Both Andrew Sullivan and Kevin Drum are calling on Barack Obama to make an ad opposing California’s hateful Proposition 8, which would strip marriage rights from gay Californians.
Black Californians back the anti-gay measure by a margin of 20 points, 58 – 38, in the SUSA poll. No other ethnic group comes close to the level of opposition and black turnout is likely to be very high next month… And if black Americans are the critical bloc that helps kill civil rights for gays, that will not help deepen Obama’s governing coalition. It could tear it apart.
Drum:
…in the end, congressional majorities [post-election] aren’t enough. You need public opinion behind you too, and the only way to get that is by actively trying to mold public opinion. So far Obama hasn’t really tried to do that, and that’s troubling for the progressive movement.
I agree with them both when they say that if Obama is not willing to step up to the plate and take a minor risk on an issue like this now, why should we believe he’ll take bigger risks after he’s president?
upgrayedd
that is exactly why i read this site. thanks.
The Populist
I disagree Michael. This is a toxic issue that will be used on Obama like nothing else. He said he supports equal rights for gay couples (minus marriage).
I don’t see why Obama NOT coming out against this as a reason he won’t be a good leader. What will happen is he will be giving McCain and Palin more red meat in which to attack him with.
kid bitzer
"if Obama is not willing to step up to the plate and take a minor risk on an issue like this now, why should we believe he’ll take bigger risks after he’s president"
because he’ll already be president.
i think this is a stupid line of argument. it’s like saying "if bush is so moderate and centrist before the 2000 election, surely he’ll never give away the entire store to the christianists, militarists, and billionaires after he’s elected!"
he did, and he got away with it.
what people do before elected is not a perfect, or even very good, predictor of what they’ll do after being elected.
i don’t know why obama hasn’t cut a spot. but if it is because he wants to get elected first, then that is entirely fine with me. and if he says he’ll do more risky things after he is elected, then this does not disprove it.
sorry, i just think the view that no president ever takes more risks in office than they took on the campaign trail is so obviously false as to be ridiculous.
The Moar You Know
Yes, Obama should definitely throw himself into the fight over a state initiative – one where the issue involved is absolute electoral poison to most of this nation.
Can we wait until after the election is over to bust out the mandatory Democratic circular firing squad?
Or perhaps you’d believe President McCain would do a better job with gay rights. Good luck with that.
J. Maynard Gelinas
A better question to ask is: Why do you care?
I’m a social liberal from Massachusetts (though I like to consider myself a fiscal-moderate – I’m a small-time landlord on the side, for example). Anyway, my point is that let California enact prop 8. It won’t make much difference one way or the other to the larger social trends that are turning support for "Gay Marriage" and "Gay Civil Unions" into a generally acceptable social position.
IMO: This single initiative is just not important enough to warrant Obama consuming a news cycle on the issue prior to election. He’s got a walk to home right now. The last thing we need is for this to tighten up enough that he’ll have to sprint and slide his way on in to the plate.
Zuzu's Petals
@The Populist:
I agree. It isn’t a "minor risk" and it just doesn’t make sense for him to do this.
I wonder more why Schwarzenegger, who has repeatedly said he would not support an attempt to overturn the state court’s decision, has not cut an ad. Or at least endorsed the "no on 8" position.
Jay B.
Well, he’s stated he doesn’t support gay marriage. I think it’s idiotic, but then, why the hell would he lead chin first into the No on 8 fight and give McCain the cudgel to hit him over the head on it?
What a stupid whine.
evie
Yes, Obama must elevate the California gay marriage issue to a national level in order to prove he’s a real Dem or he’s not a real Dem. Please, Obama, hand McCain an October surprise on a silver platter!
btw — in case no one here noticed, he is on record saying he’s against gay marriage. I vehemently disagree, obviously, but even considering this position, he’s also on record saying that the CA law should not be overturned.
KCinDC
Michael, the question is whether it is a minor risk. It depends on how much such an ad would decrease the chance of Proposition 8 passing versus how much it would decrease the chance of Obama and more and better congressional Democrats getting elected. The most important thing at this stage is getting them elected. Otherwise their political positions are irrelevant because they’ll have no ability to act on them.
Far Left American Hater Incertus
I’d like to see Obama cut just such an ad, but electorally speaking, it doesn’t seem worth the risk, and it’s important to remember that Obama, while better on gay issues than McCain (which isn’t difficult), has never been willing to stick his neck out for them, and in fact has crapped in their cereal a few times over the last year or two.
Zuzu's Petals
I disagree on that one.
California is the bellwether state on this issue right now. That’s one of the reasons so much out of state money is pouring in to support Prop 8.
Balconesfault
Obama has never fixated on the social issues of the time.
In general, he’s in the right place on them, but his real goal is honed in on an economic and international plan that gets us back on our feet and improves our standing in the world. To the extent that he divests into other issues, he dilutes that message. And that message is what America needs to hear now.
Also, the sad fact is that if you look back at the Clinton Presidency, his agenda first started being derailed when he pushed the gay-military issue. I think the country is further along than that, but I also don’t see a reason for Obama to spend his political capitol here.
cain
Michael,
Time is on our side and the Church knows it. Gay acceptance is changing the younger generation is changing it. It’ll be challenged again within 5 years. Bet on it.
cain
The Other Steve
This is a state issue.
gbear
Hey, Populist, thanks for the affirmation. Interesting that you think giving us equal rights is such a creepy issue that it should not be spoken of. Christ, do you really think that equal rights for us is so poisonous that we can drag the Obama campaign into the toilet by asking that he speak up for us? You really think that it will cost him the black vote?Thanks much, buddy.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
Like a lot of others, I’m not sure if it’s possible for Barack Obama to do this. But what about Michelle Obama?
Comrade Jake
@Balconesfault:
Some people learned from that Clinton mistake. I think Sully drew precisely the wrong conclusion from that, actually.
Obama’s message to the LGBT community seems to be: "I’m on your side, and so is history, but we have to be patient." Some people get that and respect it. Others, not so much.
Davebo
It may or may not be what he thinks, But I have a good idea what the average American thinks about the subject.
And how passionate do you think the average supporter of gay marriage is on the subject as opposed to those opposing it?
greynoldsct00
I agree with KC. Not to minimize the importance of the issue to those involved, I think we need to make sure Obama gets elected for the greater good. We’re on the home stretch.
And just thinking out loud, if the majority of the African American community is against Prop 8, isn’t it possible that if Obama were to put out such an ad, it would anger them and backfire? That is assuming this is done for strategy purposes.
cleek
no! we’ve holstered our weapons for almost two entire months now! we’ve been keeping our rage bottled-up since Hillary conceded, fer chrissakes – if we don’t start sniping at each other soon, we’ll die of boredom.
Far Left American Hater Incertus
@Comrade Jake: I get it. I don’t respect it, but I get it. Right now I’m trying to beat back one in Florida that would add an amendment on top of the four laws already defining marriage as one man-one woman, and the people doing the majority of advertising are talking about the way it will affect heterosexual seniors. Gays are nowhere near the commercials. It’s shitty on a number of levels, but beating it is the most important thing, so a lot of my gay friends are swallowing hard and working for the amendment. But it’s shitty all the way around, and they (and I) would much rather be fighting this on the basis of equality. I’m not proud of the way it’s being fought, though.
Sister Machine Gun of Mild Harmony
I am a huge gay marraige supporter, but Obama is running for national, not California state, office. Federalism, people! I want Obama focused on national issues, like foreign policy and the economy. Californians need to be left to deal with California law.
tripletee
@gbear:
Think you’re being a little hard on Populist there, gbear. As much as it sucks, he’s right: it is something of a toxic issue in electoral terms. The last thing we need right now is a huge dustup that could blunt Obama’s momentum going into the home stretch.
I know you’re sick of being told to "wait your turn," and it’s not fair, but the focus right now has to be on getting Obama elected. If that doesn’t happen, all of us are going to screwed.
