1. Wayne says


  2. Rick Bushnell MD says

    Pres. Obama will get my vote in the next election. Wether or not he gets some of my money depends on him coming through on marriage equality.

  3. Zlick says

    Nice recap of the issue. I just don’t understand the cowardice at this point. If the White House is afraid of the publicity on this (surely they don’t think he’d lose any actual votes), then they should be made to realize there’s going to be publicity either way. So kudos to Anderson Cooper and every reporter who brings this up. (And if marriage equality is lost by a hair in NY while Obama’s position remains unevolved, that’s gonna be a black eye for the president in the minds of many.)

  4. John says

    @ Mateus – You’re exactly right. He wants to get re-elected and we should want him too. The alternative would be a major setback. Remember, he’s a politian first.

  5. Kevin Thor says

    Obama the wrong man at the right time. I prob will not vote for this boob. He is like a player on the TV “reality” show Survivor. He is lying to so many people about so many different things. We as gay peole backed this putz over Hilary now we are reaping the rewards of an inexperienced man who has never in his like had to run anything.
    He disgusts me.

  6. Jason Young says

    Obama needs to come out in support of Marriage Equality. I’m trying to figure out who he thinks he will lose by changing his position. Anyone who strongly opposes marriage equality probably won’t vote for him anyway, for most independents it is an issue of secondary importance either way, and it would re-energize his base which he needs desperately. I see nothing but positives for him changing his position.

    I would not have said that a year ago. The country has moved rapidly in support of this issue and that momentum appears to be picking up speed. I didn’t vote for Obama last time (voted third party) but if he came out in support of marriage equality I definitely would this time. Heck I might even consider campaigning for him because having full equality before the law for all people is that important.

    Obama has several ways to go about this change. He can say that he has read the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial brief and that as a Constitutional law professor he can no longer justify his position from a legal standpoint. That while he still has religious reservations about it that he has come to realize that he was inadvertently forcing his beliefs on others in contradiction to one of America’s proudest traditions of freedom of religious expression and freedom. He should say that the arc of history moves toward equality and justice and that this is an issue whose time has come for all Americans across the political spectrum by pointing to all of the Republicans who now support marriage equality. He should invite all Americans to support equal legal rights for all citizens and if they do not agree to please read the legal brief that convinced him of the rightness of his newfound position.

    He should do this before the fundraiser in New York or sometime in July. Preferably he could make a few calls to State Senators in New York on the issue but that can’t happen unless he comes out in favor of the issue publicly.

  7. neonzx says

    While recent national polling is showing a slim majority of Americans favoring SSM, this doesn’t translate into winning a Presidential election while holding that view.

    The Presidential election is unique due to the electoral college. Most states are winner-take-all.

    So, you can’t look at national polls but, instead, you need polling of likely voters in the swing states.

    Where does the public stand on SSM in states such as Ohio and Florida?

    Those are issues the President needs to consider prior to coming-out in favor of marriage equality. You can be certain that if he does, the right-wing nutjobs will turn the 2012 election into a national referendum on gay marriage.

  8. says

    That should have read:

    “But to hold that grudge about Hillary’s presidential defeat for years and years, and allowing that bitterness to cause you to vote against your best interest, is silly.”

  9. E.N. says

    I don’t understand why gay Americans are already giving up on Obama, do you all have only short term memory? Have you forgotten what he has done? even if it’s too slow and too little.

    This is like 2010 midterms all over again. Good luck with your next nut job republican president in 2012, let’s just imagine what he or she would do.

    I don’t care if president Obama supports full marriage equality or not, if I was an American I would still vote for him (considering the alternative)

    p.s. just keep in mind part of the president job is to nominate supreme court judges

  10. says

    Ah, an adult conversation about the President’s political dilemma re: marriage equality without resorting to idiotic hyperbole (he’s a homophobe!), misplaced Hillary nostalgia (if only, boohoo), or a debate about the morality of homosexuality. Anderson did a good job with this one. And no Tony Perkins types to provide “balance”. Was this really CNN?

    This is one reason why NY is so important. If equality passes in NY, it really does put pressure on the President. As Cleve says, his window of opportunity is closing. His 2008 views–while no different than Hillary’s and vastly more pro-gay than all Republican contenders aside from Huntsman–seem increasingly antiquated and out-of-step with his base. His God-is-in-the-mix is just flat-out wrong. It’s exactly this type of conversation, paired with state and cultural progress, that will speed up the inevitable evolution towards favoring full equality.

