Obama & Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 v. 2009: I Must be Clueless, ‘Cuz I don’t get the BIG DEAL here.

In 2004, IMPACT – what was, at that point in time, a major Illinois LBGT rights organization – presented Barack Obama, U.S. Senate candidate, with a series of questions regarding LGBT rights.   The questionnaire – and follow up interview of Barack Obama in Outlines/Windy City Times – covered same-sex marriage. 

Quoting today’s Windy City Times (in a reprisal of that interview):

“Tracy Baim [Reporter]: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?

Barack Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic- partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue.  I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example.

And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, ‘absolutely.' And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?', then suddenly ...

Tracy Baim: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.”

Obama: Since I'm a product of an interracial marriage, I'm very keenly aware of ...

Tracy Baim: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn't going to happen so you won't support it at this time?

Obama: What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, in an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

Tracy Baim: If Massachusetts gets marriage and this gives momentum to the proposed federal Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

Obama: I would oppose that."

So, what does this tell us?   Well, here’s what it tells me:

Barack Obama has always supported same-sex unions; Barack Obama has always done so, as a path to achieve the goals of extending the full body of rights and privileges of American citizenship to the LGBT community; Barack Obama is smart enough, as a politician, to realize that the term “marriage” will, in our current national reality, feed more backlash than not; Barack Obama, as a politician, is more concerned with the end then the means; and, most importantly, that Barack Obama has done nothing since this interview, since this fall’s campaign, or since his election, to indicate that he has changed his views one jot. 

That includes naming anti-LGBT Rev. Rick Warren as one of TWO ministers to offer a prayer on the Inaugural dais, the other minister being STAUNCHLY pro-LGBT rights Rev. Lowery (notice how THAT little fact never gets mentioned on the gay websites).

Moreover, Barack Obama stated then (in the 2004 interview sited above) and has continuously maintained since that the Federal government has no role whatsoever in the long-standing and Constitutionally based predicate that marriage, gay or straight, is a state issue.   This happens to be a position that is very much in line with what the LGBT community fights for on a daily basis and is very, very, very much in opposition to what that “great champion of gay rights” - President Bill Clinton (DOMA, DADT) - believed and supported when he was running things.

So.  What do we have here?  

Well, it seems to me, that what we have is a newly elected President who believes in LGBT equality under the law generally, does not believe in same-sex marriage specifically, wants to see the rights that marriage endows transferred to civil unions (something akin to what civil unions offer same-sex couples in Britain), and, ultimately, a President who does not confuse his political/moral/religious “skittishness” around same-sex marriage as being an excuse to perpetuate a grossly un-Constitutional Federal-level barrier (DOMA) to allowing states to determine, as they see fit, whether or not their citizens should enjoy equal marriage rights under the law.

In other words, Barack Obama has consistently adopted the legal, political and Constitutional positions that we, in the LGBT community overall, have adopted and are fighting to make the standard for how same-sex marriage is dealt with in these United States.

So, like I said in the title of this post:  what’s the big deal?

Comments

[Stryse]

I think the President-elect hits on my main point in this great debate, though perhaps not directly, and that is making the distinction between the civil and religious institutions so many Americans call "marriage".

We are, afterall, seeking equality in the civil institutions and if I were in his shoes, I would officially give a new moniker to all such unions, including heterosexual ones. There would be no 'marriage' under the laws of man (we will leave that term to the laws of whatever god you believe in), simply a 'civil union' which would afford everyone equal rights regardless of the gender to which they formed the union with.

[Chemosh]

I cannot agree more about civil unions. So when the government finally recognizes that the only kind of "marriage" that any government will endorse is CIVIL UNION then I will understand. But until the government no longer recognizes "seperate but equal" then there is no such equality. I know Sen. Obama would not accept civil unions only for interracial couples or non-whites even though they would be recognized the same...because he is black which of course is different.

[Michael Hurley]

I see, so as long as you have one minister who isn't a bigot and a hatemonger give a prayer it's OK if the other one is. Come on...that's absurd. Does that mean if we have minister who isn't a racist give a prayer it's OK if the other one is a racist. Not on your life. When is the LGBT community going to stop making excuses for this guy and start demanding that he treat us as equal members of society and reject those who don't?

[tomheward]

I dunno Mr. President-elect. I am pretty sure I am not the only one that feels that your choice of Warren is a bit of a kick in the head to gay people. It is never acceptable to kick gay people in the head, not matter how strategic. Gay people are not demanding special treatment here, we just need discrimination and abuse from the highest levels of our governments to stop now. That is not an easy order, but respectfully Mr. President-elect, that starts with you.

[Jono]

If Obama wants to put forth the Civil Unions as opposed to marriage then he should support the goverment issuing only civil unions to opposite-sex partners as well.
Remove marriage from the government. If it has such religious connotations then why is is associated with the gov't - separation of Church and State right?

Also separate but equal just further divides and is in no way equal.

[ChiNick]

ALL OBAMA WANTED FROM THE LGBT COMMUNITY WAS YOUR VOTE. YOU ALL JUST ABOUT GAVE IT TO HIM. THE FUNNY THING IS THE LGBT COMMUNITY WILL GET NOTHING BACK FOR IT SO YOU ALL BETTER HOPE HE DOSE NOT GET IN FOR A SECOND TERM OR THAT IS 8 YEARS OF NOTHING FOR YOU ALL. ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS HAHA :-P

[Bob]

I can not understand why we can not accept civil unions and leave marriage to the religious fanatics. As long as the rights are given to us, then so be it. I live in California and did have the opportunity to get married. Now the opportunity has temporily removed. I would rather have something that would hold up nationally instead of this state to state right. Lets do as they do in England and settle now for the civil union. I think Obama is the one to help us. At the age of 54, I would rather have my partner have that and all the rights to inherit our estate than to have nothing.

[Blaire]

We are Blessed in Canada because it is legal for same marraige in Canada. I think that the Presient should pass a law to also include the USA for same sex marraige for all Gay people. We are people too and we also fell in love and want to support each other but law and with a written life commintment. Thank Mr Presient and we all wish well in your term. and wish you many more.

[pat]

Sorry...call me gready,but I want it all and don't want to seattle for civil union,which is ONLY reconized in the state that I live in. They say civil union is the same as a marriage...you get the same benefits,well what about Federal,I'm not getting that. A marriage is a commitment and I made that with the one I love so why should I therfore seattle...I work,own a house,and pay taxes just like everyone else and want to be treated like everyone else.Thankyou!!!

[gpressnps]

OK here is one to try on the courts. I was married in California my home state when I lived there. I am a gay male. Now MGWM...

I now live in OHIO who refused to recognize gay marriage. If my Partner Wanted to file for bankruptcy, can he do it with out the mention of his spouse? or Will the courts recognize our marriage?? and make us both file?? together. if so they have recognized our marriage and must recognize all marriages???