I imagine the spin rooms/closets over at the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud went a little nuts over the last few hours, in the wake of the President’s announcement of support for marriage equality. “How do we simultaneously get angry about this without people pointing out the obvious fact that the candidates we support sorta kinda hate us and don’t support much of anything when it comes to our human dignity or equal rights?! What do we say, what do we say, what do we say?”
“That the president has chosen today, when LGBT Americans are mourning the passage of Amendment One, to finally speak up for marriage equality is offensive and callous,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. “Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch. This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign’s ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short.”
Yes, Clarke, while we do acknowledge that Dick Cheney also supports marriage equality, we also live in the real world and understand that he is the exception to the rule in your party. Obama has simply come in line with the rest of his party.
GOProud continues the whine, in surprisingly similar terms. It’s almost like they run their messaging by each other beforehand so that their followers know exactly what to say later, bitterly, in comments sections:
“It is good to see that after intense political pressure that President Obama has finally come around to the Dick Cheney position on marriage equality. I am sure, however, the President’s newly discovered support for marriage is cold comfort to the gay couples in North Carolina. The President waited until after North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.”
“This is hardly a profile in courage by President Obama. For years now, President Obama has tried his hardest to have it both ways on this issue.
Right Wing Watch points out the fact that the GOP candidate supports neither civil unions nor marriage equality, but remember, when dealing with gay conservatives, that they don’t really want dignity or equality; they just want to feel like they’re right.
Evolution complete! I am watching the ABC interview as we speak, and it’s official. Barack Obama has become the first US President in history to endorse full, federal marriage equality for gays and lesbians. AlterNet has more. I’ll update with video when it’s available.
UPDATE: John posted about this at the exact same time I did. That just means Truth Wins Out is doubly excited!
The blogosphere is buzzing with rumors that President Obama, who will sit for a hastily-arranged interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts this afternoon, will officially endorse marriage equality today.
The New York Times, Politico, and others are reporting that the issue will be discussed at length, and that Roberts will press the President to clarify his position. Richard Socarides, who served as an LGBT adviser to the Clinton White House, told Politico, “I’m hopeful that the president is going to speak directly on this issue. When he does, I think it will be an important moment.”
A tweet from Marc Ambinder, White House correspondent for National Journal and contributing editor at The Atlantic, added fuel to the fire. Ambinder wrote: “So do I think President Obama will endorse same-sex marriage today? Yes. Yes I do.”
Not holding my breath here, but needless to say, if the evolution does happen today, it will be a watershed moment. We’ll keep you posted.
While the world waits to see whether President Barack Obama’s position will “evolve” on gay marriage before Election Day, one thing is certain: His party’s evolution has already taken place.
Obama is probably the last Democratic presidential candidate who can win the nomination without voicing full-throated support for marriage equality. For the past two presidential cycles, LGBT voters have swallowed their pride and openedtheir wallets while the Democratic contenders dissembled. On one hand, they claimed to be for full equality, while on the other they demeaned our relationships and damned them to second-class status.
Implicit in this humiliating deal was that the Republican challenger was so awful that gay voters had nowhere else to go. There was also the underlying fear that turning critical elections into referendums on same-sex marriage might backfire and place an ogre in the White House.
This trepidation was exacerbated by the candidacy of Ralph Nader, who elevated (with the help of the Supreme Court) George W. Bush into the Oval Office. This historic debacle underscored that elections can have severe consequences and that victory in this divided nation often comes by a razor thin margin. In truth, many LGBT voters were concerned about being cast in the role of Nader and blamed for sabotaging a close election.
In terms of Barack Obama, the activist side of me wants him to embrace marriage equality today. As someone who is legally married, I personally feel the sting of not having access to the same federal rights and benefits as my heterosexual peers. Because I travel often for my job, it seems that half of the month I’m in a recognized marriage in Vermont, while the other half I find myself in states where I am officially single and have no legal protection. Such disparate treatment is disgraceful, humiliating, and un-American.
Nevertheless, the pragmatic part of me wonders whether Obama embracing gay marriage will harm his chances in the nine swing states that will decide this election. Clearly, these states are not all bastions of tolerance: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
There is also concern over how embracing marriage for same sex couples would impact the four states that lean in favor of the Democrats (Minnesota, Michigan, New Mexico, and Maine) and the states that teeter towards the GOP (Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina).
The argument in favor of Obama evolving now is that most voters believe he already supports gay marriage and those who would vote against him because of this issue were never voting for him anyway. Meanwhile, coming out in favor of marriage equality would energize the progressive base and open the floodgates of gay volunteers and money. It would also show true leadership and restore the idea that Obama’s presidency stands for hope and change.
