The NY Times Wants Obama To Support Marriage Equality. Here’s One Reason He Won’t

The New York Times wrote an editorial today basically saying that Obama can’t support equal rights for LGBT Americans and still regard marriage equality as a states’ issue:

Fundamental equality, however, is hardly the equivalent of a liquor law that can vary on opposite sides of a state line. Why is Mr. Obama so reluctant to say the words that could lend strength to a national effort now backed by a majority of Americans?

We may have a good answer to that question.

Even though a recent Gallup poll said that a majority of Americans support marriage equality, over 36 states have adopted ballot measures against it. In fact, it’s a favorite talking point for the National Organization for Marriage and other so-called supporters of “traditional marriage.”

Is it possible that Obama has not yet come out in favor of full-on federal marriage equality because if he does, his opponents can say that he opposes the will of the majority?

Even LGBT organizers agree that they’d rather pass marriage equality by legislature than at the ballot because at the ballot WE ALWAYS LOSE.

People who oppose the ballot also like saying that if America voted on interracial marriage in the 60s, that still might be illegal too. But is that really our only defense against the ballot argument? If so, it’s no wonder that Obama hasn’t articulated a reason to support marriage that doesn’t fly in the face of the democratic process that had denied us our rights.

Thoughts? Questions? We’ll be over here drinking coffee.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #barackobama #marriageequality stories and more


  • ewe

    Obama does nothing unless it allows for his own upward mobility. He plays everything safe and that is why he is not a leader. This country is a mess economically because he is allowing the 1% to run the government.

  • Jeffree

    Obama has more to lose politically by supporting marriage equality than by remaining “neutral.”

    His logic seems to be: he can keep the socially liberal and moderate voters even if he does nothing. However, he stands to lose big chunks of even the “mainstream” Christian electorate if he advocates forSSM or promises to strike down DOMA.

    I don’t think he’ll “evolve” until after the election. If ever.

  • James in Hollywood

    I agree with Jeffree, with the hope that Obama completes his evolution once locked into his second term. I will, of course, vote for him, as the alternatives are rather odious. Will I contribute to his campaign this time? Well, Barack, my views on that are evolving.

  • The crustybastard

    Why can’t you believe that Obama’s position is precisely what he says it is?


    Obama opposes marriage equality because he’s a Christian. It’s a very common disorder, not remarkable in the least.

    He’s not secretly on our side, inventing cagey signals just for our benefit. He’s expressly on the side of people who think we deserve some rights, but not equal rights. he’s fought equality tooth and nail in the courts. He invents reasons to deny gay couples benefits they’ve earned and are entitled to. he deports married couples who are gay but not straight ones.

    He’s happy to let us take a bullet for him, though — as long as we dont expect equal benefits, or anti discrimination protections.

  • Red Meat

    The Gallup poll that says the majority of Americans support marriage equality is irrelevant because it is not by a high margin. The use of this poll as a reason for Obama to support marriage equality is contradicting our other statement, that we would lose at the ballot. That’s because there is only one thing that matters, and that is the voters poll, where marriage is likely still below the 50% margin.

  • Mark

    @ewe: and this is any different from the last president and many before him? Truth is, he cannot be re-elected if he comes out in support. That’s the truth for any sitting president – –

  • WillBFair

    Obama is a politician. It’s amazing that many LGBT folk confuse that with saint.
    Obama can dodge and weave with the best of them, except maybe the Clintons. And I support that, even if it means throwing us under the bus occassionally. Actually, he has done a fair amount on our behalf, because public opinion is slowly turning in our favor. But we’re not there yet, and expecting everything yesterday is pretty ignorant.

  • The crustybastard

    @WillBFair: What is this “fair amount” Obama has done on behalf of gay Americans?

  • Matt

    @WillBFair: This might be the most sensible thing I’ve seen written about Obama in a Queerty comment in… I don’t know how long. Thanks for being sensible.

  • The crustybastard

    @Mark: “Truth is, he cannot be re-elected if he comes out in support.”

    Nonsense. No previous O voter will refuse to support him for embracing equality. And he won last time. It would also take the single issue marriage votes from the Greens.

    Pretending that democrats must be republican lite to be electable is insulting to democratic voters.

  • Ted B. (Charging Rhino)

    Hmmmm… Gov. Christie and former-Gov. Huntsman don’t support SSM, and they’re EVIL. But Pres. Obama and Sec. of State Clinton don’t support SSM either, and they’re gay heroes.

    Since BOTH PARTIES’ leaders seem to hold the same position, why is SSM a reason that I should be supporting the Democrats in-general, and Obama in 2012 specifically?

  • robert

    single issue SSM voters should be voting for Obama because interracial marriage was changed because of the composition of the federal judiciary if DOMA is overturned it will be because of the judges that Obama will nominate to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court itself more sotamayors and kagans and less Roberts and Scalia will end DOMA..Christie is a union busting asshole..but since neither of them will get thru the Republican primaries what is the point of bringing either of them up??

  • Politically Incorrect Thug

    @Ted B. (Charging Rhino): Because, Gay Inc tells us that all good gays — like all good minorities — must vote for Democrats or risk being thrown in Homo Camps run by the evil Republicans who all want us dead.

