Obama: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

[bananas]

http://www.queerty.com/obama-prop-8-unnecessary-but-doesnt-believe-in-gay-marriage-20081103/
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

[ogneopasno]

1. Yup. People need to remember this.

[stray cat]

2. Biden said the same although both want equal rights with the exception of the title

[Toasterlad]

7. I Hear The "Gay", "Straight" Water Fountains Are the First Thing On Obama's Agenda

"Look, everyone gets to drink water. What's the big deal?"

[Zhade]

117. Well, they're nuts if they think we'll settle for separate-but-equal. And Obama should know better.

NT!

[Sanctified]

3. I think we all knew this before we made him our nominee. n/t

[Lex]

5. Yes, none of the Democratic candidates were for gay marriage but

Kucinich and I think maybe Dodd?

[ruggerson]

10. and Gravel

don't forget Gravel :)

[Lilyeye]

23. I think it was just Gravel and Kucinich. I could be wrong though.

[bananas]

14. Would he be welcome on DU? nt

[Zhade]

118. He would not be welcome to express that view, no. Otherwise, yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1324374

[ruggerson]

4. Kennedy was hesitant about civil rights

because of the political fallout.

People like Bayard Rustin and MLK had to take matters into their own hands and keep pushing the President.

We will have to do the same.

[CTyankee]

12. Good analogy. If anybody was asleep on this issue, Prop 8 certainly was a wake up call.

I really think Obama's statement was half hearted at best. I am sure he has good friends who are gays and depends on some for his advisors. It is unthinkable to me that he is a bigot on this issue.

[EFerrari]

34. Precisely so. We already don't have the political establishment.

We have to stick together.

[Bluebear]

6. That's fine, President-elect Obama. Now, you can evolve those beliefs. :)

[ruggerson]

8. personally, I think it's bullshit

Obama, Biden, Hillary, Dodd, Pelosi - they all believe in same sex marriage, but they are all under the delusion that it's a political killer so they all have come up with this convoluted straddle.

We'll see if Obama turns out to have guts.

[Bluebear]

11. I personally agree

If we get 60 in the Senate it will be interesting to see what they truly "believe" about a lot of things.

[cboy4]

24. Yea, that will be the true test.....getting 60.

Because then, there will be no excuses.

[curse of greyface]

129. Well there is no real excuse now... nt

[CTyankee]

77. Well, it may "happen" if Obama appoints progressive SC justices!

Then, it won't matter what he said during the campaign.

The important thing is to win. Eyes on the prize, eyes on the prize...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. He probably won't have the chance to replace any conservative justices.

The make up of the court isn't likely to change.

David

[Lex]

13. I think Joe Biden said something

like he and Obama are for every single right under marriage extended to gay people, but they are not for 'gay marriage' which seemed like a semantic difference without any legal difference? :shrug:

[stray cat]

33. No legal differences except the term: "marriage". which to some appears critical

I think civil unions with all the rights of marriage would be a great step forward for many couples but there is an all or none group who think it falls under the category "separate but equal". I'm in favor of getting the first part done - civil unions - regardless as soon as possible.

[Lex]

35. I think having both the *word* and the *legal rights* is crucial.

As between the two, I think having all the *legal rights* is the most crucial. The word will follow where ever the legal rights go.

Others may disagree.

[Ms. Toad]

58. It isn't a matter of "thinking" it separate is not equal

legally, separate is not equal. It is not about the term, it is about the rights associated with the legal status of marriage which are not - and at this point cannot be - equal to marriage.

There are a number of countries/states which offer civil unions or registered partnerships. Aside from any other differences NONE of these are portable across state or country borders. Marriages, and the rights associated with the, are.

Some civil unions(those in the US, for example) are not even completely equal within the state or origin because they only entitle the partners to the subset of rights which come from the states, but not to those which come from the federal government. In addition, many of the European registered partnerships/civil unions/less-than-married statuses expressly exclude rights granted to married couples (for example, the right to adopt); others expressly state which few of the marriage rights a civil union entitles the partners to.

I would not discourage anyone from taking advantage of what limited rights are available through civil unions - BUT - the difference is NOT a matter of terminology.