Martin
Marriage is a states rights issue. Always has been except where constitutionality comes into play. Obama needs to stay out of local politics whether he agrees or not, unfortunately.
That said, he’s been consistently pro-civil union, but not marriage, so I don’t see how he would speak out specifically on Prop 8. I’m a bit disappointed that the state hasn’t completely shed the ‘marriage’ language in favor of ‘civil union’ anyway. That pretty much negates the whole situation without getting the Mormons all cranked up (they’d still be cranked up, but they wouldn’t be able to do anything about it).
Now, Arnold has said that he opposes Prop 8, so where the fuck is he? He’s never been shy about promoting or opposing props in the past.
gbear
Christ, thanks to everyone for the support here.
The reason it would be nice for Obama to take a stand on this before he becomes president is that Prop 8 will be decided on the same day as he becomes president. All he has to do is state that discrimination in any form or for any person is a bad thing, so he can’t support Prop 8 and would hope that it doesn’t pass.
My best friends got married last month. Imagine how you’d feel if a ballot initiative could annul your marriage.
Oh, yea, that’s right . Your marriage isn’t toxic.
SGEW
I have to admit that I’m personally split by this. On one hand, I want President Obama* to win with the largest mandate possible, and I worry that any more overt support for the LGBT movement might cut into his margin of victory. On the other hand, Barack’s incredibly courageous stance on other "unpopular" issues ("spreading the wealth," equal transgender rights, opposing the invasion of Iraq in 2003, multilateral internationalism, etc.) was one of the major factors in my early support (circa. 2006) for his presidential candidacy.
I’ll be disappointed if he doesn’t come out in full support for marriage equality before the election (much as I’m somewhat appalled for his pandering about "clean coal" and ethanol subsidies), but I cannot really blame him: he is, after all, trying to become president.
But once he’s in office, we should all hold his feet to the fire, and never ease up on him. Abolish ethanol subsidies! Hold "clean coal" technology up to the highest standard! Support full marriage equality! Abolish the death penalty! Defund manned space flight, and increase unmanned robotic missions! Etc.!
(btw, re: Pres. Clinton’s abandonment of gay rights in his first term – hopefully Pres. Obama will have a Democratic majority that will be able to move our country towards a fairer, more just country.)
*This still gives me a thrill whenever I say it.
greynoldsct00
Yeah, hardliners would want their own amendment defining man and woman and woman and woman….
Cyrus
I’m neither gay nor black so what do I know, but Sullivan seems very alarmist here.
First of all, his phrasing ("no other ethnic group comes close to this level of opposition…") implies that other ethnic groups polled tend to be opposed to gay marriage as well, so if Proposition 8 passes, it won’t just be because of homophobic blacks. And if Proposition 8 passes, it won’t "kill civil rights for gays." According to Wikipedia, gay marriage has been legal in California since June 17. Proposition 8 will return California to the June 16 status quo, or even under the most pessimistic possible interpretation, to the pre-2004 status quo. That’s bad, I completely agree, but calling it "killing civil rights" is about as persuasive as calling George Bush a Nazi was in 2004. (Meta-Godwin!) Therefore, there’s practically no way this could "tear apart" Obama’s coalition.
I agree with Jay B. in 7. (His first paragraph, anyway, and I’m assuming that "it" refers to Obama’s stance on gay marriage. Jay B.’s second paragraph makes him an asshole; one way or another this is a serious issue and we know it is important to Michael D. personally, so the post is entirely understandable.) I know the "sensible liberal" role of caving on liberal causes is reviled, but since it’s what Obama is most likely to do, we might as well realize that it won’t be nearly as bad as Sullivan makes it sound.
ed
I agree with them both when they say that if Obama is not willing to step up to the plate and take a minor risk on an issue like this now, why should we believe he’ll take bigger risks after he’s president?
Because he’s not President yet. He’s got to win this one first.
But I still think that, from a political standpoint, it would be wise for a President Obama to end the ban on gays in the military early in his first term (using the ridiculous dismal of the Arabic interpreters as a key reason, for example). It’s coming anyway. Get it out of the way and people will forget about it and wonder why it was there to start with. Sure there’ll be some shit to deal with initially, but I really do believe it would be the way to go politically. (From a social policy standpoint it’s a no-brainer, of course.)
Martin
And that’s the crazy thing about this. The folks that got shut down on polygamy are the ones saying that gay marriage needs to be stopped because its a slippery slope to polygamy.
Nothing but opportunists and hypocrites in this country.
donovong
Bullshit.
He has openly stated that he does not favor gay marriage. For him to come out in opposition to Prop 8 would have him skewered by the GOP ratfucks.
If Sully is all that worked up about it, fine. I agree with him.
But Obama needs to stay the fuck out of it.
Maggie
Not only would it be a mistake for Obama to cut an ad like this; it would be a mistake for him to push issues like this in his first administration.
He has a chance to have a real mandate to lead the country through some big changes: health care, energy, etc. etc. That will take a huge amount of political capital. That requires that he not be seen as having been full of hot air when he talked about finding common ground with people on cultural issues. And so, civil unions/civil right, but not gay marriage; maintain Roe v. Wade, but pursue abortion reduction, etc. etc. That’s just smart. It’s also good for the country. The partisanship on these issues are what opened the way for the monstrosity that was the Bush administration.
The cultural changes on gay marriage are coming. And the best way to keep them coming is to not be seen as ramming the changes onto a populace that just isn’t there at the moment, thereby creating a backlash. So it’s not just smart politics, it’s even the smart thing to do for this issue.
This is what I most dread: Obama’s going to get piled on from the left — with them all insisting on having their main issue pushed hard from the start; insisting on a full loaf and sticking it to the half of the electorate that is not on-board. He’ll either buckle, and sink the mandate he’ll need to make progress on the issues he’s campaigned on; or lose energy from the left because he’s disappointed them. I just wish the left could see why patience and a sense of reason on all of this would be better. His unity schtick is going to be insanely difficult to pull off. But he’s right on this, and I hope he succeeds at it.
Gus
I’m really torn on this one. I sympathize with gbear and his friends, and I find the idea of gay marriage a no-brainer. I’m afraid this is the Obama we’ll get, ultra cautious, very middle of the road. On the other hand, I’m really worried that he won’t win the election as it is, and some of the Republican support he’s getting now will evaporate if he gives them what they regard as a reason to switch back.
cgp
What others said. Lets wait until the election is over please. For love of country can we put our personal issues aside for the big picture here?
Zuzu's Petals
@Sister Machine Gun of Mild Harmony:
Yes, but feel free to send money!
Equality for All
d
This is a wedge issue that the other side will use to smear, smear, smear. They will use it to stir up support among their base, those who vote against their own interest over religious fervor.
Let him take the slack for a "flip-flop" AS PRESIDENT when he can (and I believe will) take a strong stand on this.
Everyone sees so Obama ahead in the polls, but they forget so easily how it can all turn on one comment. Bringing this issue to the forefront helps the OTHER side. Let’s not be too idealistic to win – not this time.
The Dangerman
Why not do a 2-fer and have BHO come out either supporting or opposing the Parental Consent Notification (Abortion) on the CA ballot as well? Wading into that toxic brew couldn’t be bad for him, could it?
Sorry, I support equal rights across the board; that is why I support making marriage a Church construct only and having everyone else be "Partners" or whatever the fuck you want to call it. If your Church wants to marry you, great; if my Church doesn’t want to recognize your marriage, great.
In some ways, this peddling of equal rights is bullshit. A friend of mine’s GF works for the State of CA; since it is a he/she relationship, he can’t get covered by her medical insurance. If it had been a she/she or he/he relationship, they CAN buy into the medical coverage. The rights are already there, you just want to be "married" for reasons I don’t understand (spoken as a Bachelor, I might add).
gex
Which is why the biggest financial backer on any side is Utah Mormons. Why they have to tell California what to do is beyond me.
gbear
Last time I’m going to say it and then I’m out of this thread:
Having you marriage annulled by the government is not just some ‘personal issue’. I can’t think of anything to add beyond that statement.
