Obama sits down with The Advocate and addresses LGBT issues

He used the term "non-inclusive?"

He's using the terminology that the activists use to talk about ENDA.  That's a real surprise to me, in a very good way.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:44:19 AM CDT

recruited by a teacher!

so obama was turned into a homosexualist by a teacher.  sally kern is right! LOL!

interesting interview.  so he prefers to take a generalist approach to the media.  i guess it is a fair strategy, if true.  but it also could be considered a scardy cat strategy.  by not talking to issues-related presses (he mentioned a-a, spanish and lgbt), you don't get called on social policy positions that you might not want to advertise.  staying in mainstream media is perhaps like voting "present"? (i'm not trying to pick a fight, just thinking out loud about campaign strategy choices).

not sure how to take these statements

I think the federal government historically has led on civil rights -- I'd like to see us lead here too.

...the transition toward fuller acceptance of the LGBT community has happened without some of the tumult and violence that accompanied the civil rights movement.

is he saying lgbt rights aren't also "civil rights"?  or is he saying it's all civil rights.  i know this is a touchy point with part of the a-a community.   it is a touch point with me too, a white lesbian. which line is he toeing here?

he is of course correct that the lgbt community hasn't faced the same level of horrible treatment a-a's have.  however, he missed a HUGE opportunity to find common ground and acknowledge our problems by not mentioning that lgb, and especially t people are being killed daily just for the fact of who they are.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:53:50 AM CDT

Transcript of a spoken interview

If he meant "civil rights movement" your interpretation is fully accurate. If he meant "Civil Rights Movement," then he's definitely talking about the 60s. I tend to think he's focusing on the 60s because of the reference to violence. The editor should have had the reporter follow-up during fact-checking.

---

by: janinedm @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:10:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He still opposes full, equal marriage. That is a deal-breaker for me.

He, of all people, should be opposed to Jim Crow "solutions." I find his (and Clinton's) adamant refusal to support my full civil rights reprehensible.  

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM CDT

I've seen him get this question in person

You can tell his stated position on marriage is not one he actually believes. He's just being a careful pragmatist on this one. He may say he doesn't support gay marriage, but he immediately adds that he supports everything that it would achieve. He's not stupid, he knows he's immediately eviscerating his stated position.

Would you rather go for marriage first and get shot down, or let him have several meaningful successes that set up the inevitability of marriage? He's playing the long game. Get DADT repealed, expand ENDA, gut DOMA, and then it's a much easier leap for the voters who have to follow. (And it wouldn't hurt if CA would get a Gov. who would sign their damn bill so that the country had more than just MA to look to.)

Sometimes people (bitter old hippies usually) pejoratively refer to this as a "go slow" approach. It's not. It's a logical progression that can happen fairly quickly. Getting people on our side is an evolutionary process. He understands this.

When you say it's a deal breaker you're just being petulant. None of the viable choices state the position you want to hear so you have to make a choice based on how much they are likely to accomplish. Take everything you can get while always reaching for more.

As I see it, the path to marriage has many steps and Obama could accomplish many of them with minimal blowback. We need DADT gone, DOMA gone, ENDA passed. We need more states actually leading by issuing marriage licenses so that more of the country sees and knows actual "married" gay couples. We need just a few more years of generational demographic changes to give political cover. Bottom line is that it's very doable in under 10 years. DADT and ENDA (in one form or another) will happen in less than a year.

---

by: vanitysmurf @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:55:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I couldn't agree more

I see the fight for gay equality as a journey.  I see a bus.  If McCain is driving, he won't stop to pick us up.  If Hillary is driving, she'll let us on, but we'll have to sit underneath in the baggage compartment, and she'll probably "forget" about where we want to go.  If Obama is driving, he will welcome us on the bus, it will go in the right direction and take us where we want to go, but he will ask us to be patient, as it is a long ride with many stops, many bumps, but eventually we will get there.

---

by: Naperville Mom @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:31:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I love this bus analogy!

:)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

---

by: Mad Professah @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:22:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can I sit next to you on the bus?

 

---

by: vanitysmurf @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:31:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Absolutely!

Next stop:  Illinois, where we will have civil unions soon!