  • Jeffree

    We have some agreement that Obama’s won’t openly support marriage equality before 2013, if ever. Theories why he won’t be a vocal proponent include : political expediency, states rights, religion, & personal evolution, (PLUS personal dislike of Liz Cheney & phobia about sequined mankinis)

    Two other explanations: 1) Perhaps he thinks DOMA will crumble via the courts without him lifting a pinkie? (cf. recent DC case on bankruptcy).

    2) Maybe he’s waiting for ultimate decision on Prop 8 to be rendered, thinking this belongs in the judicial arena more than the legislature?

    Maybe we should be switching our focus to employment protection instead.
    ENDA may not be as sexy as SSM, but we can’t send cute people 12 buck drinks from across the bar until we have some reasonable assurance that the boss won’t can us for humming Gaga tunes at work,

  • Markie-Mark

    Remember when Obama fought very hard against DoMA in the courts and excused it by saying “but I have to.” Well, that turned out to be a lie. Question is: If he said right before the 2012 election – I’ve evovled and in my next term I am going to be a ‘fierce advocate’ for marriage equality – would you believe him?

  • adam

    The electoral system means it makes sense for a national candidate to oppose marriage equality. The polls showing a small majority of Americans support gay marriage are national polls. Presidents aren’t voted in by a simple majority vote of the US population as a whole, they are voted in by winning votes in a local races. A lot of the people whose votes will determine whether he wins state races do not favor gay marriage.

    I want marriage legal, but I don’t want us to be blamed for a republican being voted in as president.

  • The crustybastard

    @tjr101: there were some in Congress who voted against DOMA in 1993 who were up for reelection.

    Know how many lost their seats? C’mon…guess.

  • The crustybastard

    @Markie-Mark: If I hire a guy and sign a contract, and he doesn’t do the work he promises to do, there isn’t going to be a second contract.

    I’m not going to re-hire a guy I KNOW is deficient because someone else MIGHT also do a crappy job.

  • Cam

    Obama isn’t being politically astute, the support for MArriage in the Democratic party is sky high, amoung the entire population, DEMS, GOP, Independents is 53-54% according to both Gallup, Washington Post, and ABC polls.

    Obama’s position is fast becoming a fringe position in the Democratic party. But then again, why should this be any different than his positions on health, jobs, Wall Street, and War?

  • tjr101

    @The crustybastard: I am referring to the electoral college (statewide), congressional election results are not a reliable indicator of who will win the presidency.

  • Ganondorf

    Far too many useful homosexuals who preference their identity politics above their own legal equality for Obama to care one way or another what the “community” thinks. Until they’re a maligned, militant minority voice completely exposed as the partisan hacks (as opposed to gay activists) that they are, the “community” (chucklezzz) isn’t ready for civil equality. Besides, it’s not in the interest of the party to completely and unambiguously champion gay rights. Once they’re won, more of teh gaez will become adults undaunted by the threats of party faithful. More identity politic bloviations from morons who think that they’re being practical and realistic when they’re just useful and mind numbingly stupid.

  • Markie-Mark

    @Ganondorf: Yes!

  • Jason

    Jesus H. Christ, Obama is still the most pro-gay President we’ve ever had, and by the looks of it will have if a Republican wins the White House in 2012. He’s pro-civil unions (and actually came out in favor of gay marriage – as much as a politician running for the Presidency could back then), is NOT defending DOMA, has repealed DADT, has created full benefits for spouses of GLBT federal employees, drafted an Executive Order mandating all hospitals taking any federal funds to provide full visitation rights for gay partners and spouses (that’s virtually every single hospital in the US). As for marriage rights, the mere fact that he directed his DOJ not to support DOMA anymore shows that he’s making the right moves strategically to end bans on gay marriage. Yeah, he’s not exactly Harvey Milk or Andrew Cuomo, but the last time I checked Harvey Milk was shot, and the US of A was more than New York.

  • ronbo

    At least, if Obama supported marriage equality, I’d have a reason to vote for him.

    He is clearly more Republican than Democrat. Hard to disguise his immediate support for the Bush tax cuts – before negotiations had even started. Didn’t he promise to end those budget-busting tax cuts?

    Obama is a trojan horse Democrat. He is consistently pushing Republican policy. We can’t afford 4 more years of this chrade.

  • Art

    @Jason: Another Obama-bot drinks the koolaid and masters the half-truth.

  • Another Adam

    @adam: Exactly.

  • Matthew Rettenmund

    …everything that No. 24 @Jason said. X 100.

  • CJ

    If Obama hadn’t started a 3rd (illegal) war AND basically become a pseudo-Republican in many regards, I might be more excited about this guy who is “evolving.” But, our economy is a disaster and our country is at serious risk because of over spending and under taxing the rich and corporations. (Thanks to Bush AND Obama). Not to mention that our unemployment is still extremely high and China will overtake the USA in economic “greatness” in about 5 – 7 years mostly because just about every US company outsources, ranging from DELL to Apple to anything you find at Walmart. I doubt that a Republican president will solve these problems. But, Obama surely isn’t doing a good job. As far as LGBT rights, he’s made progress. But, I’d hardly consider him our “fierce” ally, especially when he cannot even say the word, “marriage” without adding “traditional” in front of it. His support for full equality will suddenly evolve after he’s left office OR if he happens to get a 2nd term. It will NOT happen before that. He will not risk the election for the sake of standing up for equality and LGBT civil rights. Won’t happen.