Michael Demmons
@The Dangerman:
Well, for one, it would prevent me from being kicked out of the country should I ever lose my job.
Shinobi
x2
Though I respect your opinion Michael, sometimes it is just not the right time to take a stand on certain issues.
SGEW
I know, I know. It’s truly sickening. Not that I’m married (or even currently in a committed monogamous partnership*) but my sister just got married – the idea that her marriage could be repealed to her husband due to bigotry is absolutely stomach-turning. As her marriage is multi-racial*, this could have happened not too long ago (thank goodness for Loving v. Virginia!).
I guess it’s a "lesser of two evils" argument – which is never a very satisfying situation. I’m an East Coaster, so there are more opportunities here (and Canada isn’t that far away), but I desperately want my fellow Americans in California to have the same opportunities we do. But if it may endanger Obama’s chances, I am terribly torn.
I guess the bottom line is this: I trust Sen. Obama to make the most prudent, practical choice. If he decides that he can "afford" to support marriage equality before the election, my heart will be greatly gladdened. But if he decides that he can’t: I’m currently willing to cut him some slack (until after Nov. 5th, naturally).
*My last partner turned out to be not so great (to say the least!). But marriage is still hopefully in my cards, some day.
**He’s a white guy, but our whole family is totally cool with it (he’s a really nice guy!). His family, not so much. Fun.
Jeff
What is upsetting is that no on 8 was a done deal until Newsome opened his mouth. He probably also lost his chance at Governor.
Anecdotally, in my very Republican neighborhood (Bush/Cheney signs all over the place in 2004). The yes signs equal the no signs (1 each). I believe, and hope, that the voter turnout and people’s familiarity with gay and lesbian friends, acquaintances and coworkers in California will make it harder for it to win.
gex
@The Dangerman:
I, for one, am sick of this argument. Gays get less than equal accommodation, and have to listen to straight people complain when they aren’t allowed to eat that shit sandwich.
liberal
@Gus:
I agree.
In a perfect world, we’d have the political capital necessary to win on most these issues, and we’d have a candidate both win this election and also be much more liberal than Obama is.
But given the stakes—a McInsane presidency, which could bring bombing of Iran (and the ensuing chaos in the middle east) or even a shooting war with Russia over Georgia—I think this issue needs to be put aside.
Comrade Jake
I’m sort of astonished that people out there still don’t understand that Obama picks his battles. He’s been doing it so consistently for awhile now.
Moreover, he tends to win battles by fighting above the plain. Beat your opponent by understanding not only the rules of the game, but the structure of the game.
If he’s not throwing his weight behind defeating Prop 8, I’m not sure that means he doesn’t want to. More likely, it means he doesn’t think he’d be able to be a game-changer.
People may look at that and ask "Well, where’s the leadership in that?" To which I would respond: you have no idea what good leaders do. Discretion is the better part of valor.
cmorenc
Despite the damage to John Kerry done by the infamous "Swiftboat" attacks in 2004, he likely would have survived them to win instead of losing a close election, had it not been for the extremely untimely interjection of "gay marriage" issues into the campaign by Massachusetts and Mayor Gavin Newsome and San Francisco. That factor is what drove enough extra fundamentalist Christian turnout in Ohio to deliver that state to Bush, as well as to provide the 2 to 3% cushion Bush got in the overall national popular vote. Yes, there were other factors at play as well, such as some unfortunately effective voter suppression efforts by Ken Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State at the time…but none of these other factors (Swiftboating, voter suppression, vulnerably defective voting machines by Dibold, etc) would have been sufficient without the untimely interjection of the hot-button gay marriage issue into the election.
TRUE, this country has evolved to where a majority of people are at least tolerant and respectful, even though not actively supportive, of the idea of gay marriage. Nonetheless, the fact remains that this is not any sort of deeply passionate issue to most of this majority, and unfortunately among the people to whom this is a passionately important issue, the fundamentalist-oriented socially conservative evangelicals significantly outnumber the number of gays who are activist on this issue. Ohio in 04 is the perfect laboratory to illustrate how this numerical advantage can be further leveraged where it is disproportionately strong in a closely divided swing-state, whereas the openly pro-gay marriage activist faction is most proportionately numerous in areas that are the least conservative (and not presidential swing states).
Life sucks like that sometimes.
But the most important thing by FAR is to get Obama elected (instead of McCain) and to get larger Democratic majorities in Congress (and in various state legislatures). Only then can a favorable climate be fostered toward truly lasting legislative evolution in more sexual-orientation neutral-friendly terms. All you need do to convince yourself of the overwhelming sound validity of this viewpoint is to consider that McCain’s choice of the next three or four Supreme Court nominees will be lots like Alito, Roberts, Scalia, or Thomas…and that had Kerry won in 04, Alito and Roberts would NOT be on the US Supreme Court for two or three decades to come.
Brachiator
@gbear:
Even if Prop 8 passes, most analysis I have seen about the initiative is that it cannot annul existing marriages.
I oppose Prop 8, but do not agree that opposition should be placed on Obama’s shoulders. Sadly, the GOP would be able to use this as a hammer in all kinds of ways. Obama would be interfering in a state matter, he would be "flip flopping" with respect to his stated preference for civil unions over gay marriage. Worse, an appeal mainly to blacks would allow the GOP to mark Obama as the president only for black people.
California politicial leaders, from Pelosi on down (and including Governor Arnold) should be leading the charge against Prop 8. I think that it would be an interesting play if, as another poster noted, Michelle Obama got involved.
I think that Prop 8 could be challenged on constitutional grounds even if it passes, so I do not think that gay people need to feel totally abandoned if Obama is not in the forefront on this issue. But I do think that a McCain/Palin election win would be hugely negative for gay rights.
Charity
Three years ago I got married. I want everyone to be able to get married.
According to Glassbooth.org, my views are 85% aligned with Senator Obama’s. One of our few areas of disagreement is gay marriage. He is not for it. I am.
I hope that he will come to change his mind on this issue. But I believe he will be better for gay rights on the whole than anyone else running.
The Moar You Know
@gbear: I’m willing to bet there is not one single poster on this thread that is against gay marriage, unless we get one of the resident trolls coming up here. Not one.
But you gotta pick your battles, man! If Obama were in a position where he could come out in favor of gay marriage (and for what it’s worth, he has already stated on many occasions that he is not in favor of gay marriage) and not suffer any electoral harm for such a stand, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because that would mean that the country as a whole was more in favor of gay marriage than against it.
Do you think that the country, as a whole, is in favor of gay marriage?
Of course not. And yes that sucks, and yes that is bullshit, and yes it needs to change. Sooner rather than later.
But you are not going to change it by asking Barack Obama to hand this election to John McCain on a silver platter. And sadly, because this nation is full of bigots, haters, and idiots, that is exactly what he would be doing by appearing in such a spot as you, Sully, and others are suggesting.
And I’m truly sorry for that. But that is how it is.
Tsulagi
@Sister Machine Gun of Mild Harmony:
Exactly. Don’t think he should be running ads in support or opposition of any state initiatives. Including this one.
liberal
@gbear:
Yes, it’s not just a personal issue.
But if McInsane gets elected, the chance of a nuclear war with Russia will rise. Yes, it will still be small, but IMHO it won’t be tiny anymore.
And if that happens, ain’t no one getting married.
Martin
Except that a LOT of people have gotten married in California between June and now. Prop 8 annuls their marriage. That’s quite clearly ‘killing civil rights’.
Had Prop 8 come up before June 16, it’d be a different matter, but on that day rights were granted that are now trying to be revoked.
eponymous coward
I agree with them both when they say that if Obama is not willing to step up to the plate and take a minor risk on an issue like this now, why should we believe he’ll take bigger risks after he’s president?
