Skip to main content

gay marriage
The wait may finally be over. Michael Barbaro and Brian Stelter at the New York Times report:
President Obama, who is under mounting pressure to clarify his thinking on same-sex marriage after top aides publicly embraced it in recent days, will sit down for an interview with ABC News on Wednesday during which he is likely to be pressed on his “evolving” views on the issue, according to people familiar with the matter.
The interview was scheduled yesterday afternoon, and according to Jennifer Epstein at Politico, many are speculating that this may be the moment the president finally completes his evolution from supporting equal rights for gay couples except for marriage to equal rights for gay couples, full stop:
“I think the waiting is finally over,” said Richard Socarides, who served as an LGBT adviser to President Bill Clinton. “I’m hopeful that the president is going to speak directly on this issue. When he does, I think it will be an important moment.” [...]

Given recent developments, “we’re certainly hoping that the president, like the vice president, will talk about the journey of understanding that now leads him to embrace the freedom to marry,” said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom To Marry.

“Ending exclusion from marriage is a question of moral significance that we expect presidents to speak out and lead on and the drumbeat of voices most recently from within the administration … makes it both easier and necessary for the president to take a stand,” Wolfson added.

Endorsing full equality, without "separate but equal" exceptions or conditions, is the right thing to do, and it's long past time for the president to do the right thing. Here's hoping that's his plan.

12:09 PM PT: He did it! The president has officially endorsed marriage equality. Send an email to President Obama thanking him for endorsing marriage equality.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Please stop with these "evolving" memes (9+ / 0-)

    Very sad to see Biden's perfectly reasonable comments blown up BY THE MEDIA into some referendum on Obama needing to spell out his every feeling on an issue a majority of Americans seem conflicted by. Jon Stewart did his usual bullshit "I'm so brave for attacking Obama" bit last night. The liberal self-flaggellation show in action!

    •  its not a meme (16+ / 0-)

      its his own stupid words. infuriating cynical ploy trying to play both sides of the issue.

      •  Meme (0+ / 0-)

        I hate to be the one to break it to you, but unless you're an international symbol for the little girls or little gents room, you don't have a 'real' marriage.

        Government towards Bank of America "like overindulgent parents who refuse to believe their 40-year-old live-at-home son could possibly be responsible for those dead hookers in the backyard." Matt Taibbi

        by dotsright on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:27:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How do you know? (0+ / 0-)

        Sometimes politicians put stuff out there to gage the reaction.  Maybe being a little less negative would go a long way for you.

    •  The president and his staff used the word (21+ / 0-)

      "evolving" to describe the President's opinion.  At some point it has to go from "evolving" to evolved.

      And yes, we expect our President to lead on one of the most important civil rights issues of the day.  Sorry.

      One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

      by AUBoy2007 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:07:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  While I fully support marriage equality (15+ / 0-)

        trying to pin down the President on this issue just before the election is stupid politics.

        Really, there's very little upside to pressuring the President to take a stand on this issue now.

        He either reconfirms his previous stance, disappointing his base because he didn't 'lead' on the issue, or he supports marriage equality at the cost of alienating many independants who aren't ready to make that leap.

        Just dumb no matter how I look at it. FAR better to get re-elected, THEN come out with his 'evolved' viewpoint (if thats what it is).

        •  i agree; there is no "net" upside - bad timing nt (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          EdinStPaul, Aquarius40, MZ12, FiredUpInCA

          There is no hell on earth appropriate enough for those who would promote the killing of another person, in the name of a god.

          by HarryParatestis on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:28:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Disagree completely- (0+ / 0-)

            This will fire up the LGBT base and get them to vote, campaign and maybe even donate to the president (If he finally comes out and says that all marriages are equal).  Instead of them maybe just saying fuck him and stay home in Nov.

            "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

            by skyounkin on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:51:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lysias, rhonan

          ...the homo voters aren't going anywhere, so there's no need to speak out for their equality.  It's much more electorally valuable to work for the vote of homophobes, so why stop at being silent?  Just go ahead and metaphorically punch a fag; that's bound to be more attractive to those homophobic voters.  They're just more important.

          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

            What are you saying?

            •  What I think vacantlook is saying... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vacantlook

              Is making it blunt that silence in the hopes of not pissing off the homophobes is just another form of homophobia.

              Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles. It is by the picket line and direct action that true freedom will be won, not by electing people who promise to screw us less than the other guy.

              by rhonan on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:14:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What I'm saying... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eddie L

              ...is what I've been told agan and again here over the past few days.  We LGBT voters have nowhere else to go, so of course we're going to vote for Obama.  Given that, Obama doesn't need to appeal to us by being for our equality.  Him being for equality won't win him anything.  But Obama being against equality will help him appeal to voters who hate LGBT people, and since they might vote for Romney, we LGBT people need to accept it and let Obama court their vote.

              I don't have the fight in me to fight against both the Republicans and half of the Democrats.  So I gave up yesterday.  I just can't do it anymore.  The homophobes win.  They're more important, so I'm saying go get their votes.  I'll vote anyway because Romney is horrible.

        •  Pin Obama Down (0+ / 0-)

          Gee, sometimes the things we want so bad would mean our candidate will lose.   I think Obama has been thinking about the election.  Isn't the Dem Convention in NC?  Didn't they just pass the Marrage Act?   So his evoling could very well be more about getting elected.   What good will it do if next November Romney wins?  You can kiss all gay rights good bye.

          I really dont' think folks should be allowed to vote on civil rights.  I wish Obama could just declare gay marriage as legal.  But it doesn't work that way.

          So I do hope the polls are correct about the majority (slim one) now supporting gay marriage.

          More than anything I want Obama re-elected.

        •  I disagree that there are that many people (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lysias, kimoconnor

          who would have otherwise supported Obama but for his stance on marriage equality (assuming he does come out in support.

          One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

          by AUBoy2007 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:52:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  How many independents will he lose, (0+ / 0-)

          when a majority of Americans support gay marriage, and a large proportion of those who don't are Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are not going to vote for him anyway?

          The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

          by lysias on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:07:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree. Romney's enthusiasm gap will decrease (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA, TLS66

          if lazy bigots get off their couches to vote a single issue. It worked for Bush - the gay ballot issues drove the voting numbers. Obama knows this is a dumb move and we are pushing him right where he knows he shouldn't go until after the election.

    •  taking a firm stand on civil and human rights (15+ / 0-)

      shouldn't be difficult or controversial. that it's politically complicated speaks poorly of our society. and a majority of americans doesn't seem conflicted, a majority of americans supports equal marriage rights.

      if the president does the right thing it will be politically paradigmatic, which again speaks poorly of our political culture. but he also will deserve much credit for being the first.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:10:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the first of what? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skyounkin, Bailey2001, 420 forever

        The first president to stand up for equality? He doesn't seem to deserve credit to me. He waffled around and called it 'evolving'. If as this PR release says it's a moral issue how does one evolve from not supporting to supporting?

