2012 Election | Barack Obama | David Axelrod | Gay Marriage | Lawrence O'Donnell | News

Obama Strategist David Axelrod Defends President's Position Opposing Marriage Equality: VIDEO


On last night's The LaSt Word, Lawrence O'Donnell used gay and lesbian dissatisfaction with Obama's position opposing marriage equality as a jumping off point for coverage of progressive disappointment at the President's agenda.

Asks O'Donnell: "Is there something that could happen in the next 12 months that could publicly change what is Obama's public position on marriage equality?"

Said Axelrod: "I'm not climbing into the PResident's head here and telling you what he thinks vs what he says. I think he's made very clear his view that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to their legal rights...I'm not going to project ahead and consider hypotheticals...."


Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Religion is never a valid ground for legal, scientific, civic, or civil procedures.

    Religion is fiction not fact.

    It is based on made up myths that WHOLLY lack any form of competitive evidence.

    For example, there is absolutely no hard scientific evidence that the words in either part of the Bible are the decrees of a god.

    There's no factual evidence for Moses, Noah, or any of the myths. No one has EVER proved the existence of one specific Jesus or that he actually rose from the dead.

    Religion is conjecture and hearsay that people choose (for whatever reason) to believe in.

    So why are civic and legal entities basing their views of same-sex marriage equality on religion.

    Why is the president--the civic leader of the land--basing his views of ANYTHING that has to do with constitutional rights on religion?

    It is stunningly ignorant and a reflection of true political venality.

    States will actually make money--millions!--in fees for licenses and other costs from these new marrying folks?

    If the president or anyone bases their views of a civil and tax-based procedure on religion than they are just as ignorant and hateful as the American Family Association.

    Posted by: brenda | Jun 21, 2011 10:00:19 AM

  2. Yesterday a religious woman on my job was "preaching" against marriage equality. A co-worker attempted to argue with this religious woman. I stepped in and said to the co-worker that I'm not a lawyer, but I got this. I. Got. This.

    Here's what I said.

    The first amendment of the constitution says the following in regards to religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

    If any American governmental entity makes laws like DOMA that invoke religious understandings of so called "naural law" to deny anyone the rights that others enjoy then they are "respecting an establishment of religion."

    Therefore, DOMA is unconstitutional because it clearly violates the first amendment.

    Marriage equality for LGBT people *does not* "[prohibit] the free exercise [of religion]."

    Religious folks are NOT getting their right to marry taken away.

    They can still practice their religion.

    But religious folks cannot dictate how others practice their ways of life or the rights that others enjoy.

    There is no constitutional right for religious people to violate the rights of others.

    Everyone should enjoy the same rights and privileges. Period.

    Posted by: brenda | Jun 21, 2011 10:18:44 AM

  3. THANK YOU, BRENDA. Such an astute and accurate response to both the current situation in your country and to the religious fascist in your workplace.
    I am cheering you here in Canada.

    Posted by: John Freeman | Jun 21, 2011 10:44:09 AM

  4. That was a threat from Axelrod. Yes, of course I'll vote for Obama.
    But rubbing it in my face so does not motivate me to open my purse or spend one second volunteering to help his campaign.
    They are still treating us a silly children. Worse, they still believe that we are too few in number to be of any value.
    Not that civil rights really matter to them, anyway.

    Posted by: Dirk | Jun 21, 2011 10:46:16 AM

  5. Logic and facts > religion

    Posted by: Jeff | Jun 21, 2011 10:51:47 AM

  6. @DIRK:
    I don't think the re-election campaign cares if you donate or not. I think in 2009 when Rahm Emanuel threw progressive under the proverbial bus the admin saw that it would have to get all its money from Wall Street and the like. Thus, making all us little people not as politically important.

    Posted by: DLRnATL | Jun 21, 2011 12:16:31 PM

  7. If Obama not supporting marriage equality is political calculation, I have to wonder why I announced his "evolution" so early. That was, what, almost a year ago? From a political standpoint, he probably should have waited until this year, and then stopped defending DOMA even later than that. Don't get me wrong, I guess you could say I'm glad he's "evolving" and I am glad he stopped defending DOMA, but if he's waiting until he's reelected before he comes out in support of marriage equality, he got a while to wait. In the meantime he really doesn't have any bones left to toss at us with regards to gay rights (except certification of DADT repeal). I think the LGBT community will get extremely impatient with him over the next year, seeing that it's only take four months for us to essentially forget that he stopped defending DOMA, a very bold step for him to take.

    Posted by: Matthew | Jun 21, 2011 2:03:36 PM

  8. "he" not "I" at the beginning of line 2. *sigh* typos...

    Posted by: Matthew | Jun 21, 2011 2:05:37 PM

  9. Here we go again, with the threats from the Democrats, essentially "you have to vote for us, or else!" The people who should be concerned are Obama and his administration, not LGBT voters.

    And how is Obama's position "evolving"? From what to what? The only two positions I'm aware of are his 1996 support for full marriage equality, and his more recent statements against marriage equality, and in favor of civil unions (I assume he means recognizing state civil unions at the federal level, and requiring states to recognize each other's civil unions).

    Posted by: Randy | Jun 22, 2011 2:15:51 AM

Post a comment


« «Judge Rules Wisconsin Domestic Partnerships Constitutional, Don't 'Remotely Resemble' Rights of Marriage« «