---

by: Naperville Mom @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 23:23:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wish I could feel that optimistic

Many have voiced the opinion that Obama's refusal to say anything meaningful about supporting GLBT rights is mere "rhetoric to appease the right" and does not reflect what he actually believes or will actually do. I have yet to see or hear any evidence to support this position; it all comes down to religious faith. "I have no evidence to support my statements but I believe this is so."

Maybe I am too damned pessimistic for my own good, or maybe I have seen far too many politicians make soothing sounds about supporting my equal rights only to slap me across the face once the election is done (Bill Clinton and both DOMA and DADT, anyone?) But I have a lot more confidence in saying that Obama's comments about supporting GLBT rights without saying anything meaningful is mere rhetoric to appease the left and the restless folk who are demanding something other than the pointed indifference he has demonstrated so far.

Time will tell, and I genuinely hope I'm served a large platter of crow within the next four years. But I don't think I'll be the one dining on corvus under glass.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:43:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hasn't said anything meaningful????

Are you being facetious? Read Pam's post. Read the article. Watch his appearances -- especially how he handles religious AA crowds when homophobia comes up (there's video from Galveston, I think). It sounds like you mean that as long as he doesn't say the one thing you most want to hear, he has said nothing you are capable of hearing. I doubt we get marriage in 4 years, but I believe that he can get us DADT, ENDA, and progress against DOMA. Those things pave the way and should not be discounted.

Some people can only see defeat. I would rather support the best chance available than surrender the field in cynical despair. If you don't want to get on the bus with us, that's ok, you can follow us in your car. :)

---

by: vanitysmurf @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 18:06:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

TechBear,

I completely understand your reticence.  I also still feel the pain from Bill Clinton throwing us to the curb after courting and wooing us in '92.  It was then that I first fell in love with politics, and with the idea of his presidency.  I bought his promises hook, line & sinker.  I believed he was going to stand tall and pave the way for our equality.

Because of that betrayal, I have not allowed myself (until now) to be excited about ANY candidate for ANYTHING, for fear I'll just be let down again.

I have no proof to offer, other than to say he was a very strong ally during his time in Illinois.  To me, it just feels different with Obama.  I have this very strong sense that to the core, he is truer than any politican I have ever seen.  I truly believe that in his heart he believes that we deserve full marriage equality.  Unfortunately, he has to play the game.  And that means walking a tightrope on emerging and often sensitive issues like ours.  Do I wish he could just say exactly what he feels, regardless of the repercussions?  Of course.  But if he does, he probably won't get to be the bus driver. He knows that, and if we're realistic, so do we.

So I'm taking a chance on (political) love again.  Yes, it's a leap of faith. But hey, as they say "better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all!  

---

by: Naperville Mom @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 23:59:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"better to have lost in love"

when it comes to political betrayal on vital issues, i heartily disagree.  my relationship with my spouse dissolves when i cross state lines. we can be refused a hotel room or food while on vacation.  immigration can prevent her from re-entering the country after going abroad to see family.  this presidential campaign isn't some silly youthful fling to gossip with girlfriends about.  i demand up front proof from candidates that they will deliver.  not one of them deserves my giddy faith.  obama can't even call my denied civil rights "civil rights".  if he wants my support, he can damn will earn it.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 00:11:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, I almost had that saying right!

Exactly how do you plan on "demanding up front proof"?  Shall we have a debate where each candidate swears their positions under oath?  Or subject them to lie detector tests?  Even if such things took place, how would it be enforced?  What would the punishment be for not coming through on a campaign promise?  Would you seek restitution of some sort?  That would really be something if there were a way to get a rock-solid iron clad promise on ANYTHING in life. Unfortunately, it will never happen.

I completely understand the need and desire to get the rights we deserve RIGHT NOW.  Despite your portrayal of "giddy faith" and girlish gossip, I prefer to see it as finding a ray of hope in a bitterly divided and homophobic world.  Did he say exactly what we want to hear, exactly the way we want to hear it?  No.  But I think that bar is set a bit too high for anyone, no less a politician.  Kucinich said exactly what we wanted to hear, but he's not a choice now.  I'll gladly choose my giddy faith over bitterness and unrealistic expectations.