First, I don’t think it’s a minor risk. Basically, it will go like this:
– Obama cuts ad,
– right wing Wurlitzer starts up, in the key of "Obama doesn’t share your values because he likes teh gays", plus a minor chord of "plus he’s a Muslim terrorist sympathizer with a crazy Black nationalist preacher" (which is what they were going to do already, but why hand the Rs extra ammunition?),
– mainstream media will spend next 14 days talking about this incessantly, while clucking their tongues about how this is the new "Bittergate"/Reverend Wright/Ayers, because well, they’re tools and it fits into their mindset of crazy liberal Democrats always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by not being right-wing enough.
While I don’t think it would cost Obama the election, it might be the one thing that energizes the base or creates a "McCain’s going to close the gap" narrative so that instead of Obama solidly spanking the right-wingers, he wins a tight one.
Secondly, no, Obama should NOT be spending his political capital on state initiatives. He’s not a resident of the state of California, he’s running for FEDERAL political office, and quite frankly, saying he doesn’t agree with Prop 8 is plenty- and to be blunt, I don’t see why gay marriage should get full-throated support via TV ads over, say, abortion-rights initiatives, minimum wage initiatives, or any number of state issues we hold vital as Democrats, regardless of what Andy Sullivan thinks is the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAR. Folks, Obama’s running for President of the United States, not Messiah Responsible for Fixing the Universe, and in the end, getting California’s voters not to be douchebags is a problem for Californians to work out. The entire refrain of Obama’s candidacy is it’s about us, not him… so why is it dependent on HIM to cut ads and convince people?
Comrade Jake
@Gus:
On social issues, yes, that’s what we’re likely to get. Obama recognizes the peril boldness has on that front for his domestic agenda. I don’t expect him to do incremental things domestically, however, which is why he’ll need to be cautious elsewhere.
The Dangerman
@gex:
Read my entire post. I want equal rights under the law; what I DO want is the law to change such that marriage is a Church construct only. Everyone else are in a "Union" or a "Partnership" or whatever. I don’t give a shit what they call it. I don’t get the hangup over whether my SO is called a "Partner" or a "Husband/Wife".
Same answer, BTW, to someone getting kicked out of the country if you lose your job. Equal rights in a Union or Partnership, not marriage.
Comrade Nikolita
Although I know it won’t happen, I would be thrilled to hear Obama make a constitutional ammendment making it legal across the country. Then the churches that want to participate can, and those who don’t want to don’t have to.
In all reality, I think (hope) he’ll say something after he’s been elected, or talk to Schwartzenegger and get him to say something, since it’s his state. But I agree with the other people saying he needs to get elected first. Let’s get him into office and then we’ll go from there.
jakester
The more I think about it, the more I believe that there unstated assumption here – that Barack Obama is in charge of/responsible for black people – is dangerous and wrong. I’m personally sickened by the racial breakdown of the Prop 8 polling, but putting the responsibility for changing that on Barack’s shoulders is inane. Yes, it would be nice to see Obama cut an ad, but if he really is only up by a few points, and in danger of losing Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Florida, and Colorado, then I see such an ad backfiring completely. I can hear the robocalls now – "He SAYS he cares about the economy. So why is he spending his final weeks of the campaign trying to promote gay marriage in liberal California!?"
Conservative "Bell Curve" fans like Andrew Sullivan daring to put the onus for this possible loss on Obama have missed the boat completely.
What the No on 8 people need to do, NOW, is find a gay man or woman of mixed black/white descent, and have them cut a commercial that says:
"When my parents met in 1970 in Alabama, they were only allowed to be married because of a court decision that decided that the right to marry trumped bigotry. Can you imagine if the question had been put to a vote in Alabama then? It seems unthinkable. And yet today, groups in Utah are funding an effort asking us here in California to vote on whether my marriage should be dissolved. If it seems wrong, that’s because it is. Please vote No on Proposition 8."
Robby
I oppose gay marriage in California because I want all the hot boysluts to come to New England instead.
Far Left American Hater Incertus
@Martin:
Sorry, but no. The second the federal government started offering tax breaks to married couples as well as other privileges, marriage became a federal issue. Hell, go back farther–when the US told Utah to get rid of polygamy before it could become a state, it made marriage a federal issue.
Dennis - SGMM
Wrong. My wife works for the State of California and her health insurance covers us both. Health insurance and retirement for California state employees is handled by CalPERS, a self-funded quasi-state agency.
Pooh
Jesus fucking christ on a crutch, gbear.
Someone saying that this is a "toxic" issue nationally IS NOT CALLING YOUR MARRIAGE TOXIC. They are quite rightly pointing out that such an ad would be immediately remixed into a massive RNC "commieislamogayfascist!" offensive (in all meanings of the word.) Why you think this would be a positive outcome either in the broader scheme of things or even with the dynamic of JUST THIS ISSUE is beyond me.
I thought we might have learned the lessons of Nader 2000 by now, but apparently not.
(NOTE: I am not comparing Nader’s whatever to the issue of SSM on the merits of the argument. The politics of this is far FAR more important than the substance for the next two weeks.)
jakester
@Brachiator: Also, what Brachiator said.
Martin
Oh, and my conservative OC neighborhood is 5 YES/4 NO signs. Nose counts of the people without signs whose votes I know put it around 15/8 or so. That’s better than I thought.
But I agree that Newsom really screwed this. His comment pissed me off, and I’m strongly NO on 8. You just don’t shove policy in people’s faces, which is what he was doing.
Jeff
@jakester: Bravo. That is an ad I’d like to see.
redjellydonut
Everybody’s already hashed this out so I have nothing to contribute. But I’d like to add my voice to those above who are asking: "Are you insane? Why should Obama give the opposition the kind of ammunition a Prop 8 spot would represent? Do you want the guy to win or not?"
Nothing that Barack Obama can say will sway the Prop 8 undecideds in California, because at this point you’re either for it or against it. Whatever movement is still left on the issue won’t be decided by an Obama ad. On the other hand, the Palin wing of the party will smear Barack with "Hussein Osama hearts teh gays" all over North Carolina and Virginia (East and West), just when it looks like we can swing those redneck pigstys over to our side for a change.
Anything we can do to rub Tracy Kerlee’s piggish muzzle in the dirt is worth almost any sacrifice.
Dulcie
@The Dangerman:
That is simply incorrect. Regardless of the type of unmarried couple (m\m, m\f, f\f), they can all receive insurance benefits from their partners employer. It’s the law in California.
The insurance benefits are taxed as income, which doesn’t happen to couples that are legally married. All the couple has to do is register as domestic partners in the county where they live. They have to prove that they’ve been a couple for at least a year.
Jeff
nevermind
jake 4 that 1
How? And what about A-A’s who happen to be gay? What about A-A’s who won’t have the opportunity to vote on Prop 8 because they don’t live in Cali?
Jesus Christ this crap pisses me off. Let’s talk about the "non-ethnic" folks who crafted and are pushing this crap hardest. Why, I do believe they’re Caucasians. Do something Sully!!
Pooh
In this instance there is a very real chance that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
The Dangerman
@Dennis – SGMM:
Of course; you are married (I assume; you use "wife").
In a straight relationship (BTW, I hate the term straight, but, oh well) where there is not marriage, the non-employee can’t get covered (Edit: This may have changed since I had this conversation with my Friend, but that was how it was represented to me at the time).
Folks, I’m as far left on most issues as you can be, but I can’t get worked up over "marriage" for Gays. It IS a toxic brew in today’s society. Why do you think 8 will pass?
anticontrarian
why did anyone ever think that obama would take any big risks as a candidate (or a president)? the guy’s run the most classically conservative campaign ever. he has to. he’s black (black enough, anyway). his very existence as a candidate constitutes sufficient risk to the status quo ante that to run any additional risks would be foolish, and go against the deepest grain of his very successful candidacy.
he’s gotten this far on three things:
1) his considerable skills as a candidate and an orator.