        Why should people have to wait for a duly elected official, the highest official in the land, to evolve to a concept as basic as equality for all. The separation of church and state is not controversial it is one of our our founding principles. His personal 'evolution' shouldn't be part of the equation.

        The Democrat's need to stop giving these bigots, pig ignorant and hateful segments of our society equivalence. Somethings are beyond electoral politics and pandering this is one of them.  If he actually thinks that LGBT people should not have the right to marry then were in big trouble as a party and a country.        

        •  Civil Unions to Marriage is Evolving (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MZ12

          And in fact that is how the American people have been evolving as well. At first people didn't even want Gays to have an civil rights, then it involved to limited rights, then Civil Unions and finally we've reached a point when the majority of Americans favor Marriage.

          Now just because a majority of American people are OK with Gay Marriage doesn't mean a majority of likely voters in swing states are as we have just seen in NC. The political problem is that while many Americans are OK with Gay Marriage very few people care enough about it to make it their one deciding issue and most of those who  do are against it. If Obama does come out in favor of Gay Marriage it will indeed putting the moral issue before the political issue.

        •  Hey (0+ / 0-)

          Haven't most Americans evolved on gay rights and marriage?  Why so hard on the prez?

        •  it's a good question (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shesaid, jeopardydd, shaharazade

          and it gets back to the fundamental problem with our entire political culture, which once again follows rather than leading. but the morality babble is just political rhetoric, it's the policy that matters. the last democratic president instituted dadt and signed doma. this would be a political paradigm shift.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:57:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  don't these people (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Laurence Lewis

            in the political culture at least on the Democratic side read polls? This is a no brainer on both a political or a moral/principle level. The only political gain I can see from their pandering to the fearful hateful bigots is that it keeps blue dogs in the running in these regions. They then lose credibility with the majority nationally.

            As far as these states go perhaps if the Dems quit fishing for votes in the RW holes and offered the people who live in these regions, a real choice they might do better. Separation of Church and State should not be controversial it's one of the basic precepts of our country.

            The disconnect of politics and policy does not help get Democrat's elected. These so called culture wars are a distraction that allows the disconnect to continue and gives equivalence to the RW's insanity. But hey the powers that be get cheap labor and a culturally divided populace isn't as hard to win over if they are fearful of each other.        

            •  agreed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shaharazade

              and i have no doubt that the ongoing "evolution" is at least partially due to those polls. even so, if he makes the announcement, it will be greeted with astonishment in washington.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:55:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He just did yeah! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Laurence Lewis

                I am glad he did the right thing or maybe the left thing. Now we can squabble over why he did it. lol. I don't care why I'm just glad the he did. Looks like his evolution picked up speed at the horrendous Amendment one winning. Legislating away peoples rights or enforcing religious beliefs not something any public official should support. Good for Obama. It also makes me glad that the GLBT community has shown us all how to do activism and that pushing progressive issues is important.

      •  First? I think that credit goes to Dick Cheney. (0+ / 0-)

        IMHO the days of "credit" are long over. Surely, no one gets any credit for a purely rhetorical statement of support for equality, especially when in reaction to the regularly spontaneous election season media frenzy probably instigated by Republicans.

        Whenever/if ever the president "does the right thing" it will be merely an end to his incoherent and insulting "evolving" posture held for either reasons of cynical political self-interest or bigotry.  

        Playing along with this electoral ritual of ratings and red meat is really beneath authentic LGBT politics in 2012.  

        Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

        by kck on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:20:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Evolving (7+ / 0-)

      is a real thing that thinking people do. If you don't evolve your probably a republican.

      While many minority groups are the target for discrimination, few face this hostility without the support and acceptance of their family as do many glbt youth.

      by azrefugee on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:13:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then go yell at Obama over the "evolving" meme. (8+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RichM, Aspe4, TJ, wsexson, T100R, BradyB, jeopardydd, lysias

      He's the one who actually started it; it is his word to describe his position, which at last statement is that he doesn't believe in equality, instead he wants to give LGBT people a nonequal half-measure.

    •  a lot of people think that was planned (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, EdinStPaul

      Major Garrett said he is convinced that was all planned out to gauge reaction to the issue. Kind of agree because Arne Duncan also  said he was pro gay marriage.

      •  I'm not sure. (0+ / 0-)

        especially given Axlerod's attempt to walk it back, I'm wondering if this wasn't an attempt on the part of members of the admistration to make an end run around Axlerod and the campaign staff and prod the President into taking a stand.

    •  You're right--it's unreasonable for the President (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, vacantlook

      ...to have a view on issues that are controversial.  It wouldn't be presidential.

      Romney '12: The Power of Crass Commands You!

      by Rich in PA on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:50:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It was his choice of words, not a meme (0+ / 0-)
  •  Would doing the right thing actually cost him any (11+ / 0-)

    votes?

    People who are really dead-set against it either:

    1. Aren't likely to vote for him anyway, or
    2. Aren't likely to vote Democratic, anyway.

    The groups most often mentioned as a concern are African-American communities and Catholics, but...

    do you really see them going GOP?

    Some worry that they won't get out and vote, sure, but that's half the impact of voting for the other guy.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:03:35 AM PDT

    •  Not sure.... but (15+ / 0-)

      If NC is any indication, then I think it may cost him.  That ballot measure got 61% of the vote.  Yet, Romney ain't getting anywhere near 61% of the vote in November.  There are some Obama voters that voted for banning gay marriage it seems.

      Forward thinking!

      by TheC on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:05:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's tricky (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrbeen38, Russycle, Aspe4, EdinStPaul

      There are plenty of Democratic voters who oppose SSM. Is it a deal breaker for them? Would it be enough to vote Romney? I doubt it.

      But it could it stop them from voting at all? Or depress turnout? I would give that theory more plausibility.

      Power-Worshipping Fascist

      by campionrules on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:06:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The political calculation isn't about losing votes (12+ / 0-)

      it's about getting the nutbags fired up in an election where they might sit out because they can't stand voting for a flip-flopping, vulture capitalist, Mormon asshole. But to prevent gay marriage? NC could be a predictor of just how much crazy we'd see. Thus I'm predicting he'll say "No", at least for now.

      All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

      by ontheleftcoast on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:07:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And while it isn't ecactly the same .. (6+ / 0-)

        that reasoning would have prevented stuff like Civil Rights in the 1960's

        •  Yeah, but the blowback from that was expensive (7+ / 0-)

          Worth it, but expensive. We got the Dixiecrats turning Republican, Nixon, and ultimately Reagan from that. We failed to push back against the racist backlash, we just assumed it would fade away on its own. LBJ's famous "We lost the South for a generation" was woefully inaccurate. We wound up losing parts of the North and the South, 50 years later, is still lost. Can we beat the homophobes? Sure, but is the party ready for the fight AFTER we succeed? Democrats have a long history of assuming that once we pass the laws the fight is over. The New Deal, Civil Rights, Roe v. Wade, etc. Just because we win doesn't mean the opposition gives up.

