My faith in Barack Obama has been restored! “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages,” according to the Sacramento Bee.
Apparently Obama broke this news on Sunday in a letter presented at an LGBT Pride Breakfast in San Francisco. The letter stated that he supports extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.”
Obama also said “And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”
Obama had previously said he opposed gay marriage. Glad to see he came to his senses!
HE DOSE ,THAN CHANGES HIS MIND , AND THEN ON FRIDAY HE WILL CHANGE HIS MIND AGAIN . JOHN KERRY PART 2 .
Art. Based on this latest report can we call this a “half flip-flop” or perhaps in sporting terms a “half gainer”?
Art,
Saying that one supports extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law” and that one opposes efforts to amend the California and U.S. Constitutions is not the same thing as saying, in effect, “I support gay marriage”. We all know that “leaving it up to each state” is a common political “duck” on controversial social issue.
Art, I’ve been trying to find, where and when did Obama say he opposed gay marriage? I know you wrote something yesterday that “McCain and Obama both oppose gay marriage” but I didn’t see any backup to the last half of the title.
And now you’ve got smartasses like the Grate One saying he flip-flopped. But he’s always said he “leaves it up to the states,” which, naybe that’s a “common political duck” but at least he’s been consistent.
Yes indeed! The bloom is off the rose. ;-}
Oh. Maybe I see. “Leaving it up to the states” is not the same as “leaving it to each state’s constitution and supreme court”? Is that what the supposed flipflop is?
I will have to check with my friend Phobius for more insights.
Vern,
That has been referenced in many articles. Apparently Obama opposed gay marriage on a personal basis. I am glad he woke up and saw the light. Opposing gay rights is NOT cool.
So to recap;
1. He opposes gay marriage on a personal basis.
2. He doesn’t want State or Federal constitutions amended to ban gay marriage. Note that’s not the same as saying “I support gay marriage.”
3. He wants to leave it up to the states to decide.
His own “Blueprint for America” doesn’t even mention the issue. I’d hardly call that waking up and seeing the light.
Art,
Now you just have to get Janet to support gay Marriage.
I may be overly naive, and I am most definitely an advocate for keeping our candidate honest, but I can’t help but wonder if this level of parsing is productive? The Republicans will be doing a sufficient job of immolating Barack; must we provide the fuel? These comments seem like petty semantics banter when there is so much more to say about truly significant issues … Do we want this man elected or not? On this particular issue, Barack seems to be doing an admirable job of straddling his political aspirations with his personal beliefs which cannot be an easy task in this environment where alleged friends and foes are looking for any opportunity to malign! This is the proverbial double-bind hypothesis that would spawn a schizophrenic child if we were his parents! No matter what the man does, it generates criticism. I think we need to give the guy a break.
Sorry! I was just being facetious! Obama is “my guy” now. It’s just too much fun to pass up goofing on the disillusioned! ~Ms M
speaking of smart ass far left vern . i think your a smart ass on your stories that you write on here always ripping on people that dont see your fAR LEFT VIEWS.. i guess it takes one to know one . go back to watching keith o . or attending your move on .org meeting .
“Opposed to gay marriage PERSONALLY.”
I’m glad he’s on the right side on the California initiative, but really what does that mean to be “Opposed to gay marriage personally?” (Assuming he actually said that, which I don’t rule out.) He would never marry a man himself? He chose to have a normal marriage instead of gay-marrying Michelle? He’d be peeved if one of his daughters grew up to marry a girl? He wouldn’t much care for it if Michelle left him for Angelina Jolie? (Excuse me while I savor that thought…)
Really, I’m tired of all politicians talking about what they “oppose personally.” Every one of them “opposes abortion personally.” That is, until their daughter or mistress gets knocked up. We need to know what politicians oppose as a matter of policy, what they’re going to try to prevent US from doing.
Irritated with Barack right now, but he’s sure night-and-day better than the other guy.
And I’m glad he’s against the California anti-gay initiative (although I worry he may catch hell from PHOBIUS.)
Vern. In my first comment I was not being serious. This is because some have asked me to lighten up on my comment reactions as this is only a blog.
With that in mind I will now be serious. For any candidate to say “let the individual states decide” whether it be off shore drilling or gay marriage is as cop out. Take a stand if you want to be commander-in-chief of 300 million people.
