Obama's Statement on Gay Marriage in 2006

[hockeycock]

It is simply incorrect to call Sen. Obama's position on the Defense of Marriage Act flip-flopped, evolved, or anything but completely consistent. He was for complete repeal before he ran for the Senate, and he is for complete repeal today. Sen. Clinton has triangulated a position in favor of half-repeal. Before that (last year), she opposed repeal entirely, on the grounds that the homophobes need to be thrown a bone to keep them from charging toward polluting the U.S. constitution with a discriminatory amendment. Who's the flip-flopper?

Hillary Clinton softens on DOMA? -- Queer Lesbian Gay News -- Gay.com

Not that an inability to reevaluate one's assumptions and positions or change one's mind is a quality I value in politicians. As Emerson said, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. It's so charming to see proponents of civil rights resort to the name-calling ("flip-flopper") and black/white worldview of George W. Bush. Calling your allies names is a sure path to marriage equality.

 

[deleted213967]

We need crossover Republicans. Obama is gaining them. This would scare them away. It doesn't mean he doesn't care about the subject.

I regretfully agree with you but you have yet to address my painful analogy:

Were the marriage topic at hand between a black man and a white woman, would Obama's current stance seem acceptable to you, personally?

 

[HazelGod]

Were the marriage topic at hand between a black man and a white woman, would Obama's current stance seem acceptable to you, personally?

More diversionary nonsense with the hypotheticals. Why are you incapable of holding a discussion on the merits of fact? Why, when the fallacy of your statements has been demonstrated, do you retreat into the cowardly realm of "what if...?"

 

[deleted213967]

More diversionary nonsense with the hypotheticals. Why are you incapable of holding a discussion on the merits of fact? Why, when the fallacy of your statements has been demonstrated, do you retreat into the cowardly realm of "what if...?"

Man, at times I REALLY believe you are a "HillBot" programmed by the Clinton campaign to miscast the typical Obama follower.

What are you trying to achieve?

You're not persuasive enough to brainwash me or anyone with an IQ > 54 and your tone simply smears the man (I think) you represent.

Chill out.

 

[HazelGod]

What are you trying to achieve?

Chill out.

I'm trying to convince you to remain on the factual discussions at hand rather than trying to veer off onto hypothetical tangents every time someone counters something you've said.

I'm quite chill, thanks.

 

[mindseye]

It is simply incorrect to call Sen. Obama's position on the Defense of Marriage Act flip-flopped, evolved, or anything but completely consistent.

I'd say that someone who shared the stage with Donnie McClurkin is less than "completely consistent".

In Texas and Ohio, and possibly other states, Obama ran this ad in gay media (Columbus's Outlook Weekly, Dallas's Voice, and other papers), in which he advocates a "promise of equality" -- even though what he's actually promising is less than true equality. The ads he ran in the mainstream press, of course, made no mention of LGBT issues.

In fact, he's rarely even mentioned us when speaking to a not-specifically gay population. For example, here are links to some transcripts of public general-audience speeches he's given over an eight-week period:

• December 27: no mention of LGBT issues
• January 4: no mention
• January 8: no mention
• January 20: one sentence: "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them."
• January 26: no mention
• February 6: no mention
• February 9: no mention
• February 12: no mention
• February 13: no mention

He may technically support a repeal of DOMA, but it's clear that he'll use this position in the gay media to woo voters while carefully avoiding mentioning it to general audiences.

Hillary Clinton, while officially supporting an even more triangulated position than Obama, was the first -- and so far, only -- First Lady to ever march in a Gay Pride parade. (And she continued to march with us as a Senator.) She's not afraid to be seen with us.

I hope that President Obama will put some action behind his words, but I'd be far more convinced of his sincerity if he didn't act so ashamed of them. Or of us.

 

[deleted213967]

I'm trying to convince you to remain on the factual discussions at hand rather than trying to veer off onto hypothetical tangents every time someone counters something you've said.

I'm quite chill, thanks.

Well, I happen to wholly agree that it is politically wiser and expedient to sell strong civil union statutes as a stepping stone towards full-blown same-sex marriage, starting with the blue states, and some red states decades thereafter.

I completely disagree with the notion that Obama's stance, while politically wise, deserves a medal or is in line with his message of change.

Clinton and Obama are no bigots and no gay-bashers, and I know you know that. However, Clinton is not selling the re-invention of Washington, Obama is. I will always hold him to higher standards for that reason.

