Obama Refuses to Give Jann Wenner the Marriage Equality Headline He Wants, in 'Rolling Stone' Interview
In a cover story for Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner asks Obama about his support for marriage equality.
You've shied away from demanding marriage equality for all. Are you at least willing to say that you support it on a personal level?
Replies Obama:
I'm not going to make news in this publication. I've made clear that the issue of fairness and justice and equality for the LGBT community is very important to me. And I haven't just talked about it, I've acted on it. You'll recall that the last time you and I had an interview, we were getting beat up about "don't ask, don't tell" in the LGBT community. There was skepticism: "Why's it taking so long? Why doesn't he just do it through executive order?" I described very specifically the process we were going to go through to make sure that there was a buy-in from the military, up and down the chain of command, so that it would be executed in an effective way. And lo and behold, here we are, and it got done.
Ending "don't ask, don't tell" has been the dog that didn't bark. You haven't read a single story about problems in our military as a consequence of the ending of the policy. So whether it's on that, or changing the AIDS travel ban, or hospital visitation rights, or a whole slew of regulations that have made sure that federal workers are treated fairly in the workplace, we've shown the commitment that I have to these issues. And we're going to keep on working in very practical ways to make sure that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are treated as what they are — full-fledged members of the American family.
Obama should be praised for those achievements. But until he "makes news" on marriage equality, he'll continue to be pressed to do so.
(h/t paul constant)
*edit* 150,000 civilians - not 500,000 children (just to be accurate, not that it makes a difference; I type too fast when I get angry).
Posted by: Brim | Apr 28, 2012 3:50:29 AM
@Brim: Ron Paul's candidacy fizzled. I actually thought he'd have more of an impact on the race since he had such enthusiastic supporters at the beginning. He could cause problems for either candidate if he ran as an Independent, but I haven't heard any buzz around that lately, so whatever remaining impact he might have will likely be confined to the Republican convention.
Paul is a conservative Republican with libertarian leanings on some issues. I would never support him because of his views on civil rights--especially gay rights, women's issues, poverty etc. He's a viable curmudgeon but not a viable Presidential candidate. Way too old and unstable.
Posted by: Ernie | Apr 28, 2012 10:06:47 AM
PS: Now, if my home state's own proud socialist, Bernie Sanders, were running, he would get my vote. But we get to keep him in VT.
Posted by: Ernie | Apr 28, 2012 10:10:10 AM
Someone on here needs a little dose of reality...but alas, that's not a choice either.
Matt...the mind is a tricky place esp. when you spend too much time alone. I'm sure you already know this but it's worth repeating...
find some help, meds and a friend who will either "f" you until you're a happy or taser you a dozen times and see if that helps.
It's not you're opinion that offends me...it's you as a person. Chao mi amore.
Posted by: Paul B. | Apr 28, 2012 3:48:45 PM
@Ernie
My "news" sources? "Political realities"? I'm "misinformed"? That is hilarious, and so rich coming from you. Obama stopped defending DOMA and passed the buck onto the House, which had been retaken by Republicans. No bias, just a statement of the facts. Perhaps you should look into it, instead of taking whatever little crumbs Obama gives you. Our "argument" on DADT has been settled. You can give him credit for it, but it doesn't make it true.
You prove you're an Obot by claiming my remarks are indicative of me being a Republican. As much as you think those are "empty Republican talking points", defending Obama, no matter what he does, is indicative of being an Obot, and it is pathetic.
You say you're going to vote on "principle" by voting for Obama, then the only "principle" you subscribe to is betrayal. Which is fine; it's all Obots are good for. It's not about gay rights, it's about Obama being re-elected, damn the issues.
Bottom line: you're an Obot, I have a mind of my own. You're going to vote for him ever so gaily, and I will not vote, knowing it to be a waste of time, thanks to sheep like you. You will be happy in lies, I will be miserable in truth. But at least I can face the truth, unlike you who comforts himself in the lies of the greatest liars.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 29, 2012 12:35:28 AM
@Paul B
I had a nastier response, but it was deleted for some reason. Odd, it was no worse than your ad-hominem laced rant. So let's try this again.
