01/13/2009
Chicago Paper Reveals Obama's Early Support for Same-Sex Marriage
After research in its archives, the Windy City Times uncovered copies of Outlines newspaper and an IMPACT survey which were published in 1996 and summarized in various news articles during the final weeks of the 2008 presidential campaign. The articles, which contain quotes related to Obama's position on same-sex marriage, have been revealed in a Windy City Times article:
"During his run for Illinois state Senate in 1996, Barack Obama stated his unequivocal support for gay marriage, according to an exclusive story in the Jan. 14, 2009 Windy City Times newspaper. President-elect Obama's answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: 'I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.' There was no use of the phrase 'civil unions'. [Outlines purchased Windy City Times in 2000 and merged companies.] This answer is among those included in this week's Windy City Times feature on Obama's evolving position on gay marriage. Windy City Times also includes his answers to the candidate questionnaire of IMPACT, at one time a gay political action committee in Illinois. In that survey he also stated his support of same-sex marriage."
Obama now says, and said during his campaign for president, that he supports civil unions for gays and lesbians but believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He also believes in letting states decide whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized.
Download a PDF of the issue here.
Obama changed views on gay marriage [windy city times]
Posted 5:23 PM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Chicago, 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.
"God is in the mix!"
Posted by: JohnInManhattan | Jan 13, 2009 5:29:30 PM
This is exactly what I would have expected. Obama has never articulated a plausible rationale for why he doesn't support same-sex marriage. He has vaguely alluded to religion as the source of his hangup, which makes no sense from a man who understands the barrier between church and state. So this article makes clear what I always thought: Obama DOES (on the inside) support gay marriage, but Obama-as-Candidate-for-President couldn't openly support such a politically costly position. I can't fault him for that. He couldn't do anything to help the LGBT community without winning the presidency, and supporting same-sex marriage could have cost him that office. Now let's hope he lives up to his potential - and perhaps we will "come around" and advance same-sex marriage once he wins a second term.
Posted by: Dustin | Jan 13, 2009 5:50:22 PM
@ Dustin
POLITICS!
Get a grip.
I said this before on sites, do you NEVER think in the longterm??
Posted by: Rowan | Jan 13, 2009 5:55:12 PM
Rowan you're an ignorant person,so put your foot back in ur mouth and shut the fuck up
Posted by: DJ | Jan 13, 2009 6:05:44 PM
Honestly, we all deserve better from our leaders than to "backtrack" on issues just to be elected. Like the above poster, I completely understand why politicians do it -- but Obama was supposed to be above politics as usual. A real leader would stand behind his positions no matter how "politically costly" they might be.
I hope great changes happen under an Obama administration, but I think it's awfully disingenuous to force the same-sex marriage issue to the background until a possible second term, when he has nothing to lose by supporting it.
Posted by: D.B. | Jan 13, 2009 6:12:00 PM
Politicians backtrack - it's the nature of the beast. They very often criss-cross back over those tracks and return to Go. So I'll expect that in the course of his first term, he'll move to the left on this issue - like many others - again. Not being optimistic, not being pessimistic. Just being pragmatic.
Posted by: Jay | Jan 13, 2009 6:13:38 PM
This is just the start of backtracking if he follows the pattern created by other IL politicians. I hope Obama does not infect the nation with "Chicago type" politics.
Posted by: 2nd Class Citizen | Jan 13, 2009 6:32:41 PM
I find it funny he says he opposes Same-Sex marriage because of his Religion. The United Church of Christ Marries Gay Couples, does no-one realise this?
Posted by: Occono | Jan 13, 2009 6:35:47 PM
D.B. - disingenuous, but incredibly shrewd. Everyone saves their pet projects and controversial stuff for 2nd term. Except Bush, it seems...
Posted by: John | Jan 13, 2009 6:35:58 PM
A politician's positions on any issues that they are passionate about morph in direct correlation to his viability for higher, better paying offices.
B. Clinton made all kinds of promises during his campaign, then the first things he does is sign DADT & DOMA... and then he cheats on his wife and blows his load on The Dress as a shout-out to his evangelical supporters.
GLBTs are a shameful resource for politicians. They need us to get elected. They don't need us to stay in office. (It's MUCH harder to get thrown OUT of office than it is to get thrown in to office.)
GLBTs are so desperate for justice and equality that we fall for every politician that promises it to us, regardless of the fact that nothing they ever say materializes after the election.
Like it or not, America is a corporation. And like all corporations, the two or three majority stockholders will get infinitely more attention and concessions than the millions and millions and millions and millions of minority stockholders.
Posted by: MikeinSanJose | Jan 13, 2009 6:37:55 PM
Some politicians have personal beliefs and policy positions that are different, simple as that. I don't think they have to be the same, and indeed, I frequently wish they weren't. As an example, Joe Biden is personally opposed to abortion, but has a pro-choice policy position. I suspect many politicians feel the same way about same-sex marriage.
As for the wacko right-wing crazies who think their personal (i.e. religious) beliefs SHOULD be public policy, I wish they'd all fall in a hole. We all be a lot better off if those people kept their personal beliefs to themselves and enacted public policy that was fair-minded and not religiously-based.
