McCain heartily endorses California marriage amendment

Ah, so I see McCain agrees with Obama on this one.

"IBMIBAMAAW"

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 21:22:49 PM CDT

Obama has allready endorsed it

with his outspoken support of special civil marriage rights for heterosexuals and his failure to say anything positive whatsoever about the marriage equality currently realized there.  Ironic, isn't it, that the republican governor of CA can oppose the amendment, while the dem presidential candidate can't even utter a congrats to the couples who've waited upwards of 50 years to finally gain access to civil marriage.  PATHETIC

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 21:28:54 PM CDT

Marriage as a 'unique institution'

Unique as in privileged. Some can have it, others, denied. Why? still...no good answer. America, land of the privileged, home of the oppressed!

---

by: juicyjuice @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 21:55:01 PM CDT

Right.

And it's wrong as hell.

I'm going to be celebrating my 16th anniversary in October. But because I selected to spend my life with a man instead of a woman, I get to have legal acknowledgement of my marriage??

Utterly fucked up. ALL COUPLES SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY. PERIOD.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:54:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And there's not one single valid reason why!

It's just blind hatred, bigotry, prejudice, fear, and ignorance. Those are not rational excuses to deny freedom and equality in America.  

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:29:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Once again...

...it seems that in order to be a national-level politician in the U.S. it's necessary to fail Anthropology 101.

---

by: M @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 21:56:19 PM CDT

It was only a matter of time,

  before the Mcsame camp would truly force Obama's hand.  Sure Obama has already said his view on the subject, basically in favor of the HATE amendment.  

 Obama blew his chances on this issue, which is sad because if he changes his position or even says anything intelligent in support of Same Gender Marriage he will be labled as a flip flopper and the right will run the flip flop into the ground.

 Well almost all the Democratic Candidates blew it from the get go as they gave non-answers to the issue.  

 But the real factor is Florida, if Obama keeps his position on the California Hate Amendment how can he view Florida's Hate Amendment differently?  Obama knows that Clifornia will go Democratic even if he loses the LGBT voter support.  Florida is a different animal, Obama loses the LGBT vote in Florida and he loses any chance of winning there.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:07:52 PM CDT

funny thing, but obama has stated an opposition to the FL amendment

here  is a report on that.  so it makes no sense at all that he would hold back on CA.  or AZ, for that matter (if that bigot gets back from vacationland in time to vote it through).

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:16:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

obama's opinion

Didn't he state that he had no objection to the California marriage decision? He stated his personal belief (which I think is a cop-out - you can have any personal belief you want until it infringes on my rights) but did not come out against marriage equality in California.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:29:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

he stated an opinion on the court ruling, not the impending amendment.

i'm wondering if he's hoping to avoid the whole thing by waiting for the CA supreme court to rule on the petition to have the initiative removed from the ballot.  In any case, he's not exactly a paragon of civil rights advocacy, despite the creds he likes to trumpet.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:35:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh, and he did come out against marriage equality in CA

by stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, but gays can have civil unions if their states condescend to grant them.  ok i embellished a bit there at the end, but that is what it amounts to.  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:38:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama said

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman...'asked if what's going down in Cali bothers him', and he said NO.  

---

by: juicyjuice @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 23:15:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a real ringing endorsement.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 23:39:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does Obama oppose SSM?

  I read this over at freepi land. This is the comment from Michelle Obama,

He supports full family and adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples and believes the federal government should not stand in the way of states that opt for domestic partnerships, civil unions or civil marriage, she said. The Illinois senator opposes same-sex marriage.

 I am sure he didn't want to comment about California in either way.  But opposes is opposes and the right are going to grill him on this.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 00:50:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

yeah, that was it

I knew it wasn't exactly right above, but didn't look up what he actually said. A bit lazy on my part. Glad you remembered.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:01:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is my point, he set his own trap

  with his one man one woman belief and support for a second class with his seperate but equal support for civil unions and/or domestic partners line.  Flip, flop, flip.

 AR failed because of the DP benefits would be cancelled for hetero couples.  The hope is the same it will kill FL as well.  AZ rewrote it to stop LGBT people only.

 Obama will have to take some sort of position as the right and McSame camp will push this issue as it is the only issue the conservative base can be unified over to support McSame.