I wrestle mightily with the ramifications, if any, the President might face if he supports gay marriage. LGBT advocates can be mostly correct about the decision having few consequences. But a bad outcome in one or two of the seventeen swing or tilting states could still cost Obama his reelection. Thus, I remain deeply ambivalent about him coming out in favor of marriage equality prior to the election.
What I do know is that Obama being reelected is significantly more important than him supporting gay marriage today. A victory means four more years of Americans becoming comfortable with the idea of their LGBT friends and family members marrying. It means fair-minded Supreme Court justices, who may well have more impact on this issue than any president. It results in almost half a decade of unbridled and irreversible cultural change, while watching polls in support of same-sex marriage approach sixty percent.
I also know that this is the last time we will ever have this debate. Vice President Joe Biden’s comments in favor of marriage on Meet the Press, combined with Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s seal of approval, signals that the debate is over in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party. This is even more apparent when one considers that party elders, such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, have endorsed gay marriage. Both are not only former presidents, but committed Christians, which essentially gives Democrats of faith permission to vote their consciences.
It is simply unfathomable that a serious Democratic candidate in 2016 would split hairs and disingenuously claim they believe in full equality, while denying loving same-sex couples the right to marry. That dismissive strategy may have worked when only candidates with little chance of winning, such as Dennis Kucinich, championed the cause. But the equation is changed when leading Democratic contenders, such as Joe Biden, have embraced genuine equality.
After November, any Democrat with presidential ambitions who claims he or she is still evolving will be an unelectable dinosaur.
There comes a time in every Porno Pete’s life, when he sees the writing on the wall, sees that his life’s work will be officially a waste in a few years’ time, and comes up with a plan he thinks is clever, in order to stave off the inevitable for a few more days:
A strong voice for traditional marriage suggests President Obama should be honest with Americans and just come out and endorse homosexual “marriage.”
Over the last two days, two members of Barack Obama’s Cabinet — Vice President Joe Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan — announced, in so many words, their support for “gay marriage.” Biden stated Sunday he is “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex couples who marry getting the same civil rights and liberties as heterosexual couples. Then on Monday, Duncan stated for the first time publicly that he supports allowing homosexuals to “marry” in the U.S.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality tells OneNewsNow that he believes it is just a matter of time — and timing — for President Obama to endorse homosexual marriage.
He’s right. Probably just after the election.
“If you look at the swing states that Obama’s got to win, or he’s trying to win — Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana — these are places where same-sex marriage is not popular, and so I think Obama is holding off,” LaBarbera offers. “I think he really supports so-called same-sex marriage. And besides, he’s doing a ton already to help the gay side fight for same-sex marriage.”
Porno Pete is actually kinda right, but for the wrong reasons…
LaBarbera adds that a person would be “beyond naïve” to believe Obama would not come out in support of same-gender marriage after the election is over. “This is all about politics. He knows he can’t do it now because it might jeopardize some swing states,” state the family activist. “So the Obama administration is so phony on this issue it’s not even funny.”
So here is the problem for Porno Pete and others like him: regular Americans, even in those swing states, just aren’t that energized by hating gay people anymore. Nobody who lives his/her life, day in/day out, in seething Porno Pete-esque fear of gays, is ever going to vote for a Democrat anyway, at least not enough to count very much in the final tallies. Moreover, Barack Obama’s opponent really doesn’t have very strong credentials in the “hating gays” department, so an Obama endorsement of marriage equality really wouldn’t tip the scales like Porno Pete thinks it would. Sure, Mitt Romney is kowtowing to wingnuts right now, but based on his record, there is no evidence that he would give a DAMN about their concerns, if elected. Would a President Romney come out for marriage equality after the election? Hell no. But in all likelihood, he really doesn’t personally care.
Porno Pete is upset because he believes, erroneously, that if Obama were to reveal his true feelings on the issue [I do agree with Pete that Obama completely supports marriage equality, but is playing politics], that some sort of silent wingnut horde would rise up to vote him out. Not gonna happen. This isn’t 2004. A majority of Americans support marriage equality, and while it’s true that those percentages are spread unevenly across the states, only the most fervent of resentful wingnuts are clinging to their bitter hatred of gays as a political issue. Americans are still concerned with bread and butter issues like the unemployment rate, and really don’t have too much time to lose their minds over whether Bruce and Larry down the street have equal constitutional rights.