  • MattGMD

    The rights of any minority must never be subject to the approval of the majority.

  • David

    Obama is with you all the way, but he cannot say that until after the November 2012 election. He will not get nearly the percentage of the white vote that he got last time. First time voters in 2012 will not be nearly as enamored of him because his novelty is gone. He needs to hold every black vote he can get and black churches still have the courage to call a sin a sin. He drops a few points among black voters and he is toast. You, on the other hand, will not desert him because no Republican with a snowman’s chance of getting the nomination supports same sex “marriage.” Strange as it may seem, he can count on you more than he can count on the black vote. Churches have always been the strongest organizing force within the black community and as long as they remain faithful and he needs their votes he will do nothing more for you.

  • Dawn

    I’ll support him because I believe in him, and I don’t believe in the GOP as a whole. McConnell said it all: they want Obama to be a one-term president. Interest rates are at impressive lows and people are lending money. The one thing that could screw that up is delaying raising the debt ceiling, which the GOP can then point to and say it’s Obama’s fault. This debt-ceiling debacle is just the latest in the GOP-game of supporting something until Obama does and then bailing and calling it a bad idea. They’re hypocrites, plain and simple and can’t be trusted to help anyone in this country who is not white, male, Christian, rich, and straight (New York vote aside).

  • Brian Miller

    President Obama is basically irrelevant now — a lame duck one-termer.

    Even his craziest potential opponent, Michelle Bachmann, has cloned his “leave it to the states” position. From a policy perspective, the loony right’s position on the issue is now identical to his.

    In a vain and foolish effort to get the same people who describe him as a “Muslim Communist Marxist from Kenya” to support his candidacy, he’s turned off the very voters he needs to show up at the polls and vote for him across the country — while the Tea Party voters are motivated and organized.

    Thus, when President-Elect Bachmann is sworn in after winning a squeaker election, it will be his own fault.

    It’s ironic… had the President made one of his legendary eloquent speeches in favor of marriage equality in NYC prior to the vote, he’d have gone down in history as one of America’s great leaders on civil rights.

    Instead, that title goes to Governor Cuomo. Obama, instead, will go down in history as an ineffective one-term president whose election was a brief pop-marketing phenomenon, without many accomplishments during his single term — a Democratic version of George H. W. Bush (senior).

  • Brian Miller

    @David: He drops a few points among black voters and he is toast.

    Then those same religious black voters will ultimately have to face the fact that they cut short the career of the first black American man to reach high office in US history, and replaced him with a white Republican.

    If those religious voters really hate gay people that intensely that they’re willing to do that, they shouldn’t be surprised when the Republican winner returns some of that hate to them. Karma works that way.

  • The crustybastard


    What a liar you are.

  • David

    @Brian Miller: Mr. Miller your political analysis, your first sentence, is correct. Part of your second sentence, the bit about “religious voters really hate gay people,” is a misnomer. Religious voters, at least genuine Christian ones, who oppose SSM do so out of obedience, not hatred. It is not about hating you, it is about loving God. In fact, the truly Christian ones not only love God, but they also love you more than you know. They love you so much that they want to spend eternity with you and they are scared that you will not be able to spend it with them. I rather suspect that Senator Diaz would back me up on that all the way.

  • Brian Miller

    Religious voters, at least genuine Christian ones, who oppose SSM do so out of obedience, not hatred. It is not about hating you, it is about loving God.

    Sort of like how Southern Baptists who supported slavery and rallied for segregation did so out of obedience and love for God, I presume.

    the truly Christian ones not only love God, but they also love you more than you know.

    Oh yes. I hear their loving screams of hatred each and every day. Fortunately, I live in a free country with a Constitution that both guarantees their right to be raving lunatics and my right to live free of their insanity.

    You could say it’s a blessing! :)

  • Jeffree

    Outside our LGBT bubble (I live here too), opinion polls still consistently show that the economy & jobs outrank other issues on potential voters’ list of concerns.

    The social issues like abôrtion & marriage equality get more buzz because they’re binary: people are for or against. Economic views are harder to position.

    Reason I say this is that the election MAY hinge more on jobs, the deficit & the econ. than whether I get to say I DO to another man.

  • lemon-lime

    @David: This religious voter is gay and in favor of SSM and I believe God is fully behind the movement to legalize it and de-stigmatize homosexuality.

    Fundamentalist Christianity in America is largely out of touch with God (and reality) and needs a serious wake up call. I love you and it is out of obedience to God and Jesus Christ that I feel compelled to correct you and your bigoted, naive and unchristian position against homosexuality. Spend some time reflecting on the bible verses which you believe spell out homosexuality as a sin, do some serious prayer and soul-searching and you’ll find God whispering to you that your fear and hatred is keeping you from listening to Him. Your belief is clouded by hundreds of years of social tradition that has nothing to do with God.

    God bless…

  • TheRealMannequinAdam

    @David: You can dress it up in these lovey-dovey terms all you like, but it still comes down to hatred and the lack of recognition for our humanity, our orientation, and our civil rights. They hate what we represent, and they always have.