          All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

          by ontheleftcoast on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:26:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess we can be securely in power forever... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jeopardydd

            ...if we just resolve never to do anything and to leave all injustice in place.

            Romney '12: The Power of Crass Commands You!

            by Rich in PA on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:52:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Way to misread the comment (0+ / 0-)

              Or was that a lame attempt at snark?

              All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

              by ontheleftcoast on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:56:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think (0+ / 0-)

                he/she was making the point that sometimes you have to do the right thing even if it isn't in a politician's political interest.

                •  Which is what I said (0+ / 0-)

                  But I also pointed out that Democrats have been willing to make those calls and then walk away from the issue as if it's a "done deal". The rightwing in this country is unwilling to let progress stand. They're not merely "conservative" they're actively "regressive". Always willing to turn back the clock. Hell, they even have people openly talk about repealing the 14th, 16th, 17th, and 19th Amendments. If we think just making marriage equality the law of the land will stop them we're being delusional. Pay the price, but remember to pay the maintance fees as well.

                  All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

                  by ontheleftcoast on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:22:36 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  You say "worth it" but then the rest... (0+ / 0-)

                ...is devoted to bemoaning how costly it was in terms of political power, and questioning whether our party can handle success, much less failure.

                Romney '12: The Power of Crass Commands You!

                by Rich in PA on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:39:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Show me where the party has fought for progress (0+ / 0-)

                  after achieving it? For heaven's sakes they've converted welfare to workfare and are ready to cut Medicare and Social Security. They have time and again bowed to the right. That's a sad fact. Hell yes we should fight for marriage equality. But don't think it will come without a price. And don't expect our party leaders to be willing to pay it without us pushing on them.

                  All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

                  by ontheleftcoast on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:00:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Reubs (0+ / 0-)

            never give up.  They are masters at it.  Their plan has come full circle - take over the courts, take over the media (Fox News & talk radio), take over the government, defund education, align with religious right and use propaganda and brain washing to get the people on their side.

            Those of us who have not bought into their plans have been vilified and called unpatriotic.

            I say what these righties have done borders on treason.

    •  Flip side of that: who here that's pro SSM (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac

      Would sit out?

      I'll bet zero.

      •  In other words... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson, jeopardydd, lysias

        ...pro equality voters can be taken advantage of because homophobic voters are more valuable.

        •  No. But I'm saying if it's about making a (0+ / 0-)

          Political calculation about how many potential voters you lose, I'm suggesting that that we stand to lose more who are anti-SSM than we do who are pro-SSM.

          The OP said that if he came out in favor we'd likely lose little or no AA or catholic votes. That's just as much "taking a voting block for granted" as the inverse. My assertion is that those of us who are pro-SSM are much LESS likely to sit it out (yes, we'd be taken for granted) with no endorsement. So if you're trying to calculate which position has the greater potential of voter loss, seems to me to be a no brainer: the endorsement carries the greater risk of voter loss.

          •  who keeps saying this (0+ / 0-)

            and where did it come from?

            "we'd likely lose little or no AA or [Roman] Catholic votes"

            Aren't Roman Catholics already voting Republican because of abortion?

            "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

            by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:28:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  And the homophobes in the country... (0+ / 0-)

            ...are more important that us LGBT people.  I get it.  I accept it.  But don't try to court their vote and tell me you support my equality in the same breath because it's offensive to demand I pretend that being afraid of offending homophobes is a pro-equality action.  Just own the reality that you can take us for granted because we have no where else to turn.

      •  We don't Sit out Elections Regardless (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mdmslle, FiredUpInCA

        There is a huge passion gap between those opposed and those who support Gay Marriage. When Prop 8 was on the ballot every single day for weeks the corners of my OC area were filled with supporters of Prop 8. I have never seen anybody rallying for any issue other then that one. There was one small group of  High School kids one afternoon protesting Prop 8. Friends across the state tell me it was the same everywhere there was a concentration of Republican Voters.

        The Hate Mongers make up 25-35% of the population and they  actually vote. People who care enough to work hard on Gay Rights are a probably less then half that and a lot of them are young and don't vote regularly. There is a huge difference between someone who abstractly supports Gay Marriage and someone who is going to stand on a street corner yelling for it daily.

    •  We were told again and again and again... (8+ / 0-)

      ...on here yesterday that if Obama dares to support equality that it'll cost him the election.  It was depressing to see so many people here so eager to preemptively blame LGBT people for a potential Obama loss.  And then we got the results of a poll posted on the front page yesterday that said that only 53% of Democrats support marriage equality.

      •  I love that. (7+ / 0-)

        When he doesn't support marriage equality it's because LGBTs haven't done enough. We're just not ready yet. When he won't speak out about North Carolina or even have OFA type the words "Amendment 1" into an email, it's because we will utterly wreck everything about his presidency.

        Now that he might speak out I'm betting these same people will say it's a good thing. But... I thought it would wreck his presidency?

        "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
        I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
        @indiemcemopants on Twitter

        by Scottie Thomaston on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:27:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's a very misleading statistic. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        craigkg, T100R, jeopardydd, lysias, FiredUpInCA

        53% of Democrats support marriage equality when given the choice of marriage equality, civil unions, or no recognition.

        But when asked directly whether gays and lesbians should have the right to be married, a much higher percentage of Democrats say they should.

        In the latest Gallup poll, 65% of Democrats say same-sex marriage should be legal.

        http://www.gallup.com/...

        •  What's misleading... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R, tsunamiwave7, TrueBlueMajority

          ...is pretending that people who are for civil unions but not marriage are actually for marriage equality.

          They are not.

          •  That's bull. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jeopardydd, FiredUpInCA

            In 2008 if you'd asked the same question you are using to base your conclusions on in California, far less than 48% of the people would have said they favored marriage equality.

            But in fact 48% did vote against banning same-sex marriage.

            In fact, in 2012, only 43% of Californians choose marriage equality when given the three choices. In 2008 it would have been significantly less.

            http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...

            But a significantly higher percentage (and probably a majority) would vote for an amendment overturning Proposition 8 now.

            When a vote is taken, it is always a two-way question: for marriage equality, or not. Basing your opinions on how people andswer a three-way question is simply not a valid way to predict how they will vote when the yes-or-no question comes up.

            •  Dude, I'm not pretending anymore. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bailey2001

              People who are for civil unions only are not for marriage equality.  They're for a two-tiered system.  One in which straight people get the good laws, and we homos get less than.

              I'm tired of allowing homophobes cover.  Just because they don't want to shoot me in the head the way Republicans do does not make them less homophobic.  Being for civil unions and not marriage means you are not for marriage equality.

              •  I just demonstrated that there are people (0+ / 0-)

                who are for civil unions AND for marriage equality.

                Apparently we are in violent agreement.

                The way to win marriage equality is to convince those who are for civil unions and NOT for marriage equality to support marriage equality, not to excoriate them.  It's a lot easier than convincing those who think there should be no recognition whatsoever, and it gets you a majority in almost every state in the union.