    I only hope the people shelling out the big bucks at the fundraisers are paying attention and applying the appropriate heavy pressure (no agreements about equality support, no $$$$), instead of just being giddy that Obama is in the room with his charm and big smile. With moderate Huntsman’s entrance into the Republican race, Obama can’t coast for ever on vague evolution speak.

  11. BC says

    NeonZX has it right – Obama has to and should calculate. Even a politician with all the right positions and end goals would have to. Gains are incremental, especially in today’s politics. It’s easy to criticize pols for not being idealistic enough and not clearly standing up for what they believe in (or what we hope they believe in) but the reality is we’ll make more progress by being strategic. There’s no point in putting all our strength behind a candidate who projects our ideal positions if that candidate won’t be able to get anything done.

    Our criticisms should incorporate to a large extent whether we think he’s making the right political choices and pushing as far as he’s able rather than just focusing on whether he’s spouting the rhetoric we believe in.

  12. Codswallop says

    I really hate this sort of political positioning and gamesmanship and wish Obama would “step up to the plate,” but at the same time I realize that it’s politically advantageous for him NOT to do so and that in the long term it’s better for the LGBT community that he be reelected than “winning” the temporary victory of the President speaking out for gay marriage.

    I believe it would do little to energize his base, but do plenty to fire up the opposition and bring them to the polls. Face it, even though support for marriage equality has passed the 50% mark for the first time, much of that support is “soft.” Outside the LGBT community and a smallish band of our straight allies, what many of those “supporters” have decided is they don’t care if gays can marry. That’s not at ALL the same thing as stating it’s important to them, a central issue or core principle.

    Contrast that with the Republican Party and its Religious Right base. For decades those people have been fed a diet of fear about some mythic Gay Agenda, the “Destruction of Marriage,” children being taught Sodomy 101 in elementary school, and stories of predatory, rapacious homos. Silly as it all seems to us, those people really believe that stuff and fear is a far better motivator than compassion or justice. Putting marriage equality up-front will bring them out in DROVES.

    Another of Obama’s core constituencies is African Americans and while his support for gay marriage might not send them running to the Republican Party, the conservatism within black churches and the community at large might cause many to stay home on election day, which would be disastrous.

    I’m not willing to trade Obama’s being reelected for the likely Pyrrhic victory of an official statement of support for marriage equality. You can deride what Obama HAS done for the gay community as “not enough” or “heel dragging,” but our community has made great strides in the last 4 years and any Republican who gets on the Presidential ballot will get there at least in part by promising to repeal or undo every one of them. The gay community is in danger of becoming a bunch of spoiled kids pouting over not getting everything they want NOW, then ending up with nothing.

  13. The Iron Orchard says

    More then likely marriage is not going to pass in NY, and if that happens and Obama has said nothing in support of passage in NY it’s going to look really bad for him. As for his evolution during the 2012 campaign, I just think back to his promises during the 2008 campaign, where he didn’t even try to do anything or even bring the issues up after election. In addition to his continuation of the Bush Doctrine, and his clear support on expanded and continous wars, and executive powers I really can’t say that he has my vote. How could I possibly believe anything he says?
    I would also add how amazed I am that during the Bush Presidency how many of us, and the Democrats were shouting in the streets about the illegalities of the Bush White House, but have now turned a blind eye to them as Obama continues and expands on them. Do most Democrats/Liberals believe that it was only unlawful because a Republican was doing it, and now that it’s a Democrat it’s okay? Shouldn’t we hold the people that we vote for to a higher standard? Or do we just vote for someone along party lines regardless of what they actually do?
    These are the questions that run through my head when I think about the upcoming elections.

  14. dms says

    The issue is simple. No politician can win a national election if they support marriage equality.

    Why is that so difficult to understand?

    There are a lot of problems with this country and the alternative is who, Michelle Bachman?

    It’s like saying, no, I don’t want that vaccine because I’m afraid of shots. Then you get polio.

    While marriage equality is important to all of us, I’m actually more concerned about the economy and I fear the economic plans of the right far more than Obama’s wishy washy yet pragmatic approach to the issue. No, it may not be leadership, but with even the left so quick to judge, how can he afford to be brave?

