Does the White House expect us to believe staffers sit around all day not researching what’s going on in the news? That the executive branch prides itself on being ill prepared to address America’s social and civil issues? Because that’s the message Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sent yesterday when, like his boss President Obama, he continued his tour of silence on all things Prop 8.
When ABC News’ Jake Tapper followed up earlier lines of questioning about same-sex marriage by asking Gibbs about the federal lawsuit coming from Ted Olson and David Boies, Gibbs had no answer:
TAPPER: Okay. And just a separate question. Today in California, Ted Olson, former Solicitor General for President Bush, and David Boies, are introducing a lawsuit against the state of California, saying that by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the ability to marry they are violating the Equal Protection Rights under the U.S. Constitution for same-sex couples. Why are they wrong?
MR. GIBBS: I have not read the opinion or —
TAPPER: The President supports the idea that people should be able to — same-sex couples should be able to enter in civil unions. Boies and Olson — a very conservative lawyer — are saying that is a violation —
MR. GIBBS: Olson. (Laughter.)
TAPPER: Not Boies, right — Olson, a very conservative lawyer, saying that is a violation of the Constitution. It is also the position the President holds, that there should be civil unions, not same-sex marriage. Why is it not a violation of the Equal Protection clause?
MR. GIBBS: Jake, let me have somebody take a look at the pleading that they’re going to make. I don’t know what they’re arguing —
TAPPER: Generally. Just forget the specific argument; I’m just talking about their general argument is that by having — by not allowing same-sex couples to marry, it is a violation of equal protection.
MR. GIBBS: Right, well, again —
TAPPER: And that’s the President’s position, so —
MR. GIBBS: But let me — well, the President’s position, we’re all aware of. I hesitate to be general about the legal underpinnings of an argument based on some portion of the Constitution. I think that they may be somewhat hard to generalize. So let me have somebody take a look at that and see if we have anything based on what Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies are doing.
Yes, sir.
But what about same-sex marriage in general? And how Obama has nothing to say about that? Surely, Mr. Gibbs, you have thoughts on that?
TAPPER: But today’s context includes the financial crisis there and the controversy over Proposition 8. The President, as far as we know, is not going to speak out on any of these issues while he’s in California. Do you think that’s appropriate?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let’s try not to mix up the questions here and let me see if I can keep them straight. I think the notion that the President isn’t concerned about the economic conditions of this country I don’t think holds a lot of validity, given the actions that he’s taken to get our economy moving again; to get the resources that California needs to invest in their infrastructure and to take care of their citizens; to ensure that kids have health care. I think he’s taken steps to do that and I think most people in California are confident in that, as well.
Sure, but what about the notion that the president isn’t concerned about the civil rights of this country?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
[Ed: We’re working on finding video. If you score a link, share it.]
dgz
i’m really constantly surprised how much better dana was than gibbs, even if i never agreed with her.
Faeelin
I wish people would stop asking him about marriage, which he will not support, and press him for statements on Nevada and Illinois.
But, it’s less sexy, I guess.
Andrew
Thank you, Jake Tapper, for pushing the WH on this issue. The issue is screaming for leadership… from the top.
scottie
Good point Andrew, now we just need to have a leader at the top….
Rob
@Faeelin: As Illinois’s former Senator, Obama could do a lot of good by publicly stating his support for civil unions there. And he wouldn’t have to change his official position to do so.
Timmeeeyyy
Marriage Equality is the pink elephant in the room. It’s a monumental change in US culture and social justice. Obama’s repeated refusal to even recognize this change reminds me of how Ronald Reagan handled the AIDS crisis. I suppose there’s a reason IGNORE and IGNORANCE have the same root.
InExile
Thank you Queerty for not posting the live video feed for this story, I don’t think I could stomach watching it!
Alec
@Faeelin: That’s a very good point.
One of the things we’ve been avoiding in the prop 8 debate, because, as the California Supreme Court clarified on Tuesday, it really is all about the word marriage, is the fact that we don’t actually know whether President Obama believes equal treatment, in the form of civil unions, is constitutionally mandated. Which is actually a very good question, and something that Gibbs might have been thinking of when this question came up.
Let’s set aside whether “marriage” is a term that can be reserved to heterosexual couples. Does President Obama believe that gay couples can be denied the legal rights of marriage without violating the equal protection clause?
Jeffrey
Isn’t the question “why does Obama think that separate but equal is somehow ok now?”
M Shane
I agree with Rob, that the Pres could state his position again on civil unions. Clearly ‘separate but equal’ does not refer to really equal but equal situations, it is a law specifically aimed at race. Marriage itself implies separate but equal (sexually). It is a puzzeling form of logic which gives the interpretation some gays are proposing.
Ousslander
the president has stated it should be left up to the states to decide like it was in california. So by being left to the states there will be no federal recognition of gay marriages which still means unequal treatment under the law.
But don’t despair he secretly does support us just don’t tell anyone.
alan brickman
typical black manhate towards gays…no surprise…
alan brickman
should have voted for hilary like i said…
Jess
I can’t help but wonder if anyone else thought of Mr. Gibbs from Pirates of the Caribbean when they read the transcript…
But really, what do people expect him to say? “Obama thinks the gays suck and should all move to Sweden…” or “He totally thinks same-sex marriage is the bomb and is signing a bill to legalize it across the country Right Now!”
Obama has always tried to be vague about his position on this and filtering a vague position through a press secretary just about guarantees that nothing will actually be said, sort of like Ms. South Carolina in the Miss Teen USA competition a while back.
Paul
Pathetic
Herbert Wassinger
KEEP GETTING IN THEIR FACE PUBLICALLY. It is important to make them try to justify separate but equal (which they cannot).
Joanaroo
How did Gibbs ever get to be Press Secretary anyway? He isn’t very good at public speaking. Having watched him on CNN during press conferences is not fun. He is only good at taking reporter’s cell phones away.
Tony
Like many here, Obama thinks that separate but equal is inequal when applied to some groups but not others. Like Orwell said “Some animals are more equal than others…”
Obama. Oh the irony. Now call me a racist.
Robert, NYC
Gibbs needs to be replaced, so dull.
Of course Obama believes in “separate is equal”. Why is anybody asking this? He categorically stated during his campaign that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman and that gays should only have civil unions at the federal level, ergo all the rights of marriage or most of them. His argument comes from a religious standpoint, his religious beliefs are most definitely deeply entrenched in his reasoning. By admission, that is separate and unequal in my book. The two are NOT the same. Obviously he needs to re-read the Warren court decision on segregation. Of all people, he should know better. He’s obviously incapable of putting his religious beliefs aside that really have absolutely no place in civil rights and discriminatory legislation.