White House released statement to HuffPo after NY's passage of gay marriage bill

[Tx4obama]

The White House released the following statement to The Huffington Post:

The President has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples. That's why he has called for repeal of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" and determined that his Administration would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts. The states should determine for themselves how best to uphold the rights of their own citizens. The process in New York worked just as it should.

Text above can be found under slideshow photo #6 on following link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/new-york-gay-marriage-bil_n_884439.html#s298092&title=President_Barack_Obama

[tandot]

1. Great news :)

K & R

[Armstead]

2. There's a problem with that...What state you are in should not determine your rights

If someone lives in Massachusetts and wants to get married to a same-sex partner, they have the right to do so. They are considered full citizens.

But if that same couple move to another state where it is not legal, they lose that basic right, and are less thsn full citizens.

That's not right.

[TheWraith]

3. Hence a reason to repeal DOMA.

Thereby requiring states to require legal marriages from other states. And then effectively eroding the position of states which don't allow gay marriage.

[phleshdef]

6. Yet when it comes to marriage, its always been that way.

It took Supreme Court intervention before interracial marriage was nationally recognized. It will be the same with nationally recognized gay marriage. It will become a reality by first getting recognition on a state by state basis and then someone will eventually bring it to the Supreme Court and hopefully the Supreme Court has the right bench at that time and it will rule that all states must recognize it. These problems are solved in steps.

[boppers]

8. If two mentally disabled people have the right to marry in one state, but not another, then what?

Two drunken people?
Two 16-year-olds?
Brother and Sister?
Citizen and minor foreign national?

While it pissed off a lot of people, an early DOMA defense memo pointed to a reality where states *had* a right not to recognize marriages from other states... and the exceptions created to those laws were for protected classes, not for everybody.

[liberalmuse]

4. Well, that's nice, and I still love Obama, however...

States determining for themselves to uphold rights for their own citizens worked so fucking well for women's rights and getting rid of Jim Crow. President Obama, please, please, PLEASE take a stand for human and civil rights like LBJ did. It's not that hard. Marriage for all consenting adults needs to be implemented from the Federal Level ASAP.

[David Gill]

5. LBJ didn't have to work with the Tea Party

It's not even certain that Congress is "liberal" enough to raise the debt ceiling and keep the country's economy from facing devastation. You think he has any real chance of getting a repeal of DOMA, or a law recognizing same sex marriage? What more can he do, other than issue directives to executive agencies, like telling the Justice Department not to enforce DOMA? Is it really 100% necessary that he shoot himself in the foot politically by explicitly stating that he supports gay marriage?

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Let's take an honest look at how Obama already treats State

Law the Fed does not agree with. He seems to be proposing that basic human rights be subjected to the same methods as Medical Marijuana, States approve it, then the Fed, well, it that case the Fed is constantly attempting to impose their law on the States. They raid, arrest, they write letters to State officials containing threats of legal action and prosecution.
And we already have a few states with Marriage Equality. The Fed refuses to acknowledge those marriages, and that is the entire problem. This is double talk from a double talking, religionist, sanctimonious hypocrite.
I personally make note that when faced with heterosexual sex scandals, adultery, prostitution, Obama never mentions the Holy nature of marriage, nor does he say 'God is in the mix'. He never, ever says a word like 'sanctified' in the face of an Ensign or a Weiner. Never says Sacratment to a Vitter or a Newt. If he was really 'concerned' about the institution of marriage, would he not express that concern when actual marriages are dragged through actual gutters? Why must he spout about this faith exclusively about gay people? He sees adultery out of Edwards, while Edwards preaches about 'sanctity of marriage' and Obama said nothing at all. Not one word about his God or about tradition, he did not unleash McClurkin on them, none of them. No matter what Straight Couples do, Obama remains silent, they have affairs with their employees, he is silent. But a gay person wanting to get married, oh, then he pulls out the dictionary of religious terminology and puts on his smug face,purses his lips and spouts off about religious matters. Anyone who can look at that display without laughing in his face or puking on his shoes is part of the problem. The straight community allows that to happen. None of you ask him if 'God is in the mix' when some Republican has a public second family or is found diapered in a house of ill repute. They help to sell that lie, willfully, and when they stop, things will change.
Why you guys are willing to look at Ensign and Vitter and permit the President to slander gay couples while never saying a thing about them is beyond me. A Sacrament? But it is fine if it is sullied by Ensign? God does not mind much? Arnold. Sanctified by God's own hand?
Write to the President and tell him what you think of people who hold his sort of creepy thinking. Stop holding back.

[rusty fender]

39. This is the most excellent post ever on the Pres's hypocrisy on marriage equality

You summed it up in a way that reveals the truth of the matter. I thank you for this post.:woohoo: :applause:

[xchrom]

7. i'm ... underwhelmed ... w/ all his enthusiasm.

:eyes:

[bigwillq]

10. Did you expect anything different?

I wasn't holding my breath.

[stevenleser]

12. Yes, because what he said was so horrible it deserves a snarky response...

:eyes:

[emulatorloo]

20. Yes, truly awful: "gay couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples"

"The President has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples."

I wish everybody who wants to get married could legally get married. I think spinning Obama's statement as if it were homophobic is an overreach.

[tekisui]

23. At this point in history it was a feeble, weak, deflecting comment.

No backbone, no standing up for what is right.

Would it kill him to just say what he knows to be right?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Weasel words. "I'm too political to take an actual stand" words.

