Obama Likely to Discuss Views on Gay Marriage in ABC News Interview Today

President Obama is likely to address his "evolving" views on same-sex marriage in an interview Wednesday, the NYT reports:

ObamaThe interview, to be conducted by Robin Roberts, an anchor on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. and was secured in the wake of a declaration by Mr. Obama’s vice president, Joseph R. Biden, on Sunday that he was “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriages…

…The sudden booking suggests an interest on the part of the White House to get Mr. Obama in front of cameras, albeit in a carefully controlled interview setting, as soon as possible.

ABC secured the interview with Mr. Obama on Tuesday afternoon, according to two people involved in the planning. It will take place at the White House. The interview was so hastily arranged, in fact, that Ms. Roberts was still in New York on Wednesday morning to co-host “Good Morning America”– and was planning on returning to New York right after the interview, because her mother is visiting and the two have dinner plans on Wednesday evening.

It will be a “wide-ranging interview,” an ABC News spokesman said.

Portions of the interview will be released today, and some on Good Morning America on Thursday, the paper reports.

Comments

  1. sal says

    towleroad there is an interesting event happening in the korean entertainment industry i hope you cover it(and i hope the gays here show sum love for this guys daring move),one of their biggest pop stars yesterday released a clip for his new video and its pushing boundaries by being very gay inclusive its BIG news now..here’s a link of the clip and the dabate happening in asia and the west(allot of western fans now follow “kpop”,its starting to make an impact in america etc)http://www.allkpop.com/2012/05/jyjs-junsu-releases-mv-teaser-for-tarantallegra

  2. KT says

    Oh good, that’s just what we need. After the waffling over Biden’s comments, the NC amendment, and the loss in Colorado, we were just begging for an interview in which Obama reiterates that he supports equal rights for gay couples but says nothing about gay marriage. And the “wide-ranging” interview leads me to believe that gay rights will get a passing mention, and Richards will do absolutely nothing to press him on the issue. I’m not getting my hopes up, like I did with the State of the Union address where we were mentioned once in passing.

  3. Dastius Krazitauc says

    Shouldn’t that read, “The interview, to be conducted by Robin Roberts, a resolutely closeted anchor on ABC’s “Good Morning America,”?

  4. shane says

    @ KT. it’s Robin Roberts, not Richards. And I think she’s family, by the way.

  5. Matt says

    I’m with KT. I expect nothing of any substance to come out of this interview. Maybe he’ll find a new synonym for “evolving.”

  6. MarkUs says

    “…The sudden booking suggests an interest on the part of the White House to get Mr. Obama in front of cameras, albeit in a carefully controlled interview setting…..”

    Yep, let Jay Carney stand before the firing squad and repeat “He hasn’t told me anything new!!!!” and go sit with BFF and talk about the curtains.

  7. Mike says

    Too late for me. He has lost both my financial support for his campaign, as well as my vote. I’d rather not vote at all than vote for someone who won’t take a principled stand.

  8. Mike says

    Too late for me. He has lost both my financial support for his campaign, as well as my vote. I’d rather not vote at all than vote for someone who won’t take a principled stand.

  9. KT says

    @Shane – Thanks, I don’t know why I thought it was Richards (Probably should have taken the half a second to scroll up and double check)

  10. Michael says

    @Mike: Just so we’re clear, even after the many things he’s done to advance LGBT causes since 2008 you’re turning on him over gay marriage in favor of possibly letting Mitt win…and therefore giving Republicans (TPers) the control over our future. Got it.

  11. iawl says

    @Mike– smart move on your part. “Principle” is everything– even though by not voting for Obama you are helping bring in Romney who is crazy-ass anti-gay and you are “out of principle” refusing to help elect the most gay friendly president we have ever had who made it possible for us to abolish DADT, finally pass the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Act, stopped defended DOMA and the list DOES go on. Yes, “evolving” is frustrating as hell– but the alternative (Romney) is an absolute flat out vote AGAINST us. Congrats on your “principles” and good luck with that.

  12. Mike says

    And yet, he refuses to sign an anti-discrimination executive order, and won’t support marriage. He is an ally when it is convenient, and does just enough to keep some of you people voting for him. How can one vote, in good conscience, for a candidate they do not believe in?

  13. Kevine says

    Sorry folks, but Obama is starting to sound like an ass on this issue. He isn’t fooling the right wing homophobes who won’t vote for him because they think he’s a Muslim, he isn’t alienating the middle who don’t care about gay marriage, and he is allowing his “evolution” to color his accomplishments in terms of gay rights.

  14. kpo5 says

    Mike – Sotomayor and Kagan.

    If it’s hard to swallow voting for Obama, do us a favor and picture yourself voting for two more of them.

    The judges Mittens will appoint will set us back 2 decades.

  15. kpo5 says

    Mike – Sotomayor and Kagan.

    If it’s hard to swallow voting for Obama, do us a favor and picture yourself voting for two more of them.

    The judges Mittens will appoint will set us back 2 decades.

  16. kpo5 says

    Mike – Sotomayor and Kagan.

    If it’s hard to swallow voting for Obama, do us a favor and picture yourself voting for two more of them.

    The judges Mittens will appoint will set us back 2 decades.

  17. Javier says

    Amen, KPOS. Keep your eye on the prize and stop being sidetracked by hissyfits.