    @Brian Miller: “It’s ironic… had the President made one of his legendary eloquent speeches in favor of marriage equality in NYC prior to the vote, he’d have gone down in history as one of America’s great leaders on civil rights.”

    Do you really believe this? With all the criticisms being hurled at this man from all members of the GLBT community – from the most conservative to the most liberal – I doubt there would be any recognition of him as a great civil rights leader. People would (and continually will) find something wrong with the way he’s handled gay issues/rights.

  • David

    @Brian Miller: I am rather surprised that you would count those “who supported slavery and rallied for segregation” among the ranks of genuine Christians. I respectfully dissent from that characterization.

    “You could say it’s a blessing! :)” Great line! I am not getting lots of warm fuzzies from you, sir, but I suspect I could like you quite a bit nonetheless. Take it as you will, Mr. Miller, but I mean it when I say God bless you.

  • Brian Miller

    opinion polls still consistently show that the economy & jobs outrank other issues on potential voters’ list of concerns

    Not mine. In fact, as a result of being told “now is not the time” for well over a decade, I’ve decided the only issue I care about in 2012 is marriage equality. Let the unemployed bigots suffer being told “wait your turn” and “it’s not about you” for a while, and see how it feels.

    With all the criticisms being hurled at this man from all members of the GLBT community – from the most conservative to the most liberal – I doubt there would be any recognition of him as a great civil rights leader.

    Only in America’s simpering political establishment can the most powerful man in the world be a “victim.”

    He has power. He can either live up to all his campaign hype of “leadership, hope, and change,” or he can continue to be a simpering milquetoast mealymouthed politician without any moral compass or spine. The choice is his, but those who make a mark on history do so by standing up for what’s right.

    He’s trading his legacy in history for a shot at a few more years of political power. It’s a foolish calculation.

  • TheRealMannequinAdam

    @lemon-lime: Do you know how crazy you sound?

  • TheRealMannequinAdam

    @Brian Miller: “He’s trading his legacy in history for a shot at a few more years of political power. It’s a foolish calculation.”

    But it’s a smart one within a political context, as Adam clearly identified in post #17.

    Obama’s gay detractors (I’ll assume this includes you) seem to be under the impression that political expediency comes with a simple vote. That was your first and most grave assumption, and it’s one you continually return to in trying to tie Obama’s hands on gay issues and criticizing him for not giving you exactly what you want, when you want it. Whether we like it or not, these issues take time.

  • lemon-lime

    @TheRealMannequinAdam: You may not like it, but gays come in all shapes and sizes, religions and creeds. I don’t insult your intelligence and I deserve the same level respect from you.

  • Jeffree

    @adam: #17: In my prior comment I forgot to mention that your points on the electoral system & “blame” were rimshots.

    @TheRealMannequinAdam: (#44.) That was spot on, also.

    @Brian Miller:(until #42) I swooned over some of what you said. (#42) I appreciate your honesty about being a “single issue” voter, but I don’t think that way myself. I’m still concerned that our next Pres. is going to nominate at least 1, probably 2 Supreme Court justices so I’m including that as a key variable in my eventual vote.

  • Ganondorf


    And it’s people like you who contribute to decline of the expectation for real governance and the rise of the second era of banker/robber baron corporate plutocracy. Why? Because you seem fully satisfied with the election being the only relevant role and objective for a politician to satisfy. For example,

    “But it’s a smart one within a political context,”

    Is that really the schedule of incentives you’re endorsing, or are you coyly playing both sides with a “hate the game, not the playa” story. Either way, it doesn’t matter, because you arrive where you started out from.

    The Plouffe/Axelrod outlook conflates governing with campaign trail speeches laced with lines meant to subdue critical thought and momentarily lull the listener into a blissed out stupor of fandom. You confuse a campaign and win with effective leadership, like so much of the furniture of contemporary politics (e.g., s/he’s a damn good politician because s/he wins elections and says things that I want to hear him/her say). Illusory hucksterism with mainstream support for the idiotic punditry who owe their livelihoods to morons believing it. And the final nail is you dismissing all criticism of Obama from the gay quarter as being fundamentally irrational–religious in backing rather than based on anything tangible, i.e., “People would (and continually will) find something wrong with the way he’s handled gay issues/rights.” Because truly, he’s without fault in his handling of gay issues. There is nothing deserving of criticism in how he’s approached and handled gay rights? This is an outright dismissal of real world discrimination lgbt’s continue to experience, and speaks directly to your intent. But it works for all criticism of any politician FOR ANYTHING from beginning of recorded history. At least be honest and just tell others that you don’t like any criticism of the president rather than hide behind such artless devices. It’s no better, really, than the single issue gay voters who crawl out from under their rocks every four years to vote for prezeedent, or think that an informed political decision amounts to consulting their emotions or disagreeing passionately and loudly rather than informing themselves of the facts.

  • David

    Dear lemon-lime,

    God bless you, too.

    Pray that we both get to enough of the truth to find ourselves with our maker when the time comes. I certainly join in that prayer.

