Obama's Statement on Gay Marriage in 2006

[mindseye]

It is not just some blogger's interpretation of the HRC questionnaires.

It is exactly some blogger's interpretation.

 

[Trinity]

It is exactly some blogger's interpretation.

And that's your interpretation...opinion and you are entitled to it.

 

[findfirefox]

I'm really not seeing where he shifted his views.

He said the states should decide...

He says the states should still decide...

I guess now he is going to push for civil unions more but still, it seems like its basically the same thing...

 

[widenine]

Originally Posted by widenine [URL]http://www.lpsg.org/images36/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
Marriage with legal rights ... or civil union with legal rights. Isn't it a WIN for those who are in favor of same sex unions? What is more important: To be recognized by a church or the courts?

mindseye
Co-Administrator

Front of the bus and back of the bus both get dere at the same time, suh


Originally Posted by widenine

I believe the unions of people, same sex or otherwise, sanctioned with all the benefits of government and community should a natural extention of a loving relationship. I group same sex unions, non-religious unions and common law marriages all together.... apart from the heterosexual's traditions around marriage as they are defined it in the bible, koran, the torah, etc.

The intent of a religious "marriage", I feel, is entrenched in heterosexual tradition. It anticipates, but does not necessitate, reproduction and the extension and merging of bloodlines for the survival of families and humanity. This IS the overwhelming result of heterosexual marriages. Whether they survive as a unit or fail, parents are usually created.

This objective has a purpose that suits the functionality of healthy heterosexuals. They are programmed and equiped to do this. Same sex unions cannot hope to fulfill this need in families, to strengthen societies or humanity. They can, however, alter these traditions and develop alternative households. But they cannot accommodate the demands of the customary marriage or it's husband-wife traditions that result in a greater population, in general.

Why would anyone needing to modify those traditions --and fall short of community expectations --choose to embrace these ancient societal rituals--without the possibility of complete participation. Adoption clearly meets a desire to right parental wrongs, but clearly, it simply falls short of the goal.

Referencing your "front of the bus analogy", it was ineffective. Comparing the desire for mainstream acceptance by homosexual lovers- some of whom are decendants of slave owners-- against the struggles of Africans and African-Americans who died to overcome the ills of slave owners...is truly laughable The attempt to liken the two experiences is both offensive and unachievable, not unlike a feeble attempt at same sex reproduction.

 

[Bbucko]

If gay marriage is going to happen without decades of incremental progress, gay folks have to be willing to fight for it. Out from behind the computer screens and into the streets! Harvey Milk didn't die for our right to make furious postings about the minute differences between presidential candidates on a web site dedicated to big cocks.

My opinion precisely...

 

[swordfishME]

In this day and age no presidential candidate can come out in support of full marriage rights for people that half the country thinks are decrepit sinners and still be a viable candidate. Barrack Obama said things about gay marriage early on to appeal to his somewhat liberal Illinois electorate; a slight alteration of his stance is inevitable when the message is intended for the entire country.

 

[Industrialsize]

My opinion precisely...

and thats what we did in massachusetts.....there was a rift in the gay community.some said that asking for marriage was too much and we should make incremental steps..FUCK THAT..the majority of gaY people wanted fullon marriage and that's what we got!!

And Trinity.......stop arguing about candidates positions on GAY MARRIAGE...you don't give a fuck about gay marriage

 

[mindseye]

...apart from the heterosexual's traditions around marriage as they are defined it in the bible, koran, the torah, etc.

The intent of a religious "marriage", I feel, is entrenched in heterosexual tradition....

This objective has a purpose that suits the functionality of healthy heterosexuals....

Tell it, massa! De gubment sho do hab an obligation to protect dem heterosexuals!

Referencing your "front of the bus analogy", it was ineffective.

Ineffective on a bigot like you? Yeah, I'll grant that.

 

[dreamer20]

Obama's change in position in 2006/2007 to not support the repeal of DOMA and be only for civil unions...

^^^Where are the documents showing this?

Well you would have to actually click on the links and read the documents.

The blogger references an article from the New York Blade Magazine where the position papers of the candidates were examined.

The Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards presidential campaigns have (finally) detailed their positions:

Two surprises: Obama reneges on his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act and Edwards says that he would work for its repeal.
​

Obama's current position 2008 - Full Repeal of DOMA, while supporting domestic partnerships, civil unions, and civil marriage.

Obama's LGBT position paper 2006/2007 - does not list a repeal of DOMA

Rod 2.0:Beta: Obama and Edwards on DOMA: Just Say "No" and Just Say Nothing


^^You have stated that your link would show that Barack Obama took the converse position, i.e. endorsing DOMA circa May 26, 2007.
Your link does not show that radical change Trinity. The words renege and flip-flop don't prove this either.

