Obama Once Backed Full Gay Marriage

[t0dd]

During his run for Illinois state Senate in 1996, Barack Obama stated his unequivocal support for gay marriage, according to an exclusive story in the Jan. 14, 2009 Windy City Times newspaper.

Read more here: http://www.theopenpress.com/index.php?a=press&id=43345

Why the change of heart? And what can we do to regain his support?

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. That was when he was young and foolish

Now that he has hit the big time, we and ours are beneath his notice (except when it comes time to pander for our votes and our contributions. Only then do we matter, and only for as long as he needs our votes and contributions.)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zuiderelle]

6. Do you ever get tired of snarking at people in the GLBT forum?

[LostinVA]

31. Since it says "Ignored," I'm saying teh answer is "no"!

[sniffa]

32. I finally did that too

I have his profile open in a separate tab waiting for something.

[Jamastiene]

37. I have a new game. I try to guess who "Ignored" is based on the replies.

It's a lot more interesting than ever having to actually read what Ignored said. I already placed them on Ignore for a damn good reason.

[ruggerson]

41. I can help both of you out

seeing as I, probably foolishly, never ignore anyone.

[Jamastiene]

42. Cool.

Animal, vegetable, or mineral?

[TechBear_Seattle]

44. Monera, I think n/t

[MNBrewer]

51. That is SO retro! ;)

[TechBear_Seattle]

86. Is the monera classification no longer used?

It was still in widespread use when I took college biology. What is the system now?

[MNBrewer]

108. It's in flux, but

The three big ones (super kingdoms?) are Archaebacteria, Eubacteria and Eukaryota.

[LostinVA]

50. hahahaha -- I do that, too!

We're watching AI -- I was just talking about Bucky (mentioning all the people who were picked at Greensboro who made it into teh Top Ten).

[Clintonista2]

72. LOL!!

[Deja Q]

112. Do you ever get tired of never putting those people on ignore?

;)

:think:

[yardwork]

7. Do you ever get tired of defending political cowardice and unequal rights?

This is a serious question. Human rights are one of those good guys/bad guys dichotomies that seldom come along in such stark terms. With human rights, you're really on the good side or the bad side.

One day people will look back at the laws discriminating against gay people and they'll try to explain to their grandchildren how such a situation was ever allowed. Do you want to be able to tell your grandkids that you stood up for what was right even when it wasn't necessarily popular or expedient, or are you going to have to mumble something about how everybody thought it was ok back then?

[TheWraith]

34. Can't get tired of something you don't do.

"This is a serious question. Human rights are one of those good guys/bad guys dichotomies that seldom come along in such stark terms. With human rights, you're really on the good side or the bad side."

And has been explained repeatedly, you're not going to find anybody on DU who disagrees. But the fact remains that being ready to burn the place down doesn't gain us any ground. Nor does acting like herded cats, running for the doors. And what definitely doesn't do any good is insulting and attacking anybody who doesn't meet your purity test. Not to put too fine a point on it, if the people who agree with you already aren't good enough, what's your attitude towards people who may need to be educated? How are you going to bring them on board? Being on the right side of an issue doesn't grant you the mandate of heaven, nor does it mean that everything gets done instantly. Black people suffered for 400 years on this continent before even reaching this point. Gay people have been living openly for about 40, and we're already seeing real equality developing in the current generation. Relative to any other struggle for rights, this is moving like a bat out of hell.

Looking at this article rationally, I would think we'd all find a great deal of encouragement that Obama's closer to our position than either he lets on or most people here would assume. Frankly I've thought that for awhile, which is why I expect Obama will likely appoint SCOTUS judges who take the Equal Protection Clause seriously. I've said here before, I suspect we'll see a SCOTUS decision legalizing gay marriage within 5 years.

Yes, I think that there's a good chance that Obama's shading the truth on his opinion about gay marriage. Speaking only for myself, I've only ever heard him refer to "his beliefs," i.e. his religion, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman ... which doesn't speak to what he thinks the US constitution demands with regard to equal rights. And let's face it, even if he was covering his ass about his own true opinion, politicians have done the same for much worse reasons.