---

by: Naperville Mom @ Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:03:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did he say what we wanted to hear?

No.  He said what he wanted us the believe: that he will not be a leader on civil rights of an LGBT hue.  To my eyes, his interview was all about minimizing our expectations so taht he doesn't have to expend any energies on civil rights if he gets into office.  He's working off the outdated assumption that we gays will just shut up and be placated by a pat on the head.

I have no problem with finding rays of hope in politicians.  We have no alternative but to do so.  But I never put faith in them any more.  To do so is to give the power to the politician.  Why should we let the politicians set our expectations?  If we do that, we will never improve our lot, because we're asking them to work for us.

Proof ahead of time consists of a solid record of action.  If the pol is too young or comes from the wrong sort of employment for that to be possible, then they need to speak strongly and believably.  Obama's buddy Deval Partick, a corporate lawyer, managed to do that by setting the ground rules himself while campaigning: he was unequivocally pro-marriage equality and would not put up with frenzied chicken little questions about it.  ANd he did follow through when the crunch came.

I'm not even asking Obama to openly support marriage equality - he could announce that he is firmly dedicated to any of the legislation currently being discussed.  But he can't bring himself to do that.  Not even on DADT which the country overwhelmingly favors dumping.  So, I guess Obama passes the believable test for you.  He doesn't for me.  What I hear is that he'd have no problem signing bills other people work to get onto his desk, but don't be expecting him to employ his own elbow grease.  The resume says civil rights lawyer, the words say civil rights wimp.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:09:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not sure how you're getting that

He seemed pretty committed to repealing DADT and all of DOMA to me. What it did sound like he was doing was setting expectations. I can't see that as a bad thing, given what happened with Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban, only to have it become blindingly clear that he didn't have support within the party or his administration. So what did we get? DADT, and later, DOMA. I'd much rather have someone say "I'll try, but I'm not making any promises" than to make promises and break them as soon as there's the slightest obstacle.

---

by: Darkrose @ Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 14:19:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes: Hasn't said anything meaningful

An analysis of the interview in The Advocate was posted to the Democratic Underground, here. He sounds nice, but promises nothing; he says he is for equal rights, but offers no commitment to actually do anything to bring about equal rights.

I stand by what I wrote.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:22:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Federal benefits

I read Obama's interview, and have a question that had not occurred to me before. He says that he supports same-sex couples in civil unions sanctioned by states having the same federal rights as married couples. Do I assume correctly that that means that those of us who live in places that do not have civil unions recognized by the state will be completely out of luck at the federal level as well? Is this Clinton's position as well? No possibility of federal benefits if the state says no?

In other words, thanks to the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions in my state (Texas), that means that it doesn't matter (at least on this issue) who wins becomes President, that we are still just plain out of luck?

---

by: buster @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM CDT

a worthy question

i'd like to hear the answer too.  but my suspicion is that some partnership recognition criteria might be set up for couples in non-CU states, as it is in the Uniting American Families Act.  but it would be nice to hear from the candidates themselves how they would actually implement the law.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That about sums it up

Both Obama and Clinton are on the record -- clearly, firmly and repeatedly -- as saying that marriage is solely a matter for the states to decide. If a state refuses to grant same-sex marriage, so be it.

I would dearly love to ask Mr. Obama if he would take the same position with regards to interracial marriage (until Loving v. Virginia struck down anti-miscegenation laws, several states prohibited interracial marriages, and several made it a crime for residents to seek interracial marriage in other states.)  

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:00:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As a Con Law prof.

He knows this as wel as anybody. It will be helpful to us to set up the court for a decision along the same lines. Part of that is expanding rights and benefits as much as possible, wherever possible. The hodgepodge of different state standards actually HELPS us. The messier it gets the more it will force standardization, and once rights are given by several states it'll be almost impossible to rescind them.

And don't forget that marriage is essentially a contract. A contract in one state must be recognized in all the others. All the state DOMA laws are unconstitutional. Of course it would helpful to first get rid of the federal one -- which he supports doing. There is a logical order to all this.

