The Democratic presidential candidates have both released responses to today’s gay marriage ruling in California. And they leave a lot to be desired.
In an effort to sidestep any electoral complications, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama – both of whom oppose gay marriage – issued direct statements, but had spokespeople do the dirty work. Here’s what the Clinton campaign dispensed:
Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal.
As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
Barack Obama issued an equally anticlimactic remarks:
Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.
On the issue of constitutional amendments, Senator Obama has been on record for some time: He opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments, state or federal. That includes the proposed amendments in California and Florida.
Not even a small congratulations?! Rude.
danielk
They’ve made their positions clear, why elaborate? This and race will be used to divide the country and scare people like it did in ’04.
QueerDude
They’ve made their positions clear, why elaborate?
Because it’s the right thing to do?
This and race will be used to divide the country and scare people like it did in ‘04.
Not if a leader on the right side of the debate calls the Republicans (and many Democrats) on their homophobia.
Then again, who looks to Democrats for leadership? They’re not leaders, they’re wimps.
Tom
Twenty six states have constitutional bans against gay marriage. Some states go so far as to even ban civil unions. Whether we like it or not, those are the facts that we have to deal with and the fine line that Democrats have to walk to get elected. We cannot expect either candidate to openly support gay marriage and win the presidency. The Democratic party is still light years ahead of the Republicans on this issue.
Alacer
I’m sorry, but what were you expecting. Our equal rights are not really on either of their lists. They both have other agendas for other constituent groups and their own benefit. wake up.
QueerDude
Tom in 1968:
Thirty eight states have constitutional bans against blacks voting. Some states go so far as to even ban blacks sitting at the front of the bus. Whether we like it or not, those are the facts that we have to deal with and the fine line that Democrats have to walk to get elected. We cannot expect either candidate to openly support black civil rights and win the presidency. The Democratic party is still light years ahead of the Republicans on this issue.
jaswneal
In the internet age progress doesn’t come in small steps. It moves in leaps and bounds.
Two very compelling lessons here. The telling judicial commentary in regard to this historic ruling is that six of the seven justices on the CA bench were appointed by Republican governors. Think about what that says about Baby Boomers– and then move on to what Gen Y are and will be doing.
Also noteworthy is that this legislation began when a single individual– one politician– San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, issued a ruling. Mayor Newsom acted alone based upon what he believed to be right, not what he thought he could get.
Jim Neal
Chapel Hill, NC
QueerDude
Also noteworthy is that this legislation began when a single individual– one politician– San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, issued a ruling. Mayor Newsom acted alone based upon what he believed to be right, not what he thought he could get.
Which is why Newsom is a man of the future and Obama/Clinton are the politics of the failed past.
What cracks me up most about the Obama campaign’s claims that they cannot stand up and do the right thing for gay people is that they themselves would be furious and screaming for blood if Democrats had said “we cannot have a black man for president, there’s too much racism.” Yet they’re making the argument that their man cannot stand up for gays because there’s just too much homophobia.
Steve
The CA ruling is actually a very conservative ruling. While some so-called “conservatives” don’t like it, the ruling itself merely restricts the power of the government, and requires that the government obey its own constitution. That is the definition of conservatism. The fact that the CA constitution requires “equal protection” is inconvenient for the hateful bigots, but enforcing that requirement is the basis of the rule of law, and the central feature of conservative justice.
A significant detail that most seem to have missed is that the ruling does not require CA to allow gays to “marry”. It only requires that the joining of two people of the same sex shall be denoted by the same word as the joining of two people of opposite sexes. The government is free to choose the word. But, if the government chooses a different word, then that different word must be used for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
That detail has a consequence that may be extremely useful: If the right-wing nuts push a constitutional amendment to deny the word “marriage” to same-sex relationships, then that word must also be denied to opposite-sex couples.
underbear1
BOTH Obama and Clinton fall short on LGBT full equality, but BOTH are infinitely better than McSame with Falwell’s college and Hagee.
I trust Obama, and I find McCain really disappointing from the man he was in 2000, to the Bush bootlicking, and Hagee stooge he morphed into in 2008.
Charley
I don’t know the impetus behind Gavin Newsom’s actions, but I rather suspect it was the large SF gay community that supported him financially and provded a voting base for his being elected mayor of SF. Even though his wife said he had a bid dick, I don’t think this was the reason he was elected. Much the same way as the late Chicago gay activist influencing the young Mayor Daly. Larry McKeon polished relations between Mayor Richard Daley and Chicago’s gay and lesbian community in the early 1990s before becoming the first openly gay member of the Illinois General Assembly, where he successfully pushed legislation to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Tom
Queerdude, imitation is the highest form of flattery. Thank you.