      •  I Don't Think People Are Preemptively Blaming LGBT (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority

        people for a potential Obama loss, anymore than people blame African-Americans for the White flight from the Democratic Party that occurred after the passage of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of the mid-60's. They are blaming the bigots who can cause an Obama loss on the issue of marriage equality, even if they are not phrasing it correctly.

        And anyone who is telling LGBT people to STFU and be Patient! have no more right to call themselves a progressive than those who said the same things to Black people during the Civil Rights era.

        I think what people are saying to the LGBT community is that there are political realities that Obama has to deal with that hinders his ability to "come out" on marriage equality. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I tend to let my absolute support for human rights sometimes interfer with better judgement.

        I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

        by OnlyWords on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:38:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Uh, no (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cherylm, skyounkin, TrueBlueMajority

        I don't blame LGBT people. I blame the bigots, pure and simple. And the sad fact is that the bigots seem to be far more powerful.

        I'm very frightened of what's going to happen.

        Proud supporter of nuclear power!

        by zegota on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:40:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who said that? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Romney '12: The Power of Crass Commands You!

        by Rich in PA on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:52:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think it might be a good idea to make it a wedge (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueMajority

      issue for the campaign.  Rmoney will not have a choice but to campaign on the issue and the President can continue talking about the economy.

      There are Catholics and then there are Catholics...  I know a whole lot the majority of those that will vote GOP are not doing it on the basis of LGBT rights or a woman's right to choose.  Where I live the Church has abandoned the city and the poorer neighborhood for the suburbs and the 1%.

      I'll need some room for this...

      by duckhunter on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:25:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i am so glad it is going to be a wedge issue (0+ / 0-)

        R-Money will squirm and squiggle in trying to make himself not look like a bigot.

        In fact, it is a good thing that R-Money is the nominee, because anyone else (except Sick Rantorum) might just lie and say "I'm for marriage equality too".

        But Mittens is the one candidate who can NEVER say that without losing the most passionate members of his base--his LDS brethren

        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

        by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:16:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Of course it will cost votes. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      EdinStPaul, jeopardydd, FiredUpInCA

      If it did not cost votes it would be a non issue and the President would express his full support for marriage equality.

      Sad but true.

      "We must hang together,...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

      by GreatDane on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:29:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And the concerns are generally unfounded... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac
      The groups most often mentioned as a concern are African-American communities and Catholics,.
      A straight-up majority of Catholics support marriage equality.

      Washington, D.C. is a majority African-American city that achieved marriage equality without a problem.  GLBT activists in Maryland were able to work with African-American communities just fine when working successfully to pass a marriage equality bill earlier this year.  

      If religion means a way of life, and life's necessities are food, clothing, and shelter, then we should not separate religion from economics. - Malcolm X

      by dirkster42 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:32:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  whether Roman Catholics support equality (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FiredUpInCA

        is irrelevant.

        what matters is whether it is a voting issue for them.

        I know Roman Catholics who agree with everything the Democratic party stands for, but they vote R because of abortion.

        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

        by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:30:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  OOPs - No# 2 should have been ARE likely to vote (0+ / 0-)

      Democratic!

      My Bad.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:18:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good timing Mr President... (4+ / 0-)

    NOT

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:03:39 AM PDT

  •  Place your bets, I'm going with "No" (34+ / 0-)

    He'll most likely talk about it being a change that is coming and he'll be OK with it when it does. But a full endorsement of it seems unlikely.

    All my sig lines are hand-crafted by demented elves living in my skull.

    by ontheleftcoast on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:03:45 AM PDT

  •  Interesting (8+ / 0-)

    This is a political minefield- it's clear everytime another state bans SSM, that the ban was passed with significant Democratic support.

    So rather than just saying: "My as well endorse it, people that it'll piss off won't vote for me anyways", you have to consider how well it will play in swing states that possess a large, mainly older, Democratic voting population.

    It'll be interesting to see what he does. Honestly, I think we'll get another "I don't support Amendments like these, civil unions are good, blah blah" but not a full endorsement.

    Power-Worshipping Fascist

    by campionrules on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:04:27 AM PDT

  •  Here's hoping North Carolina does a big (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aspe4

    facepalm and asks for a mulligan.

    "Oh, we were being stupid bigots? Shit!"

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right. I'm riding in the Tour de Cure. You can donate here.

    by darthstar on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:04:27 AM PDT

  •  They're kidding, right? (20+ / 0-)

    The president is going to do this on the day AFTER Amendment One passed in North Carolina?  Does the White House have any idea how bad that looks?  We just watched yet another state write de jure discrimination into its constitution, and the president is going to speak up after the damage is done?

    Talk about a day late and a dollar short.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:04:50 AM PDT

    •  Well, at least no one can acuse of him (7+ / 0-)

      of only doing it because it is popular...

      One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

      by AUBoy2007 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:09:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If he cared at all about (11+ / 0-)

      the marriage issue he would have said something when he could have influenced it. This looks like he is just embarrassed that the convention will be held in NC and he has such confusing views on marriage that he will forever be associated with the vote unless he says something forceful about it.

      Whether that's what's going on or not - and I don't know the guy's heart - that's what it looks like to me.

      "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
      I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
      @indiemcemopants on Twitter

      by Scottie Thomaston on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:13:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which puts him more in the category of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tronman5000

        Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, James Eatland and Orval Faubus than say A. Philip Randolph, W.E. Dubois, Thurgood Marshall & Martin Luther King. If he's going to salvage his legacy on civil rights, today can't be the completion of his evolution on marriage equality, it has to be the start of his revolution for marriage equality.

        "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

        by craigkg on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:24:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't like (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA

          that particular analogy, honestly.

          "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
          I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
          @indiemcemopants on Twitter

          by Scottie Thomaston on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:29:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you look at their rhetoric it fits (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lysias

            Wallace, Faubus, etc all said they were for racial equality, but that segregation wasn't at odds with that. In their own warped sense of justice, they weren't being racist, and I'm sure that Obama hasn't seen his civil union or "evolving" meme to be homophobic even though it is. Obama has stood against the tide of his own party long enough and like the old southern politicians of yore, he's only changing his public position because the political climate is forcing him to, not because he wants to. If you look at Thurmond, privately he was never the racists demagogue he portrayed himself as in '48 when he ran for President against Truman or in '56 when won the Senate seat in South Carolina. He had a biracial daughter with a black woman even. Most people here likewise believe that Obama's public face on LGBT issues has been a ruse, that he is privately more supportive than his public persona, just like Thurmond. His public persona may not have been a rapid as Thurmond was on race, but it is nonetheless politically homophobic.

            "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

            by craigkg on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:39:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  In March Obama Spoke Out Against Amendment 1 (0+ / 0-)

        "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

        by Aspe4 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:44:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The President has created a real problem for (6+ / 0-)

      himself by waffling on this issue for so long. Had he taken a stand one way or the other two or even four years ago, he would have pissed off half the country, but by now it would be old news. Instead, as we approach the election any definitive stand he takes afters years of dodging the question is going to come across as pandering. On the other hand, if he doesn't take a stand, it's just going to continue irritate both sides.

