Obama, the Gay-Marriage Flip-Flopper

I found this story quite interesting, seems like there are a lot of things Obama isn't too sure about.

On a sunny Saturday last month, I crashed a fancy brunch on New York's Fire Island at the swank beachside home of Daniel Cochran and Greg Sutphin, a wealthy gay couple. They served lovely Bloody Marys and a giant spread of eggs and meats and assorted asparagus dishes prepared by a white-coated chef. The brunch was the 31st to be held in Fire Island's Pines community to raise money for Lambda Legal, the gay movement's litigation arm. At last year's brunch, cheers went up virtually every time Barack Obama's name was uttered. This time, when Lambda executive director Kevin Cathcart began to review the President's record on gay issues, he was greeted with steely silence.

That silence — because it came from some of the most generous gay political donors in the country — is key to understanding the confusing position the Obama Administration took this week on whether gays and lesbians should enjoy equal marriage rights.

Try to thread this needle: The President has stated his opposition to marriage equality many times. In fact, during his campaign, he pandered to African-American audiences — a group that was already for him — by inviting a black singer named Donnie McClurkin to perform at his events; McClurkin believes one's sexuality can be changed by praying to Jesus Christ. And yet Obama has also said he opposes Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Statute 2419, a 1996 bill (signed by President Clinton) that anti-gay forces called the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Obama has said several times that he would like that law overturned.

And yet — sorry, the contradictions keep coming — once Obama was elected, and once a gay couple in California had sued to overturn DOMA, his Administration not only defended the law, but defended it in a legal argument so reactionary that it would embarrass Dick Cheney (who, incidentally, is to the left of Obama on marriage). In that argument — here's a PDF courtesy of Georgetown professor Nan Hunter — Obama's lawyers noted that "courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with ... public policy." The examples the Justice Department offered: "marriage of uncle to niece," "marriage of 16-year-old," "marriage of first cousins."

Read the rest of the article here.

Seems Obama keeps playing politics without actually DOING anything other than talking. He's trying to pander to EVERY major and minor demographic in the country. His campaign promised have gone awry and even the ones he said he counln't make, he's claiming now that he can.

I don't see Gays being given equal rights under this administration anytime soon.

Thoughts ATS?

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


What a darn bummer.

Maybe he's just taken that position with Cali to try and preserve states' rights to try and ward off the opposition that wants less central power?

Very weird.

Before I jump on the "flip-flopper" bandwagon against President Obama, I'd like to see those sound-bites and things attributable to him in regard to gay rights be really supported.

While I privately agree that he says what people want to hear in various venues, I'm hesitant to get really heated up based upon a TIME editorial.

If we could come up with independent verification of these statements, I would be even more incensed than I already am.

Edit to add: My statements aren't against the OP; I appreciate the OP bringing this story to us. I just want to read a verification of these quotes attributable from President Obama.

[edit on 24/8/09 by argentus]

Obama hasn't been able to keep ANY campaign "promise".

Is anyone really surprised? I would love to see gay marriage legal in the US, but as has been pointed out, "Marriage" is a religious ceremony. If I understand this correctly, then the religious types just don't want it done in their place of worship. Understood, and respected.

So in my belief, the government needs to get OUT of where it doesn't belong. Religious ceremonies should not be entwined with politics, so the government needs to simply only hand out "Civil Unions", which would give ALL couples the same benefits that marriage grants now. No more religious ceremony handled by government, and any couple should be entitled.

Everyone wins.

Obama needs to get this in effect.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by LostNemesis]

Seperation of church and state goes both ways. If these people want to get married in a church, than they should have their Own church. Many heterosexual can't get married in certain churches either. Especially if they aren't members. Many of these find other churches also.


It's a shame that freedom of choice is shrinking like our savings and the American dream for so many. ( even for the illegals)

I'm sorry. You're mistaken. He wants to repeal DOMA, but that doesn't mean he supports gay marriage.

The president said he backed the rights of gay couples, saying they should have the "same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country." He said he has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.

You are confusing gay marriage with gay rights. Whoever wrote this article seems to be doing so as well. All during the campaign, he stated that he doesn't think gay people should be able to get married. There is no flip-flop here.

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

Source


[edit on 11-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]