---

by: vanitysmurf @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:03:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The whole mess should end up going to the SCOTUS

...because of this oft-cited clause of the Constitution:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. --U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1

As I understand it, Federal DOMA relies on the second sentence to support it. Under its aegis, the patchwork of state DOMA/civil union/marriage laws has flourished. The messier the situation gets, the more likely it becomes that someone will find a way to acquire standing to sue. With the patchwork, we'll have more situations like the one involving the guy who got transferred to Idaho and lost recognition of his partner--especially given the nature of the economy and corporations operating all over the country. When that happens, SCOTUS should take the case because there's a conflict between the first sentence in the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the second. If that really happens is, of course, another matter. Roger B. Tanney didn't let his ownership of slaves keep him from ruling on Dred Scott:
"A black man has no rights a white man was bound to repsect."

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 17:04:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A different way to say 'leave it up to the states'

"I assume correctly that that means that those of us who live in places that do not have civil unions recognized by the state will be completely out of luck at the federal level as well?"

YOu betcha.  Leave it up to the states is Obama and Hilary condoning and colluding with the 27+ states which have anti gay marriage amendments...then all the states which have anti gay marriage equality laws...and yep, you and your loved one don't get nothin again.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 17:50:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The issues...as I see it.

The way Obama sees it is the civil rights movement, he is talking about the one in the sixties.  Its common lexicon.  Its not that LGBT rights are not civil rights, rather there is a common language to refer to certain movements.  

With regards to the marriage issue.  The federal government should recognize unions (whether its called civil union or marriage) in the states.

But as a lawyer, he is absolutely correct in saying that Marriage (and civil unions) is a state issue.  It always has been in the US.  So keeping it out of the federal level outsider of repealing the DOMA, and recognizing these unions in the states that do allow it, is without question the only way it can be handled on the federal level. And yes, those who do not live in a state that does not support civil unions are out of luck at the federal level.  That is just how it works.  Federal law in this case is inherently limited by state law.  This is why selecting a friendly state to live in is so important.  

With regards to an exclusive ENDA, he supports it.  That is all I really need to hear.  Now the question is if he is willing to strong arm congress to get a more comprehensive bill through.    

---

by: tfeminist @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:21:37 AM CDT

Ooops, sorry about the error.

I meant to say inclusive rather then exclusive in the last paragraph.  Sorry about that.

---

by: tfeminist @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:23:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As a lawyer, he should know how common law works

Because civil unions are not marriage, the whole corpus of court precedents that apply to marriage do not apply to civil unions. Each and every one of those precedents would need to be reissued in light of civil unions, and assuming that could be done in the first place, any future ruling which applies to one would not automatically apply to the other. That is one of the reasons why "marriage except in name" is inherently unequal.

The fact is that the United States already has a "civil union." Under the law, it is called marriage. The fact that many religious organizations use the same word to describe a religious ceremony is entirely irrelevant.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:37:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is true, but...

Civil Unions were designed expressly to avoid violating the defense of marriage act and making gay marriage a federal question.  It was done because the particular state that created the civil union, Vermont, was trying to achieve a difficult balancing act.  

Civil Unions, as a concept, were crafted by two Vermont Law School professors, to attempt a marriage equivalent in Vermont, but keeping the entire realm entirely limited to State Law, but at the same time getting legislators in the state to agree to something.

Believe it or not, even in creating civil unions, the goal was not to be inherently unequal, but rather to put something in place that can be contained within the state realm and avoid federal courts, because when civil union law was first drafted this was a real fear.  Additionally the Vermont Supreme court ordered the legislature to come up with a solution quickly to this problem, or they would be ones coming up with it, so there was quite a bit of pressure in terms of time.  Additionally this law needed to be drafted in a way in which the legislators had to agree with.  Sometimes legislation, no matter how groundbreaking, is difficult to watch.

I find it very surprising that people attack civil unions so easily without understanding the history, when Vermont first put this forth it was groundbreaking and redefined the debate.  

You are right as well, about there being no precedent for civil unions, largely because from a legal perspective gay unions, be it marriage or a civil unions, was completely unprecedented in both common law and legislative law.  That is why civil unions at the time of passage were considered groundbreaking.  So whatever comes forth in terms of court decisions will be precedent setting, especially as courts in places like Mass. and Vermont struggle with the new laws.  