Larry = RINO? A Republican who doesn’t believe in states’ rights? I’m absolutely shocked!
SMS
Sarah. I do believe in “states rights.” However it would be nice to hear a straight answer from a presidential candidate to a simple question rather than watching them practice “duck and cover.” I did that in grade school during WWII
Larry –
If you truly believe in states’ rights then you shouldn’t require an answer from him as he’s taking the issue out of his own hands, and rightly so. That’s my point.
Based on his voting record and current positioning, I’m sure he’d never propose or support an anti-gay marriage amendment, but why should it matter that he come out and say that if he’s pro-states’ rights? As a Republican, you should be cheering him for his response. He’s not running for Governor after all.
SMS
Larry. You’re right (though Sarah’s also right) that saying “It’s up to the states” is a political cop-out. I’m sure Obama, being young, educated, liberal, and a minority himself, has plenty of gay friends and has no problem with them getting married. He just has to be careful what he says while running for President! We can all imagine how the Republicans would hang gay marriage around his neck (through 527 groups of course, McCain would know nothing about it! Nothing!) and maybe peel off 1 – 2% from him. He’s certainly a politician, not a civil rights leader (at least not yet.)
But if you pick on Obama much longer (who’s in the doghouse with me already if you hadn’t noticed) I’ll have to bring out my LONG LONG LIST of McCain flipflops and panders. You don’t want that, do you?
Vern –
Agreed. Well-said.
SMS
Oh great one I trust you meant to type you’re not your. There I go being a smart a** yet again. It’s just my nature. 🙂
Sarah,
Thanks for the duck and cover video blast from the past. Hiding under newspaper and a thin table cloth in face of an atomic attack. I guess that’s the basis of promoting duct tape and plastic sheeting post 911. Gads, like any of that stuff would help in a major crisis!
Glad that period of time is over.
Ven.
If Obama can’t withstand comments by little ol me than he is in trouble. You know by my stories that I call them as I see them regardless of party affiliation.
Do you recall the media commenting on his voting PRESENT rather than yea or nay? What do you call that?
Vern. FYI. From my best friend Google.
“In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate. Seth Perlman/Associated Press
Barack Obama leaving the Illinois State Senate in 2004.
The Long Run: In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd (July 30, 2007)
Times Topics: Barack Obama
Illinois Senate
Barack Obama being sworn in as a Democratic state senator in Illinois in 1997. He was first elected in 1996 and left in 2004.
In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.”
In fairness I will check to see how many times Sen McCain voted “present” and get back to you!
Red –
I couldn’t resist. It’s SO appropriate to the current times!
SMS
Ah, the old *yawn* Obama voted present *yawn* story. From what I remember of that non-story that’s a common thing in the Illinois legislature, and it was 130 times out of something like 10,000 votes.
Larry, come on, you don’t go around telling little stories about McCain, you’re a very partisan Republican. I’m trying not to rag on McCain because 1) he won’t take this state anyway, and 2) I would like some McCain voters to support Debbie Cook.
OK brother Vern.
Just to show that I look at both sides of the coin Barack Obama missed 262 votes, 43.4% during the current Congress. At the same time fellow Senator John McCain missed 373 votes or 61.8%.
As of now I have not researched how vital any of the missed votes were. However, there is a subliminal message in this research. All three state Senators, Barack, Hillary and John, spent more time on the road this past year and were not representing their constituents. We must also recognize that unlike the House each state only has two Senators. Therefore, 50% of their elected Senatorial officials were “missing in action,” with full pay and benefits, as they campaigned. And for the two eventual losers, there is no down side risk of losing their present seat. How nice!official
Brother Vern.
As I mentioned Senator Clinton she had the best voting record this session having missed 201 votes or 33.3%
Numbers by themselves do not tell the whole story.
What votes did she cast and which critical votes did any of them miss is a story for another day.
My prior comment still applies. Nice to get paid while you are a candidate for office traveling around the country without risking the loss of your current seat in Congress.
Brother Larry. You are correct, all 3 of these politicians should have shown more leadership this year in the Senate and given more representation to their constituents. Shall we wrap up this thread? Let’s!