 Obama needs to say that SSM in Mass hasn't hurt his marriage, hasn't destroyed families or caused the sky to fall.  He needs to ask the voters if their marriage has been affected?  How many people have filed for divorce because SSM is legal in Mass?  

 The fact of the issue should be brought out on its face value.  Just because you don't like someone for their skin color or sexual orientation, should that be a reason to deny another citizen of the US their rights?

 But, NO, Obama will duck and weave and try to polically find a neutral position.

 I was pissed off at the Democrats who decided to throw Trans people overboard, and I am just as pissed that they will toss the rest of the LGBT over as well, when LGBT issues are winning issues when the politician has a spine to address the facts of the issues and not make-believe BS

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:41:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LCR doesn't want marriage equality; therefore, no conflict

In my experience, the people who say, "I am gay and I do not want marriage equality" are overwhelmingly Log Closet Republicans. Not only would I would bet that the LCR has no problem with McCain's stance, I would not at all be surprised if the recently noted meeting between them and McCain was basically them giving him their blessing to announce his support of the proposed amendment.

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

---

by: TechBear @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:48:18 PM CDT

I don't think a judge should have let McCain's sorry, adultering ass

out of the commitments of his FIRST marriage, either. The people should have been allowed to vote on his divorce.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 23:09:04 PM CDT

THIS is the poit that has to be made

Someone with courage needs to make a point of McCain's divorce on a national level...like during a debate...

If there is any justice in the world McCain will be asked how his divorce and remarriage does not affect tradition as much as same-sex marriage does.  

Does a journalist dare ask?  Does Obama?  

Would someone please?  Is it that unreasonable of a question?

It makes sense to me.

 

---

by: Patrick @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 23:28:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Marriage =

One man, and one woman after another.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:37:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The appeasement of homobigots by Obama and McCain is gathering speed like a runaway bus, and guess who's' going to get thrown under it again.

McCain is almost as gutless on this question as Obama and the Clintons. He doesn't like judges making legal decisions on constitutional questions, even if six of the seven judges on the California Supreme Court are Republicans and the Chief Justice, who voted with us, was first made a judge by Ronald Reagan. Ditto Obama, the states rights supporter. Ditto the Clintons, pigheaded and bigoted opponents of same sex marriage.
When Obama betrayed Wright he betrayed his heritage. He betrayed us on same sex marriage, ENDA and the hate crimes bill. He betrayed everyone by supporting the gutting of the Fourth Amendment (FISA), by supporting NAFTA and by opposing socialized medicine.

Jupiter Optimus Maximus, if Obama keeps up this pace of betrayals who'll be left to get a taste of his cold steel between their shoulder blades after the nomination and election?

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:07:17 AM CDT

Don't forget his pandering...

...on the death penalty.  Why should we think Obama is going to appoint better SCOTUS justices than McStain would?  When he goes around aggressively criticizing center-right Kennedy and anyone to the left of him?

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:43:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

McSame marriage expert

Tell that to the first Mrs. McCain he dumped after she was disabled and disfigured in a car accident.
If this is the can of worms McSame wants to open....FINE!
The laughable old Dr. No smear McSame wants to use against Obama, may prompt a First Wives Club commercial... (HRC or Move On go for it.)
Bring out the first Mrs Bob Dole...dumped for airline stewardess Liddy the empty wig.
Bring out the second Mrs Giulianni notified of her divorce in an on air interview.
Bring out the second Mrs. Newt Gingrich divorced while undergoing chemo.
Bring out all three of ex-wives of Rush Limbaugh
Bring out wives humiliated publicly, Ted Haggard's wife, Larry Craig's wife, David DIAPER vitter's wife.
To really smack down the repig Holy Grail show the first Mrs, Reagan.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:19:08 AM CDT

fun as that would be

somehow their (lack of) "family values" never gets questioned, just ours. They'd probably call for censure or hearings or something like when Move On called Gen. Petraeus "General Betray-Us."

I hope someone has the courage to ask both McCain and Obama during this year's debates how their marriages have been affected by marriages between same-sex couples in Massachusetts and California.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:58:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did you apply logic?

I love the idea of someone asking those question.

But the main mistake in that train of thought is the usage of logic.  Logic doesn't seem to be taught in the schools of the red states (too busy talking about abstinence, the creation, and the ten commandments, I suppose).

