Could Obama ‘Evolve’ All the Way to Gay Marriage Equality Next Week in New York?

From New York Magazine:

"Next Thursday, June 23, Barack Obama will be in New York for a high-priced fund-raiser for LGBT leaders. Tickets start at $1,250 each and go up to $35,800, a pretty steep cost for a community whose signature issue at the moment is marriage equality — something Obama doesn't yet support. It'd be an awkward ask at any moment, but this will be especially dicey: By next week, New York's legislature may well have passed a historic same-sex-marriage law."

"In the next few days, Obama will almost certainly be asked about his famously "evolving" stance on marriage rights for gay men and women. New York would be the sixth state in the nation to allow same-sex nuptials and by far the largest. New York City is also a gay rights hub, which is no doubt why he chose it for this fund-raiser. It would be an excellent chance for him to announce that he has "evolved" all the way to marriage equality. But would he ever do that?

"It's not unthinkable. If he doesn't announce his support of marriage equality, Republicans could use New York's law to bash him anyway. Master strategist Karl Rove used the 2003 Massachusetts court decision that legalized same-sex marriage as a galvanizing force to drive conservatives to the polls in the 2004 presidential election, even though opponent John Kerry wasn't actually in favor of it. It's questionable how well this tactic actually worked when it came to election results, but there's no doubt that the rhetoric and the scare value of a lurking "homosexual agenda" steered voters away from the issue for a while.

"Since the various GOP candidates will probably try to use marriage equality as a weapon, Obama's team might be considering that it could actually be an asset. Polls now show that a majority of Americans support the rights of gays to marry. And with the exception of 2003 and 2004, the approval numbers have been on an upward trend since the eighties. That's only going to continue; now 68 percent of Americans under 30 are in favor, and 65 percent of those who are in their thirties. This is Obama's core demographic. Notably, while far-right contenders like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are aggressively against marriage equality, most of the candidates at this week's GOP debate didn't seem to want to get into it. And it has never been a core tea party issue."

I don't know if he'll push for marriage equality legislation. But I do believe he will end DOMA.

DOMA will die in the USSC with Anthony Kennedy writing the majority decision.

The larger question is will the decision be broad and sweeping enough (a la Loving) to strike down all the individual state marriage bans.

Where Obama can be useful is in the bully pulpit, using the moral authority of his office to make the case for full equality and helping to change the climate of the nation.

I say he should push Civil Unions and use the bully pulpit to push that. He supported Civil Unions before and during his Presidency.

That will be great when DOMA dies, that's excellent. I think Obama could use the language of Civil Unions and Marriage. He pushes a law that extends Civil Unions and clearly states that Marriage should be in relation to the Church or a religious body. And if a religious body doesn't want to allow gay marriage, so be it. We do have a separation of Church and State---so the enforcement for religious bodies to accept gay marriage is one thing we shouldn't argue. But all States should follow a federal law that extends civil unions (marriage by government) to ALL and the full rights associated.

I agree with a moral avenue ruggerson. But there are too many religious buffoons who will turn it on it's head and say the bible says gay marriage is not moral. In order to work around those dumbfucks (most of whom are in Congress right now). We give them the religious angle to promote some sort of marriage exceptional-ism. But take the federal side to provide 100% rights to the LGBT community. Because I don't think the moral angel will work.

I have to say ruggerson. No matter how much respect, at times, I have for my fellow Americans. I feel that the bully pulpit only goes so far. Remember that it's Congress that creates legislation. And as such, this Congress and even pass Congress vote against the will of the people. Time and time again we've seen this happen. Obama's bully pulpit is important, especially when it's to galvanize the base and at times the American people. But to make sure things get through---you work Congress.

Just wondering if you have any "skin" in the game.

However the law has defined Hetero civil unions as civil marriages and recognizes them---but can choose not to recognize civil unions. If a civil union was respected properly it would be equal in standing to everything recognized and given in civil marriages. My point is this and I already explained it. You make everything equal to a civil union. You describe "civil marriages" as civil unions. And you remove the idea of marriage and make it more of a religious title than a political one. Then the act would recognize and support all measures that civil marriages have under the umbrella of civil unions (because at this point it's expanded civil marriages to the LGBT community).

Getting the language out or defining it properly will garner proper support. However, in the end it's not really up to the citizenry so it's to deal with the idiots in congress. By using civil unions and equating them to an expansion of civil marriages----will ask the question of what is the difference? So the only problem I foresee at that point is if they maintain civil marriages as something separate and my goal is to not create a differentiation.


By making marriage a solely religious thing will create a more distinct divide. And considering there's a separation between church and state we can force than the hand of the state with the new legislation. Although we cant force the hand of the church to marry people in the LGBT community---and I don't think we can or should and would see it as unconstitutional.

Further more I don't know what my sexual orientation has to do with anything. I'm looking at this in a political fashion and what can be executed successfully in the political environment we're living in.

It's the Supreme Court that kills DOMA.

And in answer to your other point, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will require the states with the stain of homophobia on their constitutions to recognize the marriages performed in the handful of states where equal marriage is celebrated. That effectively ends the ban, as people can travel to a progressive state to get a legal marriage, while having a ceremony for friends and family in their own home states.