[AntiFascist]

39. I can only take Obama at his word and I certainly won't try to second-guess....

what he "really" believes. If he had chosen to keep his beliefs to himself, then I would not have a problem with them. Instead, he chose to speak his religious convictions very clearly within the context of a vastly popular Evangelical church. This spoke volumes to me, and it only means that he is willing to sell out his religous convictions (perhaps his soul itself?) to the highest bidder when it comes to political popularity.

[yardwork]

65. Obama has stated clearly that he is now opposed to gay marriage because of religion.

The OP is about Obama, not other DUers. I can't help it if some people are are so identified with Obama they see a criticism of the man's position on something as a personal criticism of themselves.

[AntiFascist]

67. Excellent point !

I am ONLY critical of Obama on this one point. I never supported Hillary, I've never made any comment on his cabinet appointments, and I certainly don't want to "crush" him altogether.

[Moloch]

69. Thank you, TheWraith.

It is heartening to find someone who makes sense on this forum. You are absolutely right. Many here only respond by posting angry accusations and name calling to anyone who doesn't meet this undefined "purity test" and its incredibly sad. Do people honestly think that they will change minds by calling people bigots? No.. I believe most everybody on DU is open-minded and some need to be more educated on gay rights.

[AntiFascist]

71. I concede, and will not call Obama a bigot....

only that he has displayed religiously bigoted behavior.

[Moloch]

73. and he's also displayed pretty enlightened behavior....

Gay Man to Direct the Office of Personnel Management

John Berry will be named director of the Office of Personnel Management by President-elect Barack Obama, according to The Washington Post. Berry served as assistant secretary of the Interior during the Clinton administration and has been director of the Smithsonian's National Zoological Park since 2005.

LGBT leaders had hoped Berry would be tapped as secretary of the Interior, but D.C. insiders say his duties at the Office of Personnel Management will directly affect LGBT people because it has jurisdiction over the treatment of millions of federal employees.

“OPM is the federal government’s human resources department," said Denis Dison, spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which has been presenting qualified LGBT candidates to the Obama transition team. "Its director is the president’s top adviser on personnel matters. Having an out gay man in that position is more than symbolic, it’s a statement about how important workplace equality is to this president.”

The office is generally responsible for recruiting job applicants, filling vacancies at federal agencies, developing performance review processes, administering benefits, and overseeing nondiscrimination policies.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid70673.asp

[Toasterlad]

75. Alll the Homo Appointees In the World Don't Make Up for Embracing Bigotry.

How lucky for Obama, though, that his new Director of Office of Personnel Management will never charge the taxpayers for spousal health insurance, will never have to take time off for a honeymoon, will never need bereavement leave if an in-law dies, or any of the other costly and time-consuming things that real people get to do! Look at Obama already saving the taxpayers money!

[Moloch]

76. well...

How do you know Obama doesn't have plans to change any of these things? I think it really shows a commitment to gay equality to pick an openly gay-person to head the agency which oversees federal hiring. Some may even think its a bold move considering that its still legal to discriminate against us in most states.. That sounds like the opposite of embracing bigotry, but you shouldn't let any of that get in the way of bashing someone who hasn't even taken office yet.

[Toasterlad]

77. Obama Has Publicly Declared That He Does Not Support Same-Sex Marriage.

I'd say the odds are pretty good he's not planning to do anything about it once he takes office. Considering he's against it, and all.

[Toasterlad]

78. Dupe.

[LostinVA]

85. You are the Voice of Reason in this forum, not The Wraith

[Zuiderelle]

92. Oh WOW, there you are again. Defending things the rest of us find offensive.

Big fucking surprise.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meegbear]

11. You ever get tired of being snarky?

Just curious.

[SacredCow]

13. Yeah, how dare he be so full of venom....

most people enjoy being used like whores, then stabbed in the back....

:sarcasm:

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. It is bitterness, not venom

You may wish to research the difference.