[mopinko]

60. separate can be legal in the letter of the law.

the supreme court held that separate is not equal in the real world implementation of an enormous circumstance. but having identical letter of the law, and a law which dictates that in all legal situations the rules are equal, in this instance, imho, can exist. people will have to take care of changing the culture. some people are already there, some never will be. no legal fiat will accomplish this.
i would like to say the differences between gay and straight obliterated as quickly as possible. but i am getting pretty fed up with seeing my president bashed over a semantic difference. he has taken a huge, brave step. he did it in the context of a heated election.
please, people. lighten up. stick together.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[shanti]

72. "your" president?

did you vote for obama? is he not "our" president? :shrug:

[Toasterlad]

75. I Voted For Obama Because He Was the Lesser of Two Evils

I was responding to the poster's declaration that he was tired of people attacking "his/her" President. That was the only part of the post with which I agreed. Obama is the President-Elect of straight America. I would be VERY glad to accept to accept him as "my" President, as well. However, he has told me that he does not stand for me or my rights, and he cannot be "my" President until he does.

[mopinko]

78. maybe he is your president, too.

i dunno. i worked my ass off, donate, and voted for him. and goddamned made a difference. when he said it wasn't about me, it was about you, i was part of that you.

[plaintiff]

82. I accepted Bush as "the" president but never "my" president.

See how it works?
Anyway, we've hired a chief executive, not crowned a fucking Messiah. :grr:

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Ms. Toad]

114. It is not a semantic difference.

Find me any civil union/domestic partnership (or other non-marriage "equivalent"), anywhere in the world that is equal to marriage and I will agree it is semantic.

Most of them do not pretend to be equal, and even the places that intend them to be equal have not accomplished equlality, because civil unions (or other non-marriage partnerships) are not portable into other states or countries i.e. when you travel to another country (or move there) you are not recognized as civil unioned by that new country. If you are married, that marriage is recognized.

[Zhade]

121. As explained DIRECTLY ABOVE YOUR POST, it is not a semantic difference.

And we will not settle. Understand?

You'll just have to fucking accept it.

[CTyankee]

126. Here is what bothers me: why isn't the 14th amendment being enforced here?

I've read it over and over again. It's language should give everyone equal protection of the laws and to me that should mean that there is no such thing as "separate but equal" rights. Under the 14th amendment it should be that single sex marriage is automatically recognized. We have the country's strongest state supreme court decision on this here in CT. What is extraordinary seems to me to be its simplicity: the court seemed to say "We looked at this and there is no way it can be other than an equal protection issue."

We need another Brown v. Board of Education decision that builds a case on much of the same legal reasoning of our CT decision, with as high a standard of "scrutiny." It is a further enhancement of US citizens' civil rights under our Constitution and I think that is an excellent thing for everyone.

[AntiFascist]

124. Black and white water fountains could also have been equal in the 60s...

would the civil rights movement have settled for that? The CA Supreme Court went to great lengths spelling out that a separate designation for marriage would be viewed as a second (as in lower) class designation. We should know better by now.

[verges]

110. Then let's get the Government out

of the Marraige business altogether! Do CU's for all couples. Straight and Gay. Relegate Marraige to the status of a religious ceremony.

[Zhade]

119. We will not settle for separate-but-equal. Period.

I'm tired of raging out at people about this, so I'll just say it calmly - we will not accept that compromise of our rights.

If anyone expects us to, they're deluded.

[SarahB]

46. Yep.

I'd like to see the Supreme Court after 8 years of an Obama administration settling this once and for all on a federal level. (I'm pro gay marriage by the way.)

[liberalmuse]

9. I hope both he and Biden change their minds.

I believe someday, hopefully soon, they will. I don't believe allowing a gay couple to enjoy full marriage rights in any way diminishes the love that both Barack and Joe feel for Michelle and Jill.

How can anyone with a soul not be completely heartbroken at what has happened in California? I don't like the resolutions that passed in AZ and FL, either, however, it is especially cruel to allow gay marriage and then yank it away. We saw all the ecstatic couples getting married. How could anyone want to crush that? What kind of monsters take joy in destroying people's lives?

[ecstatic]

15. Which candidate said otherwise?

:shrug:

[Toasterlad]

87. What Fucking Difference Does That Make?

Hillary Clinton is not the President-Elect. John Edwards is not the President-Elect. Bill Richardson is not the President-Elect. Barack Obama is the President-Elect. From this point on, his opinion is the only one that need concern you.

The primaries are over. The election is over. Time to focus on the here and now.

But the answer to your pointless question is Dennis Kucinich.

[cliffordu]

16. What did he say during his acceptance speech??? You know, when he got elected??

[ruggerson]

17. you mean when he mentioned gays and straights?

that's great. Clinton did it in his convention speech all the way back in 92. It's hardly groundbreaking.

What's needed now is not just words but actions.