We'll be done with this particular piece of nonsense in only a few years.

If not, it will definitely happen early in 2012.

for vote this year banning marriage equality, and the Obama camp courting NC heavily for it's electoral votes I don't see the admin coming all the way out on this issue yet. It might even do more harm than good, especially if there's a backlash over reaction

the downsides for him described in the article seem very real, and the kind of thing Obama really doesn't want to see.

The upsides don't seem so clear. What exactly would he gain by declaring his "support" for gay marriage?

n/t

I wont come on DU and post a rant against him but I'll be surprised.

I don't know if the "marriage" use will work---especially with the clowns in congress. But he should come out a bit more aggressively for civil unions.

I think he is going to do it.

Pushing for Civil Unions would just piss people off. It is more separate and unequal.

The fight against accepting even Civil Unions by the Right Wing is going to end up making Gay Marriage happen all that much faster. I kind of love that :).

full equal rights for all. Thank you for that. We do not always agree, not even close, but thanks for seeing the facts. Separate and 'equal' is not equal, the SCOTUS said that long ago.

This is not looking at Civil Unions as separate but equal; but as national form of "marriage."

Is that Civil Unions seem to be for those in the LGBT community and Hetero's get the Civil Marriage.

The point of my post is for the language difference to changed and removed. I thought I clearly stated that. Hetero's must have Civil Marriages before they can be considered officially married. I'm looking at him eradicating the idea of Civil Marriage, but pushing it as a Civil Unions. Basically we're looking at an expansion of Civil Marriage into a one word usage. And making marriage synonymous with more so Church weddings----leaving open the church to doing religious ceremonies if they want.

It's like this... Our congress is assholes and I don't see them buying into an expansion on civil marriages but there have been Rethugs who tolerate Civil Unions---I say we use that and clearly point out a certain difference so we can get the dumb ones to take the deal---Rethugs and giving those in the LGBT full rights.

The idea is to rebrand and expand on an idea and make it more inclusive----so we can insure something more politically viable. I've said before----the bully pulpit only takes you so far but means absolutely shit in Congress. There has been plenty of examples of that time and again since Obama has been Pres.

:thumbsup:

have managed to forget that?

The Democratic party has no principled stand on our rights, just a mushy, mealy-mouthed support for "greater equality".

:puke:

Let's hope our fierce advocate does the right thing.

IMO the presser acknowledging his evolution was the opening. It's time to break down the wall.

Besides, it shifts the conversation away from Weiner and it's popular with independents.

It's past time. C'mon Mr. President. Do the right thing!

He's said from the very beginning that the word "marriage" is tied to religion and that he feels gay folks should have all the same benefits as a "married" couple but called a civil union. He then claims it's up to an individual religious denomination to call it "marriage" or not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5443235&mesg_id=5443235

I think possibly all this talk of "evolving" may be just that... talk. It placates his LGBT*.* high dollar donors without really offering much in return. On the other hand, I don't understand how he can be against DOMA because the LGBT*.* community deserves equality then be against marriage equality (calling it civil unions instead). To me, he's very confusing on this issue and him being a politician makes me think the whole "evolving" thing is political speech and not necessarily honesty.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

with secular laws. His dogma based 'argument' is not really an argument at all, because it would not be accepted in a court of law. Take away all the religious blather and rhetoric from his statements, and all you have is a man in a chair saying 'I do not think they should be my equals'. Face it. The 'religious argument' is just a tactic used to avoid saying really shitty things, so that if it is expedient to him to 'change his mind' he can do so with ease.
I mean, the majority was against interracial marriage also for reasons they claimed were religious and Bible based. God's will. All of that. There is no argument more bogus.

A way to placate his middle of the road supporters and independents. A way to say, "I hear and agree with you on the grounds of faith." Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Then he turns around and says his views are "evolving." What we don't know is which way said views are evolving but using the word evolving makes it sound positive but instead he could be becoming further entrenched in the whole, "Marriage is for straight people only" way of thinking.

He's for it but is playing the tap dance on the issue until possibly a second term when he comes out in favor it when there is no political fallout for holding such position

Personally, I believe he would sign a marriage equality bill without hesitation. I'm not at all sure, though, what his personal opinion is. I know he's said in the past that he's for civil unions but not same-sex marriage, but I doubt that's a hard position. I just not sure when he's saying what he needs to say in a particular setting or what he really means. That's one problem he has with a number of issues, I think. He's sort of on a tightwire on several issues, and seems to be trying to balance there to keep from alienating either side too much. It's a difficult place to be.

Which is frankly bizarre.

http://gay.americablog.com/2011/06/senior-white-house-aide-1996-obama-gay.html

This is an obvious lie, and I'm wondering what the administration feels it has to gain by trying to paper over the President's reverse evolution of political convenience. It's also disheartening, because the President has been slowly making inroads with a raw and suspicious gay community. This kind of lie can only result in a backwards step.

An unnecessary one at that.

Like I said, it's really bizarre.

support legalized pot. And as Chief Executive he could move pot of the enforcement schedule. He won't do that, and he won't support equal marriage rights.

Though, there could be a surprising change, which would be welcomed, but I have no faith anything will change this coming week.

No ways he comes out in favor of it now, it could cost him votes.