Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Is Obama suddenly favoring same-sex marriage?

By

Mike thinks so.  I’m skeptical.  You be the judge — here’s the letter that’s raising the issue.

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club’s Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It’s time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today’s celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Obama has repeatedly — and quite recently — stated his belief that “marriage is between a man and a woman,” and he has never (until now, maybe) said that he favors allowing same-sex couples to marry.  Recall, for example, his exchange with Jake Tapper at ABC barely three weeks ago:

TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.

OBAMA: Yes.

TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?

OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I’m a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we’re involved in a national conversation about this issue.

You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.

He has always said that he favors extending state and federal benefits to gay couples, but as far as I know, he wants to do that via civil unions, not “marriage.”  And he’s always said the states should decide the issue.  Yes, it’s possible to read the letter the way Mike reads it.  I just think it’s unlikely that such a dramatic change in position would be announced in a letter, and in such an elliptical way.

I’m glad Obama has come out (“come out” — get it?) against the California amendment; that’s a significant statement on his part.  But I’d be quite surprised if the letter means more than that.  I’m happy to be proven wrong, though!

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …

    <

    p>I’ve never heard anyone who understands what it’s results have been hold up the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy as an example of “extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples”.  

    <

    p>This is a real head-in-the-sand stance.  

    <

    p>Am I missing something?

    • From the letter:

      That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. [emphasis mine]

      <

      p>He opposes both DoMA and DADT.

      <

      p>(However, “leave it to the states” is a real head-in-the-sand stance.  Cf. Loving v. Virginia, and the case of a US citizen marrying a non-citizen.)

    • That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy

      <

      p>I think you may have missed a word. It’s an example of what not to do.

      <

      p>AFAIK, Obama’s stance on repealing DOMA and DODT have been consistent, and I believe that repealing DOMA would grant federal marriage rights to all marriages in California and Massachusetts. And in addition, Obama wants to extend the same federal rights of marriage to couples in other states that have marriage-under-a-different-name for same-sex couples. I think he sees the battle that at the federal level that can be achieved short term is to recognize all same-sex civil marriages in the States that grant them, whether as marriage or “union”.  

      • Here’s an example of when it is an unfortunate that a legal opinion becomes a political issue.

        <

        p>I don’t think it is all that unreasonable to be (i) in favor of SSM, as a matter of policy, without simulataneously (ii) thinking it is a constitutional right, see Loving.

      • all this will be settled by lawsuits based on the full faith and credit clause, and the fuss will be over.  A constitutional amendment won’t be necessary.  

        • When you say that all this will be settled by the FF&C clause, are you assuming that DOMA is still in existence?  Can DOMA be challenged as violating the FF&C clause?  The real defendant under that claim would be a state not recognizing an out of state same-sex marriage.  The argument would be that the state must recognize another state’s valid marriage despite DOMA because the FF&C clause trumps a Congressional act.  I’m not sure if DOMA was exacted based on Congress’ Spending Powers or the Commerce clause, but either way its safe to say that DOMA is within an Art I enumerated power.  Can Congress exercise a valid Art I power to prevent one state from recognizing an out of state same-sex marriage, or does the FF&C clause overrule DOMA?

          <

          p>What about the second part of the FF&C clause that reads “the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof”?  Can Congress prescribe that “the Effect” of proving that a valid same-sex marriage exists in another state is that the state still does not have to recognize it?  Is that how DOMA was enacted?

          <

          p>I believe that the FF&C clause also has a public policy exception that does not require a state to recognize another state’s judgment if such recognition would undermine a public policy.  I would think that a public policy of one state not to recognize same-sex marriages would be undermined by requiring that state to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

          <

          p>I disagree that the FF&C clause will settle this all within 10 years.  As long as discrimination against homosexuals is tested for 14th Amendment purposes using the rational basis test, challenges will fail in Federal courts.  I think the only real shot at winning a constitutional challenge against a state barring same-sex couples from being married is convincing a court to invoke heightened scrutiny by making the case that homosexuals are a discrete and insular minority deserving of such heightened scrutiny.  

    • In 1997, the GAO identified 1049 federal benefits to marriage (source {pdf}).  States may be able to choose who may marry, but federal law has tremendous influence on the rights and responsibilities, financial and otherwise, of those who are married.

  3. Or dog whistling.  He explicitly mentioned four(!) LGBT issues (DOMA, DADT, hate crimes, employment discrimination) without saying he was for the legalization of gay marriage in all fifty states.

    <

    p>But, he is moving the bar.  He’s made it clear he supports less inequality than past administrations, Republican or Democratic.  That’s the good news.

    <

    p>The bad news?  It sure appears that he intentionally implied the support of gay marriage without actually saying it.  Was he dog whistling the LGBT community, or was he pretending to throw the tennis ball, only to hide it in his pocket?

  4. and broad brush strokes.

    <

    p>That’s all that’s here.

    <

    p>It’s an improvement over the Bush administration (hey, he’s willing to even send letters and talk to the glbt community), but not a significant improvement over our last Democratic Nominee.  