Look at the last two elections: the poorest states voted red - exactly the people who suffer the most under republican fiscal politics.  They did it the first time, suffered for 4 years but still: they voted red again.

The whole logical 'If you think Leviticus should rule people's lives: go ahead and burn all those mixed fabric clothes you bought at WalMart and don't buy those super sized packs of shrimp at Costco anymore either' argument doesn't seem to fly with them either.

I am not overly convinced that the logical approach works.  So what is it about in the end? Fanaticism, bullying around someone who is weaker than you, and hate, I am afraid.

---

by: rupi3000 @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:59:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He's only going as far as most of the Dems this year have

There is no news here; ALL of the Dems, save Kucinich and Gravel, hold the same view Obama does, so why the bellyaching now? And it's clear they did it for expediency's sake, not because that's actually what they believe. You know that both Obama and Clinton are well aware of Loving v. Virginia and the dilemma that poses.

It's absurd to equate Obama's position on marriage with McCain's, given the gulf between them on what rights they do support for LGBTs. McCain isn't for the repeal of both portions of the federal DOMA, Obama is. Obama's position, in fact, by default places the marriage equality battle where it will end up anyway -- SCOTUS.

Until the full faith and credit clause is successfully argued before SCOTUS, we have to move at maximizing marriage equality where we can, building precedent that will be used to bolster our case at that time.

Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp? I can understand the beef with Obama over repeating the "man-woman" nonsense, but he's not McCain, who has been on the recorded vote as against every piece of LGBT rights legislation. The only fig leaf is his anti-FMA vote, and that's what the pathetic LCRs have been clinging to. It just needs to be made clear that Obama needs to either stop repeating this, or to explain each and every time that he is talking about his personal belief, not what he advocates regarding civil law.

Actually Hillary Clinton could have been flogged more accurately on this issue if she were the nominee because her repeal-federal-DOMA-only position has been well-known from the start as well. In point of fact, she's actually closer to McCain in terms of trying to keep her meetings and messaging to LGBTs in the closet during the campaign.  Obama has been much more open about discussing equality issues in this primary season. But still, any Dem running had a more favorable view of our relationships and rights than any Republican.

I absolutely want my marriage to be recognized in every state, but you can be sure it will be outlawed in more states under a McCain presidency, and more of our rights will be rolled back.

It's not make-believe that the majority of Americans still do not support marriage equality (though the numbers are steadily rising), but most support the rest of the LGBT issues we discuss here; arguing purity of position on marriage equality at this point re: the Dem nominee when their positions have been openly stated isn't really productive. Without McCain's or Obama's help or harm, California has opened up marriage equality, other states may follow.

IMHO, the issue to lobby is consistency of argument and visibility of positions, on that front, again, all the Dems in the running have been disingenuous as a matter of strategy, not principle, and yes, that sucks. In fact, instead of focusing on our presidential nominee, why has there been so little vitriol tossed at the Hill, which is the real body that has tossed us under the bus. On that front, Obama and Clinton, as senators, didn't step up, along with many others, because they were certain they didn't have the votes to successfully pass LGBT legislation with the barely-there majority. That's playing it safe and avoiding principled stands. If anyone is responsible it's Reid and Pelosi, who have coddled the Blue Dog Dems who vote the wrong way on our issues time and again. We achieved a hate crimes success in the House only, outside of that zip.

The question is, how large a majority do the Dems think they need to actually move on our legislation? Is winning the White House enough to ensure passage, regardless of a veto-proof majority, or will they come up with another reason why they cannot do anything? Oh, like 2010?

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:08:38 AM CDT

Frustrating opportunity

This phrase gets my attention, Pam:

...instead of focusing on our presidential nominee, why has there been so little vitriol tossed at the Hill..

Perhaps it seems like too much attention is being paid to every word Obama utters - good and bad - and there are volumes of statements to pour over from old man McCain.  You do have a point about the actual work getting done outside of the White House and that the states are setting the stage for what will most likely turn into a SCOTUS death match...decades down the road, undoubtedly.  

The reason Obama is targeted and not Congress, I think, is the same rationale for attacking LGBTs every 4 years (especially).  The amount of press and attention and organization that flows into the year long circus of American national elections provides and opportunity to express the insanity of inequality in a way that isn't as convincing on a smaller scale congressional/senatorial level.  

