We gays love you already, now seal the deal! You know what's right.

And I hope he does indeed come out in favor of same-sex marriage BEFORE the GE.

I am kinda scared. I have queer friends who are going the "he is using us" route, and that is a dangerous game to play, considering the alternative. He is not a homophobe, I know that. But...when you grow up queer in the Bible Belt..well by the time you get to be a certain age, you're just fed the hell up, you know? A lot of people have reached that point.

But I don't like your use of the word "queer". It's offensive.

and when it's used by non-LGBT persons it can be depending on its use, but as a queer man myself I rarely find it offensive.

I realize it is contentious, but as someone who identifies as homosexual and genderqueer, I don't feel like there is a problem with me using it. Apologies if you feel otherwise.

I know some people do not identify that way, but some of us do. In fact, when I don't feel like explaining the nuances of my orientation and gender identity, I say I'm queer and call it a day. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, though.

I just find queer to be offensive, even in this context. That's all. Carry on, queer.

by calling me queer, you aren't. I call myself that, so how could you? Agree to disagree. I am queer and proud of it.

Since it's not offensive and you wouldn't take it that way in this context, right?!?

if you're not a hater of LGBT persons and not using it that way, which from this conversation, I feel like I can safely assume you are not, no, it is not offensive. I think you were TRYING to make it offensive to prove a point, though, and I was simply clarifying that you failed. I get that many LGBT people dislike the word. Well, some of us identify as queer. Get used to it, get over it. It is not your place to tell anyone how to identify.

I am saying you are not proving yourself right as you thought you were. I've no idea what your identity is in this context, and do not care. However, it is not up to you to tell me I cannot identify as queer if I want to just because it offends you, and your attempts to shout me down on the matter have failed. Anyway, I am done derailing this thread over an issue that is simply silly, one that many people will never agree on.

to likely provoke a less reasoned response from you.

Obama has had 4 years to speak out and fight for equality in marriage.

Betting this will be a campaign move. Vote for me and I'll fight for it. Then it's never mentioned again after Nov 7th.

that is huge. I really think he wants to, and to drop the PC rhetoric for a moment, I think I can say this as an African American: Black church vote. If he courts queers too hard, gay hating Black Church goers, who are a HUGE part of his base, will rethink. He cannot lose them.

I am both Black and Gay, as well as gender variant. I get caught in the middle too. Its hard. That's why I am not being too hard on him on this one.

I just don't see any movement by Obama at any time on this issue.

I see no evidence he really cares one way or another.

But I think he is smart enough to realize that he'd lose a substantial portion of his base re: re election, if he openly says "gay people should get married."

"lose a substantial portion of his base re: re election, if he openly says "gay people should get married."

While I think it is political, it has nothing to do with his base.

In other words, he would not lose, as you say "a substantial portion of his base" if he came out with his support for gay marriage.

As a gay male, I hate to say this, but if it meant the election... I'd rather him say it the day after the votes were cast.

If he says it before, he will be a hero in my eyes. I would probably cry it would mean so much to me.

But, I would just hate to think of losing an election like we did in 2000... so close... over something I know the President believes in anyway.

And if we lose this election I will cry even harder.

Frankly, looking at the alternatives... looking at the Rick Santorums out there... no matter how much we "have this in the bag" I AM TERRIFIED.

I don't want this close enough for them to steal

He has stopped defending one article of DOMA. The article which mandates that same sex marriages do not have to be automatically recognized in other states would still be defended by the administration. Apparently political concerns trump the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

That said, the fact that he has stopped defending the clause which prevents all same sex marriages from being recognized by the federal government is a huge step forward.

It just barely gets any news. I figured people would know this by now.

I remember public option fondly.

Obama has spoken out against DOMA. And that's what I believe you are referring to.

He has NOT spoken in favor of legalizing same sex marriage. HIs public position is actually one of opposition to marriage equality, and it remains so to this day.

n/t

"But concerns persist on how an endorsement of same-sex marriage would play in four or five battleground states."

And I don't want him to lose an election over this. As much as I would love for him to do it before the election, it could cost him dearly. Because if any one of the Repukes wins, it WILL be over for us. I think he will do the right thing after he wins.

This is election is too important.

I know what Obama believes deep down, and that means a lot to me.

And if he came out and said it before the election he would be one of the bravest men in political history.

But there is more at stake in this country right now than even my own self-interests. We are trying to save a nation. So if I have to, I can wait a few more months to hear the President voice the opinions I know he already holds supporting gay marriage.

Blue is not a great color on me. I am sorry I am jaded (a much better color on me), but I see this propaganda to draw us in. Personally, I would be happy if he did; I think it would be a wonderful thing. We shall see.

and have found not one other reference to this. You have one "anonymous source" in the Obama campaign talking to one "reporter" and no confirmation of any description. Why do we pay attention to unconfirmed anonymous sources?