    • Kerry supported state constitutional bans in his own state, as well as other states, even after Bush got in with another term and Kerry was out of luck.  We were talking about an amendment that wasn’t even going to be on the ballot for sure at the time he said this, with no presidential campaigns to consider outside of a vague delusion that he was actually going to be the nominee again in 2008.

      <

      p>Obama opposes the CA marriage amendment, even going into a presidential election cycle, and this is while there are lots of gay people who thinks that he’s the antichrist on gay issues and will sell gays down the river if elected (ironic, since many of them supported Hillary).

      <

      p>Below is the full text of the article on Obama’s opposition the CA amendment:

      <

      p>

      Obama opposes proposed ban on gay marriage
      John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer

      Wednesday, July 2, 2008

      (07-01) 19:35 PDT — Gay rights moved to the forefront of the presidential campaign Tuesday after Democratic Sen. Barack Obama’s announcement that he opposes a November ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in California.

      In a letter to San Francisco’s Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, the presumptive presidential nominee said he opposed “the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution” and similar efforts in other states.

      Obama’s position on Proposition 8 was announced at a club event Sunday after a move by Arizona Sen. John McCain, the expected GOP standard-bearer in November, who last week told officials of Protect Marriage, a coalition that gathered 1.1 million signatures for the California measure, that he backs their efforts “to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman.”

      For both campaigns, the decision to get involved in the same-sex marriage debate carries political risks.

      California is one of three states with same-sex marriage bans on the November ballot. While the state is seen as Obama country, and Arizona is McCain’s home state, Florida, the third state seeking to limit marriage to a man and a woman, is a swing state that will be a major prize in the November election.

      Obama is skating gingerly past his previous position on the issue.

      The Illinois senator has said repeatedly that he believes marriage should be only between man and a woman. When the California Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in May, Obama released a carefully nuanced statement saying he respected the court’s decision, believed states should make their own decisions on marriage and “will continue to fight for civil unions as president.”

      But civil unions, gay activists argue, aren’t the same as marriage, and they say his earlier stance would put Obama on the wrong side of what’s increasingly seen as a civil rights issue.

      Support welcomed
      Groups opposing Prop. 8, which would amend the state Constitution to say that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” were excited to have Obama on their side and more than willing to overlook his mixed record on the same-sex marriage issue.

      “It’s great to see Sen. Obama’s statement, which is consistent with what he has said in the past about allowing each state to make its own decision,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality for All, which is heading the Prop. 8 opposition. “Is it ideal that he doesn’t support same-sex marriage? No. But it’s important when political leaders say gay and lesbian couples should be treated equally.”

      Still, the Obama campaign didn’t go out of its way to announce the senator’s position on a controversial California ballot measure that will have repercussions across the nation. Instead of a splashy public endorsement ceremony, complete with beaming supporters of same-sex marriage, Obama announced his support midway in his letter, which was read at the club’s annual breakfast.

      That didn’t bother Julius Turman, co-chairman of the club.

      “I was thrilled to see the senator step up to the plate and say how he feels about discrimination,” he said. And while Obama might personally oppose same-sex marriage, Turman said the candidate “is well on the way to being educated.”

      But Prop. 8 supporters accused Obama of trying to have it both ways by coming out publicly against same-sex marriage, but opposing any efforts to ban those unions.

      “His position makes very little sense,” said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, California. “If he’s opposed (to same-sex marriage), he should just say so. Instead, he’s trying to appease the wealthy elite who support gay marriage.”

      It’s no surprise to see McCain on the side of the same-sex marriage ban. While he opposed a GOP-backed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in 2004, he supported a failed 2006 Arizona initiative that would have blocked domestic partnerships as well as same-sex marriages.

      Both Obama and McCain have called for individual states to decide how to handle same-sex marriage, and the November elections will show where voters in those three states stand.

      Early polls show that while the Prop. 8 race is likely to be a close contest in California, many of the young and liberal voters who back Obama are strongly opposed to the same-sex marriage ban. But those groups of voters don’t have nearly as much clout elsewhere in the nation. A CBS poll taken early in June showed that only about 30 percent of American voters favored legalizing marriage for same-sex couples.

      A single loss
      Only one of the more than two dozen state ballot measures banning same-sex marriage has ever lost, and that was the 2006 Arizona measure that also would have eliminated domestic partner benefits in the state.

      But while the same-sex marriage question will come up during the fall campaign, experts don’t believe it will have the same effect as it did in 2004, when politicians like California Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s open door to same-sex marriage might have cost Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry the presidency.

      Nationwide, the country’s economic woes and the war in Iraq are likely to play much more of a role than same-sex marriage in the November election, said Bruce Cain, a UC Berkeley political science professor.

      “Obama’s position (on same-sex marriage) can be used against him in a few states, like Ohio and Pennsylvania,” Cain said. “But same-sex marriage is unlikely to have anything like the impact it did in 2004 since issues like the economy and the war will provide him with a lot more cover than Kerry had.”

      Ballot measures
      Text of measures to amend state constitutions:

      California: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

      Arizona: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

      Florida: “Inasmuch as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage … shall be valid.”

Archives