Comments

  1. says

    There is no defense for Obama’s position. Separate is NOT equal. Never has been. Never will be. That he is defending this position of un-equality is a shame. I hope the irony will not be lost on future generations. “Fierce advocate” indeed!

  2. joe says

    How very courageous of President Obama to split hairs, parse words, and make politically mealy-mouthed policy hedges. I expected more from a man who undoubtedly experienced serious discrimination in his life…

  3. Kevin says

    I agree there is no defense for his position. Civil unions are biased – period!

    Someone in the NY Times this morning commented noting the difference between ‘secular marriage’ and ‘holy matrimony’. This is where the hairs should be split. We don’t want ‘holy matrimony’ — no one is asking for the church to sanction anything, they have no say in this.

  4. says

    If that was the defense, it FAILED, again. (The dimwitted interviewer didn’t help matters.) I suggest they all sit down with Judge Walker’s decision and then try to refute it. Good luck.

    How refreshing it would be if Axlerod could just quit the bullshit and say: President Obama’s opinion is entirely formed by the perceived political ramifications of it.

  5. veg says

    Andy, I know you were just quoting when you wrote “The question remains — in a nation where ‘all men are created equal'”, but that phrase is itself problematic because it excludes women. If we are going to critique the president about parsing words and contradictions then you must be vigilant about our own words. Update your language and say “women and men.” Revise the quotation.

    I think that sometimes we should distinguish between our private beliefs and what we know is right for the nation. Privately, I really don’t care about marriage or monogamous relationships with the women that I date. But, publicly I think marriage equality is extremely important for those who want it.

    Could it be that some people feel the same way? Can you be a private Christian and a public progressive?

  6. Arthur says

    I never thought I’d see the day when I wrote this, but I think I prefer the brand of bigotry that’s served up by the overtly anti-gay crowd. At least their intentions are clear. These people currently in power turn my stomach, not because there’s anything new about their tactics but because I expected – naively – so much more.

  7. Pete says

    Obama placates gays, he has no innetion of meeting his promises with the muster he gave for healthcare, or finicial regulation, or his other pet causes. Executive orders are worthless.

    @Arthur – I agree, at least Republicans look us in the eye when they fuck us. We know where they stand and we know what to expect. I am deeply disappointed by this administrations promise of “change”. My $$$’s have dried up for dems and groups like the HRC, who promise to fight for our rights…one issue at a time.

  8. Liz says

    I no longer care how obama feels about gay marriage/equality. i voted for him thinking “just maayyyybe it will be different this time…” but nope.

    next time i vote, you’re either for FULL ASS equality or not. if not, dont expect my damn vote again

  9. says

    ” . . . at least Republicans look us in the eye when they fuck us.”

    They also look us in the eye when they appoint Supreme Court justices, whose opinions will matter long after Obama’s contradictions on marriage bite the dust. Big picture, boys and girls.

  10. lis says

    Any presidential candidate that fully comes out in favour of gay marriage won’t get elected, and he knew that. It still stands true. The country as a whole is not willing to accept it yet.

    They will be, and we need to work as hard we can to get them there.

  11. alguien says

    i’m actually in favor of civil unions for everybody-whether it’s same sex or those pesky “opposite marriages.”

    you can’t get married in a church without a piece of paper from city hall anyhow so why not let the churches have their marriages. that way, everyone gets the same legal status, there’s a seperation of church & state and, since there exist numerous churches that will join same sex partners, the whole “marriage” aspect can be between the couple & their religious institution.

  12. jaymax says

    Alguien has it right…that is the path we should all be taking.

    However, until civil unions (or marriage) applies to EVERYONE equally, it is nothing more than matrimonial apartheid. Obama of all people should understand that concept.

    I’ve voted overwhelmingly Democratic all of my voting life, however, the Dems now have to earn my vote…no more free passes from me at the voting booth.