We know Obama's position on DOMA, that it should be repealed. He supports civil unions but wants the issue of marriages to be left for individual states to decide.

Senator McCain is generally opposed to federal legislation concerning gay rights. In 1996 he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act that allowed states to refuse to accept civil unions and same-sex marriages conducted in another state.

Hillary Clinton only wants section 3 of DOMA repealed.

 

[Industrialsize]

FROM the Obama website regarding doma:

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex
couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil
unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the
federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own
how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a
domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support
the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held
since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of
the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not
discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA
does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to
improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same
rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.​

 

[Supersized]

Atleast he is for gay mariage NOW! Who the heck cares what he said in 2006. Elect the guy already!

 

[widenine]

Tell it, massa! De gubment sho do hab an obligation to protect dem heterosexuals!



Ineffective on a bigot like you? Yeah, I'll grant that.

You seem to be angry about the truth. Hopefully not because you can't participate in life as a heterosexual? Or can it be that you fear the worst .... that the god that you aspire to embrace does not approve? Clearly your attempt at that southern slave lingo struggles to offend, albeit once again ineffectively .. mainly because the intended insult stems from an empty, fairly uneducated but proud little person

 

[mindseye]

You seem to be angry about the truth. Hopefully not because you can't participate in life as a heterosexual? Or can it be that you fear the worst .... that the god that you aspire to embrace does not approve? Clearly your attempt at that southern slave lingo struggles to offend, albeit once again ineffectively .. mainly because the intended insult stems from an empty, fairly uneducated but proud little person

I've never heard such a convoluted rendition of "I am rubber, you are glue" before.

Exactly which god do you claim I aspire to embrace?

 

[Trinity]

From ABCNews Political Punch by Jake Tapper "Questions, Questions"

Asked in 2003 if he (Obama) would support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (erroneously called the "Protection of Marriage Act" in the questionnaire), Obama wrote, "I support laws recognizing domestic partnerships and providing benefits to domestic partners. However, I do not support legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act."
Obama changed his mind on that issue in 2004 and now supports repealing DOMA. Per Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "Obama has opposed DOMA. He felt it was a poorly conceived law and, in 2004, after hearing from gay friends who relayed to Obama how hurtful it was for the bill to be law, he supported its repeal."

2003 Questionnaire from NOW

 

[dreamer20]

From ABCNews Political Punch by Jake Tapper "Questions, Questions"

Asked in 2003 if he (Obama) would support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act Obama wrote, "I support laws recognizing domestic partnerships and providing benefits to domestic partners. However, I do not support legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

After hearing from gay friends who relayed to him how hurtful it was for the bill to be law, Obama changed his mind on the issue and supported its repeal in 2004.

2003 Questionnaire from NOW[/quote]


Well done Trinity. At last you have proved that he was convinced DOMA should be repealed, circa 2004, which did represent a change in his prior position.

Hopefully this objective will be achieved someday, but this measure would have to pass in the House and Senate.

 

[hockeycock]

So are you now saying Obama has supported repeal of DOMA for the past four years? Because I said that two pages ago.

 

[Industrialsize]

So are you now saying Obama has supported repeal of DOMA for the past four years? Because I said that two pages ago.

Trinity is a little slow on the uptake regarding factual info regarding Obama

 

[Industrialsize]

From ABCNews Political Punch by Jake Tapper "Questions, Questions"

Asked in 2003 if he (Obama) would support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (erroneously called the "Protection of Marriage Act" in the questionnaire), Obama wrote, "I support laws recognizing domestic partnerships and providing benefits to domestic partners. However, I do not support legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act."
Obama changed his mind on that issue in 2004 and now supports repealing DOMA. Per Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "Obama has opposed DOMA. He felt it was a poorly conceived law and, in 2004, after hearing from gay friends who relayed to Obama how hurtful it was for the bill to be law, he supported its repeal."

2003 Questionnaire from NOW

Wow a politician whose positions evolves when he is brought to a better understanding to it by those it would effect..now isn't that terrible

 

[Trinity]

So are you now saying Obama has supported repeal of DOMA for the past four years? Because I said that two pages ago.

No.

 

[Bbucko]

Wow a politician whose positions evolves when he is brought to a better understanding to it by those it would effect..now isn't that terrible

Not only did he evolve, but evolved in a way guaranteed to make him appear further left to independents and disaffected Republicans.

Damn! He's good!