Washington Post Suggests Heckler at LGBT Fundraiser Will Force Obama to Respond on Same-Sex Marriage Position
The Washington Post's Perry Bacon Jr. makes note of the bind Obama is in with regard to his position on same-sex marriage and the current state of such legislation in New York, where he is holding an LGBT fundraiser tonight:
The fundraiser, one of three the president will attend in New York City on Thursday, is hosted by actor Neil Patrick Harris (“Doogie Howser, MD” and “How I Met Your Mother”). It will also include other entertainment figures such as actresses Cynthia Nixon (“Sex and the City”) and Audra McDonald (“Private Practice”), as well former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), who championed the passage of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military when he served in Congress.
Obama aides have so far not commented on the president’s views on the New York legislation.
The article also notes that he may be forced to:
There is not a formal public question and answer session at Thursday’s event. But people who attend New York fundraisers are known for shouting at whoever is the speaker and forcing him to respond.
ABC News writes:
White House officials say not to expect any new stance from Obama at the event, a star-studded gala with as many as 600 guests paying up to $35,800 each at the Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers.
Given the setting, though, the president will have little choice but to address the action by the New York Legislature in some way, and his words are certain to be carefully parsed, given the evolution and nuances of his stance.
In any case, news outlets will surely cover the protests planned outside the fundraiser at the NY Sheraton.
Boy, if Skelos has any political bloodthirstiness in him, he will hold off the vote until tonight and then make some comment like, we'd like to hear Obama's views on the subject.
Posted by: Glenn | Jun 23, 2011 10:10:35 AM
What do you all think about NY's vote being put off partly at Obama's behest? It would make sense either way that Obama would not want to face crowd of people either emboldened by NY's vote or mad pissed off and seeing his position as similar to those who voted down their marriage rights. It would make sense to put it off until tomorrow for that reason. I know the Senate Majority Leader is a Republican but this still is the President and in a state with a Democratic leader and plenty of influence for Republicans to agree on delaying the vote at Obama's request.
What do you think?
Posted by: Tarun | Jun 23, 2011 10:15:58 AM
I hope so.
Posted by: Matt26 | Jun 23, 2011 10:21:51 AM
happy pride!! http://norigscrap.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Norig | Jun 23, 2011 10:23:50 AM
Ah this again, Well it worked so well last time. Gays vs Obama is a situation where bad people win. Instead, work beyond Obama.
Posted by: Fenrox | Jun 23, 2011 10:27:35 AM
I really wish people would realize that there is no value (but a lot to be lost) by having the President openly support gay marriage before we have a solid majority underneath to support HIM in doing so. 52% is not a solid majority ... its a precarious one. It does not help the LGBT rights movement in any way for Obama to get kicked out of office in 2012 because the general public freaked over him supporting gay marriage. Obama has done tons more for us than any president ever has. It is more important that he get RE-ELECTED in 2012 and THEN he can really flex some executive muscle for us, as he will not have to be concerned about the elections in 2016, and he will also have a more advanced LGBT movement to justify his support and a larger majority of Americans rallying behind him in support of SSM. (maybe a 57-58% majority by 2013?)
Please let Obama play the game ... he's really good at it and it is to OUR benefit.
Posted by: MDK | Jun 23, 2011 10:29:35 AM
I don't see how Obama would have any influence over the GOP senate, and Cuomo seems to be as anxious as us to get it done. If they really wanted to stick it to him they would let it die before his speech and then claim their view is exactly the same as the President. They may want to hold off, though, so that it makes Obama's visit uncomfortable. I think if it passes before the fundraiser, the gays will be so happy they'll be in too good a mood to heckle him.
Posted by: gaylib | Jun 23, 2011 10:34:48 AM
"and his words are certain to be carefully parsed, given the evolution and nuances of his stance."
Um, what nuances? He supports civil unions, does not support marriage.
That's not very nuanced.
Posted by: Jack | Jun 23, 2011 10:40:23 AM
MDK, there's nothing inconsistent about understanding that Obama needs to be re-elected over any Republican challenger, and yet keeping up pressure on him to do the right thing.
But, by the way, the idea that if he can just get past 2012 then the floodgates will open is pretty absurd. He'll be a lame duck with at least one house of Congress still in GOP control. Nothing's gonna happen in his 2d term.
Posted by: Glenn | Jun 23, 2011 10:46:17 AM
I remain puzzled as to those who seem to think that Obama is not as smart as he actually is.
I think we can all agree that had he supported "Gay Marriage" he would very well have lost the election.
I think it's more than obvious that he has an utterly calculated "roll-out" plan for "awakenings" to Equality. I mean, come ON. The man knows how to cement his place in history as a real figure of hope and change.
I'm just stunned that so many can't see it. Term Two. It'll be historic.
Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jun 23, 2011 10:49:36 AM
@Kiwi:
As Glenn pointed out, the president cant do jack by himself. He needs to get through both houses of Congress.
I don't know why people are getting their hopes up for monumental change in a second term. Sure, he might officially say "I support gay marriage," but it's not going to have a practical difference. All you're doing is setting yourself up for huge disappointment.
Posted by: Jack | Jun 23, 2011 10:54:25 AM
He's not going to mention same-sex marriage believe me, unless heckled which won't elicit support. All this "evolved" nonsense he's espousing is just cover for 2012. Its unrealistic to expect an incumbent or future president to declare support for it and expect to win an election. Political suicide. It would be a different scenario if half or more of the states allowed same-sex marriage, which would give any candidate sufficient cover to support it.
Posted by: Robert | Jun 23, 2011 11:06:06 AM
Back during George Bush's term, most Republicans went along with whatever he wanted, simply because he was President, regardless of what they really believed. I thought that was wrong, and I think it's equally wrong for us to give that sort of fealty to Obama. He can and will do whatever he thinks politically expedient -- there's no question about that. But that doesn't mean he knows best, and it doesn't mean it's in our best interests to meekly acquiesce in whatever he says.
And if you really want to get crassly political, and think it's all about Obama having to sneakily convince conservative-leaning moderates to vote for him, then having gay activists protesting him tonight is probably exactly the sort of image Obama prefers for his re-election campaign.
Posted by: Glenn | Jun 23, 2011 11:08:16 AM
Very astute observation, GLENN. Radical Gay activists may be to Barack Obama what Sistah Souljah was to Bill Clinton. They make him seem reasonable and middle of the road.
Young people have so much energy...like Larry Kramer.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jun 23, 2011 11:21:44 AM
$35,800 ticket price? He doesn't sound like a democratic president at that price. All the unemployed and this is what people are spending. Must be nice to throw money around like that. I don't know too many people with money like that. I think Obama will be criticized a lot if he spends 1 billion on his campaign that is projected. It's kinda disgusting with all the poor and unemployed, don'cha think?
Posted by: Name: | Jun 23, 2011 11:28:39 AM
Fierce advocate my arse. Backstabber more like. Takes our votes and then is suddenly 'evolving'.
Posted by: BenB | Jun 23, 2011 12:17:32 PM
Forcing Obama to respond to SSM NOW is very short-sighted. So he announces today that is in favor of SSM, what's going to happen? Will those NY republicans on the fence suddenly vote in favor? In fact I will argue opposite(to make Obama look bad). Obama will never win re-election running on SSM platform. National same-sex marriage recognition will not be decided by popular vote but rather by the US Supreme Court. Obama has began laying the foundation by not defending DOMA. Being able to marry in NY is only a small victory because as soon as you cross state lines, your marriage is meaningless.
Posted by: vernon | Jun 23, 2011 12:31:07 PM
I'm sure the obama camp WANTS radical gays to protest. When they heckle him, it means he's not supportive of them which is appealing to middle america. And it is middle america that will either re-elect him or vote for the republican alternative. So rather than anxiety, I'm sure the O Camp is hoping the most leather-clad, angry drag queen, pierced and tatted radicals come out and attack him. Anyone who actually thinks obama is not pro gay marriage is naive. Of course he personally/privately supports it, he just can't publicly do it until after the elections. It may not be leadership we can be proud of, but it is pragmatism that we can (eventually) benefit from.
Posted by: dms | Jun 23, 2011 12:52:34 PM
Gosh, I'm sure he's gonna be -- as usual -- utterly unprepared and completely inarticulate and will just flap his mouth, unable to say anything at all...
Jeez, people. All he has to say is that he congratulates the people of New York state for taking the steps THEY WANT TO TAKE to give gay people equality and that, in the meantime, HE IS DOING EVERYTHING HE CAN to make sure the federal government comes to recognize same-sex couples -- whether in marriages or civil unions -- and give them all the rights and privileges of married couples at the federal level.
(Which, if we would focus on what we want instead of dancing to whatever "controversy" the media would rather talk about, is a pretty damned good position for a president to take.)
Posted by: BobN | Jun 23, 2011 2:05:47 PM
He isn't getting 35 cents from me. I got married in California three years without his help, and these rights will be restored without his help. I'll have to vote for him as there is no alternative, but as in the last election it will be for the overall good, not because I have any faith in him.
Posted by: LAX/JFK | Jun 23, 2011 5:09:09 PM
I'm SO glad gays and lesbians are able to marry in New York!!! I support them and Obama for making a positive difference and upholding equality. I adore and respect Barack even more. Congrats New York. Being a Christian means not judging and letting God take care of things. ;-)
Robbie in baton rouge, La.
Posted by: Robbie | Jun 25, 2011 4:03:50 PM