in this respect Obama is clearly on our side, while McCain is both uncomfortable and incoherent when anything to do with gay rights comes up.
Posted by: Ernie | Jun 16, 2008 9:31:31 PM
This is the politics of hope... change at which we can roll our eyes.
Posted by: Ian | Jun 16, 2008 9:36:53 PM
Hillary Clinton was much more pro-gay agenda than Obama. There is no comparison and we are now stuck with these results: he's better than the republicans. But make no mistake, Hillary would have done more for us.
Posted by: gay agenda candidate: that would have been Hillary | Jun 16, 2008 9:44:48 PM
Ernie is right. There is a difference between McCain and Barack on this issue. my earlier response makes it sound like there isn't.
There is and that's why he gets my vote this fall. Just wanted to be clear.
Posted by: Marco | Jun 16, 2008 9:49:03 PM
BS
Banne
Mccain fought hard AGAINST civil unions in AZ
He has publicly stated he is 100% opposed to civil unions.
he has promised to appoint arch conservative supreme court judges in the line of scalia.
Stop the BS express
Obama's and Clinton's pro civil union support and those Obama will appoint and Hillary would have apointed to the supreme court makes ther stands 100% progresive compared to what we have now and what mccain offers = nothing but opposition
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jun 16, 2008 9:52:12 PM
BUD, please, enlighten us as to each and every difference between Hillary's and Obama's official position on the marriage issue.
Let it goooo bubba.
Posted by: Zeke | Jun 16, 2008 9:58:53 PM
Sorry BANNIE but you are wrong. There is a HUGE difference between Obama and McCain on the issue of marriage equality.
Obama is supportive of states passing full marriage. He said he supported what the Supreme Court in CA did.
McSame on the other hand completely supports state amendments that ban not only marriage but civil unions and domestic partnerships. He ran his own commercial in support of the all inclusive AZ amendment and told a town hall crowd that if he were a state legislator in New Hampshire, he would vote against any state civil union legislation.
I'm sorry if those positions look the same to you but you either have to be incredibly ignorant of the fact of the issue or incredibly out of touch with reality to see those two positions as essentially the same.
Posted by: Zeke | Jun 16, 2008 10:07:30 PM
I must disagree with Obama's position. It is not best left up to the states. Here in California (and every other state) we have to pay a special "Gay Tax" on our family health care benefits every paycheck because the federal government (read IRS) does not recognize civil unions. This will continue even after we are married again. Separate is not equal.
Posted by: Butch | Jun 16, 2008 10:12:27 PM
His position is no different than Hilary's. I don't see what the big deal is, we all know any (competitive) Democrat presidential candidate is going to say this in order to get elected, despite what they might truly believe.
Obama isn't for full marriage (yet). Neither was Clinton (yet). Let's move on from this.
Posted by: Tyler | Jun 16, 2008 11:03:49 PM
Well... I like the quick no and little smile at the end, at least. ("Does it bother you?")
We deserve a candidate who vigorously defends our full equality--but Kucinich and Gravel both lost.
I'm not rushing to get out my checkbook for this guy, but I'm sure as hell voting for him.
Posted by: Sportin' Life | Jun 16, 2008 11:24:25 PM
Yet another candidate who will do anything to get elected. Even if that means espousing views that run counter to what you believe in. Oh yeah, Hillary might have done the same but isn't this the "change" candidate who will do things differently? Thanks for drinking the Obama/Oprah Kool Aid Dems and voting for a person who will have a much more difficult job getting elected.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 16, 2008 11:26:32 PM