    I have read some of the exegesis that argues that the commonly sited passages condemning homosexual acts need to be read within their contexts and should not be understood as blanket prohibitions outside of those contexts. I concede that much but still find nothing that approves of any type of homosexual act. I will go even further: I find nothing that approves of intimate sexual acts, heterosexual or homosexual, outside of a marriage or marriage like relationship. That would include polygamist marriages and concubinage, but it never extends to same sex intimacy. The common thread to all of those situations is that the sexual activity and the legal relationships that governed it was aimed at procreation. Scripture only ever approves of sex within the context of procreation. Even if you strip out every mention of homosexual activity specifically, it is still condemned along with heterosexual acts not specifically directed toward procreating within a legal framework. The prohibition that I find unassailable (and admittedly difficult to honor) is the one against sex outside of relationships designed for raising children. It is not so much that men having sex with men is prohibited as it is that sex just for fun without the possibility of procreation is prohibited to all. It is not a matter of bigotry, it is a matter of accepting that sex is not intended just to produce fun but to produce bonding and babies (with the fun being a nice bonus).

    God most certainly loves you very dearly, lemon-lime, but none of us should ever confuse His great love and mercy with approval.

    Pax et bonum.

  • TheRealMannequinAdam

    @Ganondorf: First of all, your post is laced with assumptions about me and my political leanings which you aren’t knowledgeable about. Just because I questioned one of Obama’s detractors in this thread doesn’t mean I’m some sort of cheerleader for him.

    And since the majority of your post is basically a bunch of pearl-clutching accusations that have left me confused as to whether you are trying to indict me for my assumed support of him, or indict Obama for his lack of sufficiently supporting you to your satisfaction, I won’t even bother with it. I have no stake in this discussion. Really.

  • Ganondorf


    Yeah, and if you’d bothered to read what I wrote instead of this knee jerk response, you’d know it was HOW you questioned/criticized the critics of Obama’s handling of gay rights issues. Basically, the haters are gonna hate because they’re haters–subcognitive Palinisms. I know everything I need to know about you. We’re done.

  • TheRealMannequinAdam

    @Ganondorf: LOL! How can we be done when we’ve never even started, dear? You just gave me a “knee-jerk,” combative reply to post #44 and you know nothing about my politics or how I see politics, in general, and now you’ve done the same thing again. Think about that and try not to type through your ass next time.

  • Ganondorf

    Mmmhmmm, we can’t ever learn about someone’s positions on issues from what they’ve explicitly written or said. But it’s plausible that you don’t really think about what you post and say. The haterz drinking their haterade. Haterz are hating. ha ha

  • TheRealMannequinAdam

    @Ganondorf: Are you done? Or does this one-man show have multiple showtimes?

  • lemon-lime

    @David: I have a partner and am in a marriage-like relationship. We would like to raise children together… There are a plethora of orphan children out there who need loving parents and we would like the option to adopt, but without the bonds of marriage, it’s not something either of us feel comfortable doing, not the least of the reasons being that if the child is adopted by one of us and he dies, the child will potentially be taken from the other. I am glad we are on the same page. Marriage for us would be solely for the basis of procreation and bonding.

    Furthermore, if marriage expressly exists for procreation and bonding and prohibits all else, for what purpose, then, does the book of the Song of Solomon exist? Children are not mentioned once. Sarah, Rachel, Hannah, and Elizabeth all continued to be favored by God even though they were barren and had sex with their husbands well past their child-rearing years. I would presume that means it was for pleasure. (Sarah and Rachel in Genesis 18:9-12 and 30:22-24, Hannah in 1 Samuel 1:1-20, and Elizabeth in Luke 1:6,7.)

  • Jeffree

    @David: If you want to hew so closely to OT/ canonical texts, then surely you should support the following:

    1) people wishing to be married should be tested for capability to reproduce:

    a) Men should have sufficient spërm count & motility to attain fertilzation of viable oocytes. Otherwise, they must not be married

    b) Women who approach or have reached cessation of regular & predictable menses should be excluded from civil & religious marriage.

    2) Individuals who cannot maintain sufficient arôusal to achieve ôrga§m must be barred from h0ly matimony:

    When you are ready to apply those requirements, let’s talk. Until then, may you turn into a pillar of salt, a mote in a blind man’s eye, & a camel trying to gnaw its way through the eye of a nêedle.


  • ewe

    @Mark: i don’t care about your politics or his.

  • David

    Dear lemon-lime,

    Obviously you know a thing or three about sex in scripture. A fellow Catholic, I am guessing. Many protestants know scripture better than us papists, but few would site Song of Solomon.

    Song of Solomon is a wonderful work and gives us great romantic and erotic imagery but is a description of the passionate love that God has for His people. Certainly it gives the impression that sex is to be enjoyed and done with a modicum of skill it would be quite difficult not to enjoy it. The fact that sex is meant to be fun does not, however, mean that a desire for fun legitimates its use. Eating is intended to nourish us but it is also rather fun if the cooking is done right, but eating just for fun makes you fat, not properly nourished.

    Every marriage like relationship in scripture is heterosexual or an allusion to God’s love for us. They all involved one man and at least one woman and every specific mention of a homosexual act is a condemnation of the act. Never is there an approving mention of such a thing. I respect your desire to raise children, but that does not give legitimacy to homosexual acts. It makes you and your partner generous people, but it does not provide moral justification to acts that are always condemned and never approved when specifically mentioned. Surely someone as intelligent as you recognizes that it is fallacious to assert that willingness to raise children somehow legitimates acts that can never produce them. I am not asserting that loving your partner is a bad thing. David and Jonathan had a close and loving relationship, but it was not sexual and the genuine love and intimacy would not have provided moral cover if they had engaged in sexual acts with each other.