2) his campaign’s understanding of the nuts and bolts of the electoral system.
3) his absolute aversion to any sort of unnecessary risk.
he’s gotten to where he is by laying back, seeming (and being) very safe and mainstream, and letting his opponents play themselves. and it’s working.
his and biden’s platform is that ‘marriage’ is het, even though they’re a-ok with civil unions for gay folks, with all the bells and whistles. they just can’t call it ‘marriage.’ so, sorry cali, but obama’s going to play it safe, because a corollary of everyone’s favorite definition of insanity is that when you’re doing the same thing, over and over, and it’s working, then to do something different, and expect the same result, would be crazy.
Stuck in the Funhouse
Sometimes I wonder if people are really paying attention to what Obama has been telling us all along. He is going to be much more moderate than most progressives are going to be comfortable with, especially on social issues. Please don’t get outraged at this late date because Obama won’t make an add supporting gay marriage in CA. The truth is, he is a fairly religious guy, formed in the black church that on many social issues, like this one, are not much different than most of the white churches. However, I don’t think he would ever push for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. He has stated time and again, he is a states rights guy on these issues, and yes that’s called Federalism, democrat style. So don’t start clutching pearls right before the election claiming Obama is not supporting your right to marry. It’s because he actually believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. But that states should make that call without federal interference from prez candidates or officials.
cmorenc
…and the snide response of the flat-earth anti-gay marriage faction would be:
"Yes, but if either of your parents had opted for a gay marriage partner in Alabama in 1970, there would have been no children, no you."
Yes, the argument is invidious in that the objective of having and raising children is NOT a requirement of hetrosexual marriage (else, why could 60-year olds wed?)…and furthermore, there are ways for gay married couples to conceive their own biological children (of at least one of the partners). But nonetheless, the invidious argument stated above is powerful emotionally and convincing to many people. Including many people who vote.
johnosahon
EPIC FAIL.
i so dissagree, Obama does NOT need to give those idiots another reason to deflect from the main issues.
he has already commented on this a few months ago. Biden made the same comments this week on "Ellen".
you can FIGHT him all you want on this in january, i could care less.
The Moar You Know
This is flat-out not true. Even the most rabid prop. 8 supporters acknowledge that those who got married between June and now will stay that way, as there is no mechanism to apply ex-post facto law to their marriages, which were legal at the time.
Don
Actually I think the question is what’s the risk to reward ratio. Presumably we believe there’s some possibility that Obama taking a stand on this would impact the odds of it passing. It’s certain that taking a stand on this would impact his odds of winning the election.
I think Prop 8 is an abomination, but in the big picture I don’t think his chances of altering the outcome justify the possibility that it could swing the Presidential election against him.
4tehlulz
QFT. The first thought when I read the Sully quote was "lol racism" — blacks aren’t going to magically oppose Prop 8 because Obama asked them too.
Comrade Jake
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
Actually it turns out that this is pretty
misleadingfucking wrong. The UCC is arguably one of the most progressive denominations around when it comes to gay marriage (full disclosure – I’m UCC). It is an "open and affirming" denomination, for example. I suspect Trinity is one of the few (if only) black churches in South Chicago that would welcome gay and lesbian members.jakester
@cmorenc: Well, I think one of the problems of the No on 8 campaign is that they’re too concerned about what the possible "snide responses" will be of various factions. I mean, the "snide response" of quite a few people would be "oh man, if only Barack Obama’s parents hadn’t been allowed to marry!" Or "well, it probably would have been for the best, since they produced a gay, which I hate!"
The whole *reason* gay marriage matters is not just because the law shouldn’t treat two categories of people differently (although that’s a factor) but rather because when the law *does* treat two categories of people differently, it has real effects on real people. Who cares if you’re a Mac and he’s a PC and she’s the California constitution?
Hell, they should go find that fireman in Connecticut who lost his firefighter boyfriend in the World Trade Center, and have him cut an ad. They have to see the faces of the people whose rights they’re obliterating. IMO.
I'mRubberYou'reGlue
Hm. Well, I’m a social liberal, maybe the most liberal person on the blog. And you couldn’t possibly get me to back the Obama move you are talking about.
Once the LGBT community started telling me that only they knew what was best, and that, for example, civil unions aren’t acceptable and if I think they are then to hell with me, they don’t want my help, then I said, okay, fuck it. It’s not a battle I am going to fight or even care about any more. Life is too short. There is nothing I hate worse than somebody asking me for help and then telling me that I am all wrong about how I think I can provide the help. Unless it’s somebody asking for my opinion and then explaining to me why my opinion is wrong.
Political reality is what it is. Your community could have taken giant strides toward an eventual goal of complete legal parity but decided that strides weren’t good enough, that it had to be all or nothing. Okay, from me you get nothing. I am not falling on my liberal sword for this. And my recommendation to Obama would be that he not do so either.
If LGBT (or whatever the acronym is) wants my help, then they can start by accepting the help I am willing and able to give. If that’s not good enough, then go somwhere else with your pleas.
If you can’t enlist the real social liberals like me to your cause, then maybe you should rethink your strategy. I don’t think this issue is worth five minutes of Obama’s time.
Sorry.
Dennis - SGMM
Okay, now I understand what you were getting at. Yes, my wife and I have been married for thirty years. I’m guessing that the policy regarding health insurance is a holdover from the days when gay unions had no means of attaining legal status. Seems to me that having CALPers insure hetero partners might lead to some duplicity. They offer a pretty robust plan and I’m sure that declaring someone a boyfriend or girlfriend would be attractive to some folks who would want coverage for friends. It would take some pretty extensive additions to the rules to prevent shenanigans.
tripletee
@Dennis – SGMM:
We don’t have any evidence that you’re not a lesbian, so I think the point still stands.
Interrobang
The rights are already there, you just want to be "married" for reasons I don’t understand (spoken as a Bachelor, I might add).
That’s the thing, though. The rights aren’t all "already there"; about a thousand rights pertain to a civil marriage in the US, many fewer of them pertain to a "civil union" or a "domestic partnership." The rest either have to be replicated by a power of attorney or other legal finagling (which requires money) and sometimes-misplaced trust in the goodwill of people like hospital administrators, county sherriffs, and funeral directors to uphold the pieces of paper. Sometimes that doesn’t work; the examples I gave were to name three cases that I know of personally where a gay couple with a civil union got overridden and summarily screwed over by an authority figure working as a proxy for the one partner’s family — in the "funeral director" case, the man now doesn’t even know where his ex is buried because his family and their proxies won’t tell him. If you have a civil marriage, all of those rights are guaranteed, and if someone screws you over because they don’t like that you’re a man married to a man or a woman married to a woman, you have actual legal recourse. (In one of the other cases I heard of — gay man’s partner dies in hospital, family will not allow visitation, will not allow the partner to come to the funeral or know where the deceased was buried, the bereaved partner bribed someone at the cemetery to find out. Nobody should have to do that, especially not when civilly married opposite-sex couples are automatically legal next of kin.)
Dennis - SGMM
Well, I do have some things in common with lesbians so it’s a fair cop.
The Moar You Know
@cmorenc: Newsom has a really bad habit of bringing the issue up right before national elections. It did hurt Kerry in 2004, badly. And if Proposition 8 passes here, I think anyone could point to Newsom’s VERY unhelpful recent comments and make a case that he screwed the gay community worse than anyone on this.
I see no reason for Obama to take a hit just because Newsom wants to try to ride the gay vote to the governor’s mansion. And make no mistake, that is exactly what he is trying to do. He’s been using empty promises to the gay community to vault himself into power since he got started in San Francisco. It’s deeply cynical, abusive, and wrong for him to do, and I hope those who have been suporting him up until now could take a look at what he is doing and reconsider. He’s not the gay community’s friend. He’s Gavin Newsom’s friend, and that’s the only person whose interests he really gives a shit about.