[theoldman]

18. I think gays should have tried to get approval of civil unions first.

Civil unions may have given them what they wanted without the great religious opposition. Better to have something than to have nothing. Civil unions could apply to everyone, not just gays. Just a few thousand years ago no one was married. They had partners not necessarily limited to one.

[cali]

19. well, I don't think gays and lesbians should have to jump through the hoop of

civil unions to achieve full equality. Having said that I'll make a prediction: Vermont will be the first state to give full marriage rights to gays and lesbians through the legislative process, and that's due to having had civil unions in place now for nearly 10 years. But civil unions were court ordered first.

[IndianaJones]

20. do you also think African Americans should have been happy with separate water fountains? nt.

[stray cat]

22. I think women getting the right to vote was important even though it wasn't equal pay yet

I don't think women should have not fought for the right to vote because it wasn't full equality in every way yet.

[readmoreoften]

50. Bad analogy. Should they have accepted a 1/3 vote "on the way" to a full vote?

That's a better analogy. Gay folks aren't rejected ENDA because same-sex marriage didn't pass. That's what your analogy implies and it makes us sound like morons

[mitchtv]

21. Your opinion on my rights

is duly noted

[JackBeck]

25. Or progressives could come together

And force the religious extremists to stop running roughshod all over our journey for equal rights.

But maybe that would be asking for too much and I should just continue to lower my expectations.

[prayin4rain]

26. Although I think it is unfortunate, I think you are right.

Most important is that all the actual rights are in place first... then work on the word later. I think more people would agree that everyone deserves the same rights but not everyone agrees on how those rights should be labeled or conceptualized.

[IndianaJones]

30. marriage is the actual right. anything else is less. that is not acceptable. nt.

[Lex]

37. marriage embodies thousands of legal rights and obligations

that the state confers

[prayin4rain]

44. I agree with you... it is not acceptable... and yet it has happened.

Not to be Bill Clintonish... but I feel your pain. I have a real cognitive disconnect with accepting how bigoted and sometimes downright evil people are... it is just... unacceptable. I read terrible, terrible news stories and just canNOT reconcile that they actually happened, it is just too painful. I am truly saddened that people voted to take other people's rights away, I am saddened that civil rights went up for vote!!! What is that about?? We don't get to VOTE on who has rights and who doesn't! Everyone gets them!! Maybe the courts can overturn the vote that way... never should have been put up for vote.

I know it hurts but once we find a way to numb the pain from yet another injustice, we have to figure out a way to right it. And it may mean taking measures and compromises that are not fair and that we shouldn't have to make. Unfortunately evolving a vast number of people is a slow, slow process and we have to be methodical in how we do it. And if we don't make a plan and step them through the paces year by year, they get frightened and confused and react with knee jerk responses. It sucks, it is unacceptable, we shouldn't have to do it... but we do.

[Toasterlad]

71. Accepting an Inferior Substitute Will Make it HARDER to Get Equal Rights, Not Easier

Bigots all over the country will tell us to shut up and be happy with what we've got.

[prayin4rain]

74. I would say that is historically not true.

Throughout history groups of people have fought for their civil rights piece by piece and have had to chip away the wall of oppression. That actually seems historically to be the only way to eventuate full rights of certain groups. I would say that women, children, minorities and gay people have ALL yet to achieve full equality and we all keep fighting each day to get a bit closer.

[Toasterlad]

76. There's a Difference Between Making Progress and Accepting Inferior Status

[Jamastiene]

106. Marriage rights WERE in place in the first place.

They were taken away.

[mondo joe]

39. You naively assume people who oppose marriage don't oppose civil unions.

In fact, they typically do oppose both.

[Bucky]

51. Actually civil unions--and the rights that come with them--are far more popular

Thirty years from now, Americans will have the option for both. But I have conservative Christians in my own family who support legalized unions with all the insurance, adoption, parenting, and housing rights that come with it, but do not support marriage equality. It's a very long road and it's a very big change to those who don't yet understand the issue in full. It's an educational problem more than anything else.

It will take time, which is unfair, but inescapably real.

[mondo joe]

53. They are in theory. But in reality, not so much.

When it comes right down to it, there's nearly as much opposition to civil unions as marriage.

[hulklogan]

57. The fundie slimes call civil unions "counterfeit marriage".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Who cares what they call it if you get the rights you seek?

[mondo joe]

93. We don't get the rights we seek. Are you paying attention???

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. Yes. Are you?