  13. InExile says

    Who knows what his position is on marriage or anything else!!! Sending mixed messages is his specialty so people can paint the picture they want to see of his views just like election 2008. Many people were fooled by him in 2008 which most likely will not happen in 2012. Same goes for his promises which we all know now do not mean much.

  14. alguien says

    why thank you jaymax! i was expecting to have the crap beat outta me over that post! but i see it as the truly rational way to approach the issue.

    of course the NOMMERS will still try to fight it but they probably wouldn’t have a leg to stand on at that point.

  15. Sean says

    I realize the symbolic importance many of you seem to place on Obama’s stepping up for full equality, and I do believe that it would likely sway some minds in the citizenry, but, do any of you believe that any of that would have ANY effect on the Gang of Four (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts)? And I doubt that Kennedy cares for a moment what BHO thinks. The pres. is on the wrong side of history here, but of course four more years is his primary goal. Stop waiting for a fairy tale ending…give your $$$ to AFER.org and help them get ‘er done!

  16. jaymax says

    @Alguien. Aside from being gay, I’m very liberal. The vast majority of my friends (gay or straight) think civil unions is the way go to for EVERYONE, and that the gay community is doing itself a disservice and making this fight 10x more difficult by ignoring the very valid religious aspect to marriage.

    By implementing civil unions for all, and getting the State out of the marriage business, you completely negate 99% of the opposition to gay marriage. We could then achieve what we’ve been fighting for very, very quickly.

  17. Sean says

    @Jaymax – good luck getting that through 40+ state legistlatures that don’t already have equality in marriage or domestic partnerships/civil unions. The fight is happening now, Perry v. if you’ve not heard, and we are winning – go AFER! Marriage IS a civil (state sponsored) right – you wanna priest or rabbi involved, take your pick. If not, get a JOP or “officiant for a day.”

  18. sonofabutch says

    “President Obama’s opinion is entirely formed by the perceived political ramifications of it”

    IMHO this part of Ernie’s comment is the gist of things but what gets me is it’s like some of us are acting like we don’t know or understands this…

    To me it’s kind of like the bee I get in my bonnet over the scenario of an athiest who has the better qualifications and ability over his opponents to run this country as president would then be asked the question about religious values and belief in God…if he or she answers honestly why do I get the feeling that bid for the office would be over at that point? Like i’m so sure there aren’t any non-belivers on Capitol Hill…

  19. Brian in Texas says

    The reason why its important to keep voting for democrats is SUPREME COURT JUSTICES as well as other judicial appointments. Our rights will ultimately be decided in the courts. As slow as they move they move with light speed compared to Congress.

    If Mccain would have won we would have had two moderate liberal to liberal justices replaced with right wing CONSERVATIVE justices. Then we’d really be fucked.

  20. Mike B. says

    On one hand, it’s the political reality, on the other hand, the President helps to shape political reality. I’m disappointed at how little the President has taken to being a leader of the people and a shaper of thoughts.

  21. Mike B. says

    @Jaymax: That’s just a lie you tell yourself. Get out in the world and you’ll see that homophobes aren’t going to be satisfied with civil unions (see, e.g. Hawaii, Washington). And neither should we, frankly. I don’t care if you call it civil marriage, but the notion that marriage is a religious institution fails to account for the fact that women are no longer property of their fathers and servants of their husbands. That is what traditional Christian religious marriage is, and you cannot accept the two-faced idea that it would all be okay if only we accepted civil unions.

  22. Arthur says

    I agree with the comment about staying focused on the big picture. I made my earlier comment in a moment of frustration. But, speaking of, does anyone have a clear idea of where the woman about to be confirmed to the court stands on anything? I’ve read a lot about her and listened to lots of commentary for and against, and the only consensus seems to be that she hasn’t taken much of a stance on anything. If I’ve missed something I hope someone comments on it. I’d like to know.

  23. TANK says

    David Axelrod spinning his bosses inconsistent position on gay marriage to somehow accomodate both sides of his mouth that he’s talking out of?

    “I’m all for black rights…I just don’t believe in desegregation…because god’s in the mix, ya know?”