Even if it feels like nit picking and overly aggressive demands on Obama, I think we have every right - if not the moral imperative - to get downright demanding and impertinent about what is wrong, what is right and what we want.  The exact same hostility is inflicted upon us and if we don't respond with equal - or I would suggest MORE - force then we will be trounced...again.    

Especially this election - where we are close to being represented by a man that has not only the intelligence and experience to be President, but also the identity of an oppressed minority - we must demand attention.

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:30:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

that makes my point on Obama's strategy

Even if it feels like nit picking and overly aggressive demands on Obama, I think we have every right - if not the moral imperative - to get downright demanding and impertinent about what is wrong, what is right and what we want.

Not saying that the community doesn't have a right to point out the flaws in strategy - one man, one woman is a dumb strategy for a constitutional attorney to put forward in regards to civil marriage, but the very body that puts these laws into place goes almost unscathed, as if change alone is a burden that Obama must carry when we all went to the polls in 2006 to effect change, and look at how we're paid back - caves on FISA, Obey in favor of abstinence-only ed -- Reid and Pelosi are beyond playing it safe. And look, Pelosi was lauded by HRC for her work on the Hill for LGBTs. As if. Look at ENDA.

I personally don't think that Obama is anti-gay, rather he is pro-LGBT and hasn't quite the right tools in his toolbox to avoid 1) stepping on land mines that the LGBT community immediately takes to heart as "tossing under the bus" or "caving to the right", OR 2) threatening the broad coalition he's built by any statement indicating he's too pro-gay, not Christian enough/too religious or too liberal/conservative.

On marriage equality, I just don't see how he's going to "get there" in a public statement before November. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble out there. Not. going. to. happen. If he's right on the rest of the issues, then I'm fine to let marriage equality slide as long as he stops using the "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" crap. Remember, Hillary would have done the same damn thing.

If Obama is going to discuss the issue at all, it needs to be reframed, not kowtow to the GOP frame - that's the mistake the Dems make all the time. And that's where our input can be helpful -- as opposed to screaming bloody murder about betrayal right out of the box, repeat early and often the real argument to be made. Obama could say something like this instead:

This matter of marriage equality will eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court; until that time, it's not about what I personally believe about civil marriage, it's about equality under the law.  While I realize that states can and have amended their constitutions to bar same-sex couples from marrying, history will see those decisions as misguided and discriminatory as those laws barring interracial marriages before the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If only we had the chance to be as thoughtful

Making the conversation more civil in the way you frame it above (especially in the suggestion of Obama's word choice) is much more pleasant, if not commendable and potentially persuasive than the automatic call to 'man the barracks' and don the defensive armor that is far too easy/natural of a reaction for us.  

But I'm not going to discourage passionate or hyperactive demands for justice.  That can also be part of Obama's shout out to civility.  He has the power - the position, the clout - to make a difference in our lives and in the direction of the country.  He needs to know how important this is to us and why it is important and that we aren't holding our breath anymore waiting for the right Democrat to fall out of the vending machine of American politics to have a shot at equality.  

If he were to make a statement like you suggest I would take a step back.  But he also needs to address the amendment on the CA ballot and encourage his supporters to vote it down.  

He must do at least that much.  Not only because it is the right thing for him to do - as a Democrat and as the first African American man likely to be President - but because his party held us down in a chair during the 2004 election while John Kerry punched us in the face with handcuffs wrapped around his fist allowing 13 states to rob us of our citizenship making it possible to water down ENDA and forget hate crimes legislation.  Afterward, Dianne Feinstein appeared on the scene to nurse the wounds of Kerry while turning her back to our suffering.  

We didn't make this problem for Obama.  His party did.  

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:23:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Opposition to same sex marriage is the hallmark of christian bigotry.

 
Obama is a christian bigot. And yes, so are most Congressional Democrats. They gutted ENDA and the Fourth Amendment, voted for DOMA and DADT, dropped the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill after it passed both houses. They sent such a clear signal of our second class status that at least half a dozen young GLBT folk have died since at the hands of christian thugs.  And they support the genocide and its extension, as do Obama and McCain.