There is nothing to be gained by turning this discussion into a debate about race. The question we should be asking ourselves is how can we win in November, regardless whether you support Clinton or Obama. This recent court decision shows the importance of judicial appointments and there will likely be two vacancies on the US Supreme Court during the next administration.
Of course I understand the arguments against gradualism and people rightly want change now, but if we want a Democrat in the white house, we should not force our candidates to make a divisive issue the centerpiece of their campaign. If either candidate came out in favor of gay marriage, they would be forever defined (and doomed) as the “gay marriage” candidate.
Lets get a Dem in the white house, repeal DOMA, and then get federal recognition and benefits for civil unions or those states that allow gay marriage.
Jason
well it should be noted that obama’s words were a lot better than hillary’s, specifically in opposing the ballot effort.
conrad
ooooh ooooh! now that we have gay marriage there wont be any more anti-queer violence in california. just like in massachusetts! gay marriage changes everything! we are so safe now…
Scary
Obama’s Remark is Politics as Usual:
That’s a pretty tepid statement. Just “respects” the opinion… “continue to fight for civil unions” when the Court’s decision said that gay couples should receive “marriages” and that “civil unions” weren’t enough… this is pretty wishy-washy on Obama’s part.
That is a non-statement on Obama’s part and shows he is willing to keep his tricycle in the middle of the road in order to appear to be all things to all people. Like his slogans: they mean what you want them to mean.
Not showing any leadership.
QueerDude
If either candidate came out in favor of gay marriage, they would be forever defined (and doomed) as the “gay marriage†candidate.
You can make a similar argument about sexism (Hillary) or racism (Obama) too.
So why do gays alone have to accept second class status?
mjc
you know, i’d expect more from a candidate is claiming to be so new, so fresh, so full of hope and change and hope and change, new kind of politics… but then again, i wouldn’t expect more from a run of the mill politician – which is EXACTLY what obama is and always has been.
wouldn’t talk to gay press, wouldn’t get photographed with gavin newsom, hired donnie mcclurkin and acted like he had no idea what the guy was about, blah blah blah.
change you can believe in? nah, the usual you can expect? yep. i’m sick of his slogans. he should change it to something a bit more realistic.
AnotherJason
Mmmmkay, the convenient civil rights era comparisons are going to have to stop. The voting rights/desegregated education/interracial marriage/affirmative action efforts of the 60’s are different from the way that the “marriage equality movement” has conducted itself in a myriad of ways. If we’re going to look at the Civil Rights Era as an example, then you should all know better than to expect leadership from the political sphere.
John
While I’ve been very angry at her inability to get anything done in this Congress…the only nationally prominent Democrat with balls on the same-sex marriage issue is Nancy Pelosi. She has stated unequivocately that she supports the Supreme Court ruling, and that FMA is DOA for as long as she’s Speaker.
The rest have been dead silent today (even Sen. Barbara Boxer), which is rather dissapointing.
QueerDude
The voting rights/desegregated education/interracial marriage/affirmative action efforts of the 60’s are different from the way that the “marriage equality movement†has conducted itself in a myriad of ways.
No they aren’t.
Civil rights are civil rights.
Equality is equality.
Discrimination is discrimination.
Rainy
Why is Obama being singled out here? They both made flimsy statements on the issue. I think it ridiculous to ignore that Hillary only wants to repeal a part of DOMA and not all like Obama does.
underbear1
No. 13 · conrad
What a dumb ass statement, I guess het marriage resolved all het violence…oh yeah it had NOTHING to f*cking do with the issue…go know?
John
Well, those statements would clearly make me choose one over the other (j/k).
What’s the expression? “None are so blind as those who will not see.”
Either Clinton or Obama will sell out the gay community, when the going gets tough, i mean, when the going gets not easy.
As usual its a matter of who is the least bad and McCain is the worst. And there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans, however incremental it might be.
AnotherJason
QueerDude:
That can’t be the best that you can do. Let’s stick to the facts:
Loving vs. Virginia OVERTURNED STATE BANS (keyword being BANS) on interracial marriages. It’s going to take a similar case surviving the Supreme Court if nation-wide marriage equality is your single issue. NOT throwing money at political parties, NOT BS canoodling with presidential candidates, NOT appealing to the religious community’s sense of equality. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE EQUALITY, you can only legislate an environment in which it is possible.