[TheWraith]

35. It amounts to the same thing: you're stuck on pessimism.

You look for a way to find the worst possible interpretation of something like this, and even if there isn't one you make one up. This is GOOD news, man--for all that the wingers talk about Democrats secretly supporting gay marriage, here we may actually have one who does.

[MNBrewer]

36. You really are laughable.

I'd rather not have to guess which Democrats "secretly" support gay marriage while the whole pack votes against it.

IF they vote against it, what difference does it make if they're being untrue to their beliefs?

[TechBear_Seattle]

45. I am looking for the most realistic interpretation n/t

[AntiFascist]

81. Some of us are stuck on optimism....

we feel that if we argue loud and long enough it may actually have an impact, and it may actually change the trend toward centrism. What the hell is wrong with that?

[mitchtv]

15. the truth hurts

IF YOU DON;T LIKE IT STOP TRYING TO TELL THE DENIZENS OF THIS FORUM HOW THEY SHOULD THINK. you'r mostly insensitive and willing to tell us to shut up and wait. Sometimes I doubt your committment to Gay equality

[yardwork]

24. Sometimes??!!

!

:rofl:

[sniffa]

25. He cares enough to do a driveby

[yardwork]

26. It's true that he seems to care about the subject itself....

[mitchtv]

107. a bit understated

I admit

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sniffa]

17. Maybe someone should bring the two parties out in back and

*blam* *blam*

[Solon]

19. Why don't you make like you username and disappear, is there an exorcist in the house? n/t

[MADem]

22. You've got a hypersensitive take on what constitutes "venom." NT

[racaulk]

28. Do you ever get tired of making "hit and run" posts about GLBT DUers?

Apparently not.


ETA: Thankfully, I won't be seeing any more of them.

[mtnester]

82. Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!

[Deja Q]

111. Didn't you bother to watch the debates?

Especially the Biden/Palin one?

It couldn't get any louder, their claimed stance of both sides being identical on the issue.

You fooled yourself if that was the one reason why you voted for Obama.

And people call me delusional...

[Solon]

2. So, as a Christian, he's was either lying back then, or lying now...

why am I not surprised? :eyes:

[yardwork]

10. That's the part that's really pathetic.

Unless Obama has had some born-again transformative religious experience that made him all cringy about gay rights, his position now looks patently political and two-faced in light of his previous stance.

Usually people go in the other direction on human rights. This is really a shameful issue for Obama, and the sooner he gets up to speed on this the better for everybody.

[Solon]

20. I know, he is being two faced, its easier to stick to principles when you aren't tempted to run...

for national office. Principle seems to be something Obama left behind a long time ago.

[MADem]

23. The invisible man in the sky is full of forgiveness for lying.

All you have to do is say the S words, SORRY and SAVED, and then if you SEND some money to the church, you're In Like Flynn!

[t0dd]

4. Why do politicians always have to play it safe?

Maybe he still does believe in gay marriage, but he wants to play the civil union card to appeal to a larger base. What happened to the real leaders that stood up for what they believed in? We need a courageous leader that sticks by what is right, and doesn't worry about the repercussions. I had hoped for this in Obama, but obviously he isn't the type of leader I originally thought he was.

[laconicsax]

79. They're usually regarded as 'unelectable'

(see: Kucinich)

[GodlessBiker]

5. Cool. Who'll ask him about it during the first presidential news conference?

[dsc]

8. How did this not come up during either his run for US Senate or President?

It would have been nice to know, that is for sure, and nice to get an explanation now as to what is different.

[yardwork]

12. Gosh, could it be that the main-stream media didn't care enough to ask?

I mean, it's *only* gay rights - the only area where an entire group of people are legally discriminated against in the U.S. No biggie. /sarcasm

[mitchtv]

18. they'te ashamed to talk about Gays

just like they avoid all reference/newa of Latin America

[Ioo]

9. National Office... Eye on 2008 Run (NT)

[MADem]

21. He moved to the right to get elected. That's where he'll sit.

Smack dab in the center, patting people on the head on both sides.