I am not saying I support civil unions instead of marriage for queer couples, of COURSE I support marriage.  But Civil Unions were groundbreaking, and opened the door to the marriage something that queer couples could achieve, and later did.  Because Mass. later pushed forward, based largely on what had happened in Vermont.  Basically gay people being legally bound had no adverse impact.  One thing opens the door to the next. While civil unions may be seen as unequal, they were, without question, a very important first step.  Yes, we have to live with the concept, but the  concept, which was created rather quickly, is something that has been more helpful then harmful.  Because ultimately it allowed greater acceptance of gay unions, and opened the door to better things in the future.  Even when civil unions were drafted in Vermont, it was seen as an in between step towards full marriage equality, but a necessary step.  Considering that most Vermonters support full marriage equality now, and in the future it will more then likely pass, this step, which was groundbreaking, was as a whole a positive, because it was the first legal step in America with regards to gay unions, so to dismiss it so out of hand, is kind of dismissing its historic importance as an important step forward, and a groundbreaking measure.  

---

by: tfeminist @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:24:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One could argue that Jim Crow, too, was a groundbreaking advance

It used to be that minority children had no access to schools; under Jim Crow, they did. This does not mean that such laws should be accepted in a just society.

My issue is that the Democratic candidates adamantly take a position of segregation and isolation. The United States Supreme Court declared in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is one of the basic rights of man; we must not allow candidates to treat our basic rights as something that can be disposed of when it is politically expedient to do so.  

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:08:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually that was Skinner v Oklahoma

The one about sterilizing habitual criminals.  The court said

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear.

It's interesting that they say "marriage and procreation" when the case in front of them had absolutely nothing to do with marriage.  Then twenty-four years later the court cited Skinner in Loving, essentially conflating marriage and procreation, since Loving was entirely about marriage and never mentions the word "procreation"  Marriage was never explicitly declared to be one of the "basic civil rights of man", only what "we are dealing here with", which was procreation.  The next sentence introduces marriage for the first time in the opinion.

No one objected or even noticed that Loving made the assumption that they were related:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541  (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190  (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Note also that the court recognizes that there are other basis that are not insupportable, such as being siblings, or being of the same sex.  Only racial classifications were recognized as insupportable in Loving.

The question before us, therefore, is "do people have the right to procreate with someone of either sex?"  And by "procreate", I mean it in the same way that Mr. Skinner meant it - using his own genes, not forced to use some other man's genes.

---

by: Locke @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 14:05:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Marriage hypothetical

First, thanks to those who answered my earlier question. I knew that I could count on this well-informed group!

Second, here's a hypothetical. Assume that one state finally allows same-sex non-residents to marry (California? New York?). Then assume that my partner and I travel to that state and get married, then return to live in Texas. Then assume that the federal government eventually recognizes those same-sex marriages performed in states where they are allowed, but Texas doesn't. (That last part is a safe assumption.) Question: Given all those assumptions, and although Texas would not consider us married, would the federal government?

---

by: buster @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:11:03 PM CDT

Yes

Federal and state laws are separate. We see this in Mass., where state law recognizes same-sex marriage but federal law does not. There is no reason why this situation could not be reversed with regards to Texas state law and a hypthetical future federal law.

However, consider Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Currently, Texas does not recognize out-state marriages because they are good-hearted; Texas recognizes out-of-state marriages because the Constitution requires them to do so. If federal law were changed to recognize same-sex marriages -- or at least changed so as not prohibit recognition -- Texas would be very likely have no choice but to acknowledge that you are married and entitled to all the rights, protections and priviledges therein.

That, more than anything, is what will make revoking DOMA extremely difficult.  

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:51:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly

"Full faith and credit" are the four most beautiful words in the Constitution. And it is exactly why DOMA is such a problem. That Obama wants to start gutting DOMA tells he he knows where that train is headed and is happy to be onboard.

---

by: vanitysmurf @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:08:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

FF&C has nothing to do with it

States do not have to recognize marriages from other territories if they are contrary to the public policy of that state.  This usually comes up with extremely young brides and polygamous marriages, but it could be applied to same-sex marriages if a state chooses to.  They aren't forced to recognize marriages by DOMA, and even if they were, they could simply declare the marriage void, and then that act would have to be recognized back in the original state.  So that's a moot point.