Hanging on every word of Obama or Clinton then throwing a temper tantrum when they don’t hit all the right notes will not move us forward. THAT’S NOT WHAT WORKED IN THE 60’S, so why are some of you acting brand new?
AnotherJason
“…there are no laws in the United States which place criminal sanction on same-sex marriages such as the ones applied to inter-racial marriage before Loving v. Virginia. Most jurisdictions do no recognize such marriages, but none treats them as criminal. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Baker v. Nelson, decided just a few years after the Loving decision, summarily affirmed that traditional marriage laws do not violate the Constitution of the United States.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
mark snyder
One thing Obama did do in Illinois was co-sponsor a bill to ban discrimination based on gender identity and expression. I applaud that. It totally sucks that they are not coming out in full support of LGBT rights, but we can’t allow this issue to divide us so the right can conquer all.
Peter Pan
The Hon. James David Manning says Oprah Winfrey, Barack Hussein Obama, and Jeremiah Wright are the Trinity of Hell. This message was preached on 10 May 2008.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ejTmistHFw0
CitizenGeek
I agree with one of the earlier posts; If the Democrats would, for once, be leaders on this issue and take a strong stand against the Republican’s xenophobia, I’m sure that would resonate with a lot of voters.
Then again, the whole gay marriage thing is a sticky issue and I’d hate for Obama to lose because of it, just as John Kerry did in ’04 …
Mr C
Well Peter Pan I assume you accept that type of “PREACHING HATE” That delusioanl freak has been on You Tube preaching this junk against Barack because of his love of Hillary Clinton.
But James Meeks is wrong for his hate right? Get real they’re both wrong!
Pops is a NUTCASE.
geoff
Yes, hooray for California! It’s a day to be proud. Seriously. Get ready for the battle to come.
This is just a step in the right direction, but don’t take such a myopic view of the battle for gay equality to the point that you allow this issue to define the campaign.
Gay rights is an issue that is of minor importance to many Democrats and of utmost importance to Republicans of the evangelical persuasion. A national referendum on gay equality as the defining issue in a Presidential campaign would be disastrous.
ILOVEZ
I don’t care who will do this!
All I want get the same rights!
Is it too much to ask?!!!
Jaroslaw
I’m tired of the “let the states decide” bulls**t. So can the states decide to have slavery again or deny women the vote? Of course not because we have Fed Const amendments but BEHIND those amendments was the idea that everyone is supposed to be equal.
ALL the candidates should be forced to say why different states can treat people unequally on such a basic issue. With all the real problems in this country I can’t for the life of me understand why two adults getting married is anyone else’s business.
Kablamo
@Rainy
Obama should get most of the pressure, Hillary is basically out of the race now and the Clinton’s backstabbing on gay issues is part of why I’ll never vote for her. Obama on the other hand, I excitedly support, but this crap on civil unions needs to go… I realize that McCain is worse, but I plan on letting Obama know in no uncertain terms that we’re fighting for our equality with or without him, and he’d better get with it. The youth vote that’s fueling his campaign is gonna leave him behind on this issue.
michael
Right on No. 31. Just because a state gives us the right to vote still does not make us equal in our nation. Just try it with the IRS and see where it gets you. Its horrible that after all the world has been through in the last century, major holocausts, racial and abuse and discrimination, discrimination against women, that we still live in a world where supposedly intelligent, educated beings such as Obama and Hilary still support forms of discrimination. And no matter how you slice it, to deny us the right to marry is still discrimination. Even though California has no power over the entire country, I applaud its court for standing up for what is obviously right.
JM
I’m completely fine with their positions.
If one thing is absolutely clear, it’s that coming out for federal-level marriage equality would KILL their candidacy. We’re just not there as a country – we have all the flyover states that would rather see us dead than married.
Our country is one with slow, metered progress, not one that engages in dialetical swings to the far-left and far-right (like European countries, for example).
Just the reality.
Ashley
I am more concerned with not having John McCain appoint Supreme Court Justices than with whether or not Clinton and Obama greeted the California decision with the appropriate level of enthusiasm.
The US Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law (Lawrence and Garner v Texas) in a 6 to 3 decision. Bush has appointed replacements for two justices since then – one of the majority opinion and one dissenter. The margin could easily be 5 to 4 today.