To say that Obama's excused because he fits right into the rancid right-wing politics of the Democratic Party is not exactly a ringing endorsement. The truth is that the Democrats, Obama included, are just as reactionary in the real world as the Republicans. The difference is they lie about being rightwing and the Republicans don't even bother to lie because nobody's silly or naive enough to believe them, except the Log Closet dummies. However the same cannot be said for supporters of the Democrats, especially the Stone Closet Democrats.  

Voting for any Republican or Democrat, including McCain or Obama, is a vote for war, bigotry and the rapid erosion of our standard of living and the protections of the Bill of Rights.
 

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 14:55:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is ironic...

that John McCain voices his opinion that marriage is for a man and a woman.  For him, which woman would that be?  His first wife he cheated on (making him an adulterer) or the woman he cheated with, who is his current wife?  
Maybe he should have said he supports an amendment that marriage should be between a man and his current wife.

---

by: kkaatz @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:11:04 AM CDT

McCain supports ban in California

Mercury news...

SAN FRANCISCO-The sponsors of a ballot initiative that seeks to ban same-sex marriage in California say Republican presidential candidate John McCain has endorsed the measure.

The ProtectMarriage.com campaign says it received an e-mail from McCain Thursday in which the Arizona senator expressed his support for the group's efforts "to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman."

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:58:11 AM CDT

Obama does not support ban in California

from Shakesville....

Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:10:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So how about

if we put this into a different perspective? If he walked around all day, quoted by the press and followed by a gaggle of cameras, saying "You'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers", would you say he supported or opposed gun control laws?

A right-wing meme is a right-wing meme is a right-wing meme.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:22:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd say

He must be campaigning in the south!!!

If I were running for Pres, given the knowledge I have about the vast population of bigotry in this country, I'd take a similar stance.

The presidency is won by popular vote.

Civil rights are won(realized) are not. Or at least should not be. Obama, when he is president, will allow the courts to make this decision....I am hoping, anyway. McCain will do whatever the majority tells him to do, as long as he can continue to make money off the war, etc...like Bush the past 8 years.

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:33:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

except that

civil rights are and have been for the past 8 years decided by popular vote, in the majority of states and counting.  they will be decided by popular vote in FL and CA and maybe AZ this november.  i agree they shouldn't be put to the popular vote, but they most certainly are.  what is obama doing to help sway that vote in a positive direction?  he picks up the gop anti-gay frame.  nice.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:05:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's vote him president first, then see what he can do

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:12:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by then, he will have done irreprable damage to FL & CA.

he need to step up to the leadership plate NOW.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you saying

his comments now are affecting these states? I am just trying to understand. I guess I didn't realize that. I still think him stating same sex marriage is ok would hurt his chances of being elected. I know it's the right thing to say, but politicians have to appeal to the broadest audience possible if they want to win election.  

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:49:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

he can have it both ways.

it is possible for him to stick to the CU line, and still be outspoken against the impending amendments in FL and CA.  so far, he has quietly mentioned once (as far as i know) that he doesn't support the FL amendment.  no mention of CA at all, just the negative "one man one woman" gop mantra.  he needs to be sure his supporters in those states know that he expects them to vote for equality.  he can make a difference.  in fact, he's laid the groundwork for it already by mentioning fairness to LGBTs in his speeches.  now he needs to follow through and make sure he spreads his coattails for us in those states (at least).  he can frame it not as an endorsement of marriage equality, but as standing in opposition to using constitutions to disenfranchise entire classes of americans.  he can stand against the amendments on the principle of "no discrimination in the constitution".

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:58:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are right.

I wish he would. I don't know what his reasoning is by not being more vocal against the amendments. My guess is there are a lot more of 'them' than 'us'. Maybe he is tiptoeing around the issue because of the votes he might lose if he spoke too loudly in our defense...our equality, that is. There are just too many bigots running around with voter cards.

But you and Pam both make great points that he should speak more openly about equality for all, not target the OMOW rhetoric.  