So, Porno Pete, take all the time you want, wishing and hoping against reality that if only the President would stop playing politics, that your side will ultimately win. But dude, your moment has passed. History books will record that moment with embarrassment.
In a conversation with David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press, Joe Biden threw his support behind marriage equality:
GREGORY: Have your views evolved?
BIDEN: The good news is that as more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about is a simple proposition. Who do you love? Who do you love and will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out what all marriages at their root are about. Whether they are marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals. [...]
GREGORY: You’re comfortable with same-sex marriage now?
BIDEN: Look, I am Vice President of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights. All the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that. [...] I think Will & Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far. People fear that is different and now they’re beginning to understand.
Today, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan followed in Biden’s footsteps and offered support to marriage equality. On the show, Mark Halperin inquired if Duncan supported same-sex marriage and he replied, “”Yes, I do.”
Biden’s statement has the Internet humming with commentary:
Biden told Gregory that he believes all marriages, “of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals,” are, at their root, about love.
To claim that the man who said that is still “evolving on this issue,” as Biden’s office is trying to do, is — as with the first lady’s comments in March — only possible by taking an adventure into Wonderland. — Chris Geidner, Metro Weekly
While it’s easy to read between the lines and come to the conclusion that Biden is endorsing the freedom to marry – especially considering his past support for the LGBT community – it’s important to keep in mind exactly what the Vice President said and what we want to hear. The two are not necessarily aligned.
The Obama campaign has already started pointing out the nuance of what Biden said and the disconnect between what the media is reporting in a breathless frenzy.
David Axelrod has taken to Twitter to say, “What VP said – that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights – is precisely POTUS’s position.”
A campaign spokesman gave Politico this statement: “The Vice President was saying what the President has said previously-that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights.”– Bill Browning, Bilerico
“Only in Washington and in politics could someone attempt to parse the words of what the vice president of the United States said on Meet the Press today. His words speak for themselves — and they send an incredibly important message outside Washington to the young LGBT teenager hearing the vice president of the United States talk about his belief in marriage equality and the fact that he or she can grow up and have the same dreams and aspirations as their friends, their colleagues, their parents. – Chad Griffin, Incoming Human Rights Campaign President
Out of all of NOM’s failed campaigns of late, this one will be the biggest failure:
You’ve heard about leading gay marriage activist Dan Savage’s vile attack on Christian teens at an anti-bullying assembly at a Southern California high school this week.
But did you know that President Obama has endorsed Dan Savage and his “It Gets Better” campaign as a core part of the official White House campaign against school bullying?
Is this what stands for “anti-bullying” inside the Obama White House?
Please take a moment right now to tell President Obama that Savage’s hostility toward Christians has no place in an anti-bullying campaign.
They actually have a pre-printed letter that you can send to President Obama:
But I was appalled by the hostile anti-Christian rant recently unleashed at a Southern California high school by Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” campaign.
I see that Savage’s “It Gets Better” campaign is prominently recognized on the White House website as a model for anti-bullying programs across the nation. Is this truly the sort of example that your administration wants to hold up for a model to the nation?
It got so bad as Savage cursed the Bible that a number of students quietly got up and walked out of the auditorium. This isn’t the sort of “bully pulpit” our nation needs.
Of course, you’re free to edit their letter, so if you’d like, take a moment to send President Obama a letter, through NOM’s website, thanking Dan Savage for the tireless work he’s done to help LGBT teens.
Joe points out that all of this is really much ado about nothing, as the walk-out was very likely staged. The more I watch the videos, the more I tend to agree. Fundamentalists are nothing if not constantly dishonest people:
As I’ve mentioned here before, this so-called “walkout” was very likely staged and prearranged by Focus On The Family, whose anti-Day Of Silence event was also taking place on April 19th and who that very day posted quotes from the involved students. For those unaware, FOTF asked Christian parents to keep their kids out of school on the annual day for observing anti-bullying campaigns.
If you watch the clips closely, you’ll see that students begin to get up and leave before Savage even says his first sentence about religion. You’ll also note that FOTF strategically placed a high-rez camera to capture the three rows of the audience of 2800 that walked out. These students, who exited with smirks and at least one “thumbs-up” to the camera, didn’t feel “bullied” or “offended,” they were asked in advance to attend and then walk out. Faked fakery, but quite well executed considering the result.
As I said, I think Joe’s right. If so, congratulations, Focus on the Family, on using teenagers to pull off a well constructed lie.