Nellcote
The No on 8 campaign has really been dismal. Crappy ads on the teevee. What ever happened to the creative community? If it’s such a bellweather vote, why the dearth of donations from the big donors in the gay community across the country? This campaign has been extremely dissappointing.
Jeff
@Nellcote: My wife’s friend just went to a fundraiser and word is a lot of the LGBT community in the entertainment industry are not donating.
I'mRubberYou'reGlue
Then you are stuck, because the m-word is where the resistance is coming from.
You can have all the legal rights without the m-word. It’s all in the construction of the relevant laws. Not rocket science.
But an insistence on "marriage" jacks up the resistance, and therefore the political barriers and activism.
So there you are, stuck. And you want me — or that is, true social liberals (people who basically subscribe to a live and let live view on these things) — to adopt that viewpoint.
I won’t. And since the next step is for LGBTs to tell me how full of shit and wrong I am, then I am done. Why should I go to bat for people who tell my I am Satan because I don’t agree with them? It’s one thing to have good old fashioned rhetorical flame wars, I eat them for breakfast. But to actually slam the door in the face of the people whose votes you must have in order to get what you want? Stupid. Just bone stupid.
Let me be clear, if you can’t the votes and support of people like me, you are never going to make any real progress on this fight. You can believe that or not, as you like. Just count up the new One Man One Woman laws on November 5 and go from there.
In case you have short memories ..
This is what happens when you think you can just ignore political realities and get what you want by shouting louder.
jake 4 that 1
@4tehlulz: Ayup. For all anyone knows they could already dislike him because he’s mixed.
You know in an ideal, do what’s right world he would make the ad. I’d be thrilled if he made that ad. But I’m not going to stay home on Nov. 4th or vote for McPOWlin because he doesn’t make the ad. But Sully’s attempt to extrapolate the attitudes of people who happen to be African-American based on what some numbnuts in Cali are doing really pisses me off.
Stuck in the Funhouse
Ok then. Prove it .Links? where UCC supports gay marriage. And I didn’t say UCC didn’t welcome GandL members. And also prove where I’m "fucking wrong" that Obama doesn’t support gay marriage regardless of what church he attends. And I said black churches, not just UCC and your comment clearly states that most don’t support or welcome gay members. I know that UCC is a very liberal denomination, and that they are hardly representative of most churches in America.
And BTW, I think everybody should be able to marry anybody anywhere anytime. Even sheep nuptials wouldn’t bother me all that much.
4tehlulz
@Jeff: Any idea why? That makes no fucking sense.
I'mRubberYou'reGlue
One man, one sheep?
Sorry, there are animal abuse issues here.
Martin
No he’s not.
What he has been extremely consistent about is that any social policy arguments need to be won/lost on secular grounds. That’s why he isn’t in support of gay marriage. Marriage is a tainted word and therefore the argument can’t be made on secular grounds without stripping away the religious meaning. Now, I’m an atheist, so I personally don’t give a fuck, but I’m also not so self-centered to think that everyone else should adhere to my preferred definition. Witness why Obama is in favor of civil unions.
Look at *every* issue for Obama and you see the same thing. He is conservative in the proper sense in that whatever social course he charts will be independent of arguments backed by faith. That doesn’t mean that the course won’t be liberal by social tradition, however.
Atanarjuat
Having Barack Obama make an ad that opposes Proposition 8 is an absolutely fabulous idea!
Don’t ignore the legitimate concerns of your gay allies, lefties. They’ve felt disenfranchised for so long, and know full well that their usefulness in the Democrat Party stops at the ballot box. Can you just imagine what it must like to be so used and abused for the "greater cause," and yet denied the same rights that others take for granted?
It’s time to end the ugly discrimination that our unjustly maligned gay brethren have suffered. Barack Obama should throw his full and unconditional support toward the defeat of Prop. 8, day after day, night after night, until November 4th.
It’s a winning proposition, I just know it.
Country First.
gbear
OK I lied. Here I am again.
I can and do agree with that. He doesn’t have to lead the charge. He doesn’t even have to make an ad. It’s his right and his decision to ignore Prop 8 all he wants. I am going to joyfully vote for the guy in November (no early voting without an excuse from your doctor or boss in MN).
Is just mentioning ‘discrimination is wrong so this initiative should be voted down’ so toxic that his campaign could tank? That seems to be the consensus here and it makes me feel like crap this afternoon.
edit: Atanarjuat, fuck off and die.
SGEW
As an animal rights supporter, I take exception to this.
Zoogz
Complete disagreement here.
Civil Rights is an important issue. But right now, Obama is a national politician in a national race, and while California is 1/10 of the nation, it isn’t the whole nation.
I hate to say this, but I believe that our foreign policy, our economy, our healthcare expenditures, our energy policy, the future of the Supreme Court, and the end of certain foreign conflicts trumps over the possibility that Obama could swing Prop 8 for only one single state while the nation ends up with President McCain.
While some people on this board may believe that Obama could win even if he took Prop 8 and endorsed it, at this point in our nation’s history I honestly feel that the chance of disaster is too great.
As a last note, I heard recently that either the DSCC or DCCC asked Obama for money for promoting down-ticket races, and the Obama campaign refused, saying that the money was vital to the national race. Seeing Bush expand the executive branch certainly makes me agree. Yet, I could certainly make an argument that Obama giving the money or time to either the DSCC or DCCC would be of far greater use to the nation than Obama giving either time or money to Prop 8. If the campaign was unwilling to spend money or time for what is a national cause, I can’t possibly see them spreading it locally.
jakester
@gbear:
According to ballotpedia:
Updated to add: Atanarjuat – I find your contempt for gay people’s struggles for equality to be troubling.
Comrade Jake
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
You want a piece of me? Huh? You want a piece of me?
The fucking wrong part was a clear reference to the churches. Sure, the vast majority of black churches don’t support gay marriage. But your comment gave the impression that Obama’s stance is a reflection of the church he developed his faith in, and this would be the part that’s pretty fucking wrong, actually.
Sister Machine Gun of Mild Harmony
I’ll be phone banking against the Prop 8.
Gbear et al, my marraige is already illegal, because my partner and I got married despite the existing constitutional amendment against it in MY state. I am a federalist even when it hurts.
Jay B.
In response to Cyrus @28 — I called Michael’s a "stupid whine" not because I think gay rights aren’t important but because of the completely dumb prescription of how Obama’s insertion into this fight (and as a Cali resident, it’s my fight) will help it, or the candidate in the closing weeks of an enormously important campaign.
It’s not a "small risk", but if it is, as Michael seems to think, then the issue isn’t as important to him as you seem to think. I think it’s a huge, polarizing issue, and as such, it would be an enormous risk of any national candidate to come out in favor of it. I’m not minimizing Michael’s stake in this, i’m minimizing his glib understanding of the politics of it.
To Michael: Obama opposes gay marriage. He’s wrong. But the scent of hypocrisy would be overpowering if he lent himself to the No on 8 campaign. They are at odds, you understand. His taking such a stand would simultaneously hurt him AND No on 8 because of that stated opposition.
To gbear: WTF?
When California votes No on 8, it’s going to be huge.
Jeff
@4tehlulz: Researching this, I take it back. However, it took until October to put their money where their mouths were. Talk about waiting until the last minute.
One of the rumored cheapskates.
gbear
@jakester:
Thanks much for that find.
I hope so.
Atanarjuat
jakester said:
There is not a single thing I’ve written in this thread that shows any contempt for the struggles of anyone, especially gay people.
Please read again my comment prior to this one. I very much would like to see Senator Barack Obama tackle this very important issue and to demonstrate 100% solidarity with the GLBT community of California. Proposition 8 is a heinous piece of legislation which must be defeated.