And we don't have to wait for Massachusetts to allow out of state couples to marry in order to test whether same-sex marriages are valid in other states.  Certainly there have been many people who entered into a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and then moved to other states, it's been like three years, and thousands of same-sex couples have married, surely some of them have moved.  Not one of the states they have moved to have recognized them as married, even NH and Vermont recognize them as being CU'd, not married.  And the Fed didn't recognize them as married to begin with.  But presumably, Obama is saying he could push the federal government into recognizing marriages and civil unions, and it shouldn't matter whether the state they are currently living in recognizes them or not.  I don't even know if they demand proof of marriage, or if a couple can just claim to be married even if no state has married them.  Why can't they just claim to have gotten married in Nutopia?

---

by: Locke @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 14:24:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Marriage hypothetical

First, thanks to those who answered my earlier question. I knew that I could count on this well-informed group!

Second, here's a hypothetical. Assume that one state finally allows same-sex non-residents to marry (California? New York?). Then assume that my partner and I travel to that state and get married, then return to live in Texas. Then assume that the federal government eventually recognizes those same-sex marriages performed in states where they are allowed, but Texas doesn't. (That last part is a safe assumption.) Question: Given all those assumptions, and although Texas would not consider us married, would the federal government?

---

by: buster @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:11:03 PM CDT

Sorry about the double post.

Not sure how that happened.

---

by: buster @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:13:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, it's a good point

and worth considering twice!!

I know diddly about law. But it makes sense to me that it SHOULD be recognized by federal government. That this issue has to be fought "state by state by state"- fuck. Wrong all the way around.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 17:13:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Texas can annul the Marriage

This is one of the grounds where Texas can annul the marriage under common law.  Reciprocity has some real limits, where some things may be acceptable in some states but not others.  Thats why the federal filing would be for the most part irrelevant.  Again, this gets down to state laws regarding marriage, and if the state has an anti-gay marriage law, Texas will not accept the marriage.  

There is some quirks with this though, there is one possible way it can happen.  Texas ties identity to chromosomes, and as such, marriage rights.  Which means straight identified trans people cannot get married in texas, but gay identified trans people can.  

But there are quirks to reciprocity for marriage outside of just the gay marriage.

So this really does get down to state laws.  But if the Supreme Court makes this a constitutional issue, those individual state laws will not matter.  But the reality is because of the Supreme Court's authority to rule with regards the constitution, that is really the only venue where the anti-gay marriage laws will be overturned.  So I think it is more then just a little bleak legally.  Especially when the goal of the states that support gay marriage or civil unions, very much wanted to keep it out of federal courts because of the conservative makeup of the Supreme Court.

---

by: tfeminist @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:38:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

clarification...

I meant to say overturned without a legislative or legal act within the state.  Outside of the state courts or legislature taking action, removing gay marriage laws will probably take constitutional case, which does not look favorable.

---

by: tfeminist @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:41:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but a TX annullment has no bearing on federal rights

TX can certainly ignore a ssm solumnized in MA or Canada or wherever.  However, TX has no power to force the federal government to ignore it.  So if federal DOMA is repealed, buster & mate can get married in Canada, go home to TX, and file joint federal income taxes.  in TX, however, they will be considered legal strangers.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:57:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i meant to say...

if the part of DOMA preventing federal recognition of ssm was repealed...

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:59:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I bet that would depend on where the couple lived

Practically speaking, I think Texas would have standing to annul a marriage if the couple moved to Texas, but not if the couple stays in Massachusetts.  Just like Massachusetts can't say that NH CU's are marriages unless the couple moves to Massachusetts (do they do that, by they way?).  I think the federal government would go by the law of the state the couple lived in, though apparently they can make their own rules about what to recognize regardless of the home state's laws.

I think we should be working harder on achieving a uniform standard that is recognized by the federal government, and I think it will be much easier to do that if the uniform standard is CU's that don't allow the couple to attempt to conceive together.  Unless you really think that equal conception rights (ie, same-sex conception using stem-cell derived "female sperm" or "male eggs") is more important than equal protections, you should be endorsing this idea and helping out the Dem candidates, instead of saddling them with gay marriage and making it much harder to elect a dem candidate.