Evolve, already, why dontcha?

[Doctor Hurt]

37. DUH.

He's a politician, looking to get re-elected.

He'll evolve right after he re-ups. Watch.

[Mass]

13. I' m confused. If DOMA disappears (which it should), how can the states

determine what is best for their citizens? If somebody gets married in MA, or NY, wouldn't this marriage have to be recognized in OK pr AL ?

[stevenleser]

14. Yes, which is the way it should be. n/t

[Mass]

16. I certainly agree it is the way it should be, but how does the WH statement make sense?

a/ Each state decides.

b/ Each state has to accept what another state decides.

This is the part that looks contradictory. Frankly, states deciding means that for year some people will be denied rights in some states.

[Honeycombe8]

15. I don't think W.H. should've made a statement. It didn't, after the taking of union rights in

what state was it...Wisconsin?

Either the W.H. stays out of state's affairs or it doesn't. I don't think it should pick issues to issue statements about. But it was political, I guess.

Or does it mean the W.H. agreed with what happened to the unions in Wisconsin?

[emulatorloo]

18. Obama made several statements that were supportive of the workers in Wisconsin

Conventional DU "wisdom" is he said nothing in support, but that is not true.

[great white snark]

19. Thank you.

Of course now the goalposts will be moved to "his statements weren't STRONG enough."

[Honeycombe8]

35. I meant AFTER the bill was passed. The W.H. made some statements before...

but it didn't come out strongly AFTER the evil deed was done. No W.H. statement was issued, as I recall, and I think I even posted that the reason for that is that the W.H. doesn't get involved in state's affairs.

So if he makes a statement for this, then that means the W.H. really didn't care so much about the Wisconsin law.

[alsame]

17. Wrong. Civil rights should not be determined by which state

you live in. He knows this, he just won't say it before the 2012 election.

[MNBrewer]

21. When it comes to "teh gays" Obama is a State's Rights Democrat

Why should GLBT people be subjected to a patchwork of legality regarding marriage, Mr. President?

Doesn't the Full Faith and Credit clause require something else?

[ruggerson]

22. If you're going to vote for Obama in '12

the easiest and most ethical thing to do is admit he's on the wrong side of this and move on.

I plan on voting for him for re-election for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean I will twist myself into a friggin pretzel in an attempt to defend him on marriage equality.

It's indefensible. It displays a lack of moral courage. This states right crap is completely at odds with his public pronouncements on DOMA. But that doesn't mean I can't still pull the lever for him in Novemober '12 and hope he gets his act together on this issue in the meantime.

[Doctor Hurt]

38. Of course it lacks courage

Leaders need courage. Politicians need power.

I elected O to be a politician. I don't need a leader.

[Ice Number Nine]

25. He's the best President for LGBT Rights we've ever had, and yet it's still not good enough.

???

[AtomicKitten]

26. I don't think this particular issue should be up to the states.

The South will never, ever vote for marriage equality and will pass legislation to legalize not recognizing couples married in other states.

I also don't think marriage equality should be on the ballot as a referendum.

This is a civil rights issue that will require a federal level intervention. I don't expect to see this before the election of 2012; for crissakes Republicans won't even go along with raising the debt ceiling without seizing. The current political climate makes it impossible.

I do, however, think it is likely President Obama will do this in his second term. I also know with certainty that a Republican will not. Working to put a progressive Congress in place in the interim is the best strategy in my view.

[ruggerson]

27. Repealing DOMA

is only one part of the equation at this point. A repeal would give couples who are married in states where it's legal full federal recognition. But there would still be laws on the books in the south and elsewhere forbidding marriage equality and explicitly disallowing recognition of marriages performed in other states.

One of two things needs to occur in order for nationwide marriage equality to occur:

A constitutional amendment authorizing it (which will never happen)

or

A broad Supreme Court decision a la Loving which, in one fell swoop, could invalidate all the state laws and amendments forbidding same sex marriage AND reassert the primacy of the full faith and credit clause AND find DOMA unconstitutional.

Having Obama and Congress push for a repeal of DOMA would be great, but this train has almost moved past them - this his going to the USSC regardless, via one of many lawsuits around the nation, and that is where the whole enchilada will be decided.

Otherwise, I agree with your thoughts.

[AtomicKitten]

28. I fear the current Supreme Court will not rule favorably.

However, Clarence Thomas has provided beaucoup evidence (conflict of interest and refusing to recuse himself, accepting gifts, not reporting wife's income, etc.) supporting his removal from the SC bench.

[ruggerson]

29. yes, that's always a possibility

but that's the system we're stuck with. We can't invalidate all the individual state's prohibitions on marriage except to repeal them state by state or to have them unilaterally struck down by the courts.

We should find some hope in the fact that Anthony Kennedy wrote BOTH the majority decisions in Lawrence and in Romer.

[AtomicKitten]

30. Never stop hoping.

[Very_Boring_Name]

31. "I don't believe you're equal but can I still have your money please?"

n/t

[AtomicKitten]

32. Anyone believing that misrepresentation is free not to donate.

[mitchtv]

33. if he were only that honest +1

pretty much says it

[Tx4obama]

34. I you are going to use quotation marks then you should state the person you are quoting.

President Obama never said those words.
That quote is a figment of your imagination.

[great white snark]

36. -1 Who are you quoting?

If you feel that way, donate to his primary opponent.