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 13:25:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

how do you get that conclusion from that paragraph?

what she is saying is that obama has stated his respect for the supreme court decision.  this means he thinks they interpreted the state constitution soundly. but this doesn't mean he approves the outcome.  on the contrary, he has stated many times that marriage is 1 man + 1 woman.  he has NEVER had a positive thing to say about the actual marriages happening in CA, or elsewhere for that matter.

i'm not trying to talk you out of your support for obama, but be realistic about who you are supporting.  he is most certainly not a supporter of civil marriage equality for LGBT people.  he won't stand in its way where it happens, because he's a states rights supporter.  but ya know, when you take the states rights approach, you have to accept the good (civil unions) with the bad (civil marriage), as each state decides.  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:01:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My point being that

McCain does not have respect for the supreme court ruling. Obama does. That's my take on it, at least.
I am being realistic Lurleen, Obama has said he supports full equality for us, just not calling it marriage. I still feel all Americans should have the right to marry who they choose, and call it such. But the reality today is that the majority of Americans are bigoted and oppose our equality. A man running for president can't expect to win by going against the majority, as I said, majority elects the pres. The pres, in turn, helps get the judges elected. The judges, in turn, interpret the law and if they are intelligent, and not bought like Bushes dregs, they will see the hypocrisy and inequality of denying people their rights based on bias and ignorance by the majority of the population.  

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:18:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's all well and good for him to say he supports CUs,

but is he suggesting institution a federal CU?  i've heard nothing about it, have you?  i don't want his support if it means him supporting, even facilitating the right of yet more states to enact anti-equality amendments.  he stands by talking about something he isn't even prepared to enact (federal CUs) as discrimination gets written into yet more state constitutions.  it's sick.  and people lap it up.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is how he feels

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid...

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

as I said up thread

He's not going to be perfect on marriage equality, and that's been clear from the start. My suggestion is that he answer the questions in this manner, rather than stirring the pot with either side, which seem ready to pounce and harp on every word as indicative of tossing one group or another under a bus. He could say:

This matter of marriage equality will eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court; until that time, it's not about what I personally believe about civil marriage, it's about equality under the law.  While I realize that states can and have amended their constitutions to bar same-sex couples from marrying, history will see those decisions as misguided and discriminatory as those laws barring interracial marriages before the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia.

That takes it out of the realm of the "personal belief" conundrum, which is irrelevant when you're talking about civil rights. That's the trap all the Dems have set for themselves this time around.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:55:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed.

In my earlier post, the video of Obama speaking in January, he basically states that no one should be denied their rights. He said the word marriage has a religious meaning for many, so that's why he is says OMOW. But he states civil unions should equal marriage's rights and privileges, just called civil union instead of marriage. It is a step forward..especially if it can be on the Federal level.

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 13:01:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

can you point me to proposed legislation

for federal CUs?  it's a smoke screen.  really.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 13:02:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No. I can't.

But I don't think it's a smoke screen. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Our struggle won't be over anytime soon. But I think we have a better chance of moving forward with Obama than McSame. And I like the fact that he acknowledges his own history of his parents and the ban on interracial marriage. I really think because he lived it, he may have actually learned from the experience, and hope he will always bring that with him in matters that so closely resemble it, ie same sex equality.  

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 13:12:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i do hope that you are right.

i also hope that when i'm working away in CA this summer/fall against the amendment, i'll have the opportunity to share a public venue with the dem nominee, who will be announcing his opposition to writing discrimination into the state constitution.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 13:15:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Me too

I hope you have that opportunity....can I ask, are you planning on voting for Obama?

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 13:28:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes, you can ask.

i will probably vote for obama, since every vote is likely to count in my state.  will wait and see how tight the race gets.  if i were in a slam-dunk state, though, i'd probably abstain if i were voting today.  he still has time to solidify my support, but time is fast running out.  the election is only 4 months away.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 14:19:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i think your suggested statements

are quite excellent.  the problem is, he isn't adopting them.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 13:01:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would have more respect

for an Obama apologist if they just came out and said "Yeah, he's a bigoted creep - no getting around that. But he's slightly less bigoted than the other creep."

Come on, do you actually believe this stuff you're putting out? He's really pro-LGBT he's just hiding his light under a bushel until after the election? He's going to wave his magic President wand and suddenly create a whole new status, complete with national recognition, out of thin air? Something that will compete toe-to-toe with an established civil institution that has several hundred years of legal precedent behind it?