[cecilfirefox]

27. Sad. nt

[dbackjon]

29. Obama the hypocritical snake

[racaulk]

30. So he sold out his gay constituents in the name of political expediency?

Really? Say it isn't so! No one could have ever guessed THAT!!!11!1

:rofl:

Further proof of what many of us have feared all along, although some here would rather bully us into silence than to take a critical look at Obama. How sad that is.

[xchrom]

33. that's interesting. can't say i'm surprised. nt

[Jamastiene]

38. The wind blew.

He is one of those types of Democrats who say whatever pleases whoever is in the room at the time, based on how much money is in their pockets. At least, it sure seems that way on this issue.

[marimour]

40. this is actually good news to me

I always had the feeling that he was just like most other Democratic Congressmen in that they privately support it but don't feel like they can say it while running. Until now it was just a feeling I had with no evidence to back it up but i'm glad that I was right. I wish he would have said that while he was running but I am also realistic that he probably wouldn't be Pres-Elect Obama right now had he said that. IMO this is not the kind of issue you go backwards on, and it fits with the type of church that he used to belong to. Now its up to him to show how he feels by repealing DADT and DOMA. Hopefully when 2012 comes he will speak out truthfully b/c I think the country will be able to handle it.


Edited: typo

[mopinko]

43. at the risk of being clobbered, maybe

he wanted to be the president of all the people, as he has repeatedly said? this is from a state senate campaign. running to be a state senator from chicago it would still have been a little risky, politically. but not like it would be running for pres. i am sure that especially back then there were plenty of homophobes in that district. but his old hood isn't called the people's republic of hyde park for nothing. i think he is very aware that he was looking to REPRESENT people, then and now.
i always thought that he was soft pedaling the issue, and that he really understood. and that if push came to shove, his conscience would guide him to the right place.

and as long as i am sticking my neck out here, i would like to say to the people who feel they were used and abused, did something change from what he said about lgbt issues? afaik, he has not changed his stance from what he said in the campaign, has he?
ok, i will shut up now. i understand. really. i'm just looking at it from a different place, and i know that. no offense intended to anyone.

[AntiFascist]

46. it was the timing and place where he said them...

and how it got repeated in the Yes on 8 campaign that make some of us feel particularly used and abused.

[mopinko]

47. sorry, but i don't know what you are referring to.

i appreciate being educated about this whole issue.

and do people right now know about windy city times?

[AntiFascist]

52. At the Saddleback Debate in Rick Warren's church...

he reaffirmed his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, that heterosexual marriage is "sacred' and that "God is in the mix", to which he received great applause. What people who don't live in California fail to realize is that this sound byte was used in Yes on 8 ads and in a Yes on 8 robocall. I feel that this could have been just the push needed to get Proposition 8 passed.

[mopinko]

58. oooooooh

i had no idea about that. that's sad.

[marimour]

48. i understand that

He could have said simply that he support civil unions when asked instead of saying the "man and woman" thing and giving them perfect ad material. But I did see him say on TV before Prop 8 that he was against it (he was pretty clear about it). I wonder why that wasn't used in a No on 8 commercial?

[AntiFascist]

53. The news reports about his opposition to 8...

came out on November 1st which was 4 days before the election. With all the funding they had, you would think the No on 8 people could have elicited a statement from him much earlier in the campaign.

[marimour]

63. they came out a lot earlier than November

I knew about it and his position on it long before November. Just doing a 5 second google search (Obama opposes prop 8) the first 4 results were from June 29-July 3rd 2008 where he first opposed prop 8.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/MN8J11I731.DTL

http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6307

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html

http://www.temenos.net/2008/07/obama-opposes-prop-8-californi.html

(Edited: typo)

[AntiFascist]

66. Unfortunately a lot of people didn't know about it...

and no one made a point of even mentioning it unless they were with the liberal or LGBT media. I agree, the No on 8 ad people did a poor job of pursuing this.

[marimour]

68. maybe thats why I knew

I was pretty much watching MSNBC 24/7 and reading Huff post at that time.