    Your choice of scriptural references is most curious in that sexual relations in each of those instances were the human means by which these couples cooperated with God’s action in giving each of these mothers a child. Regardless of what you might want or like, it is simply a biological impossibility for God to cooperate in creating life from homosexual acts. They were doing their part so God could do His.

    To the extent that anyone’s love for another is genuine, I am certain that our good Lord approves. That does not mean He gives free reign to all of its possible expressions.

  • David

    Oh, Jeffree! Surely anyone who would raise such arguments already knows that I could respond with enough volumes of theology to keep a dozen moral theologians busy for a dozen years, but it would all boil down to this: it is a matter of mere possibility, not probability. There does not need to be any reasonable probability of success, merely a theoretical possibility of it. “lemon-lime” sites the precedents for me. In the end, all it takes is a man, a woman and God, but if you cannot supply the man and the woman there is not much God can do. (There is, of course, that one rather spectacular precedent for not using a man, but even you would have to agree that a birth that gets sung about by heralding angels is a most extraordinary case.) See my response to lemon-lime for more.

  • Jeffree

    @David: To respond to you requires me to employ my Xter-to-English translation tool, which is fritzing out due to Pastor Camping’s recent pronouncements on the inevitable “rapture”. I do promise to reply when you & your fellow “true believers” have entered the True Kingdom of God, but by then, ALAS, you will be incommunicado.

    Please try again. Your chances of succeeding are inversely proportional to your adherence to your beliefs in library whose history you feign ignorance of.

    Sweet dreams!

  • IdeatoEmpire

    Even if Obama supports marriage equality, which he’s said a bazillion times he doesn’t, we’ll never know. Why? He’s a centrist mainstream politician who cares about getting re-elected above all else, and bails every time the GOP stands up to him.

    The President is not without his virtues, but one of them is not testicular fortitude. Time for him to start acting like a Democrat on something.

  • robert in NYC

    Whether he declares support for it or not, as long as 36 states retain DOMA, it’s never going to be overturned with republican governors vetoing repeal. Forget about SCOTUS intervening. If that were to happen, we all know what the result would be with five devout catholics on the bench…..a permanent ban on marriage equality, among other things, and possible revocation of 6 states’ marriage equality laws. I’m afraid it has to be left to the state legislatures. Slow and arduous, but that’s our system.

  • Rainfish

    Read a little bit of history from texts which I cobbled together below, then ask yourself how Harry Truman found the courage to desegregate the US Military, during his election year, when vast numbers of white voters were against it? Where is Obama’s leadership regarding the last group of citizens in America, the GLBT community, to suffer government mandated discrimination? Why wont he even come out and give tacit support to marriage equality when the majority of Americans already do so?

    See how a real President led a nation with courage and commitment towards what was the correct moral choice regarding equality and who did not just follow his own distorted internal prognostications and politically paralyzing fears like Obama.


    “Tales of the abuse, violence, and persecution suffered by many African American veterans upon their return from World War II infuriated Truman, and were a major factor in his decision to issue Executive Order 9981, in July 1948, to back civil rights initiatives and require equal opportunity in the armed forces.

    At the 1948 Democratic National Convention, Truman attempted to calm turbulent domestic political waters by placing a tepid civil rights plank in the party platform; the aim was to assuage the internal conflicts between the northern and southern wings of his party. Events overtook the president’s efforts at compromise, however. A sharp address given by Mayor Hubert Humphrey of Minneapolis — as well as the local political interests of a number of urban bosses — convinced the Convention to adopt a stronger civil rights plank, which Truman approved wholeheartedly. All of Alabama’s delegates, and a portion of Mississippi’s, walked out of the convention in protest. Unfazed, Truman delivered an aggressive acceptance speech attacking the 80th Congress and promising to win the election and “make these Republicans like it.”

    Within two weeks, Truman issued Executive Order 9981, racially integrating the U.S. Armed Services. Truman took considerable political risk in backing civil rights, and many seasoned Democrats were concerned that the loss of Dixiecrat support might destroy the Democratic Party. The fear seemed well justified — Strom Thurmond declared his candidacy for the presidency and led a full-scale revolt of Southern “states’ rights” proponents. This revolt on the right was matched by a revolt on the left, led by former Vice President Henry A. Wallace on the Progressive Party ticket. Immediately after its first post-FDR convention, the Democratic Party found itself disintegrating. Victory in November seemed a remote possibility indeed, with the party not simply split but divided three ways.

    Most civilians and military personnel opposed racial integration. One month before President Truman’s Executive Order, a Gallup poll showed that 63% of American adults endorsed the separation of Blacks and Whites in the military; only 26% supported integration. A 1949 survey of white Army personnel revealed that 32% completely opposed racial integration in any form, and 61% opposed integration if it meant that Whites and Blacks would share sleeping quarters and mess halls. However, 68% of white soldiers were willing to have Blacks and Whites work together, provided they didn’t share barracks or mess facilities.