Wake up. Seriously, just wake up. Nothing is going to come from this. There will be no "civil unions" created. There will be no national recognition. And there will be no need to repeal DOMA because with his direct, vocal and very tacit support, marriage rights will be repealed for those few of us who have it. And we'll be told it just wasn't the right time and they didn't have a big enough majority in Congress and the mood of the public wouldn't support it, but if we hold on and get them through the 2010 election cycle....

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 14:55:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think Obama is going to fight for our rights

Like he should. Like any president should, to protect and defend the rights of all Americans. You are right, they are all bigots in that sense.

I think at this point the only way we can have equality is bring it to the Supreme Court. Just like history has shown, that civil rights, or lack thereof, can only be justified by the courts.

I don't need your respect, and I say that respectfully. I honestly, and truly believe that Obama would not stand in the way, as McCain would. He won't fight the fight, that's something we, the LGBT community and supporters, will have to do. I think all politicians lie to get elected. That's true. But I don't think Obama is lying. I don't think he will magically give us our rights. But I do think he can be more useful to us in office than McCain. Maybe I am wrong.

I do know that for the past 8 years our president has been nothing but an embarrassment to this country. And McCain would add 4 more years of it for sure.

If you think we have other options for pres other than Obama or McCain...let me know. I will vote for them and their magic wand.  

---

by: juicyjuice @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 15:32:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This sounds like

I do know that for the past 8 years our president has been nothing but an embarrassment to this country. And McCain would add 4 more years of it for sure.

If you think we have other options for pres other than Obama or McCain...let me know. I will vote for them and their magic wand.

This sounds like you're voting against McCain. I can wrap my head around that. No problem understanding that at all. McCain is Bush in an older, crankier package.

I think all politicians lie to get elected. That's true. But I don't think Obama is lying.

This I don't understand. How can he not be lying? He knows the powers of the Presidency, and he knows he can't possibly swing the civil unions setup he keeps vomiting up. Not only is there no legal way for him to do it, there's no precedent for state recognition of it if he could. I know that, you know that, he knows that. So what is it, if not a lie? He might as well be promising us that he'll cover us with magic pixie dust so we can fly off to Gay Never-Never Land, it's just as likely to happen. And since we all know it can't possibly happen, why do you keep pointing to it as proof that he's really a nice guy, underneath, where it can't be noticed much?

There's a slim chance I'll vote against McCain in November. There's a much larger chance I'll leave that part of the ballot empty. I will never believe that he's not a bigoted, piece of crap hypocrite who got the benefits of the same legal system and protections he's trying to deny us, all while doing his level best to convince us he's our best hope and best friend. I don't need or want friends like him, and please stop trying to convince me I do.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 18:14:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what a crappy boss

That McCain would deny his own homo COS the ability to marry his longtime male partner with whom he owns a DC home.  Perhaps we should adopt stringent standards regarding marriage and the production of children, thereby nixing the marriages of John "Silver Spoon" McCain and his heiress, as well as Larry Craig and his beard.

---

by: greatwhitebear @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 14:57:56 PM CDT

what a self-loathing underling

to accept money in exchange for someone working to deny him access to civil law.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 16:13:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama can't actively support SS Marriage and win

I'd say that for marriage, attention should be paid to the Federal Senators and Representatives - Obama would need serious backup. Even more important is work on the state level in progressive states, to move along SSM into law. The more states that back SSM, the more political cover it gives a Democratic politician who takes a pro-SSM stance.

Obama WILL get us ENDA, Hate Crimes Bill, and can use executive powers to forward employment in the Fed. Govt.

McCain will get us ZIP. Actually, will veto any pro-gay measure.

---

by: NancyP @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 16:54:27 PM CDT

..at least McCain stopped beating his wife.

This in the Huffington Post....talk about old, old, old boy 'jokes'!

In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, columnist Jon Ralston asked McCain why he didn't choose Gov. Jim Gibbons (in the middle of a messy divorce) to chair his Nevada campaign:

McCain: I appreciate his support. As you know, the lieutenant governor is our chairman.

Q: Why snub the governor?

McCain: I didn't mean to snub him. I've known the lieutenant governor for 15 years and we've been good friends....I didn't intend to snub him. There are other states where the governor is not the chairman.

Q: Maybe it's the governor's approval rating and you are running from him like you are from the president?

McCain: (Chuckling) And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago . . .

Not exactly rection formation, Lev, ..but at least reactive deflection.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 17:09:24 PM CDT