[MNBrewer]

55. He was clear about it, in a way that gave political "cover" to those who wanted to vote for it.

[Toasterlad]

74. So The Only Way to Be President of All the People Is to Sell Some Of Them Down the River?

It amazes me that anyone can look at what Obama has done and try and excuse it.

The fact that "every politician does it" does not make it okay.

Disguising it as "reaching across the aisle" does not make it okay.

Believing it's "political suicide" does not make it okay.

Pretending it "violates his religion" doesn't make it okay.

Citing "more pressing issues" doesn't make it okay.

"Balancing" it with token gay invitees doesn't make it okay.

NOTHING makes it okay.

Declaring that people do not deserve the same rights as other people based solely on who they love is WRONG. Obama has done that. Obama is WRONG.

It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

All the Obama-lovers are free to lick his balls all the live-long day. I don't mind that you love him. I'm glad you found someone to believe in. But for the love of Rick Warren's (and Obama's) wrathful, vengeful god, stop trying to deny his blatant indecency when it comes to gay people. It's part of the package. Maybe Obama = hope to you, but you can't be a rational person and believe that Obama has the best interests of the GLBT community at heart. He has shown us his indifference MANY times.

[Critters2]

49. He was once a proud member of the UCC, who could no more denounce his church

than his family.


It's a big bus...plenty of room down here!

[LostinVA]

54. His total and complete rejection of the UCC is confusing to me

[Critters2]

56. Me, too. When he spoke at General Synod, he was near tears in

talking about what the church meant to him. Now, he's apparently not worshiping anywhere, let alone at a UCC. I don't understand it.

[LostinVA]

57. I have a cynical theory about it

If not that, that I don't know wtf it's about.

[Critters2]

59. What's your theory? nt

[LostinVA]

83. Check PM

[Critters2]

95. Saw it. You ARE cynical.

Makes as much sense as anything else at this point, though.

[LostinVA]

96. I didn't used to be

:cry:

[Critters2]

98. Me neither. I used to be believe in hope and change and crap like that. nt

[mopinko]

60. he felt bad about dragging the whole congregation

into the spotlight.

[Critters2]

62. The congregation didn't ask him to leave.

That's not it.

[LostinVA]

84. That's totally ridiculous

Hillary didn't "drag" the UMC into the spotlight, or Biden the RC, etc.

He's apparently left the UCC, not just one congregation.

And, the congregation didn't ask him to leave.

[Critters2]

97. Yeah. He's left the denomination. I know clergy in DC, and they all say he hasn't

visited any UCC churches, though he has had conversations with clergy of other denominations about where they might worship. I figure he'll settle on some Evangelical church. That seems to be where his heart is.

[LostinVA]

102. Hmmmmm

Remember my PM?

[Critters2]

105. Yep. Seems to be true. nt

[MNBrewer]

61. It's because he's so much smarter than everyone else on the planet

and can see so far into the future. Kinda like Leto, the God Emperor of Dune. :sarcasm:

He's seeking out the (third) Golden Path.

[Sub Atomic]

64. And at one time I considered myself heterosexual.

His supposed backing of gay marriage 12 or 13 years ago is empty rhetoric in my ears.

When he actually revokes DADT or pushes permanent, forward-looking legislation in favor of ENDA then I'll considering listening to his bullshit.


Otherwise he's just another Ronald Reagan to me.

[bluedawg12]

70. They say both parties are going to swing to the middle-

Dems will be center left and the repigs ( if they get lucky) will be center right.

So, pols, wanting to get elected migrate to the center.

But, I do think PE Obama, once secure in his new position could swing a little more left with our gentle persuasion. :evilgrin:

[Two Americas]

80. amazing to watch

Obama is accomplishing something that Bush never could. He is legitimatizing right wing ideas.

We can see why the Warren invitation was so destructive. Giving a platform and recognition to Warren has opened the flood gates.

First to go was the anti-DLC position. For weeks Obama promoters claimed he was anti-DLC. The same people now say "how could you have been so stupid? He never claimed to be anything but a centrist."