    As the 1993 RAND report noted,
    “Many white Americans (especially Southerners) responded with visceral revulsion to the idea of close physical contact with blacks. Many also perceived racial integration as a profound affront to their sense of social order. Blacks, for their part, often harbored deep mistrust of whites and great sensitivity to any language or actions that might be construed as racial discrimination” (National Defense Research Institute, 1993, p. 160).

    Truman went on to win his second term (1949–1953) as President after having assumed the office, after the death of Roosevelt, from 1945 to 1948.”

    Primary Research source… http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/military_history.html



    It boggles the mind to imagine this current invertebrate, with commitment issues besmirching the White House, being willing to take a stand on any issue without defecating in his underpants. Yet, he comes to New York during one of the most historic events in our movement and has the gall to ask both for handouts and for the GLBT community’s full political support, while he steadfastly refuses to give open support to our community in return. He must really think that we really are a bunch of saps.

    And he’s probably right because we let him take us for granted without demanding anything in return and by not threatening consequences like any other self-respecting constituent group would if they were offered anything less than full representation and advocacy for their issues.

    How many times do the Democrats have to lose before they start to fear their voter base as much as the Republicans do? It’s all about demanding accountability; nothing more.

  • Rainfish

    @robert in NYC: Remember, Robert, the makeup of the court hasn’t changed all that much since they ruled in our favor in Lawrence v. Texas and in Evans v. Romer. It may be a split decision, but I believe, just as in Loving v. Virginia, that the ruling will come down on our side with DOMA being the first to go; followed some years later with state unconstitutional marriage bans being struck down as Amendment 2 was in Colorado when the court held that “animus (hatred) alone is not sufficient justification to make public policy and laws which service no rational purpose and that exists solely to disadvantage those who may be in disfavor with the majority”.

    A Republican appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote words to that affect in his majority opinion which struck down Colorado’s voter referendum and anti-gay state Constitution Amendment 2.

  • Darryl

    “But is that really our only defense against the ballot argument?”

    What a despicably racist statement. Do you really view the civil rights of African-Americans to be that trivial?

  • Chip

    NOM loves what you write, they just quoted it. Do you really like giving ammo to the bad guys?

  • the crustybastard

    Can you imagine President Obama saying he will enforce a discriminatory law — one he knows to be fucking unconstitutional — against hispanics, then expecting hispanic voters to applaud him for that, and give him votes and money?

    If you’re gay and support Obama, you’re a chump who enjoys being punked.

  • TheRealMannequinAdam

    @the crustybastard: I’d like to know what your serious alternative is for a GLBT-friendly candidate.

  • the crustybastard


    You are demanding that I predict all the prospective candidates and precisely state their future positions? Gosh, aren’t you so clever with your rhetorical trap?

    With Democrats “championing” our rights, we’ve gotten lapped not just by Canada and Mexico, but by South Africa, Slovenia and Ecuador. This slow-walking and half-assing is fucking unacceptable.

    If its not enough for you that I intend to vote my own interests above the Democratic party’s interests, that’s just too damn bad. Not going to vote for my gutless do-nothing unresponsive Democratic senator either. They want to be DINOs and theocrats, they deserve to get Nader’d.

    Someday, they might take the lesson.

  • TheRealMannequinAdam

    @the crustybastard: So, in other words, you have no plausible candidate in mind, for either now or the future. Gotcha.

  • B

    QUEERTY: “Is it possible that Obama has not yet come out in favor of full-on federal marriage equality because if he does, his opponents can say that he opposes the will of the majority?”

    An alternative hypothesis is that pushing federal marriage equality right now is pointless because it won’t get passed by the Republican-controlled house. Also, if he tries, the Republican resistance to it might include more state-level anti-gay initiatives, a ploy they tried before. Those anti-gay initiatives don’t have to pass. They just have to get enough conservative voters to “come out” to vote that it will give the Republicans an advantage.

    In 2004, George Bush was in favor of a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage as a way of getting conservative voters excited. After the election, he lost interest, although the Republicans tried the same trick in 2006.

    Given that, it might make more sense to evaluate Obama based on what he is doing to quietly push things in the right direction.

  • The crustybastard


    Right. And your definition of “plausible” is whoever the DNC tells you to vote for.

    Gosh, you’re so pragmatic!

  • TheRealMannequinAdam

    @The crustybastard: I asked you about who YOU intended to vote for that is pro-GLBT. You couldn’t give me a straight answer. Don’t try to make this about me just because YOU don’t have a plan.

    It was a simple question that could be answered simply. Your answers here just make you look desperate.

  • Jeffree

    So far, the Republicans aren’t fielding any viable candidates who seem supportive of anything that whiffs of being LGB-friendly.

    @lemon-lime: some states do permit same sex couples to co-adopt. It’s a topic near & dear to my heart, and a cause that I work toward in my “spare” time.

    @TheRealMannequinAdam: Have I been a bad influence on you? Lol, you’re churning out the zingers like an old pro, and I am planning on recycling them shamelessly, beyond the hallowed confines of Queertyland. I O U a half a beer sometime. Better yet, I’ll get you on a stage with your very own live mic. Glitter is optional. Dress sharp. The jitters fade.

  • TheRealMannequinAdam

    @Jeffree: A bad influence? Of course, Jeffree, but bad is good in this case. You did, after all, give me my (new) name, so your influence is obvious.

