Obama would have to sign a congressional resolution overturning DC's new marriage equality statute

[ruggerson]

in order for it to be blocked.

As such, it's very much appropriate for him to indicate he would not sign such a joint resolution should one emerge from Congress (which, thankfully, is unlikely.)

I look forward to a strong statement from the President standing forcefully with the citizens of DC and their right to self government.

[IndianaGreen]

1. Good luck with that!

Obama didn't lift a finger against Prop 8.

[msongs]

2. wrong - he sent a minor letter to an obscure group nobody knows about nt

[ruggerson]

3. I guess some here don't want their President taking a stand for equality

I'm shocked. Truly.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Like the stand he took on DADT and DOMA

Enough of his sweet words and empty promises.

[Enrique]

5. but you're not really expecting such a statement, right?

not really?

[ruggerson]

6. I keep hoping

that was what this last election was purportedly about, right?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. It will be signed, if it comes to that, so I don't know that the gesture would help

He would have to make the promise and also to keep it. The first is dubious, the second inconceivable to me.

He would, as the last necessary actor, be personally enabling real-live gay marriages... on TV.

The other way he would, with a stroke of his pen, be preventing it.

I doubt he would enjoy that choice, but if that is the choice there is no way he wouldn't sign it. And his current bluff-value is zero.

[ruggerson]

8. This is exactly what the bully pulpit is for

to slap down Republicans who undoubtedly will scream about it until the thirty day period is up.