---

by: Locke @ Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 15:39:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama Yes, Clinton No

Obama supports overturning DOMA - one part of which states that Texas is not obliged to recognize your marriage in Massachusetts.

Clinton opposes overturning that half of DOMA - she would grant you federal recognition of your marriage in MA, but not if you move to TX.

That is the only real difference between the positions of the two of them.

And they both lie about how sincere they really are.

---

by: tiponeill @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:51:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a link for you to read ...

This is to Jeff's post on Shakesville about LGBT issues and Obama, which kinda got shredded by us commenters on the thread, but not long after in that thread, someone posted a link to the Advocate interview, and our thoughts flowed ...

thought you'd want to know Pam.

http://shakespearessister.blog...

---

by: Sarah in Chicago @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:47:11 PM CDT

Thought Pam should know

She got called out over there in the comments section.

You might want to sharpen your claws before you go over there.   Just wanted to give you a heads up.

---

by: Rick @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:55:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sharpen your claws?

...nice.

Yes, I'm disappointed in the lack of analysis of what Obama is saying. Pam is an amazing leader in the blogosphere, and I respect her and that is why I was so disappointed.  

But Jesus, claws?

---

by: Astraea @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 20:32:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no analysis because...

I was at work and wanted to put a thread up on the interview. While I love doing long analysis, you mostly see it when I've had enough time at night to write it, or over a weekend. I've been working late, getting up early, and most of my posts haven't been that long. Doing that Dan Besse interview nearly deep-sixed me -- there was so much transcription work.

I always wonder why people get the impression I'm sitting at the keyboard waiting to comment deeply on everything or answer their emails within a few minutes of having sent it. It's so odd.

There was no nefarious design to ignore commenting on it.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 23:52:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks

Thanks for the response, pam.  I probably was hasty in my comments at Shakesville.  

---

by: Astraea @ Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:15:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the link, Rick

That was my first visit to that blog, and that was quite an eye opener!  It's not an intelligent discussion with opposing viewpoints, but rather a bitter Obama hatefest!  I had been wondering where all those people are who say they won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee - now I know!

That little trip made me appreciate the diversity of opinions and civility on PHB even more.

---

by: Naperville Mom @ Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 00:23:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Naperville Mom, that's just a load of crap

Shakesville is not an Obama hatefest.  There are contributors who support one or the other Democratic candidate, and there are contributors who are happy to vote for either, the blogmistress being one.  Yes, there are a few commenters there who have said they will not vote for Obama, but they are a small minority.  Try reading more than one post before you make pronouncements.

"If the apocalypse comes... beep me." -- Buffy Summers

---

by: Kathy @ Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:24:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No need to get testy,

just conveying my personal observation.  I read for at least 5 minutes, many posts, and didn't see a single solitary opposing viewpoint.  And the majority of posts I read were written in what I felt was as extraordinarily hostile tone.  I was simply taken aback by the overwhelmingly angry tone.  I felt like I was reading posts worthy of a Huckabee or McCain.  I just find it shocking that SO many gay folks see the Obaama glass half empty.  He's certainly not the perfect candidate for the gay comunity, but I'm sticking with my gut on this - there's no alternative!  I do have an advantage in that being from Illinois, I've observed his career in politics from the beginning.  And I've seen nothing over the years to make me think he's blowing smoke up our asses.  I guess you can fault him for not being as calculated and polished as the Clintons in terms of telling us whatever we want to hear to get elected.

No offense meant to Shakesville.  I'm a relative newbie to this, and I'm a one-blog woman.  It was my first exposure to another blog, and I found the atmosphere , at least the 5 minutes or so I was there, strikingly different from PHB.

---

by: Naperville Mom @ Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:34:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's Sen. Obama Telling the Black Preachers?

Inquiring minds want to know. I'll bet it's the exact opposite of what Sen. Obama told the Advocate. It doesn't matter to me because I won't vote for Sen. Obama anyway, but I suspect that many here need to know the answer to my question.