[mondo joe]

95. Civil unions don't convey all the rights of marriage. Furthemore, those who

oppose our right to marry most often oppose civil unions as well.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. So if all of the rights of marriage were conveyed but it was called a civil union would that be ok?

[mondo joe]

97. Answer:

1. Your hypothetical is invalid because it's NOT the same.

2. Your hypothetical is misdirected, because the subthread was about pursuing CU's INSTEAD of marriage under the misconception that CUs would be more easily won - despite the fact that they're not.

3. It would be as OK as separate water fountains for different races.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

98. Okay then no sense in compromising and getting most of what you want.

I admire your stand on principle. Good luck.

David

[mondo joe]

99. Are you intentionally avoiding the point that the compromise is largely not available?

Are you?

Are you fucking confused beyond belief and that's why you don't understand that civil unions (the compromise) are not much more available than marriage?

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. You seem to be quite angry, some counseling may help.

In my experience civil unions are much more widely accepted even among my conservative friends, of course that's anecdotal. I haven't seen any evidence here to support your argument. Barring any evidence to the contrary I'll have to rely on my experience. Anyhow good luck in your endeavors.

David

[mondo joe]

105. Your experience is quite uninformed. You need educating.

Look at the initiatives of recent years to determine how conservatives feel about civil unions.

Look at the moves to eliminate ANY recognition of same sex couples.

And then you can do better than talking from stark ignorance about the topic.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. Feel free to post some EVIDENCE of your assertions, I'll be happy to look at them.

[mondo joe]

109. Initiatives of recent years aren't secret information. If you haven't paid attention, it's

your own tough luck and you can keep saying uninformed things.

I'm not tutoring you, and you don't give a shit anyway.

[CTyankee]

127. Don't we need a reading of the 14th amendment as applying here?

Like what our state supreme court did in CT? Here is a way of stating plainly that equal protection of the laws means just that. Layer in the language decrying "separate but equal" in Brown v. Board and we would all have a clear statement on the constitutional use of the equal protection clause. This clause has been durable and needs the strengthening of its application. The more people understand that "Duh, it's in the Constitution" the more the people can understand why it is important to ALL of us.

[QC]

88. Florida just banned marriage *and* civil unions.

The very fact that we are breathing is an affront to these people.

[Orsino]

43. I think we should all be working for equality...

...and should have been all along.

[Toasterlad]

Yes, Who Cares If the Water Fountains Are Different, As Long As We Can Still Get Water.

[LittleClarkie]

27. And that is different from most of our candidates of the last two elections how exactly?

Most said civil unions. You'd have had this same gripe with Sen. Kerry and Hillary, Edwards too. It would appear to be the standard politicans answer.

Not saying it's good or right, but Obama is not unique in this regard.

[stray cat]

28. I think that might be the point but I'm not sure

[Bodhi BloodWave]

31. Can't do anything but agree there

Didn't Obama also say that if a bill or somesuch passed his desk if he became President, then he would sign it as his religious beliefs shouldn't affects the laws he passes and such

Obviously not in those exact word but i think that was the gist of it

[LittleClarkie]

36. Kerry said something similar as well

that he is personally pro-life but that he realizes he represents a constituency that is largely pro-choice. He is there to represent them, not himself.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Yeah Edwards!

The perfect example of straight sanctimony being used as a distraction from their own personal behavior. I'll never forget Edwards blathering about his Baptist roots giving him a holy pants view of marriage as a thing so sacred that no gay must be allowed to sully it. This while he's fucking whomever he feels like fucking while his wife's off getting Chemo...
Are you saying that Obama and Kerry are also adulterous and trying to cover it up, just as Edwards and so many other homophbes?
Would you say Edwards was a full blown hypocrite to push the image of himself as protector of marriage while humping his way to DC? I would. And I figure the rest of them are just about as credible as Johnny and his magic dipstick.

[plaintiff]

52. The point is that it's not only not unique, it's not any better either.

...

[Toasterlad]

90. See Post #87

[GodlessBiker]

29. I think he is lying.

[sellitman]

32. Democrats unfortunetly have to pander to the ignorant in order to be elected.

I hope he governs with more empathy and more importantly, I hope he appoints Liberals to the Supreme Court.

Just doing that will advance GLBT equality to start.

[cherokeeprogressive]

112. "pander to the ignorant in order to be elected"

Does that mean that any lie you have to tell to get elected is okay as long as it gets you elected? What happened to "The Truth Shall Set You Free"? What happened to "Speaking Truth to Power"?