This did not used to be called journalism, and in the past any media with a sense of ethics or responsibility would not publish it. The editor would require then the source's name be published for credibility, or that the information be confirmed with at least one other credible source. This artile is not journalism, it is hackery.

It is utterly senseless to be basing a discussion on something that is almost certainly fiction.

any more? Thanks for bringing it to our attention anyway.

108 articles on it in the news.

http://news.google.com/news/story?q=obama+marriage+before+election&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dH7JxYF8VWbtofM4NEHZlYLrtsfZM&ei=1g9tT6vdKs3YiALzxZmIBQ&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQqgIwAA

Every single one of them linking back to and/or citing quotes from that one single article in the Washington Blade and the one single "anonymous source" in the Obama campaign.

I stand by my earlier post. A discussion based on this single source is idiocy.

It doesn't mean your point is invalid, but it is similar to journalists who so often spin news the way they favor it.

Given the way news is reported today... it may be true or may not be true.

But I don't think it is safe to say, yet, that it is pure fiction.

And I don't mean this post to be in anyway angry or antagonistic.

I think he knows it's the right thing to do. So do it, and earn some respect. The homophobic bigots aren't going to vote for him anyway.

So far, he seems to be making the safe move IMO. As much as I favor marriage equality, I think he should wait until after his re-election before assessing that. At least with BO, he's entertaining the idea of marriage equality. Those other four guys utterly oppose it.

because they are so opposed to the equal rights of others is not in any way a 'Moderate'. What is moderate in saying 'well, I went with Santorum instead of the President due to my opposition to gay people'?
Get real. Those who hate minority groups are not moderate.

The President ought to know he's stepping into a mine field. Leave it up to the States.
The most he should do is enable Federal benefits for SS Couples in States where SS marriage is accepted.
This is not an endorsement its just fair play.

HOW IN THE FUCK is that fair play?


It is people like you that are the problem. You are no progressive -what the fuck are you doing on DU - trolling?

Attitudes like yours are why we are still in the dark ages.



Should we have left jim crow laws up to the states?

Slavery up to the states?

States have shown time and time again they can not protect minority rights.

I don't believe for one minute that he's actually opposed to same-sex marriage - he's not ignorant; just shamelessly political sometimes.

I am not a political calculation.

Either you support IMMEDIATE EQUALITY for all Americans, or you are a bigotted piece of shit not worhty to be President.


Pick your side, President Obama - either for Equality and fairness for all Americans, or be relegated to the bigoted trash heap of history.

I could see Missouri, but Illinois?

Yes, we have a lot of right-wing religious bigots down south, but marriage equality is not going to cost Obama Illinois.

If he lost Illinois, he'd be losing every state in the country. That's not going to happen unless he eats live babies on TV. And maybe not even then.

upon favorable political winds, then fuck him.

about equal marriage rights at all before the election.

Call me a cynic, but I really don't believe he will.

Federal Defense of Marriage Act and

. . .

President Obama is still E V I L!?

Grow up!

Stop voting for Republicans.

Vote for Democrats. That means including President Obama.

Please point to the number of people claiming this? Please point to the number of us voting republican? Which commenters are claiming they are voting for a republican because Obama is evil?

OH...that's right...NONE OF US!

No wonder I started sneezing...it was all that straw in your illogical comments.

You should have said something about a pony. Then you would have had the trifecta.

could not win a mayor's election. Frankly, the Straight White Community is the GOP, and if they stopped voting that way so constantly the GOP would not exist.
So. Stop voting for Republicans, Straight folks.

Most all of us LOVE Obama.

And welcome to DU

Cannot marry legally in 44 states?
Cannot receive your spouse's social security upon the spouse's death (if over 65)?
Cannot be sure that if you make a will, your will will actually be honored and not overturned in favour of your family, even if you are estranged from that family?
Cannot be sure that your spouse can make health care decisions for you even if legally empowered to do so?
Has to pay a punishing inheritance tax in case your late spouse's will IS honoured and your inherit his property? (Hint: straight spouses are not obliged to pay this tax)?

Can still be fired or evicted in 29 states if your orientation becomes known?

Then you know nothing about being in a same-sex couple. I am sick to death of us being told to "grow up" because we are sick and tired of being the object of politicial games.

Last edited Sat Mar 24, 2012, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

If we are to be blamed, that would be a shame.

Because this would undoubtedly be one of President Obama's greatest moments.

I would also add that anyone who would blame the Gay community over this, doesn't deserve to be called a Democrat to begin with & should seriously consider joining the party of hatred for all things good.