---

by: Holly in Cincinnati @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:11:32 PM CDT

Undoubtedly he's saying "civil unions only"

Obama goes to a well-known black-predominant church that is mostly inclusive of LGBT, though it doesn't follow the UCC denominational "permission" (not requirement) to conduct holy matrimony rite for same-sex couples.

He would have a hard time reneging completely. I'd guess he would focus on economic urban issues and the war, both hot topics for African American laity.

---

by: NancyP @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:40:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Addresses Homophobia at Black Churches

As Obama points out in the interview, and as many of his supporters can attest, Obama addresses homophobia in front of black, church-going audiences on a regular basis, and makes it clear that his Christianity does not allow for such bigotry. Given that many black churches are aligned with the fundies on this topic, that is pretty big IMHO.

---

by: CPT_Doom @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 15:21:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who are the Democrats that...

..will support a non-inclusive ENDA and not support an inclusive ENDA.  This is the same problem we had when Tammy Baldwin withdrew her amendment to the non-inclusive ENDA, we didn't get to find out who these congress critters are.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:14:55 PM CDT

Go Here to Find the Critters

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200...

That is the House vote on the bill that passed
and this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...

Will take you to the page on the bill that DIDN'T

And you're right, Those that chickened out - they ARE worms.
Sharon

---

by: CarolinaGirl @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 14:58:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Barack and Details

Okay, so the heavy-lifting can't be done for the ENDA? Please! Georgie Shrub got us in to a senseless war on the other side of the world and he can't get me equal treatment under the law here at home, Land of the Free!?!?  Well one thing you DID get out of him that no one else seems to have done is details on anything. I don't listen to his every word, but he seems a bit thin on exactly what it is and how he's going to do it, beyond making us feel good and Changing - Hell, that's what I want the ENDA for, so I can CHANGE!
Sharon

---

by: CarolinaGirl @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 14:53:48 PM CDT

Surrender Donkeys

Georgie Shrub got us in to a senseless war on the other side of the world and he can't get me equal treatment under the law here at home, Land of the Free!?!?

The majority of Democrats, including (ahem) HRC, voted for the war. I don't see Republicans crossing over to do the same. I even see a few Dems punking out again.

---

by: janinedm @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:50:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

trans inclusion?

* ENDA - he's for trans inclusion, but doesn't know if the votes are there to pass it.

   

I think that's going to be tough, and I've said this before. I have been clear about my interest in including gender identity in legislation, but I've also been honest with the groups that I've met with that it is a heavy lift through Congress. We've got some Democrats who are willing to vote for a non-inclusive bill but we lose them on an inclusive bill, and we just may not be able to generate the votes. I don't know. And obviously, my goal would be to get the strongest possible bill -- that's what I'll be working for.

Umm... I'll give him a C plus for this, maybe a low B minus. He would look better if I graded on a curve, because most politicians would flunk it. But this is one thing I will not grade on a curve.

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls

---

by: Hypatia @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 18:45:54 PM CDT

174 People Can't Be Wrong!

...And if you look at H.R. 2015, the one that Didn't get out of committee, you'll see 174 Co-Sponsors, One Hundred and Seventy Four! The one that DID pass only had 9, NINE! 165 Reps saw it was a bogus bill, why can any of the candidates?

---

by: CarolinaGirl @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 19:00:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

I wish I could get as excited about Obama as some of the other folks around here.  The truth is, I really don't see much difference at all between Hillary and Obama when it comes to equal treatment under the law.  Sure, there are some differences, but when you get to each of their bottom lines, neither of supports equal treatment for G/L people.  But they do talk a good line trying to make us think they do ... when they want something from us.  But once we become "inconvenient,"  what happens?  

We already know that the Clinton's are always ready to throw us under the bus.  But what about Obama?

I keep going back to the incident between Obama and Gavin Newsome, (something that hasn't received much attention, BTW), as an prognosticator of Obama's future behavior toward the GLBT community.

In a nutshell, Obama asked Newsome to host some fundraisers for his campaign.  Newsome graciously did so ... twice.  And then when he wanted to photograph of himself with Obama, he got stiffed because of Newsome's connection with gay marriage. (More detail here.)

---

by: Mike in Texas @ Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:02:47 AM CDT