A honest man would have spoken his heart on the issue in the heat of the race to be elected president. And if it caused an uproar, he would have had a convincing argument to make his point. That's leadership. Lying about what's in your heart in order to get elected is not. And, to be perfectly honest, we DO NOT KNOW what's in Obama's heart other than what we've heard him say. To assume we know that he said what he said due to political expediency is just plain stupid, bordering on being part of the cult of personality.

Would you compromise your integrity in order to gain something you really wanted? I wouldn't. At one point in my life I might, nay PROBABLY would have, but I'm the same age (plus three months and two days) as Obama and today I wouldn't.

I know my opinion will be unpopular, but I'm not a troll, not a freeper, and not a rethug. I voted for Obama and NO on Prop H8te. Sucks to have to qualify my opinion in that manner in order to get it out in the open, but this IS DU after all.

[AntiFascist]

38. We should be tolerant of this point of view...

but as an attorney who is an expert at constitutional law, Obama should know better than anyone else the reasoning that the CA Supreme Court used in determining that marriage is a fundamental right which gays and lesbians, as a suspect class, are entitled to under the equal protection clause.

Marriage being restricted to a man and a woman is like saying that only a man and a woman can experience the bond of love which is approved of by God. This is a bigoted point of view that has been reinforced through religious programming, and Obama is just as guilty of this as anyone else who disapproves of gay marriage. The basic tenet of separation of church and state should prevent someone else's church from imposing on my life. We can't prevent those churches from condemning our lifestyle, but we can work to prevent discriminatory religious laws from becoming the law of our land.

[mondo joe]

40. Now we'll see if Obama will do something about it, or if it's just talk.

I don't agree with his position, but I'll respect him more if he actually tries to do something about it.

[Berry Cool]

42. I think he's in favor of it. He just thought it would be political suicide to admit it

before the election because he knew what kind of attack ads would be used against him.

He also knows not all of the electorate is as evolved as he is. But they vote.

I believe he intends to bring people around. Or at least not prevent the natural evolution of people's thought.

[marlakay]

45. I agree I think he really does think its okay

but knows he would lose in this country to say so now. All he can hope to do is knock down bit by bit the prejudices people have.

[CTyankee]

128. You make an important point. I have seen some of the Prop 8 ads

and they are all just lies. So lots of people in CA were voting on the basis of outright deception. It is sad, but it happens when hate and money just overwhelm the system.

Obama isn't stupid. He has seen the evolution of state law as evidenced in our CT state supreme Court decision, which is the strongest attack on antigay marriage laws to date, through the use of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. That decision was elegant in its application of existing constitutional law. I am so proud of my state's court and, as a straight woman, so incredibly grateful for what it tells all of us.

[plaintiff]

47. Obviously McCant was worse but Obama is no friend of the LGBT community.

He's actually pretty much of a fundamentalist.

[JVS]

61. He was the best on this issue of any of this year's "serious" candidates for pres or nomination..

And a UCC fundamentalists? That's just ridiculous.

[intheflow]

62. What makes you think Obama's a fundie?

Are you basing that on RW talking points about Jeremiah Wright? Rev. Wright's church--the church that shaped Obama's faith for over 20 years--is a United Church of Christ church, one the most progressive Christian denominations in the country. The UCCs have and continue to fully support GLBT human rights including gay marriage. I think Obama saying he's for civil unions over GLBT marriage is political expediency, nothing more.

[plaintiff]

65. Well he's big on ending speeches with GAWD BLESS AMERICA

(Hey, he's the one who makes a production out of being a Xian) like I'd give a shit either way.

:shrug:

[intheflow]

69. Like he wouldn't be politically crucified if he didn't say that.

:eyes: Look at the fervor over his not wearing a fucking flag pin, and you can surmise the response if he never said "God bless America."

[plaintiff]

81. Well, pandering to fundies is almost as bad as being one.

That is my opinion. :-)

[Bucky]

48. I want a brave president, but not an unelectably brave president.

It sucks that our society insists on insulting the rights and dignity of gay citizens. It's plain old wrong.

But the most effective changes and progress in government are the ones that happen gradually. We need to lock down equal civil rights for gay couples first. Once that's established, the shift from something-like-equal-legal-rights for gays to full marriage equality will be a much smaller deal.