Posted by: Asher | Jan 13, 2009 6:44:12 PM
No one can claim to be surprised by this, nor by the fact that a gay paper waited until after his election to reveal it. Clearly at least some of its staff recalled the contents of an interview from a dozen years ago where the current presidential candidate said he supported same-sex marriage. But as everyone has noted, it could have cost him the election.
And there's no frigging way anyone can claim that Hillary Clinton doesn't support same-sex marriage. Or even Dianne Feinstein.
Posted by: Paul R | Jan 13, 2009 6:51:29 PM
"And there's no frigging way anyone can claim that Hillary Clinton doesn't support same-sex marriage. "
Um, I don't have a link but I'm almost certain she has stated "Marriage is between a Man and a Woman" at least once or twice, and not in a pragmatic saying-otherwise-will-lose-me-votes way.
Posted by: occono | Jan 13, 2009 6:58:52 PM
He can't support gay marriage b/c it'd be political suicide, sadly. The conservative churches would stop their feet and cry and spit blood. When Obama wins his second term and is safe, I hope he comes out publicly in favor of marriage equality.
Posted by: KFLO | Jan 13, 2009 7:04:19 PM
Or at least we won't, Paul R, if you kindly direct us to a citation of somewhere where Hillary or Feinstein said so—on the record.
Do get back to us when you have that proof of support.
Posted by: 24play | Jan 13, 2009 7:08:15 PM
I support Obama, and hope that he brings badly needed change to our nation.
BUT, I am constantly amazed at how easily many in the LGBT community accept his less-than-committed support. Sure, it may be politically shrewd or pragmatic, but it's certainly not brave.
Posted by: D.B. | Jan 13, 2009 7:19:48 PM
It's more than a little frightening that Obama's evolution on same-sex marriage is backward.
Posted by: Bob | Jan 13, 2009 7:30:39 PM
It's more than a little frightening that Obama's evolution on same-sex marriage is backward.
Posted by: Bob | Jan 13, 2009 7:32:33 PM
God you people are political masterminds. I can't imagine why none of you are running campaigns. Geniuses all of you.
*note sarcasm*
Posted by: Lance | Jan 13, 2009 7:38:53 PM
It's business as usual. The next time we hear anything about gay rights out of the President Elect will be when he is running for his second term.
Posted by: chris mitchell | Jan 13, 2009 8:12:23 PM
"There was no use of the phrase 'civil unions'"
Of course there wasn't! Nobody used the phrase until they were invented in Vermont in 2000 -- four years after the interview! But that very invention allowed a lot of people a kind of out: aha, now we can give all the rights, but not use that sacred word "marriage." And it quickly became the fall-back position. In 1996 nobody talked about anything but marriage. Domestic partnerships were something only companies granted, not a civil status sanctioned by the state. Once there was a new word, though, it could be used for "compromise."
I'm glad this came out. I see no particular problem with backtracking for political purposes -- as long as the administration makes good on its promise to make gay and lesbian couples equal under the law. Eventually they will have to realize that the only real way to do that is through marriage. It will take time, but if we get Civil Unions recognized Federally and DOMA repealed in the meantime, OK.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jan 13, 2009 8:13:00 PM
Let's not forget that Al Gore said that he did not support marriage equality when he was running for president but came out in favor of it after the election was stolen from him.
Howard Dean stated clearly during his presidential campaign for the Democratic Nomination that he supported civil unions but DID NOT support marriage equality yet not too long after his campaign was over he stated that he supported full marriage equality.
I have no doubt that Obama is telling the truth when he says his religious belief guides him on this issue however I don't think he's telling the truth about what his real position is. I feel certain that he, just like his denomination, the United Church of Christ, actually supports full marriage equality but he won't admit it until it's politically expedient. Unfortunately I don't think that will happen until possibly late in his second term if it happens at all before he leaves office. It will happen.
I just wish he would use his incredible orratory skills to find a better way to make his case so that he doesn't come off sounding like he's selling the anti gay marriage snake oil poison.
Posted by: Joe | Jan 13, 2009 8:30:15 PM
Shaddup and send a check.
Posted by: Barry Obamuh | Jan 13, 2009 9:12:21 PM
Sorry, Occono and 24Play, I left out the words "in private" when referring to the views of Clinton and Feinstein.
I thought that was clear from the arc of the discussion on political hypocrisy. Sorry about that.
Posted by: Paul R | Jan 13, 2009 10:04:17 PM
The MOST unvetted president in history! We do not know much about Obama as he has been vague and provided NO details during his campaign. The media got him elected our crown prince and the LBGT community supported him for his principles. Wait, he is not really on our side.
Obama is a master politician. He flip/flops more than anyone outside the Kenedy clan and is NOT for gay marriage! He said himself that marriage is between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN! My God, people, open your eyes! HIS words and yet so many of us believe that he is our saviour. Give me a break.
Obama may turn out to be a decent pres, only because he will govern from the prospective of the polls, but inside his soul we were the sacrificial lambs of his campaign. Obama, president, on the backs of the LGBT community! NO, I did not drink the dem koolaid, I do not believe him and I did not vote for Obama. For those that did, good luck with that!
Posted by: RB | Jan 13, 2009 10:47:38 PM