  18. says

    @MIKE :

    Yeah smart move……not !
    Let the Repugs appoint to the SCOTUS, and let SCOTUS define marriage as one man and one woman forever.

    Great plan, Mike, ……any other great ideas ?

  19. iawl says

    @Mike– you said: “How can one vote, in good conscience, for a candidate they do not believe in?”

    Easy. Punch the damn chad and vote. If you are waiting for the candidate you “believe in” who will always do everything in the way you think it should be done, who doesn’t take into account the realities of the game that is the “system” we currently have– you will never, ever vote. There are compromises, there is black and white and gray. The question is not always “who do you beleive in?” but who can you “most” beleive in? If your answer is HONESTLY Romney, God help you.

  20. TC says

    Are we seriously trying to make this an issue in the campaign? Really? Haven’t we learned valuable lessons from our past election debacles?

    Ending DADT, refusing to defend DOMA — these are big successes that we could never have done with a Republican president. Remember where DOMA and DADT came from in the first place — Bill Clinton.

    And so we want to make it more likely Romney will win the Presidency because Obama won’t come to our wedding?

  21. Javier says

    Amen, TC. Did we not learn anything from previous elections? Karl Rove sure did love making this a big issue in 2000 and 2004. The nation has not changed as much as some thought since then….

  22. ScottNYC says

    The only people who will actually cast a vote that will count are in the swing states. I live in NY, and short of Obama taking a crap on a bible, punching an old lady, while smoking crack and eating another dog, he will win NY. I will vote against Obama to register my discontent with him and his refusal to address issues important to me. We, who do not live in swing states, should all band together and write in Liza Minnelli. Can you imagine if we all stood with one voice and showed what a powerful voting bloc we are? Perhaps then we would not be jerked around by “leaders” like Obama. Even the HRC endorsed Obama last year for the 2012 election–not exactly making him work for an endorsement, no? We need better representation than that.

  23. Dastius Krazitauc says

    Amen, too, TC and Javier. It’s like we’ve been running a marathon for 50 years and now that we’re in sight of the finish line, the professional gays have decided to sit down on the pavement and pound their fists and have a tantrum because they want it NOW!, and then we lose the race.

    Nothing about Romney is very appealing, but give him a “protect traditional marriage” crusade and it will take his support from tepid to rabid.

    Like others have said, it is not just about Obama, it is about the Judges, Senators and Congressmen, all down the line.

    Signorile is beating the “Obama MUST support gay marriage” drum so hard, listening to him is making me physically ill.

  24. iawl says

    @SCOTINYC– “We need better representation than that?”

    Hmmm. Better than overturning DADT, passing Hate Crimes legislation, et al? So you and your Liza Queens think your great “message” in the non-swing states will be heard– I’d like to know how, exactly, that is possible. Is he going to read your ballots? If he is “winning the state anyway” short of “crapping on the bible” (how eloquent)– your great Liza Queen Movement makes an impact how????? Look, if you have a queeny hissyfit when you don’t get EVERYTHING you want– even with the most gay friendly president we have ever had– who has done more for us than any other President to date– even when political reality dictates that NO ONE gets every single thing on their wishlist exactly when they want it– if you still need have your Liza moment, have at it. Desperate, sad and lame. And completely stupid and ineffective.

  25. ScottNYC says

    Wow, Iawl, name calling? Mature. My point was that 1 million votes for a notable supporter of gay rights, not Obama, may get attention of some gay friendly press/blogs etc. and eventually, possibly,make a change. To me, it is better than holding my nose and voting for the lesser of 2 evils. That is my opinion. If you are satified with Obama, vote for him. Your arguments, as rude as they are, have not won me over.

  26. Misty says

    I don’t understand people who are willing not to vote for Obama unless he does this, but then the moment he does, we say it’s too late. WTF is wrong with you guys. Either it’s based on principle and holding them accountable to do the right thing or you guys are just being big fat dicks about it and working against your own interest.

  27. Dastius Krazitauc says

    “Either it’s based on principle and holding them accountable to do the right thing or you guys are just being big fat dicks about it and working against your own interest.”

    Or, Misty, they could be Koch brother funded plants trying to get other people to pick up this anti-Obama “I just won’t vote!” petulance.

  28. Zlick says

    I think the Liza bomb is an interesting option. I’m pretty happy with Obama, even on gay rights. Believe me, there’s PLENTY I don’t like about his policies and abilities, but – on the whole – he’s certainly one of the best presidents we’ve had in my 50+ years in this country.

    But I live in California, so Obama will win no matter what. I wonder if that gives me the luxury to write in Liza Minelli? I certainly would never do anything to jeopardize his re-election, but he wouldn’t lose California if every queer in the state voted for Liza.

    As for this interview, I think he’ll be making an ass of himself if he continues his evolution line at this point. His political calculations and the hysterical fears of many gay folk are all wrong. He’s got nothing to lose and plenty to gain by coming out clearly in favor of equal marriage rights. Nobody, not the vaunted Independents and certainly not the EvanTeaThugicans are going to switch their vote away from Obama if he dons his Fierce Advocate hat. And I daresay the young voters who’ve lost a bit of enthusiasm for the president would be nothing but galvanized by a strong stand for equal rights from the president.

  29. chuck says

    I would rather have a neutral Obama re-elected than have an obvious homophobic Mormon in the White House.