This is a really interesting exchange from today’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. As Andy said, The Washington Blade, Metro Weekly, and NBC “piled on,” asking Carney why Obama had rejected an executive order which would have prohibited federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people. This is one of those “process” things. The Obama administration appears to believe that the best course to follow is one similar to their process with getting DADT repealed, building support to get ENDA passed. Others respond, “Yes, but wouldn’t this executive order help that process along?” It’s an interesting exchange, and it’s nice to see journalists pushing the administration on these things.
]
Think Progress has this statement from Rep. Jeff Merkley, who supports the idea of an executive order, and who is a leading proponent of ENDA:
“I appreciate the President’s support for ENDA and will keep pushing for legislative action. However, an executive order would be a very constructive step forward and help build momentum to pass the bill,” he said. “It’s disappointing that the White House is passing on an opportunity to make immediate gains for equal opportunity in America.”
It’s going to be really interesting to see what happens after Obama wins re-election.
MassResistance has always been one of the silliest anti-gay hate groups in the country. If you’re looking for hysterical ravings, check in with Brian Camenker and Amy Contrada. A shining example of this is their memo speaking out against the US State Department’s project to fight anti-gay violence around the world. Said memo is a long doozy of madness, but let’s take a look at it anyway:
The Obama administration has announced that it is taking the unbelievable role of pushing the homosexual agenda around the world and punishing countries that don’t comply.
Back in July, MassResistance reported how the Pakistanis angrily denounced the US Embassy’s open homosexual parties as “cultural terrorism.” Well, that was just the beginning.
It is always so strange how the Religious Right haaaaaaaates Muslims, except for when certain Muslims say/do anti-gay things. Then they’re fine. Unless they’re trying to play victim about how mean the gays are being, in which case they say things like, “why are gays so hateful against [right-wing, fundamentalist, anti-gay, hate-group-supporting] Christians? Why, we don’t hang them like they do in Iran! Perspective, folks!”
Now, foreign countries which seek to protect their citizens against homosexuality and the homosexual movement will be actively confronted by America’s State Department, foreign service, and other federal departments, according to a Presidential Memorandum released by the Obama Administration announced on Dec. 6.
Earth to MassResistance: those countries already have gay people. The US is just trying to get the more backward corners of the planet to treat their gay citizens a little better.
Unless countries around the world subordinate their own social and religious values to U.S. demands that they embrace homosexuality and the homosexual movement, they can expect interference from the US government in their internal affairs and punishment — using foreign aid and in international commerce, trade, banking, travel restrictions, and the like.
Mirroring the homosexual lobby’s (and the Left’s) traditional tactics, Obama is characterizing this as a “civil rights” quest for homosexuality and transgenderism.
Obama is on a QUEST! For homosexuality and transgenderism!
The other day, Porno Pete was complaining that we on the mean gay side of things increasingly treat the Religious Right as if they have no legitimate arguments about anything. This is why.
In the memo, Obama declares that America will be targeting foreign countries having laws or customs which “criminalize LGBT status,” don’t allow LGBT pride celebrations, or allow other “discrimination” against homosexual or transgender behavior. Obama also repeats the homosexual lobby’s mantra that there is widespread violence and murder against “men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation” causing him to act, but he does not give any specifics.
Obama assumes you know how to use Google.
The memo then breathlessly recounts all the terrible, terrorist things that the Obama administration is doing to try to help usher in a world where it’s just not considered polite to execute people for being gay, and then that section wraps up with this:
Take another look the list of federal agencies involved, and the vehemence of the Obama administration on this. Make no mistake about it. This will lead to increasingly brutal oppression against people with traditional values both in America and around the world.
Vehemence! Brutal oppression! Why won’t anybody think of the wingnuts and their constitutional right to never have their fee fees hurt or their beliefs questioned?!
Time to complain about Hillary Clinton:
The same day that Obama issued that infamous Presidential Memorandum — Dec. 6, so-called “International Human Rights” Day — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated Obama’s memo in a speech given in Geneva, Switzerland. (She’s unquestionably the only US Secretary of State ever to give a speech entirely on America’s support for homosexuality.)
Speaking to the Europeans, she specifically reinforced Obama’s directive to coordinate with and help fund international homosexual organizations, which will work to subvert the efforts of foreign countries holding traditional moral values and attempting to protect citizens from the effects of the homosexual agenda.
Just so we are totally clear, the countries that have “traditional moral values” and are “attempting to protect citizens from the effects of the homosexual agenda” have a really bad habit of passing laws criminalizing people for being gay, jailing them, sometimes giving them the death penalty. As much as Brian Camenker wants you to believe that this is all about Wingnuts of the World wanting to live free of their strange fear of people different from them, it’s not. It’s about nations that, like, kill gay people.