Then it was the war. How many times did people say that the main difference, the main reason to vote for Obama over Clinton was the war. That is gone now.

Then it was GLBTQ folks. The vitriol and hatred here that started with the Warren invitation has shown that the only difference between many progressives and right wingers is that progressives have cover - they can say "don't get me wrong I support gay rights" and then feel free to make whatever remarks they want and spread any ideas at all and not be challenged on them.

Today, torture and illegal detention have been legitimatized, and we have people spreading ambiguity and confusion about those subjects. "Oh no no no we support the Constitution and habeas corpus, it is just that those people are too dangerous to release. And just because we can't prove they are guilty does not mean they are innocent." When those same arguments were being used by the right wingers, everyone here rejected them. But people have switched their position 180 degrees now that the argument is coming from Obama. Someone actually said in response to me today "what? Are you crazy? Releasing those people would cost Obama a lot of votes." There it is.

We can also see the destructive results of the hero worship for Obama. People defending Obama are not expressing ideas, are not engaging in debate and discussion, they are at war. Anything they can use they will use, anything they can get away with they will do. They won't actually defend their "points" - before anyone has had much of a chance to respond, they are on to the next improbable and inflammatory line of attack. They cannot make their points using logic and reason, so they have launched a frantic effort to undermine, discredit, and intimidate their opponents - a massive attack on the messengers rather than on the message.

Now taunting and bullying threads are being started once an hour. This is a shame because there are only a handful of bullies trying to control the entire community. Do they ever sleep? Look at those threads and often the consist mostly of 5-10 people, each posting 10-20 times with one-liners.

It is pretty amazing to see so many old tried and true right wing smears being routinely used and thrown around.

[LostinVA]

87. As always, a wonderful post

[QC]

88. Wow! This needs to be a thread of its own. n/t

[LostinVA]

89. +1

[racaulk]

91. Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Excellent post! :thumbsup:

[plantwomyn]

93. The points you voiced

are exactly the reason why i took a long time out on DU. During the primary it got to the point where Obama supporters were saying that they couldn't wait until they could invoke the rules and squash any debate once Obama became the nominee. I was away long enough to loose my donar star. It looks like now, FINALLY, at least Obama's positions can be questioned without the rules being broken. Unfortunatly, like the media, we ask the questions too late for the answers to mean anything.

[Vanje]

109. Can I Rec a single post? nt

[xchrom]

90. recommend

[Laughing Mirror]

94. Somebody should ask Obama why he switched positions over the course of the years

If this story gets enough exposure, it would be interesting to hear Obama's response to the question.

Who would ask it, though? Somebody mainstream such as Larry King could, for example.

[Critters2]

99. Larry King doesn't interview his guests. He idolizes them.

I cannot stand that man's obsequiousness.



And I think I should get points for using "obsequiousness" in a sentence. :)

[LostinVA]

100. I LOVE that word!

And, "exacerbate."

[Laughing Mirror]

101. That's true and that's why he can ask the kinds of questions that others won't

He's kind of an institution as an interviewer. I mean he has been around for centuries and has interviewed everybody it seems.So I think that because of his, as you say, obsequiousness, he can get away asking controversial questions of people without seeming to take one side or another and without the interview perceiving the question as contentious.

But I would be happy if anybody would ask this question, and get an answer directly from the horse's mouth.

What famous interviewer would you have ask Obama why he changed his tune?

[LostinVA]

103. Oprah could get away with it, and probably Barbara Walters

Ellen DeGeneres would be perfect, but I don't think the Prez will go on one of "teh gay" shows.

[Laughing Mirror]

104. Yes, Oprah and Ellen definitely

I didn't even know Barbara Walters was still around.

Letterman would be a good one to ask this too, and stay on it until he got a clear, unambiguous, "unequivocal" answer to what is such a simple straightforward question.

[Zuiderelle]

110. To be fair, he did go on Ellen before the election.

[trickyguy]

113. I used to be opposed to gay marriage until I saw the bigger picture for gay rights.