    David Axelrod looks like carl from aqua team hunger force. He’s no one you can trust unless you’re paying him to consult on a campaign.

  24. Mark aka Ranchdad says

    I’m disgusted with Obama and the Democratic Party. I was a registered Democrat since I turned 18 and could vote – 28 years ago. I now refuse to give them any more money and have switched to an independent. In California we still get to pick a party to vote in primaries so I can have influence.

    But I’m sick of their promises, which are all made with their hand out for campaigns contributions, but then the LGBT community is told to shut up and go sit in the back of the bus and wait..wait..wait….

  25. Joe says

    Obama is indeed a politician, speaking out of both sides of his mouth. At some point though you can’t have it both ways when it comes to discrimination and civil rights. He’s on the wrong side of history and he knows it.

    Unfortunately, what was my alternative? Palin and McCain? Forget it. We are stuck with Obama for now. He’s an anti-gay president, like all the previous ones. Hope. Ha. Ha.

  26. Zlick says

    I’m not in favor of slavery, just in black people doing my laundry, cooking my meals, washing my car, and attending to my every need without pay, under threat of the lash. Is that parsing enough for you, Mr. First Black President? You disgust me.

  27. jaymax says

    @Mike B. No need to get your panties in a twist over this. I have and continue support gay marriage, and recognize it as a civil right. I just think there is a great argument for 100% civil unions for everyone and leaving marriage to the churches/synagogues/temples/mosques.

  28. TANK says

    A great argument? Are you out of your mind? Marriage is a contractual arrangement with certain benefits and obligations enforced by a government. It’s not a religious “institution” at all as evidenced by teh fact that no religion has a monopoly on it or the ability to enforce or dissolve that contract. And you’re never going to convince people to forgo marriage for civil unions in the u.s (for what?)…that’s rubbish…so this is navel gazing idealism.

    And second, as has been clearly demonstrated…the name doesn’t matter…that’s a smokescreen. It will be opposed by the bigots regardless of what it’s called, because their reasoning demands that we not exist at all. Hawaii proved that.

    So this is a horrible argument to “leave marriage for religion” and make it all civil unions…horrendous…and how you can see otherwise says a lot about you.

  29. DickHawaiiKai says

    Alexrod is a schmuck, and Obama has been pretty disappointing so far, but I hope he reads Judge Walker’s decision — brilliantly written — and comes to see that this really is a matter of due process and equal protection. A SCOTUS decision that LGTB people deserve to be treated equally, period, would be momentous.

  30. says

    Tank does know what he’s talking about re: CUs. He’s absolutely right.

    Why, SUDDENLY, are we all about CUs for everyone, la di da?! We weren’t talking about it before gay people wanted in. But now that the possibility of civil marriage equality is in sight, people are scrambling to find a new way to make sure gay couples can’t have it, before we’ve even gotten it! And gay people are buying into this nonsense.

    There is no rational basis to exclude gay couples from marriage. READ Judge Walker’s decision. All the objections are tackled, one by one, and dismissed. Religion is dismissed more quickly than most.

    When we have civil marriage equality, churches will remain free to offer religious ceremonies to whichever couples they chose. Their rights will not be infringed upon. Ours currently are.

    If you really believe it should be CUs for everyone, then start convincing straight people to tear up their marriage licenses and sign on to CUs, because that’s what it will take. Otherwise, it’s a two-tiered, separate and unequal system, and guess who’s the second tier? There’s nothing complicated about civil marriage equality for everyone. President Obama is playing politics with it; we don’t have to. Religion does not own marriage.

  31. RED DEVIL says

    FUCK YOU OBAMA……Girls once again are funny and Miss Tank once again makes her 1,000,000 post here on Towleroad…FAGGOT GET A JOB! there are no black rights you vile idiot.

    But kids when we have President Hillary Clinton who will do the same fucking thing to us!

    But lets see how you all will respond to her..

    *crickets*

Leave A Reply