Having Mr. Obama show his leadership in this important matter may just make all the difference. I just know it.
Country First.
tripletee
See Obama’s statement above – he’s already done what you’d like him to do.
I think most of the opposition you see here is to the idea of him cutting an ad and leading a full-throated charge against Prop 8. That would be a terrible idea two weeks before the election.
I’m fairly sure that no one here (aside from the idiot troll) finds the idea of gay marriage "toxic" – it’s purely the political calculus we’re talking about. Sucks, but that’s the way it is. Hopefully 8 years of an Obama presidency will make the country more open to progress.
Church Lady
He has repeatedly stated that he does not support gay marriage. He is fine with civil unions or whatever contracts consenting adults wish to make up concerning property, medical decisions, etc., but he draws the line at marriage, as most black church going Christians do. Why it’s such a racial thing is beyond me, but it is.
Why would you expect him to make a commercial for something that he has repeatedly stated that he does not support?
jakester
@Atanarjuat: You know, Senator Obama says a lot that this election is not about him, it’s about us. So what are you doing to oppose Proposition 8 (other than posting comments here)?
(For the record, Proposition 8 is not a "piece of legislation" but rather a proposed amendment to the constitution.)
Stuck in the Funhouse
Like every presidential candidate, it is hard to parse out what they really believe by what they say in the campaign. I said Obama was a fairly religious guy, not that he wouldn’t make decisions in the secular arena as president. When he says he will continue Bushes faith based initiatives, I take him at his word that it will be done fairly and without preference to one denom. or another and won’t promote religion with taxpayer moneys. He is actually all over the map when it comes to gay marriage, which is the status quo for most dem candidates. And I don’t include the fact he is for civil unions versus marriage, because it is not really relevant to the marriage issue. By which you and I agree that marriage is a tainted issue, that is not the way the overwhelming majority sees it. It is just a word that denotes a legal contract with religious overtones that most want to keep for hetero unions. It is a silly argument from both sides in my opinion, because the legal underpinning granting equal rights is what has substance.
As to whether Obama has Federalist leaning, all I can base my opinion on is what he has said are his own stances on say; the death penalty for rape and gun ownership. And I stand by my assertion that he will turn out to be more moderate on many issues than most libs are comfortable with, though I will be just fine with it.
Zuzu's Petals
@The Dangerman:
Dulcie @67 is correct. Registered domestic partners – gay or straight – can receive CalPERS health benefits. For instance:
CalPERS letter
Comrade Jake
@Church Lady:
Huh? Most churches, white or black, are against gay marriage. And again, please read the posts in this thread. Obama’s church happens to be one of the few that supports gay marriage.
Stuck in the Funhouse
LOL, no I’m a peace monger, unless your a rage virus wingnut, and your not that . And I googled that UCC as a denomination has endorsed gay marriage. Too bad I didn’t say UCC in my original comment but who knows, maybe Obama has never attended another black church.
So the upshot of what your saying is that all of Obama’s religious beliefs are those he received from UCC, and well, actually, that’s pretty fucking wrong as many have stated here today –That Obama Does Not Support Gay Marriage– Unless your saying he’s just lying his ass off.
Although it could also be possible that Obama’s beliefs of ant-gay marriage were not formed in church at all, but rather in the hollowed halls of smoke filled political habitats of your average cynical politician.
I don’t know which, but I do know this is the last time I enter a conversation on this topic at this blog.
tripletee
WTF? If you want to make sweeping generalizations, it’s church going Christians in general, not just black ones.
Nicholas Weaver
To do so would be suicide. Obama is already fighting hard for a naturally bigoted group of votors. If he came out publically against Prop 8, he’d lose. Period.
Sapient
Let’s hold Obama’s feet to the fire after he gets elected. Sorry about gay marriage – what does anyone want to get married for anyway? We should abolish civil marriage and substitute domestic partnership law for everybody. Then everyone can join a church that recognizes their particular marriage. Why anyone wants the government to regulate their sexuality is beyond me. That said, of course I believe in equal rights, and if ridiculous gay people want to get married that should be their right. But should their ridiculousness stand in the way of Obama getting elected? I don’t think so.
The Populist
GBear,
You do not know me okay? Try to not be the trademark reactionary before taking my words out of context.
I voted no on 8 genius (I vote by mail here in Cali). I do NOT want President McCain and whether YOU like it or not, those morons will POUNCE on him over this issue.
It’s TOXIC because it will hurt him I believe. I do believe in equal rights. Again, don’t make assumptions based on an election strategy, okay? You need to ask before you assume.
It’s not the black vote I am worried about, it’s the fracking independent vote that could give us a fascist leaning VP who is a heartbeat from the Presidency. When Obama wins, he still should let the states decide BUT we know he will put out federal laws that help gay couples. Sheesh…I am totally pro-gay rights.
Thanks.
Martin
He’s extremely consistent on the issue. The problem is that there are two things being discussed that everyone has gotten conditioned to mix together. Obama is for granting all the rights and privileges that the government currently offers to anyone who is married to any couple, without suggesting that religious institutions need to embrace the same definition. The church defines marriage and the state doesn’t get a say. The state defines civil union and the church doesn’t get a say. That’s it.
The masses don’t see the difference because government has historically failed to keep the two distinct.
You may think he’s all over the map if you don’t follow him carefully, but he’s extremely deliberate about issues like this. Look at how he speaks to religious groups to understand how deliberate it is, because he points it out there.
Comrade Jake
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
I’m hard pressed to understand how you would take that as the upshot. My only point here is that the church that Obama belongs to is not what has dictated his views on this particular issue. Most Christians do not walk in lockstep with their denomination, and clearly that’s the case with Obama as well.
The "You Want A Piece of Me?" was a Seinfeld reference.
Sapient
Martin, you’re absolutely right on this. And what should be people’s view is this: "Domestic partnership" should be what the government (state or federal) supports. Domestic partners should be any group of people who live together and, as a result, can have disputes over property or child custody when they quit living together. "Marriage" is a spiritually based religious institution implying all kinds of duties (including fidelity, agreements to have sexual relations, etc.), none of which are any of the government’s business. If I want to include my church or some wider group of friends in recognizing a marriage commitment, then fine – I can then marry whoever I want as long as my church/friends approve. This is a much better goal to shoot for than getting the country to approve every fathomable sexual relationship.
jake 4 that 1
Nuh-uh! When’s the last time an African-American preacher was caught snorting meth off a male hooker?!
/WingNut Logik
Stuck in the Funhouse
My original comment didn’t clearly make this distinction and only Obama really knows what shapes his beliefs. I was basing it on my perception that most of those who are opposed to using the M word for gay marriage are doing so out of religious belief. I think this is true generally, but was wrong to imply that it necessarily applied to Obama’s rational. Especially since he is a pragmatic politician.
In the Funhouse, we call that a misundercommunication :-)
And Martin– he say’s he’s against gay marriage personally, and pro civil union, but sometimes alludes to it as a states rights matter, but then comes out against prop 8 as a pres. candidate.
It seems a bit confusing to me, but maybe it’s not and I just don’t see it the correct way.
eponymous coward
Is just mentioning ‘discrimination is wrong so this initiative should be voted down’ so toxic that his campaign could tank?
He already did that a few months back, as Drum’s post points out.
But again: so why should Obama concentrate his firepower and cut ads on ONE California initiative? Just because Andy Sullivan has gay marriage as his pet issue? Sorry, that doesn’t fly for me.
Oh, and if you want delicious irony, according to Wikipedia, Sully wants Roe v. Wade overturned (though he’ll squeamishly accept first term abortions). See, apparently gay marriage is an immutable human right for Andy, but for you women out there, your uteruses belong to the state after Day 90. So pardon me if I take Mr. Sullivan’s dedication to the values of the Democratic Party, and his moral authority to tell its nominee what he should be doing with his time between now and election day SLIGHTLY less than seriously.