      And to compound it, the issue is reaching critical mass: It was on the front page of the NYT two days running, there have been big editorials in all the papers I read here in the Bay Area. This is not going away. The President is between a rock and a hard place, but he put himself there.

      Back in the '60s I used to read a lot of spy novels, and every time I here Obama speak on this issue, I'm reminded of a line from one of them: "If you try to keep a foot in both camps, they'll build the fence right through you".

    •  The proper analogy (0+ / 0-)

      George W. Bush:Barack Obama::Rumsfeld getting canned:whatever Obama says on marriage equality today

      "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

      by craigkg on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:21:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I doubt anything will change with Obama... (0+ / 0-)

      ...on this issue.  He'll still be for not-equality, but we'll be expected to think that that's so awesome because he doesn't want to shoot us dead the way Republicans do.

    •  This Seems Very Amatuerish. (0+ / 0-)

      How did they let the MSM goad them into this interview?

      "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

      by Aspe4 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:42:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If true, this ought to make the DNC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lysias, historys mysteries

    in Charlotte awfully interesting.

    I understand that Pres. Obama couldn't have made the robo calls himself, but if his evolution had come a little earlier, perhaps he could have persuaded a few more people to vote no in NC.  Not enough to change the result, but perhaps the margins wouldn't have been as devastating.

  •  Perfect timing. (5+ / 0-)

    Like how Viet Nam protesters decided the war was a bad idea the day after we left.

    "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
    I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
    @indiemcemopants on Twitter

    by Scottie Thomaston on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:05:39 AM PDT

    •  i think it's more complicated than that (0+ / 0-)

      he opposed amendment one, although he- like every previous president- has never flatly supported marriage equality. but coming after the vote, taking this position would actually be a bit of a risk, because he would be opposing the stand of the majority of the voters in a tight and important swing state- not only on the amendment, but on the issue itself. and that also would really focus attention on what he and the dnc do about marriage equality at the convention. it makes marriage equality a focus of the convention, and of the entire campaign.

      from a local north carolina perspective it would have been better if he'd campaigned for marriage equality. from a national and paradigm perspective i think it would have even more impact coming right after.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:19:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I just don't see it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laurence Lewis

        I don't see them addressing marriage after today's announcement. I'm willing to be surprised - maybe the DNC will start putting money into fighting antigay ballot initiatives and passing pro-gay ones, and maybe OFA will send emails and galvanize supporters, but I don't think I'll hold my breath.

        This is probably just an "Okay fine now leave me alone" moment.

        "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
        I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
        @indiemcemopants on Twitter

        by Scottie Thomaston on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:33:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  IF (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scottie Thomaston

          he takes an unequivocal stand for marriage equality, i don't see how it could not become one of the defining issues of the campaign. he can't come out in favor and then hold a convention in north carolina and downplay it. the entire democratic base will be focused on it, during convention week. and he knows it. he's nothing if not extremely politically astute.

          if he wants it to go away, he will offer something less than full support for full equality. if he supports full equality it means he's ready to campaign on it.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:51:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I will hold my breath... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob, T100R

    For the minute and half I can...

    Ok, done.  You don't need worry about my health now.

    /snark

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:05:54 AM PDT

  •  If he does, I hope we support him (15+ / 0-)

    And not just say, "eh, whatever" or "finally."

    There is certainly valid criticism of Obama on the issue, but I hope we understand the significance of a sitting US president coming out in favor of marriage equality, and support him against the avalanche of criticism he will get from the right.

  •  I hope he doesn't announce yet.... (6+ / 0-)

    but waits for re-election.

    I am for same-sex marriage, but this will be a huge distraction.  This elections is about jobs and the economy.  The Republilcans will pile on and piss more people off my accusing the president of not focusing on the economy.  

    I just see too much potential of electoral disaster.  Of course, VPOTUS and Duncan are at fault for all of this.  

    I imagine the president is for same-sex marriage but he wants a more secure terrain after his re-election.

    •  How many people who would have voted (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      craigkg, bythesea, T100R

      for the President will no longer because he endorsed same sex marraige six months prior to the election?  This is after, mind you, he signed DADT repeal and stopped fighting for DOMA (which is consistantly, and purposefully, spun as not enforcing it).

      One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

      by AUBoy2007 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:23:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Especially considering... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, BlueinLouisville

      ...that there are so many Democrats chomping at the bit to blame LGBT people for Obama losing, maybe he should try to avoid expressing support for equality.  Can't turn off the homophobes; their votes are just too important.  We homos are used to people who want to pretend their our friends turning on us to prevent harm to themselves.

    •  I dislike people like you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      schnecke21

      Biden is at fault for being principled and honest? For being willing to state that he believes in equality?

      Do you think that marriage is a civil right?

      Do you believe it's acceptable to play politics with civil rights issues?

      Do you support politicians saying one thing during the election campaign, and then immediately forgetting it and doing something else? This is no different.

      When does our day come? Only after it couldn't possibly hurt the democratic party? Only when 75% of the population supports giving us a basic civil right? Or does it need to be 80%? Or only when the speaker isn't actively running for office? If coming out in support of civil rights would lose one politician 10% in the polls, but another one only 2%, is it more understandable for the first to take a bigoted position?

      Should we have held off on civil rights for African Americans, to avoid losing the south? Given them more time to come around?

      Evolving is an insult. This is a moral issue, it's about discrimination. And the President of the Unites States should lead us, not follow us.

      I understand the logical reasons for waiting, and understand the political calculus. But when it's your civil rights, the validity of your marriage that's being discussed, principles do matter. And hearing that POTUS probably believes in your civil rights, but isn't willing to risk pissing off bigots by coming out publicly and saying so, it doesn't sit very well.

      I don't dislike you at all Ben, despite the header of this comment. I dislike your lack of principles. Let's hope that Obama demonstrates that he has stronger principles than you.

  •  I dont think its really much of a stretch for ppl (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chitown Kev, Hopefruit2, jj32

    that are already disposed to vote for Obama. He publicly supported civil unions in 2008 and it didn't hurt him. African American aren't going to vote against him because of it and honestly does his personal opinion matter? Its not like he can executive order every state to start perform SSMs

    •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, FiredUpInCA

      In fact, all seven counties in North Carolina that voted AGAINST the ban - voted for President Obama in 2008.

      African-Americans are NOT single issue voters - they have a wide range of far more pressing issues of concern when determining how to cast their ballots.  Obama has already implemented many pro-LGBT policies and his support among AA voters remains sky high.

      Furthermore, in Washington DC with a heavy AA population, SS marriage is law.

    •  I agree about AAs. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, FiredUpInCA

      I find the whole "are black people ruining gay marriage for all gays everywhere?" thing annoying as hell. If any constituency were going to abandon the president over the issue they would have done so when he made his DOJ stop defending DOMA and press for heightened scrutiny for laws affecting gays and lesbians.

