The White House has nowhere to hide from MSM equality questions as Gibbs blows it at presser

[ccharles000]

President Obama's absurd strategy on LGBT issues has left his press secretary Robert Gibbs completely unprepared to handle questions from journalists about marriage and DADT. At today's press briefing Gibbs was hit yet again with questions about the administration's untenable, illogical position that our Constitutional scholar President believes that separate is equal when it comes to marriage.
Cornering Gibbs was ABC's Jake Tapper, CNN's Jill Dougherty, and Bill Press. Up to bat first was Tapper, on marriage equality (he slayed Gibbs last week as well on this):

Q Okay. And the second question on a completely different topic -- the President opposes same-sex marriage, but he supports giving same-sex couples the same rights as married people.
MR. GIBBS: And benefits.

Q Same rights and benefits. What's your response to critics of his policy who say this is exactly separate but equal?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to the any number of times that he was asked this during the campaign and addressed it.

Q I don't think he was ever asked is this separate but equal.

MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, it was asked on multiple occasions, and I can pull you something on that. It's the President's belief -- he strongly supports civil unions, and supports ensuring that they have access to the rights and benefits, such as hospital visitation and things like that, that are enjoyed by others.

Uh, in other words, separate but equal. Own it, people. That's exactly the President's position, and it's bullshit.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10944/the-white-house-has-nowhere-to-run-nowhere-to-hide-from-the-msm-on-equality-questions

[Muttocracy]

1. K&R & link to video

http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/12/HP/A/18517/White+House+Briefing+with+Press+Secretary+Robert+Gibbs.aspx

[dgibby]

2. And this from a man whose own parents wouldn't have been allowed

to marry in certain states. What is it about Civil Rights for everyone that people don't get?

[vaberella]

5. Actually O supports gay marriage. He wrote against Prop 8 as it

is a violation of civil rights. He's said that from the beginning. He just doesn't call it marriage...he calls it civil unions. Marriage by any other name is marriage in my book.

[ccharles000]

9. He does not support marriage equality.

CU's are not the same as marriage.

[vaberella]

17. Actually the system that is followed to getting a CU

has be to be followed by hetero couples before they can get "married" by a Church of some kind. The only thing is in some cases there are benefit issues and I haven't seen O say anything in regards to those. There is portability but that has nothing to do with some personal vendetta against homosexual relationships he just strongly supports the states making their own changes with the supreme court being minimalists. The last is in the name...which to me is insignificant...in comparison to the first issues which can change with congressional mandates. However, some states are doing it.

[Terran]

22. I don't know where you're getting this malarky, but

Obama does NOT support civil marriage equality, and civil marriage is not the same thing as a 'civil union'. What Obama is proposing, merely in theory so far, is a separate but equal system for same-sex couples. That you have some doubts about this is kind of weird.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. How can you stand to type such a spin?

Obama clearly and very specifically opposes marriage equality, and he says he does so because of his religion. What you are saying is false and offensive.

[vaberella]

18. I've heard what he says.

He has said that he finds marriage to between a man and woman but he believes in civil unions. What is the difference between civil unions and marriage?! Basically it's name, it's benefits (which changes depending on state accepts it, and recognition. To me the first is irrelevant. Because I can call any hetero marriage a civil union since they all have to follow the same procedure. What is the problem is the last two. Those can be met though----remember O is not a supreme court minimalist...he doesn't believe the supreme court should be getting into all social issues. He strongly believes in the state....in some cases he's right...in this one I'm on the fence. In any event if all 50 states agree to gay "civil unions" that takes care of the last, then it's about the benefits. I have never heard O say that gay couples should be denied each others benefits.

If you have, point me in that direction.

[Terran]

23. You are missing the point

The issue here is, what Obama supports is a separate-but-equal system, which he already knows is unconstitutional. You keep saying, "to me" it's the same thing...well, unfortunately you have a misinformed opinion, you're not looking at facts.

[ruggerson]

16. and schools for different races was fine with you too?

[vaberella]

19. To be honest....

I personally don't agree with it but in actuality there is talk of doing such a system in England. The reasoning I remember for that was because many minority students are "misunderstood" (which I have to agree with). As a friend stated...she had to go to the principal 10 times in a semester because her son was looked to be a problem. However it was her son and the minority children who faced that sort of treatment. She said there should be a system like parochial schools have for Black children. I disagree since I felt what could be done was just add more minority teachers and follow programs.

But that's neither here nor there. I just don't believe in marriage to be honest. However, for those who want to shackle themselves in a ridiculous institution that is mocked by society----I don't want to hold them back since it's a free country. That being said, I have not seen where O has blatantly said gays don't deserve the same marriage rights as homosexuals. He separates things by terminology civil versus marriage. Marriage is a lame traditional term that has no significance excluding the benefits----considering those who marry follow the same procedures of a civil union before they see a priest or reverend of some kind. When it comes to the benefits and it's lack of recognition. O has said before he's a supreme court minimalist and strong support state initiatives not mandates forced on them. So it's irrespective of the situation. In this case I disagree. In any even, that being said...I haven't read where O believes that gays shouldn't have the same social rights through marriage that heteros have.

Point me to where he has if he has. I've only seen him differentiate by "name" only.

[ruggerson]

3. It's past time for all Democrats, not just Obama, to put this civil union thing to bed

the world is changing and your constituencies (moderates and liberals) are overwhelmingly for marriage equality.

Get out of the fucking nineties and grow the fuck up.

[ccharles000]

8. I agree

[Forkboy]

4. It's been Obama's weakest issue for me all along.

And he shows no sign of getting it any time soon.

[jgraz]

6. How much power do the Dems need before they stop running from what is right?

Really, if not this president, then who?

[uponit7771]

12. It's not those OUTSIDE the tent it's those INSIDE the tent that like to pee

...and stank up the joint.

We have republicans that ran has dems cause people hate reThugs right now and holding them together is a full time job.

[jgraz]

20. That makes no sense.

How are fake Dems preventing Obama from dropping his segregationist stance on gay marriage? He doesn't actually have to *do* anything, just stop giving moral support to bigots like James Dobson and Carrie Prejean.

[pot luck]

7. I don't understand why he's delaying having this repealed.

The majority of Americans supports ending DADT. Repealing it is not controversial and will not distract from implementing other important legislation, so why wait?

[ColbertWatcher]

10. Good find. And good on the WH press corp finally getting some balls. k+r, n/t

[uponit7771]

11. Do you think we've made ANY progress on this issue by electing Obama? Thx in advance

[lunatica]

15. It depends on what you mean by progress

If you think that talking openly about the issue and the vigorous debate this country is having is progress and that ultimately equal civil rights will be obtained once and for all then it's definitely progress. Can you imagine that happening if we weren't talking about it? You need go no further than prop 8 to know what would happen.

Being silent is tacit agreement with those who would take anyone's rights away. And no state is just handing the GLBT community any rights. Every advance has been fought for and won.

[nichomachus]

21. Well, yes

Obama doesn't actively exploit the issue, like Karl Rove did. I suppose that's progress. But I was really hoping Obama would be more than "Not Rove."

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Part of what really sets me off

is that Obama leaves all speaking about all GLBT issues to Gibbs and Gates. Gibbs seems offended to even say the word 'gay' much like Reagan. Gates is a Bushie. Obama is silent, mum, without comment.

[Phx_Dem]

24. Does sound to me like Gibbs blew it. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

25. Oops. Just notice my typo! s/b "Does NOT sound to me like Gibbs blew it."