 

[Trinity]

It is simply incorrect to call Sen. Obama's position on the Defense of Marriage Act flip-flopped, evolved, or anything but completely consistent. He was for complete repeal before he ran for the Senate, and he is for complete repeal today. Sen. Clinton has triangulated a position in favor of half-repeal. Before that (last year), she opposed repeal entirely, on the grounds that the homophobes need to be thrown a bone to keep them from charging toward polluting the U.S. constitution with a discriminatory amendment. Who's the flip-flopper?

Hillary Clinton softens on DOMA? -- Queer Lesbian Gay News -- Gay.com

Not that an inability to reevaluate one's assumptions and positions or change one's mind is a quality I value in politicians. As Emerson said, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. It's so charming to see proponents of civil rights resort to the name-calling ("flip-flopper") and black/white worldview of George W. Bush. Calling your allies names is a sure path to marriage equality.

First of all, the assessment of Obama's change in position is accurate.
It's documented and supported by an LGBT group who assessed all the candidates' positions in May 2007.

Secondly, I am not asserting that Sen. Clinton has the better position or even track record on this issue.

Thirdly, IndustrialSize has made several posts in support of Obama on this issue. I believed it was fair to present that Obama has changed his position from for repeal...to against appeal...to for repeal again.

Fourth, I did not resort to name calling. I used flip-flopping as a verb...as in something he did. I brought this to attention because many on the forum have hotly debated the pros and cons of candidates in the U.S. Presidential Election.

Lastly, if you believe Obama's change in position in 2006/2007 to not support the repeal of DOMA and be only for civil unions represents some lofty goal of Obama renewing his mind in order to avoid the "foolish consistency" Emerson's speaks of...then okay.

 

[mindseye]

It's documented and supported by an LGBT group who assessed all the candidates' positions in May 2007.

Perhaps, then, you can cite this source so we could check it out for ourselves, because the quotes you've selected out of context don't make your case well.

 

[HazelGod]

I completely disagree with the notion that Obama's stance, while politically wise, deserves a medal or is in line with his message of change.

Nobody to my knowledge has ever espoused the idea of awarding anyone medals, so please dispense with the theatrics.

As for being in line with his message of change, I believe it is. As I mentioned, the goals in mind are unlikely to be reached in a fell swoop...and I hold up the notion of racial equality today as an example. A people as numerous and diverse as ours cannot be made to change en masse to any great degree...such changes must be wrought incrementally. It is my belief that Obama desires parity for all, and has positioned his public stance to present such changes in a less threatening light for the bigots who also have a vote.

In any case, his stance represents a definite change from the status quo...which is most certainly congruent with his central platform.

 

[hockeycock]

[/COLOR]

I regretfully agree with you but you have yet to address my painful analogy:

Were the marriage topic at hand between a black man and a white woman, would Obama's current stance seem acceptable to you, personally?

Interestingly, the wife of the plaintiff in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case striking down laws against racially mixed marriages, made this statement in 2007:

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

I definitely see the same urge to control other people's business in the various state laws and constitutional amendments that so vehemently oppose same-sex marriage as in the miscegenation statutes of old (the difference is that under those laws, interracial couples who tried to marry were sent to jail). However, no major party presidential candidate ever ran on a promise to use the powers of the federal government to overturn them. It was as wrong then as it is now, but our ancestors tolerated some pretty shocking prejudices and injustices. And I'm sure our descendants will say the same thing about us, particularly with respect to gay rights and the ghettoization of our cities.

It wasn't until ordinary black folks, led by an amazing group of (mostly religious) leaders, stood up and demanded equality under the law, that Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson took political notice of the atrocities being committed on American soil. It was the common people who led the politicians, not vice-versa. 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.

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

LoL. You've been wrong everytime you've stepped to me Hazel. And everytime you resort to name calling. You don't make points that challenge any arguments so all you have to fall back on is negativity.

The original post is supported by documentation and dates so that you can understand and because you just don't seem to comprehend.

Post

No, Trinity, you lack reading comprehension skills if you think marriage (heterosexual) is a federal issue. Marriage has always been a state issue - hence the DOMA gets flagged because it's not a Federal issue. So anything about "gay" marriage whether one is for it or against - is not a federal issue. Hence the reason, Obama said it should remain at the state level (aside of his personal views). For the record, I prefer that a president has that ability to separate his personal views from the law.

sorry, I'm putting on my cheerleading outfit and cheering Hazel on. This is the most elevated conclusion I've read from you yet Trinity, this on Hazel, nevermind your other "arguments."