    And which of these zingers has caught your eye?

  • lemon-lime

    @David: I was mulling it over today, and I feel like I missed the #1 example of why claiming Marriage is primarily a procreative institution is a sinfully reductive argument. If this were the purpose of marriage, than the marriage of the Holy Mother to Joseph would be considered an abomination before God. And yet, he was instructed by an Angel to marry her. They never consummated the marriage (in the Catholic tradition anyway).

    I guess for me, I see two things happening when you discuss marriage.

    1: You seem to conflate homosexual sex acts with homosexual marriage. They are not the same thing and should not be treated as such. Many homosexual Christians do in fact believe they are called to live a life of celibacy. They may still wish to take part in the sacrament of marriage. There are some very public examples of this happening in the clergy of the Church of England right now.

    2: You seem to appeal to a reductive definition of marriage as a procreative institution and use an appeal to ignorance based on the lack of verifiable positive examples of homosexual marriages/sexual relationships in the Bible. I would argue that the negative examples are neither verifiable, especially given the fact that most of the few verses which call into question homosexual sex acts fall within the same chapters, verses using the same wordings as many other so-called “abominable” acts which have been thrown out with the New Covenant under Jesus Christ; the rest (New Testament) have been variously translated to cover a surprising range of “sins”. Basically whatever was “en vogue” at the time was inserted, because translators really don’t know for sure what the original Greek really meant. None of these arguments really were what changed my mind on the subject, though.

    Honestly it was the existence of biologically intersex people born with ambiguous genitalia. The bible doesn’t talk about them. Are these people, ignored by the bible, also excluded from marriage? No they are not. Most of the time, parents simply choose a gender for the child and hack off or sew up the other set of genitals, and the person may live their entire life, marry, and raise a family without ever knowing they are not necessarily the biological gender they were raised as. Are these people “accidental sinners” living in a fabricated and abominable marriage in the sight of God?

    If you wish to continue to reduce the role of marriage to that of procreation and raising the next generation: I appeal for intercession from Joseph. I wish to be a father to a child that isn’t mine. I may not be the child’s biological father, but I certainly can play an important and holy role in the raising of that child, as Joseph was commanded to raise Jesus, a child which was not his.

    For the record, I was raised non-denominational. (I prefer interdenominational, really.) My parents were both raised Episcopal but didn’t discover Jesus in a real way until they were well into their adult lives…

    I have been to plenty of masses, though, and have had the pleasure of being friends with many well educated Catholics throughout my lifetime.

    @Jeffree: Marriage for me is very little about the actual word marriage, or even about the sense of “equality” it brings, although I do care about that. It means more to me because it is, in effect, a “limited panacea” (if I may be so bold) for so many secondary issues like property inheritance, visitation, health benefits and most importantly adoption. Civil unions don’t really provide the same structural effect. EG: with marriage we suddenly have a new avenue for challenging discriminatory laws in court; I doubt civil unions would carry the same thrust.

    If I were actually living the US right now I’d definitely be more personally involved in the cause. Right now, though, I’m limited to posting comments on online gay rags and being content to follow the progress from afar and spread the good news abroad whenever any victories occur.

  • Rainfish

    Our Greatest Strength is Also Our Greatest Weakness…

    Why should the birthright of equality for tens of millions of GLBT American citizens first depend upon getting a majority of people to stop hating them? There would be a tidal wave of blood flowing in the streets and entire cities set ablaze if any other minority’ s rights were put up so callously for majority approval by a lynch mob disguised as a so-called “public referendum”.

    The concept of a Bill of Rights and a Federal Constitution which originally guaranteed inalienable equality and unimpeachable rights is truly dead in America. Human equality and civil rights in the United States now mainly depends upon how popular you are with your local neighbors who have been, for the most part, brain-washed by the various perversions of the Christian religion into hating you — that is, if you just happen to belong to the GLBT community.

    As I stated before, the most primal, gut-level reaction to that kind of invidious injustice would be to understandably strike out with fury and outrage against your oppressors. Yet, like millions of other civilized people before us — witness the millions of Jews who walked meekly into the concentration camps, and to their deaths, in Nazi Germany– we too are victims of our own civility.

    Ironically, the gentleness and the Christ-like benevolence of the GLBT community is our greatest virtue — but, sadly, it can also be our greatest weakness too.

  • robert in NYC

    No. 68,

    Regarding Slovenia,there never was an actual marriage equality bill per se. A vote on marriage equality stalled in January. The first version of the new Family Code (which also codifies marriages) with complete equality has been revised due to pressure from the Christian Taliban to not include the name marriage but retain all the rights straight couples have. They also scrapped full adoption rights and replaced it with single adoption. In 2006, Slovenia passed the civil partnership law for gay couples but family and friends are not allowed to witness them.

    Mexico? I was unaware its government has any marriage equality bill pending. Only Mexico City allows same-sex marriage as far as I know, but I could be wrong.

    Meanwhile, the UK’s conservative coalition government is soon to embark on marriage equality in July. Finland is expected to pass it later in the year.

  • Chamberlian

    You know, I know a gay republican with political intentions. If anyone wants to recruit a few into Congress, we can break that whole Democrat/LGBT stereotype.

Comments are closed.