Starting a worldwide homosexual terror group?
As she said, this $3 million is “to start the fund.”
Look for enormous funding to come from various far-left government and private sources. This is quite frightening, because these radical groups can be used to perpetrate all kinds of sleazy and quasi-legal destabilizing and harassing activities in foreign countries that US government agencies can’t do so easily.
Sleazy! Quasi-legal! Worldwide homosexual terror group! Um, no, Brian, this is still about places like Uganda that want to pass things like the “Kill the Gays” bill.
3. Gov’t sanctioned website for homosexual activists in US State Dept. and foreign service reveals how far Obama Administration has taken us.
To see how far the Obama Administration has gone, one only needs to go to gliffa.org – “gays and lesbians in foreign affairs agencies.” The “gay pride” events in federal offices which seemed risqué just a few years ago, have given way to a virtual takeover by the State Department and foreign service around the globe.
Oh, god, they have a website. This is much more serious than I thought.
The next section of the memo details the horrific story of a transgender person being treated like a human being, working in the State Department, because of a new nondiscrimination policy which requires EVEN TRANSGENDER PEOPLE to be treated like human beings, rather than objects of the Religious Right’s confusion and derision. Even worse…
Last summer MassResistance reported that the nation’s blood supply is facing new danger from political pressure to change rules regarding homosexual blood donors. The major pressure was to ignore public health principles and bow to dangerous political correctness was from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
Now Sebelius is going even further. Her keynote speech centered around new legislation forcing insurance companies to cover the destructive effects of reckless homosexual behavior even if they are pre-existing conditions. She has also worked to have insurance cover “domestic partners,” and to extend the coverage for expensive “preventive testing” of homosexual-related diseases and health risks. These new mandates, of course, will help dramatically raise the price of health care for all Americans.
Um, so Brian seems to be insinuating here that Kathleen Sebelius has a master plan to inject AIDS blood into the US supply. Because as we all know, all gay blood is AIDS blood. Moreover, she wants loving gay couples to have health insurance benefits, and, wait, what’s this about “preventive testing?” You mean she wants gay people to have access to health care, which is a well-known way to prevent STD’s like, um, HIV/AIDS? This memo is getting really dumb, unless you’re a wingnut, in which case you’re just shrieking at all the scary words without taking time to comprehend them.
Moreover, if ObamaCare survives, it won’t be long before we taxpayers will be forced to subsidize “gender reassignment” surgeries and procedures.
Indeed. The actual master plan is for every transgender person to be teamed up with one “family valyews” wingnut, and they will be forced to become best friends. When the time comes, the wingnut has to write the check for the surgery.
Anyway, MassResistance concludes by explaining that the Frothy Mix known as Rick Santorum is our only hope, if we want to preserve a world where, more or less, there are still some places where you can do a little institutional gay bashing and get away with it.
Because, I guess, the most important issue facing our world today is protecting the poor, unwitting people of Uganda, Iran, etc., from Barack, Hillary and their roving band of rainbow terrorists.
The president of a group dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda thinks President Obama should be impeached for ignoring the law and ordering Blue Cross Blue Shield to provide coverage for the same-gender “spouse” of a federal worker.
Amy C. Cunninghis, the “wife” of Karen Golinski, a federal court employee in California, was previously denied coverage. The new position follows a ruling from U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White of San Francisco declaring that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples”
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) tells OneNewsNow the directive was in a letter from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, instructing the insurance provider to “implement an expeditious enrollment of Ms. Cunninghis.”
“This is another shocking act by the Obama administration, which has got to be the most arrogant and Constitution-abusing president in America’s history,” he decides. “The Obama administration didn’t like the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress [and] signed into law by then-President Clinton, and so now they’re just ignoring it and blatantly disregarding it.”
[...]
“I believe that President Obama should be impeached on this alone,” he suggests. “He’s not dictator of the United States of America; he’s president, and he can’t just ignore the law, ignore the Constitution, to pander to his homosexual activist base.”
Right, see, civics lesson for Porno Pete real quick: the fact that the law was passed and signed by another president does not mean it’s constitutional. Obama’s Justice Department has determined that the law is, in fact,unconstitutional. The courts, every time they have a chance to speak on the matter, also suggest that the law as written and enacted is unconstitutional. This conclusion is actually not hard to reach, even if you’re a wingnut. A person need only understand the meaning of Full Faith & Credit to realize that DOMA flies in the face of the US Constitution. That’s why the law is dying a much-too-slow but inevitable death.
Scare quotes are in the original piece from the hate group’s “news” website.