As a student of history I see numerous parallels to this latest chapter in the struggle for equal rights for all. Change will happen and we need to keep on agitating for it, but we should be prepared to lose a lot of big battles and mostly win the little ones before the inevitable final triumph occurs.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

49. To be more precise

he said he thought it should be up to the States

[IndianaJones]

54. like slavery and segregation. nt

[elshiva]

102. YES! I hate when this comes down to "state rights."

Red states are bad, enough and California! There's got to be some national protection of GLBT rights for the whole country.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

115. Its not that I dont agree

I'm staging a prop 8 protest, just wanted to make it clear

[rosegreene]

55. We’re going to lead by setting the highest of standards for civil liberties and civil rights and

We’re going to lead by setting the highest of standards for civil liberties and civil rights and human rights.”
FEB. 20, DALLAS

[depakid]

56. Get everyone riled up because....

President elect Obama doesn't share your extremism on nuclear power?

Anyone visiting the E & E board has to wonder.

Why else would someone post something as intentionally divisive and unprocuctive as this?

[TransitJohn]

59. That's his official policy

because almost all of America feels that way, and he wants votes. I wouldn't say it's necessarily his personal belief. This is politics.

[FM Arouet666]

63. Obama should be impeached.

Just kidding.

"marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." B. Obama.

Sanctified: as in to set apart to a sacred purpose or religious use

So why is the secular government involved in religious definitions of marriage? The state should define secular marriage and make it free to all couples, same sex or heterosexual. Alternatively, the state could define the contract for all couples as a civil union and let religious organizations quibble over definitions of marriage. Time to get religion out of the debate. Time will tell, but I hope Obama is just being pragmatic about his campaign stance on this issue, pandering for votes. His record on gay and lesbian issues is positive otherwise.

[AntiFascist]

73. Freedom of religion can be an important part of the debate...

since some churches approve of gay marriages. The problem is that most laws favor one set of churches over another. The founding fathers had a BIG problem with this.

[eridani]

125. For many years, Obama attended a church whose ministers perform gay marriages

If his belief on the subject was all that strong, surely he would have objected to the practice?

[Shakespeare]

64. He's also very vocally opposed to any laws banning it. It's not unlike the choice issue.

There are a lot of pro-choice folks out there who are personally opposed to abortion. They simply understand the danger--and unconstitutionality--of banning it.

Try complex thoughts, OP. It'll serve you well.

[ColbertWatcher]

66. "I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam375648.html

It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying.

[elshiva]

104. Thank you ColbertWatcher. Good for him. DOMA was bullshit.

:applause:

[ileus]

67. Relax, he didn't mean that, he was just trying for Christian votes.

[plaintiff]

84. I guess that's okay when our guy does it.

:eyes:

[Toasterlad]

91. AMEN!

[Skittles]

113. that makes it even more disgusting

[zanne]

80. This is one of the things he'll have to change his mind about....

And we can help him!

[Lord Helmet]

83. he is against constitutional bans

[Cali_Democrat]

85. It's unfortunate he said that, but......

With the way this country is, I don't think he would have been elected President if he said he was in favor of Gay Marriage. No way no how.

The Republicans would have absolutely crushed him if he said it. No wins in Ohio, VA, NC, Florida etc... You get the point.

McCain would be President.

[bigwillq]

86. One of the reasons I couldn't support him

in the primary. In the primary, I feel one should vote with their heart. A better candidate was on the ballot, imo, during the primaries so I had to vote for him. I had to vote for Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich was the only true progressive candidate on the DEM ballot.

[Mari333]

101. that I agree with. n/t

[QC]

89. He couldn't wait to agree with Rick Warren about that one.

That was the one question that night that got a simple, direct answer.

[blue_onyx]

92. I'm disappointed in this statement

The saddest thing is I think he (and many other Democrats) probably supports gay marriage. They just don't publicly say it for fear of being unelectable. Maybe if he wins re-election in 2016, we'll get more support.

[mondo joe]

100. Obama pointed out that his mother had him when she was 17, when people got on

Bristol Palin's case.

But when it came to same sex marriage, he never said "At one time my parents could not marry in much of the United States either."

Too bad.

[musical_soul]

111. I already knew that.....

We've never been allowed a choice between one opposed to gay marriage and one who wasn't. Hopefully, Obama will at least push for civil unions.

[Zhade]

116. It is, regrettably, a bigoted stance.

NT!

[Antennas]

120. A week ago, Obama was the most beloved man on here.

Now he's in the crosshairs.

I think we all need to calm down. Obama has said publicly he opposes Prop 8.

[goodgd_yall]

123. Really

Are we eating our own so soon?

[goodgd_yall]

122. Yes, we know.

He also said he wouldn't support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and that it's a matter of the states. It's not exactly the leadership position that helps gays and lesbians fighting for marriage rights, but at least it's an improvement over Bush.