  15. dms says

    BTW, I really find it really annoying that Andy Cooper is questioning Obama on this issue. Why doesn’t he COME OUT ALREADY?!

    He is not out for the same reason Obama is wishy washy. Courting the middle.

    WIth a new show coming up, it’s pragmatic, but to rake Obama over the coals is kinda reprehensible when you are doing it from the closet…

  16. kaccompany says

    If you’re not going to vote for Obama, who in the h*ll are you voting for? Myopic fools, all of you.

    Am I the only one that finds the concept of Anderson Cooper calling ANYONE hypocritical with regard to LGBT issues… well, laughable?

  17. vernon says

    @neonzx: You hit the nail. Guys like Anderson Cooper living in big cities think that’s how the rest of country is. EVERY STATE where same-sex marriage has been on the ballot was defeated! Such a measure will probably be defeated in New York State if it comes up for public vote. Despite what the polling says, people tend to vote their conscience when the curtain closes behind them.

    Ohio, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina are states Obama needs to win and he barely won them( actually lost Missouri) in the last election. His core base –blacks and hispanics–are vehemently anti-gay marriage. In this economy, he doesn’t need any other reason to give some of his core supporters to sit at home. I can wait a year but won’t risk instant gratification for 8 more years of Romney or Bachman.

  18. toto says

    In 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

    All the electoral votes from all the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes– 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

  19. The Milkman says

    Codswallop, that was one of the most succinctly written arguments I’ve seen. I agree with you 100%, but I don’t feel super great about it.

  20. zeta says

    When does A. Cooper come out of the closet, again? And none of that privacy crap, but full on Lance Bass/Neil Patrick Harris cover of People out of the closet. Until then, one hand can’t crap on the other for doing the expedient thing.

  21. Paul R says

    It always amazes and saddens me to see that the majority of comments on Obama by the presumably gay men visiting this site are so negative and childish. It’s like you’ve never taken a basic civics or government or history class and have absolutely zero understanding of how politics works.

    Stamping your feet and voting against your interests or throwing away your vote on a third party? Great idea. It’s like you don’t want the rights you claim to be so incensed about.

  22. ProfessorVP says

    What nobody seems to think- well, except me- is that like most politicians, Obama is neither for nor against marriage equality, he just doesn’t care one way or the other. Merely sticking your foot out the window and see which way the wind is blowing doesn’t mean you think one way or the other, or are thinking at all.

  23. Mah boo says

    He’s accusing Obama on flip flopping on this issue, yet he himself is not supporting the gay cause by hiding in closet. It sends out the message that he is ashamed of being gay and thinks that coming out would hurt his career.

  24. DHC says

    Paul Begala is so damn cynical. Cooper asks him about the President having it both ways and Begala says “we all want it both ways.” Guess what, I don’t. And I don’t think “we all want it both ways.” That one statement by Begala is one of the reasons why our country is in such peril. There are NOT two sides to every single issue but the media, in order to encourage debate, always digs someone up to take opposing views when most times, unless it’s a moral issue, there is one correct and one incorrect answer. Gay marriage is not a moral issue, it is a legal issue. There is only one correct answer according to the Constitution. Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Even you strict constructionists can’t deny that.

  25. J.D. says

    Yay. Rah rah rah. Gay marriage means the state will sanction, oversee, and tax our relationships. Openly gay men in the military means when one day the draft is re-instituted (never say never) guess who will not be exempt? I don’t know one gay man who wants to get married or become a trained killer in the service of genocidal corporate tycoons. I do know many lesbians who find it appealing. You have a handful of unelected so-called gay nonprofit organization spokespeople clamoring for this stuff claiming all gay men want it. They do not speak for me nor any gay man I know. They make the public at large believe that all gay men are fighting for this agenda when that is simply not the case. When the unintended consequences backfire, and the whims of a few become the obligations of all, the world will say, “well, what’s wrong? After you get what you want you don’t want it?” Such possibilities are worth thinking about and discussing, and I hear NOT ONE PUBLIC VOICE considering that.

  26. J.D. says

    Btw, Obama or any politician would be foolish to trust outright the presumptive consensus of that fantasy glibly referred to as the gay community. Any fool can see how good we have always been at betraying each other. Anderson Cooper, btw, while at Yale spent two summer vacations interning for the CIA. That alone makes everything this openly-secretly gay guy says and does suspect. All kinds of shady going on here.

Leave A Reply