Dennis - SGMM
And the usefulness of the religious right stops where for the Republicans? How’s that gay marriage amendment going? Oh yeah, it failed in a Republican House by 236 to 187 in February, 2006 – long before the Democrats attained the majority. School prayer? Right. After all the pandering the Republicans did while they were running for office the fundies got exactly dick from them in the six years that the Republicans controlled both the legislative and executive branches of the government.
jake 4 that 1
To go back to being serious for just a sec: The assholes we’re trying to get out of office lick their chops at posts like Sully’s. "Hooray! The Koloreds & the Kw33rs are a-fightin’! Quick, let’s pass a law that allows healthcare providers to refuse to provide care that they object to on religious, moral or ethical grounds!"
Or cut off funding to a group that helps minorities and poor people register to vote.
Darkrose
Andrew’s full of it. The poll in question had a sample size with a grand total of 36 black voters; hardly enough to extrapolate to his favorite "Black people r teh most homophobic evah!!!" position. Further, this is California: the ethnic group with the largest concentrated voting bloc is so not black folks.
I have a vested interest in Prop 8 going down in flames. But if I have to choose, I’d rather see Obama get elected. Despite all of the whining, the bottom line is that we’re not in a place yet where a candidate can come out and say "Yes, I support marriage equality" and still get elected.
Darkrose
@The Moar You Know:
Actually, no one’s really sure what it’s going to do. If my marriage is no longer recognized in the state where it was performed, does it revert to a domestic partnership? Do I get my $150.00 back from the Sac County Clerk? No one’s actually said.
Darkrose
@The Dangerman:
For one thing, at some point, DOMA may be repealed, and I can stop paying the Gay Tax. See, if your friends get married and she can put him on her insurance, she won’t have to pay federal taxes on both her contribution and her employer’s. Since DOMA prevents my relationship from being recognized by the federal government, the amount that my employer and I pay toward my wife’s insurance is considered a taxable fringe benefit. There’s around a $5000-7000 difference between my taxable income according to the state and according to the IRS, and I definitely feel it come tax time.
jcricket
The money raised by the No on 8 (including $100 from me, a non-CA-residing straight dude) is OK, but it’s depressing. Where are all the rich gays and their money? Where the f* is Hollywood (yes, I know, a little money here and there)? Where is the liberal mafia?!?
I do agree with Sullivan that the No on 8 ads are towing too closely to that "don’t offend anyone DLC centrism" that dooms Democrats so many times. I’m not saying the ads should be full of leather-clad "bears" marrying their "daddies" while wearing nothing more than assless chaps, cock rings and a harness – but the ads are too opaque for my taste.
Comrade Nikolita
@Church Lady:
Because I would hope that he could look past his own personal beliefs and put the equality of all people, gay or straight, first. Just because he doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage doesn’t mean that the rest of the country’s LGBT community should pay the consequences.
Kind of like how I am opposed to abortion but I would never dream of eliminating that right for other women.
Nazgul35
Sounds like this is a perfect group to create on Obama’s website asking him to do so…
gbear
You say that like there’s something wrong with it…
gbear
You don’t think his campaign isn’t already reading us here?
gbear
Well the thread is dead, but just wanted to add that the post up two from this one is a joke. I’m all for bear marriages, but the leather thing is just TOO dress-up.
tammanycall
No Presidential candidate should impose himself/herself onto state politics. As a self-identified conservative, Sullivan should be hyper-sensitive on this issue, but he’s making an exception for Prop 8. Why? He thinks Obama’s involvement could help his side. This only highlights the conservative "I’m an exception to my black and white ethics" tendancy. I can’t tell you how many anti-choice, no exceptions, women I know have had abortions.
The governator, Shriver, or California officials could say something, but non-Californians must stay out of California ballot initiatives. I say this as a California pinko-liberal NO on 8-er. And California College Democrats — where are you? I hope you plan on personally dragging kids to the polls Nov. 4th.
iluvsummr
As others have pointed out, Andrew Sullivan’s take assumes that blacks are a monolithic voting block that can be completely controlled by Obama, it ignores the efforts of black clergy who are against proposition 8, the work done by the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition and it ignores the fact that proposition 8 is funded mostly by white conservatives in the rush to lay blame if it passes. I’ve found the "no on proposition 8" ads to be quite effective, actually, have already voted no, and seriously doubt that proposition 8 will pass.
iluvsummr
@Stuck in the Funhouse: An article that describes his church’s (mixed) position is here.
I have no doubt that many people will be very disappointed with Obama’s not taking a very vocal stance on different social issues, but the sad fact is that approach is what has made him a viable candidate. Not always happy about that, but there it is (I have a Shia Muslim colleague who was initially excited about Obama’s candidacy but now will not vote for him because of the way he’s handled the right wing’s attempted "Muslim smears").
Martin
This is the 3rd pass at this. Any dickhead can get a measure on the ballot in CA. Hell, you can do it without leaving the public university system for signatures. Paying up for the NO efforts is starting to feel like like a tax, to be honest.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
This would be the way for us to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Let’s NOT go there this time, shall we? We’re so close to winning this thing.
This is a totally STUPID idea.
I agree with The Dangerman and IRYG: civil unions are the way to go.
Zuzu's Petals
@jcricket:
Brad Pitt, another straight guy (as far as we know), donated $100K.
LA Times
hermano
why should obama risk a possibility of a 2004 ohio repeat?
as of now, the stakes for the country is too high for obama to even be concerned with gay marriage.
if you want to win general election like this, you cant have it all, all at once.
the problem with democrats is that you guys demand everything all at once. i agree, that equality is very much deserved, but seriously, why should obama risk this election on gay marriage issue when at the same time i’m sure you guys are more concerned with the economy.
the rest of america doesn’t care so much for gay marriage. now it’s more important to stay alive and dont starve.
Jimmm (aka, Jamey)
To quote Homer Simpson, paraphrasing Tony Montana: "First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the weemon."
Legal marriage for all or none. Civil unions for some is a violation of the most recently upheld legal interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1991.
Let the individuals’ houses of worship decide whether to celebrate and recognize. It’s easier to change churches than it is to change countries… To invert that order would be profoundly un-democratic.
Yeah, in a perfect world, it’d be cool for Obie to get behind everything that’s right. But first he’s gotta win an election against someone whose staunchest supporters hate "hte gays." Unfortunately, that means Obie needs to attain the bully pulpit before he can mount it.
Sucks, but it is what it is. In the meantime, there is a coordinated effort among those with less at stake politically to ensure Prop 8 dies an indignant death.
Jimmm (aka, Jamey)
Tammanycall:
Yeah, Sullivan is a scold, and chairman of the party of Me, not Thee. e.g., were he not rich, the lack of access to health care would be a big issue. But he’s rich, so Pharma is the great provider.
The guy alternately maddens and sickens me. That he’s on the right side of this election only further underscores my belief that Sullivan is a misogynist to the core — and you’d have to be a fucking idiot to support McPalin.
kommrade jakevich
@iluvsummr: He also must have been sound asleep when Governor Paterson performed a sweet end-run around NY’s marriage laws.
I’m also going to guess Sullivan has met at least a few people who are both African-American and gay/not homophobic. His blanket statement about X group being against Y group show he’s got the critical thinking skills of some of the schmucks I went to college with.
gbear
Let me guess. You’re straight. Thanks for letting me know what’s best for me. Fuck.
Blue Raven
@I’mRubberYou’reGlue:
And here, ladies, gentlemen, and othersexers, is a prime example of heterosexual privilege in the wild. Look how he insists on knowing better than the people who are in need of equal rights how to go about getting them! See how he fails to grasp the discriminatory nature of "separate but equal"!
Rubber, you are the kind of "liberal" who would’ve told black people in 1954 that the real solution to the Jim Crow laws was making sure the separate drinking fountains were kept equally clean.