Just my two cents.

When asked about marriage equality during the Presidential debates, Bush was solid and direct in his position. Kerry was more lukewarm to the idea and wishy washy, neither for marriage equality nor against it.

Currently, Romney is against nationwide marriage equality but in favor of some limited protections for gay and lesbian couples. In a way, he's in a very similar place to where Kerry was in 2004. If Obama comes out solidly in favor (and I believe, in his heart of hearts, he already is), then it will be Romney left to flounder on this issue in front of a live TV audience.

The only people that will not vote for Obama over his endorsement of marriage equality are people that aren't going to vote for him anyway. However, this is an issue that can get the left flank his base fired up and excited and can also attract moderates. It's high time that Democrats put Republicans on the defensive on this issue, once and for all, and Obama has a brilliant opportunity to do so if he chooses to sieze it.

But the cynic in me doubts that he will.

Freedom means happiness for millions of Americans. There are 30 million non-heterosexual people in this country. That's a pretty damn important voting block. It's time you stepped up and fought for the Constitution.

Alright. As anyone who’s read virtually any information about Proposition 8 in California knows, the initial exit poll claiming 70% black opposition was incorrect. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force released a study that was conducted by political scientists disproving the “70%” number. Using a flawed exit poll that was taken apart in a comprehensive study is not an effective way to make a point.
Aside from the 70% number, though related, is the general theme that black people are to blame for the way that vote turned out. They are not, as people have been shouting consistently since the vote was announced in November 2008.

And then, after presenting no evidence to make this point, the writer says “Obama can’t afford to even risk losing the deep enthusiasm black voters have towards him.” He then goes on to further avoid presentation of evidence on this point. Confused, I searched for polling data that would suggest that the president would lose black voters if he announced support for marriage equality. There is no polling data on this front. I searched for anecdotal evidence, and there are a couple of outspoken pastors but generally the people who are discussing these things are those in support, for instance the NAACP. I have no doubt that he “can’t afford” to lose a constituency that supports him in great numbers, but having read absolutely zero evidence of any sort that this will happen, one is left with the distinct impression that this piece should not have yet made its way to press.

And in its closing, in case you were uncertain where this was all heading, he tells us directly and forthrightly that black people as a constituency are in fact to blame for the lack of announcing of marriage equality support by the president, oddly typing that “it’s a crucial element of his own base that’s preventing the president from taking bolder steps to advance a cause that he seems to believe in[.]” Now, I mean, pick fights all you want. Page views and Facebook shares are great and all that. But seriously, throughout the piece, the only evidence the writer presented was (1) AAs vote in high numbers for Democratic presidents and especially support this one (2) a flawed exit poll from a single ballot initiative four years ago (3) vague comments about people (who?) who might not vote for the president if he announces support for marriage (with nary a mention, of course, of how the president already took a substantive action on this front, announcing that the DOJ will stop defending DOMA in court; though that won’t lead to marriage all across the country, it’s more of a substantive decision than an announcement of support of marriage would be, and magically, still, he is not being abandoned.) So, in closing, please make it stop already.

We need to win this election.

"Would you say you are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports same-sex marriage, a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage, or would it not make much difference in how you might vote?"

More likely to vote for supporter 25%
More likely to vote for opponent 20%
Would not make much difference 54%
Unsure 1%

2/29 - 3/3/12

And how it plays there. If there's a chance he could lose key states, he should hold off.

On May 8th, North Carolinians will vote whether to amend our Constitution, and Obama unequivocally supporting marriage equality might sway some votes AGAINST Amendment One. Frame it as a civil rights issue, frame it as bad for business, just frame it... the Malleable Middle needs to be LED.

Obama showed tremendous decency in reaching out to Sandra Fluke, and in the sentiment he expressed about Trayvon Martin -- *that* is the sort of thing that appeals to moderates. He can do the same on marriage equality, but will he?

He's worried about losing the religious right and TPer's ?

I suspect supporting EM will increase the enthusiasm of his 2008 supporters who are feeling a bit let down right now -- more than enough to outweigh the negative consequences, which have pretty much contributed their full weight already.

staying mum for and that will of course last until the election. I have no idea why anyone would speculate otherwise. It just makes people argue.

And it's not just his votes he's doing this for. If Independents vote for him they're more likely to vote for the Dem for Congress and Senate than they would have been otherwise. We need those votes too.

n/t

...sounds like a trial-balloon launched by the Obama campaign to "hook" waivering gays. Epic fail. No one buys that malarkey anyway.

The Obama campaign should focus on things that Obama really has an intention of doing.

you should focus on reality and real examples and not how every word can be twisted to look bad for Obama.