 

[jack99821]

[/color]

I regretfully agree with you but you have yet to address my painful analogy:

Were the marriage topic at hand between a black man and a white woman, would Obama's current stance seem acceptable to you, personally?

The analogy doesn't make much sense considering interracial marriages are completely acceptable now, whereas gay marriages aren't really, and in the past when it wasn't acceptable gay marriage wasn't even contemplated (and if it were suggested I'm sure there'd be instant hate crime). Without consolidating two very different eras into one that doesn't exist it's impossible to fully consider that.

Regardless, I'd say if it were the same situation (would cost us Republican crossovers) I would grudgingly accept it. But that would hinge on interracial marriage being completely taboo until quite recently, which isn't the case today.

That was difficult to type though, since my very serious girlfriend is black. It would be a setback but if we did get engaged (no current plans to) a civil union would be enough for us while we kept campaigning for true marriage.

 

[Trinity]

Perhaps, then, you can cite this source so we could check it out for ourselves, because the quotes you've selected out of context don't make your case well.

Sure, I can do that. (I posted this on page 3 of this thread and have left a links to it twice in subsequent posts). You can click on the links below to read all articles.

Barack Obama's LGBT position paper from 06/07 did not include repealing DOMA as his position and further stated Obama supported Civil Unions. This is your candidate. Be informed.



This site says Obama reneges on his position because in 2004 Obama was for the repeal of DOMA but by 2006 he was saying something else. The article on the site is dated May 2007.

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

“Barack Obama supports civil unions that give gay couples full rights, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples and the same property rights as anyone else,” says a campaign document titled “Barack Obama’s Support for the Gay and Lesbian Community.”​

The entire article praises Edwards as the only candidate who favored the repeal of DOMA.

(Edwards)In declaring his opposition to DOMA, the former senator from North Carolina sets a new bar for the presidential candidates. Obama's strongest position on LGBT issues was his previous opposition to DOMA. With that no longer in play, Obama and Clinton have the exact same positions on LGBT issues.​

BARACK OBAMA’S SUPPORT FOR THE GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY BARACK ...​

Obama flip flopped on the issue. Whether Same Sex Marriage is a State issue or not...Obama's appeal to the Gay Community is not consistent and his stance on The Full Repeal of DOMA means a great deal when Same Sex Marriage IS a State issue...according to IndustrialSize.

 

[jack99821]

Nobody to my knowledge has ever espoused the idea of awarding anyone medals, so please dispense with the theatrics.

As for being in line with his message of change, I believe it is. As I mentioned, the goals in mind are unlikely to be reached in a fell swoop...and I hold up the notion of racial equality today as an example. A people as numerous and diverse as ours cannot be made to change en masse to any great degree...such changes must be wrought incrementally. It is my belief that Obama desires parity for all, and has positioned his public stance to present such changes in a less threatening light for the bigots who also have a vote.

In any case, his stance represents a definite change from the status quo...which is most certainly congruent with his central platform.

What he said. :biggrin1:

 

[hockeycock]

Sure, I can do that. (I posted this on page 3 of this thread and have left a links to it twice in subsequent posts). You can click on the links below to read all articles.

Barack Obama's LGBT position paper from 06/07 did not include repealing DOMA as his position and further stated Obama supported Civil Unions. This is your candidate. Be informed.



This site says Obama reneges on his position because in 2004 Obama was for the repeal of DOMA but by 2006 he was saying something else. The article on the site is dated May 2007.

Would you kindly show us where Obama says he is against the repeal of DOMA? I see the part where you repeat some blogger's ignorant interpretation of some HRC questionnaires, but not the part where Obama does what you claim he does, which is to oppose the repeal of DOMA. That's because that part doesn't exist. Obama has never changed his position on the matter. If I fail to say that the sky is blue tomorrow, will you claim that I don't think the sky is blue and call me a flip-flopper?

 

[Trinity]

No, Trinity, you lack reading comprehension skills if you think marriage (heterosexual) is a federal issue. Marriage has always been a state issue - hence the DOMA gets flagged because it's not a Federal issue. So anything about "gay" marriage whether one is for it or against - is not a federal issue. Hence the reason, Obama said it should remain at the state level (aside of his personal views). For the record, I prefer that a president has that ability to separate his personal views from the law.

sorry, I'm putting on my cheerleading outfit and cheering Hazel on. This is the most elevated conclusion I've read from you yet Trinity, this on Hazel, nevermind your other "arguments."