      That decision will lead to more substantive advancements for marriage equality at least at some point in the future than a simple announcement. And yet there was no freak out. And we are expected to believe one of the Democrats' most reliable constituencies will abandon this president over an announcement?

      "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
      I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
      @indiemcemopants on Twitter

      by Scottie Thomaston on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:24:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And what power does the president have over SSM? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40

        None at all. He can't force states to perform them. There is no such thing as federal marriage. And the president endorsing SSM could actually help to move AA opinion some too

        •  Well the issue with (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          craigkg, T100R

          his endorsement isn't over making him create federal rights. It's just that he fully supports the rights of heterosexual people as president of the United States, and therefore he should fully support the rights of LGBT people. It hurts to have the leader of our country and one of the most prominent people on the entire planet say he isn't ready to fully believe that I am human enough to deserve to be married to someone I love.

          "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
          I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
          @indiemcemopants on Twitter

          by Scottie Thomaston on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:37:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  He's head of state, the embodiment of American... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R, vacantlook

          ...values. His position sets the tone of the national debate regardless of his authority or lack thereof on the issue in terms of actual governance.

          "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

          by craigkg on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:41:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The President (0+ / 0-)

          of the United States getting on tv and stating that people are fully equal is NOT a trivial matter. In matters a great deal. Having the President declare in public that you are a full human being is a big frikin' deal to a lot of people.

      •  when he made the DOJ stop defending DOMA (0+ / 0-)

        most of the black community was not aware of it.

        and in fact most are still not aware of it.

        not the kind of thing that moves people's votes.

        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

        by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:36:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  i feel you, but who made the Clintonesque ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T100R, CoExistNow

    ... "evolving" construction but O himself. There are a handful of issues where even the most rabid Obamabots - myself included - feel The Prez has been too clever or downright not progressive. This is one of them. So while I sympathize totally I can't get too worked up about progressives having criticisms, even of the greatest president ever. We're like that!

    I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace. - Thomas Paine

    by ManOutOfTime on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:08:08 AM PDT

  •  Meh, for those who don't believe in evolution (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99

    this will simply appear to be a good old fashioned flip flop.

  •  The former "hack" in me assumes... (4+ / 0-)

    ...that Team OfA has been weighing and "field testing" a "completion of evolution" against probability of being able to hold 280 EVs (just a number I picked). If their internal polling, focus groups and discussions with "taste-makers" indicates that POTUS needs to continue to evolve, then that's what the answer will be.

    It may not be logical or just, but it is Election Season.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:10:01 AM PDT

  •  I will believe it when I sees it (6+ / 0-)

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:10:53 AM PDT

  •  I think he has to at this point. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AUBoy2007

    If Amendment 1 had failed, he might be able to continue playing the middle a while longer, but it didn't...he needs to publicly chose a side.

    "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

    by Apost8 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:10:55 AM PDT

  •  Genes "Evolve" - People "Drag Their Feet" (16+ / 0-)

    I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

    by OnlyWords on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:13:00 AM PDT

  •  words (4+ / 0-)

    I understand people wanting to hear a full-throated endorsement of full civil rights for all.  Who here doesn't want that?

    But ultimately we are arguing about words and symbolism.  Those things have their utility, but I care more about legislation.

    Job #1 right now is holding the presidency and keeping the balance of the supreme court from swinging to the right.   That's what I care about.  Not words.

    Dare to win in 2012

    by snout on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:14:19 AM PDT

    •  How do 'simply words' (0+ / 0-)

      as you call them hold the presidency if the words give equivalence to the RW concepts of bigotry, hatred ignorance and intolerance, not to mention separation of church and state. If the Democrat's swing to the right which they seem to be doing how do we get a 'balance' in any branch of the government? Equality and civil human rights are not just words. I'll tell you what's just 'words' the hollow campaign words that comes out of this administration ones like Foward or two legs better.

      •  It isn't a static battlefield (0+ / 0-)

        No matter how it appears the Dems are swinging in the short term, that's all transitory.  The sad reality is that change will be a fight for inches for a while.  Changing the minds of aging boomers is going to be a glatial process.  But their kids are already up for change, and the balance of political power will shift to them in due time.

        Change will come, but every day leading up to it will offer new reasons for depression and anger if one is prone to accept those feelings.

        Dare to win in 2012

        by snout on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:07:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed... (0+ / 0-)

      ...we can't offend the homophobes; we can't afford to lose their votes.  Homophobes are just more important, more valuable.

  •  Only virgins should be allowed to marry. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aspe4

    Marriage is sacred.   Amendment 0.

    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

    by 88kathy on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:14:33 AM PDT

  •  Also,... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade

    ...the check is in the mail.

    Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:15:47 AM PDT

  •  I hope the President thinks politically (5+ / 0-)

    and does not invite another 2004 distraction on gay marriage to cost us an election.  He has a very good chance to win states like North Carolina and Ohio, but if the GOP argues that the reelection of Obama will mean the imposition of gay marriage everywhere, that would create a backlash to lose enough indies to get Mitt in the white house.  Hope he is appropriately careful.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:21:16 AM PDT

    •  yes, the neanderthals will make hay with this n/t (2+ / 0-)

      There is no hell on earth appropriate enough for those who would promote the killing of another person, in the name of a god.

      by HarryParatestis on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:30:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yup, Kerry lost because of us damn homos. (0+ / 0-)

      If Obama loses, it'll be our fault too.  We can want equality all we want to, we just can't expect people who claim to be our allies to want us to have equality too because that would upset homophobic voters.  And they are just more important and valuable than we are.

      •  Any politician has to pick and choose which (0+ / 0-)

        battles to fight and how to fight them.  The President has moved methodically to embrace equal rights for same sex couples.  The political reality is that there are a lot of Americans (a majority when one considers how ballot measures have performed) that oppose it and will actively cast votes against the concept.  The question is whether supporting same sex marriage creates political risks that would cause Obama to lose re-election.  The President has obviously made the determination that it will not, and so now we enter a brave new world.  

        Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

        by khyber900 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:51:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I would be shocked if he said yes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32

    People think it would cost him Ohio and NC and maybe Va but I think most people who are against gay marriage would probably not be inclined to vote for Obama.

  •  The interview is supposed to be at 1:30 ET (0+ / 0-)

    But I assume it's going to be broadcast on teh evening news. Anybody knows more?

    •  They said parts of it will be broadcast (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mangusta

      on Evening News, full interview tomorrow on GMA.

      I imagine parts of it will be released throughout the afternoon, and maybe if he does make news, that would leak out anyway.

  •  If he does finish evolving... (0+ / 0-)

    ...we need to go all out in supporting him.

    Hold back on the complaining of timing or that he didn't evolve fast enough or that his evolution would have prevented Amendment 1 from passing (it wouldn't have).

    We asked him to evolve and if he does, we need to reward that unambiguously.  

    As yesterday's results showed, we have to realize that there are democrats and independents that voted FOR the amendment and we'll still need their support come November.