It's odd that you claim "I offend you", because you don't know me at all. I wouldn't let you, I now think you're one of the most unpleasant people walking around, but it's rather silly to say that to someone you haven't even met, especially on this anonymous forum. For the record, the feeling is mutual.
All I can say is, I don't really care what you think of me. It would be far too silly for me to care. I don't care what you think I need, I am quite certain you have no grounds to say such things.
You are an incredibly bitter person, getting kicks in attacking others who dare to disagree with you on this forum. I will continue to lambaste Obama for his betrayals towards both the gay community and myself, whether you like it or not. I will continue pressuring him until he fulfills all that he promised, for that is what a good citizen does to his elected officials.
Now, are you done? I know I am.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 29, 2012 12:58:17 AM
I wrote a rather lengthy post and I'd like to thank those people who acknowledged my comments.
I'd also like to thank all of the people who wrote intelligent, cogent,
insightful, and well-reasoned comments.
And you too, Matt.
Posted by: gr8guyca | Apr 29, 2012 5:49:35 AM
@Matt: We're fortunate to live in a place where we can vote and vote for any candidate we want to. If you choose not to vote, you can't pass the blame buck to anyone but yourself. And why be miserable in truth (or your version of it)? Work at the local level for stuff you believe in. Step away from your Obama obsession; it's not all about him. And if you're in misery, trust us, it's definitely not about him or about us so-called Obots. Vote and let it go and make yourself a happy life, dude, you'll feel less angry.
Posted by: Ernie | Apr 29, 2012 10:51:24 AM
@Ernie
Please spare me the pretentious hippie psychobabble.
If I don't vote, I'll continue doing whatever I please. My decision not to vote is my stance saying neither candidate is sufficient, so I have every right to criticize the one who is elected.
And there you go, just like a perfect Obot, saying it's not all his fault. Just what won't you do to defend him. It's so disgusting.
There are no "variations" of truth, just deluded fools who believe one way or another, despite the cold, hard truth that would be so evident if you opened your eyes. But that's too scary for someone like you, so you cower behind the veil of Democrats and Obama, believing whatever they tell you. If you wish to be happy, believing the lies of the liar, helping him weave the web of deceit, go ahead. But when it all collapses, the truth will be inescapable. Obama is a liar when it comes to LGBT rights. He is the worst president on civil rights since Woodrow Wilson. He doesn't care for us. Get over it.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 29, 2012 4:55:29 PM
@GR8GUYCA
No one is obligated to respond to you, and unless you say something people disagree with, you generally won't be responded to.
As for your post, it's little more than the Democrats will protect us from the big bad Republican boogeymen. Well let me tell you something. I'd rather punish Obama than give him a second term. If that means Romney gets in, so what? I lived through 8 years of Bush Jr.; I can live through a couple years of this putz. Maybe then, in 2016, the Democrats will appreciate the gay voting bloc they have, and they won't take advantage of us anymore.
Then again, maybe pigs will fly.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 29, 2012 4:59:42 PM
Still so very angry, Matt. Oh, well.
In my state, we didn't cower behind Democrats, we worked with them and got a full spectrum of lgbt rights passed, including marriage equality. You vote, you lobby, you get it done--it will be easier to get it done with Obama than with Romney. Not rocket science, and no need to be defeatist when the the historical trajectory is so obviously on our side, and when the President will want to be on the right side of history, not cause he's the Messiah or any such nonsense, but cause it will be good politics for him after the election and good for his legacy. That's why his DOJ is already working with our side in the Courts. Worst President on civil rights since who? Now you're just being comical.
Posted by: Ernie | Apr 29, 2012 7:27:22 PM
The US election date is November 6, 2012.
After a Black president, are we sure Romney the mormon liar will do better with this world recession.
It's 2012, the last year of are actual democracy, before the fall of this regime.
You got to remember the 5th of November, the one you saw in V for Vendetta; the gays locked in government prison to be tested and killed.
Anyway to gain control, they have to reduce the world population, and SOYLENT GREEN is one facist way...
Anyhow V for Vendetta is the 2nd chapter of the movie 1984; watch both and you'll understand why the government need to identify gays after the 5th of november...
2012 US election will change mankind chapter...
Posted by: TheThirdEye | May 22, 2012 8:57:05 PM