Zo, you have this habit of seconding something and you haven't comprehended yourself.

I never stated this was a state issue or a federal issue.

I will say it again because you seem not to understand. Obama's position in 2004 was that he supported the repeal of DOMA. In 2006 Obama changed his position and stated that he believed Same Sex Marriage was a State Decision. Also according to his position paper he Did Not Support the Repeal of DOMA AND he only supported Civil Unions.

Obama now supports the full repeal of DOMA again and supports domestic partnerships, civil union, or civil marriage.

IndustrialSize has several posts supporting Obama's candidacy because Obama supports the repeal of DOMA and Obama's current position does not leave the Decision for States to decide if his marriage is legal. I brought Obama's change in position to attention because we have hotly debated the pros and cons of the candidates.

 

[mindseye]

Sure, I can do that. [...]

This site says Obama reneges on his position because in 2004 Obama was for the repeal of DOMA but by 2006 he was saying something else. The article on the site is dated May 2007.

I saw this link earlier. You're being disingenuous. The site is one guy's (Rod McCollum) personal blog, and you wrote, "It's documented and supported by an LGBT group who assessed all the candidates' positions in May 2007."

Neither you nor Rod McCollum have proven that Obama's position has shifted, simply because he fails to repeat that position at a place where it's expected.

If on Monday, I say "I love good food and fast cars", and Tuesday I say "I love good food", you can't deduce from that that I've "reneged" on my position on fast cars.

I believe it is fair to say that Obama is not as strong a supporter of LGBT causes as he'd like us to believe, but I believe it is unfair to say that he has 'reneged' on his position, and intellectually dishonest to cite a personal blog as an "LGBT group".

 

[Trinity]

Would you kindly show us where Obama says he is against the repeal of DOMA? I see the part where you repeat some blogger's ignorant interpretation of some HRC questionnaires, but not the part where Obama does what you claim he does, which is to oppose the repeal of DOMA. That's because that part doesn't exist. Obama has never changed his position on the matter. If I fail to say that the sky is blue tomorrow, will you claim that I don't think the sky is blue and call me a flip-flopper?

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

It is not just some blogger's interpretation of the HRC questionnaires. 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 on gay rights. Via the New York Blade, the candidates released their responses to the Human Rights Campaign equality questionnaire and their positions are almost exactly as expected. Almost.

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 - Obama supports Civil Unions only and while he lists all of his supports of LGBT issues, repeal of DOMA is not listed. Since this is a position paper given to LGBT media by the Obama Campaign it must accurately relate Obama's position.

 

[Trinity]

I saw this link earlier. You're being disingenuous. The site is one guy's (Rod McCollum) personal blog, and you wrote, "It's documented and supported by an LGBT group who assessed all the candidates' positions in May 2007."

Neither you nor Rod McCollum have proven that Obama's position has shifted, simply because he fails to repeat that position at a place where it's expected.

If on Monday, I say "I love good food and fast cars", and Tuesday I say "I love good food", you can't deduce from that that I've "reneged" on my position on fast cars.

I believe it is fair to say that Obama is not as strong a supporter of LGBT causes as he'd like us to believe, but I believe it is unfair to say that he has 'reneged' on his position, and intellectually dishonest to cite a personal blog as an "LGBT group".

You would be right if we were talking about "good food and fast cars." We are not. We are talking about a Presidential Candidate who is relating his position to the LGBT media who requested that position information.

The blogger is a writer for several media outlets and the blogger is referencing New York Blade Magazine's article.

The blogger has written for:

"ABC News and NBC, having worked at the latter for three years at News One, World News, World News Now and Good Morning America, and, local news in New York City and Chicago. Also did some time at Fox News as a special projects producer." "Occasionally, my op-eds appear in The Washington Blade, The New York Blade, among others places. Somewhere along the way, back in the mainstream media days, wrote articles and essays for The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Reader."
​

If you chose to read the blog and click on the links in the blog then you would be clear on where the documentation comes from. Obama's campaign provided his position at the time. I did not put together his position. His statement on his U.S Senator website backs up his position at the time from the Original Post.

I am in no way disingenuous. Neither am I intellectually dishonest. I have provided Media support where a LGBT Magazine reviewed and assessed the positions on LGBT issues for the Democratic Candidates. Obama's campaign related that his position in 2006/2007 did not include a repeal of DOMA and only support Civil Unions.