    Proud to share my name with Howard Dean

    by DeanNC on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:25:23 AM PDT

  •  What does endorsing do? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, Aquarius40, CoExistNow

    Does it bring in enough new young voters to offset the number of current voters it might turn off?

    •  Given the later is a null set, the answer is yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AUBoy2007, George Hier

      As someone here said a couple days ago, show me a person who was going to vote for the President but won't if he comes out for marriage equality and I'll introduce you to the tooth fairy.

      "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

      by craigkg on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:30:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can't risk offending the homophobes. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      George Hier

      If Obama doesn't display the appropriate amount of hate toward LGBT people, then the homophobes won't vote for him.  We need their votes.  Don't worry, we homos understand; we're used to people only pretending to give a shit about us.  We know we're just not important enough.

      •  And how exactly has Obama expressed any hate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FiredUpInCA

        for LGBT people? By repealing DADT? By pushing for LGBT provisions in the VAWA? Dropping DOJ defense of DOMA? What would make you happy? Dancing down 5th Avenue in a rainbow sequined jumpsuit singing "I Love a Parade"?

        •  I'm not capable of happy now. (0+ / 0-)

          This shit is too depressing.  Half of my own fucking party doesn't think I should have equality.  So yeah, I say fuck it all.  Don't pretend anymore that some second tier half-measure is equality.  I'm not interested in people who want to think they're not bad people because they don't want to kill me but want to make sure that I don't have access to the same laws that they do.  Equality would be nice, but it won't happen anytime in my fucking life.  So I get it.  Not pissing off the obvious homophobes is more electorally important.  I accept that.

          •  And you say this even after the Pres. endorses SSM (0+ / 0-)

            nothing will you make you happy. And everyone that doesn't care about LGBT issues as much as you isn't a homophobe, FYI.

            •  Obama hasn't endorsed marriage equality. (0+ / 0-)

              That's the whole argument that's been happening here on DKos since Biden said what he said.  Obama isn't for marriage for same-sex couples, he, like a large number of other Democrats, are for non-equal civil unions.  And the argument that many have been posting here is that if Obama says he's for full equality that that will alienate homophobic voters, and Obama's reelection is too important to risk that.

              Anyone who thinks that civil unions are enough, that we don't need actual equality, is a homophobe, yes.  They're not beat me into a bloody pulp level of homophobe, but their separate-and-obviously-not-equal position is most definitely homophobic.

              •  Note on the timing of this comment. (0+ / 0-)

                I came back to the site through my comments page, and not through the main page, so I hadn't yet read the new story on the front page before I typed this comment.

                I'm now moving over to that new story to read everything there.  If what I dare to let my hopes get up just looking at the headline ends up being the content of the story, then I given how depressed over this I've been the past couple of days, I might end up crying.

  •  NC passed Amendment #1 with just 34% of the (5+ / 0-)

    electorate voting—I think that's a caveat we should all consider while discussing this issue. Could this amendment have passed in November when the whole electorate turns out?

    As a gay man in Ohio, I'm torn on the whole marriage equality issue. We have no such rights in Ohio, and probably the only way we will get such rights is if Federal legislation is passed or the Supreme Court finally rules that marriage equality is an inalienable right for all citizens.

    I would love to see President Obama come out and strongly endorse marriage equality for all—but if it lost us the White House in November I would always regret that.

    That said—the people against equal marriage rights for all are not going to vote for President Obama this November. I think I can say that with reasonable certainty.

    •  That's actually high turnout for NC primary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SneakySnu

      2010's was 14.4%.

      Proud to share my name with Howard Dean

      by DeanNC on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:33:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That was also part of GOP strategy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SneakySnu

      They put it on the primary ballot because they knew the only thing going on then was the GOP presidential race at the time.  

      The late developing DEM governor primary was a bit of a surprise but they clearly didn't want to chance it with putting it on the ballot for the general election.

      But even if it was on the November ballot, it would have almost certainly still passed.  Remember, Prop 8 passed in "left coast" California at the same time Obama racked up huge wins.

      Proud to share my name with Howard Dean

      by DeanNC on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:39:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If only he'd evolve regarding his views on Wall (0+ / 0-)

    Street. Just think if the money that was used to prop up the TOO BIG TO FAIL banks had been distributed to ever non 1%'er in the country (say 250k), I wonder what the economy would look like today.

    I'm betting it would be a damn site better than it currently is for large chunks of the population.

    Oh! And speaking of evolving! Let's hope his views on Medicare for all "evolves".

    First sign of evolution? Can Timmy. I won't hold my breath.

    When I cannot sing my heart. I can only speak my mind.

    by Unbozo on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:28:22 AM PDT

  •  So... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, TrueBlueMajority

    Is Mitt Romney so irrelevant that he's not part of this conversation? Or what? Because the mainstream media (and even Daily Kos) seems to be laser-focused on President Obama here.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:32:37 AM PDT

    •  that may be because Mitt (0+ / 0-)

      actually has a firm position on it.  Obama's position seems in question, if only because of Biden's remarks.
      nope, I was wrong


      may we not be strangers in the lush province of joy - Charles Wright

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:54:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's the "problem" with high expectations (0+ / 0-)

      People expect more from Obama. So his stance is a bigger problem than Romney.

      BTW, Romney came out against civil unions today.

      •  Romney is in favor of a constitutional amendment (0+ / 0-)

        banning marriage equality, and has been for some time.

        Romney will be forced to talk about this issue now, and will have a tough time defending his very conservative viewpoint in front of independent audiences

        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

        by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:13:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Of course Romney is part of the conversation. (0+ / 0-)

      Everytime someone posts that it would be nice if Obama was for equality, someone swoops in and says, "You don't want Romney to win do you?"

      So, we get it.  Obama has to display an appropriate amount of homohate in order to not alienate homophobic voters.  And if Obama loses, it'll be our fault for being homos, just like Kerry's loss was our fault.

      •  What are you babbling about? (0+ / 0-)

        I want Romney to be a part of the conversation so that his "homohate" (as you call it) is highlighted and mocked. I want his beliefs to be out in the open so that he suffers a political penalty for being anti-civil rights.

        So calm down -- you totally misinterpreted my views, my remark, and went off the deep end with it.

        it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

        by Addison on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:21:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  R-Money is irrelevant because (0+ / 0-)

      as an elder in his church he can not be in favor of same sex marriage.  Period.

      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

      by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:10:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  just so everybody knows...I am the first guy so (0+ / 0-)

    say: too little ..too late I know it's going to be said.

    for Obama ....the best thing you can do is to drop Biden... pick Hillary she would not embarrass you like Biden.

    /If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer/. Thoreau

    by hron on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:34:50 AM PDT

  •  In an election year (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli

    marriage equality, DOMA and immigration are all slippery slopes to make central to the campaign to reelect.  

    There is still Congress (Oh, their interest is reelection too?  Oh, and there's gambling here?)

    Just the way it is, imho.  

    Let's see what the President says

    Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    by EdMass on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:36:28 AM PDT

  •  im pissed either way at this point (0+ / 0-)

    feel like its too little too late

  •  It will be a very careful interview (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, FiredUpInCA, Eddie L

    and the President will show that he actually supports gay marriage without coming out and saying it.

    I would bet money on it. The U.S. is thought to be  too socially conservative for him to announce that he supports gay marriage unequivocally.

    It sucks, but I cannot picture him 'evolving' yet.

  •  wondered if Biden, Axelrod (0+ / 0-)

    were trial balloons.  Jay Carney hemmed and hawed, and didn't seem comfortable answering the questions.  But perhaps Obama directed him not to preempt his announcement.

    Obama surely will be asked.  


    may we not be strangers in the lush province of joy - Charles Wright

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:41:05 AM PDT

  •  I just wish (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque

    folks who are against gay rights would realize that we are a diverse pluralistic country.   And because we are, not everything that goes on we will agree with.  But if we are to be true to who we are as spelled out in the Constitution, then gay rights must be part of who we are.  For those who prance around and thump their Bibles, God will judge you for who you are, not who your country is. (I don't believe just being "saved" is a way to heaven.)

    We should all be allowed to be who we are.  Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you are right. It just means you have a different view.  

    Those who are all about the hate are going to look very out of touch with who we are.

  •  I am hoping that what he says today will (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque

    be strong like the speech he gave about race in 2008. And I have faith in the people of the country to respond in the same way they did to that speech. Those who don't would never have voted for him anyway. If he really believes that he stands on the shoulders of heroes, there is no other option.

    Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

    by HappyinNM on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:42:47 AM PDT

  •  after reading the comments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash

    here, seems clear that an announcement either way will piss off about half of US.

    That means to me, that the staus quo maintained is the safe way to go for the election.  I just can't believe that Biden was that stupid to bring this all up now, risking embarrassment for his boss.

    (I hope) something is up Obama's sleeve for this.


    may we not be strangers in the lush province of joy - Charles Wright

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:51:52 AM PDT

    •  I agree through the first paragraph (5+ / 0-)

      I'd say that if half of America's going to hate you anyway, you should go with the view that will piss off people who by and large hate you already, and is the only morally correct view.

      Romney '12: The Power of Crass Commands You!

      by Rich in PA on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:53:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Supporting equality is embarrassing? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfbob

      It seems you are of the view that Obama should avoid full support of equality.

      I disagree, it is time for the party and our President to stand for full equality.

      Politically it may have an impact, but I just do not buy his coming out in support of full equality will cost him the election.

      Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace. - Dalai Lama

      by kimoconnor on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:20:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope he surprises us all... (0+ / 0-)

    I hope he surprises us all with an announcement that is against government marriage in general.  Explain that most people connect marriage with religion and that the government should not be in the business of endorsing religious unions - therefore we should move towards civil unions for all.  This is a position that is supported and rejected by people on both sides - which makes it the perfect compromise.  

    •  My marriage is not a civil union, it's a marriage. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eddie L

      Marriage has been a civil institution as long as it has been a religious one. Marriage confers a legitimacy that other partnership types do not. There is literally nothing to be gained by ending civil marriage for everyone.

      We just need to recognize that marriage is a civil right that everyone should share in regardless of their religion or gender.

  •  It's sad to see some people say it's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, mangusta

    too little too late.

    We dont understand the significance of a sitting president taking this stance.

    Maybe we will in 20 years.

  •  Why the President? (0+ / 0-)

    Our Constutution is based on separation of powers. If Obama walks out of a new opera you will not see reprecussions against its composer.
    I am content to let other powers  bring about marriage equality.
    NC was not a good place to win. We need to win ME, WA, MN, and MD. Does ActBlue have donation slots?
    Don't make the perfect into an enemy of the good.
    btw the composer I alluded to was Dmitri Shostakovich.

    Censorship is rogue government.

    by scott5js on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:00:08 AM PDT

  •  We could also wait for the tortoises... (0+ / 0-)

    ...on Galapagos to evolve.  Will it have an effect on people's lives?

  •  Mark Halperin (0+ / 0-)

    seems to think he will endorse today.

    The way he describes it, it takes Romney off message because he'll have to talk about SSM instead of the economy.

    •  R-Money will have no problem pivoting (0+ / 0-)

      as a Mormon he cannot favor marriage equality, but he can and will point out frequently who was governor of Massachusetts when we became the first marriage equality state

      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

      by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:42:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, we'll see what happens. I won't hold my (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority

    breath on this though. Personally, it doesn't matter all that much whether he gives his endorsement to it now, or after the election, because in my heart I feel he will say it at some point. Would it help tremendously with the gay vote before the election?, very possibly. It would stop the gay GOP'ers from constantly pointing out the Presidents evolving statement which has been dug into the ground. So, I will see how this plays out....

  •  Oh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA
    Richard Socarides, who served as an LGBT adviser to President Bill Clinton
    so i guess he's used to being disappointed.

    anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

    by chopper on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:30:49 AM PDT

  •  Mittens "Credit Taking" is a big favor to O (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ddn

    Gives him a bit more time to figure this out. I am still not sure how to play it, I do not want this election to turn into a gay marriage fight. At the same time, its going to happen sooner or later. I do believe that Obama is in favor of gay marriage as he indicated in 2006, but some parts of the Democratic Party still have a ways to go on this issue.

    Its a crappy situation.

    What I do know is that a 2nd term Obama is in a very good position to address this issue. I want him elected first and foremost. I am in my late 20s and know this country cannot take 4 years of Austerity at this point.

    "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian... America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." The Real Ron Paul

    by 815Sox on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:49:30 AM PDT

  •  To be honest: The way I see the situation is: (0+ / 0-)

    Will him coming out in favor of gay marriage damage him with Latinos, African Americans and Working Class whites moreso then it would rally Progressives? Obviously, those three former classes tend to be more religious, which is the only reason someone would be opposed to gay marriage. 99.9 percent of my conservative/libertarian friends are supporters of equality. Those of us under 30 really do not care who someone sleeps with. Gay people are not "weird" to us.

    Just calling it like I see it...

    "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian... America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." The Real Ron Paul

    by 815Sox on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:52:15 AM PDT

  •  Let's be honest about this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA

    Obama has an extremely pro-LGBT agenda and a demonstrated history of following through on that agenda. People demanding that he finish his evolution right now are asking for a symbolic gesture with unknown but potential negative political consequences. I'm not going to tell him either way what he should do (it is his conscience and his ass on the line, after all) but people should stop pretending this is some kind of slam dunk for him.

  •  Obama: "I think same sex (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, in2mixin

    couples should be able to get married."

    Just tweeted on ThinkProgress.

    I'm a dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering if there's a dog.

    by rennert on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:56:20 AM PDT

  •  Full Obama quote: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, in2mixin
    OBAMA: I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.
    ThinkProgress

    I'm a dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering if there's a dog.

    by rennert on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:57:44 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site