BREAKING: Obama endorses STATES RIGHTS

[rapturedbyrobots]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/obama-endorses-marriage-equality-federalism

"A president endorsing, even as a "personal position," marriage equality for gays and lesbians is, as Vice President Joe Biden once said, a big fucking deal. But Obama has endorsed marriage equality federalism—not the notion that marriage for gays and lesbians is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution that can never be taken away. Obama has adopted the same position that Vice President Dick Cheney did in 2004, when Cheney said he believed in marriage equality but that the states should be allowed to decide by a show of hands, as North Carolina did Tuesday, whether gays and lesbians have the same rights as everyone else."

The best breakdown so-far of Obama's position on marriage equality. Apparently, being as progressive as Dick Cheney is now something to celebrate.

I seem to remember some previous president's taking a states rights position when it comes to civil rights issues.

[southernyankeebelle]

1. This issue is a civil rights issue. If you left it up to states and people blacks would still be

in slavery and women wouldn't of had the vote. Majority shouldn't have that kind of power over the minority when it comes to civil rights.

[Lionessa]

9. There's no"if" to your concern, 30 some odd states have voted

already with all but one (I think that's what Rachel said) voted against marriage equality.


Hey he got a banner fundraising day by saying he supports states rights because no one seemed to hear that part and only heard that he thinks equality is important, no mention of what if anything he would do about it, and instead a waffle to states rights. Good on MotherJones for going there.

[FarLeftFist]

13. He doesn't have to mention what if anything he would do about it. That wasn't the purpose.

The purpose was to go on the historical record of stating that HE PERSONALLY believes in marriage equality. Don't over-think it.

[southernyankeebelle]

33. baby steps, just baby steps. What can he do? You got a house with republicans. It won't go

any where.

[AverageJoe90]

49. Agreed. nt.

[dbackjon]

81. I am glad you are happy with baby steps

I just want to get fucking married to the love of my life.

[southernyankeebelle]

85. I wish you could too. I can't make it come any faster and if I could I'd snap my fingers and it

would be done. My should we married couples have all the fun and fights in a marriage. Right?

[FarLeftFist]

2. His statement wasn't about legislation, it was about a sitting president admitting to

believing in marriage equality. THAT is a big deal.

[DearAbby]

3. +1

Can't find the DU Button for individual posts....This is a "BIG FUCKING DEAL"


Sheesh some people are never happy.

[FarLeftFist]

5. Yeah, if you want legislation than make it happen. He said Yes WE Can, not Yes I Can.

What HE can do is endorse. If you're looking for legislation than start a movement, get it put up for a vote. Don't just sit home posting negativity on DU. BE THE CHANGE.

[rapturedbyrobots]

18. Me and many others will be happy

when he doesn't just say it's personally ok with him if same sex couples get married

but that they have a constitutional RIGHT to do so.

[FSogol]

4. File under: "Nothing is ever good enough"

[rapturedbyrobots]

19. When the issue is civil rights

The ONLY thing "good enough" is affirming those RIGHTS. Not "they should be able to" but if someone else decides they shouldn't (deferring to states rights) then that's pretty much OK too.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. He Did Affirm Those RIghts

So, like the prior poster said, file under "nothing is ever good enough".

[rapturedbyrobots]

38. Actually, he affirmed the validity of Amendment One

I can't help it if you don't understand the difference between "should be able to" and "have the constitutional right to".

I also can't help it if you don't understand the full implications of taking a states rights position on civil rights issues.

Here in NC, we now know exactly what it means.

[ProfessorGAC]

73. I Understand It Completely

You seem to be the one who has lost focus.
GAC

[dbackjon]

83. So you then are supportive of Amendment One?

[dbackjon]

82. No, he said leave it up to the states

Which is working oh so well

[TLM]

50. I've said it before......

For some, the only thing Obama can do right, is lose the election.

[bluestateguy]

6. I need an aspirin

The most pro-gay president in history.

[SidDithers]

7. Barney Frank...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/barney-frank-obama-gay-marriage.php

Frank disputed the contention that Obama was hedging when he said states have a right to decide the issue. “That’s just a statement of fact,” Frank said. “That’s like saying today is Wednesday. I mean that’s just a statement of the American Constitution.”

Sid

[rapturedbyrobots]

20. Racially based discrimination based on states rights

used to be a "statement of fact" too.

[TLM]

52. So civil rights are a state level contract?

You may feel marriage is a civil right, but gay or straight, marriage is still a state level contract. And the issue will be resolved in the context of a 10th and 14th amendment argument and an article 4 argument, by the courts.

By pushing it to a states rights issue, it then only takes one state to affirm the rights of gays to marry, in order to constitutionally require all states to recognize it under the constitution. The same issue applied with interracial marriage only about 50 years ago. And the courts struck down the interracial marriage bans on that basis.

But I do understand that some want Obama to somehow wave his magic wand and give them their new pony overnight, and anything short of that means he hates gay people.

[ProSense]

8. Here:

News Analysis: Obama's Marriage Equality Support Is Not the Half-Loaf Some Are Claiming
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=667131

AFER’s Ted Olson Supports Obama’s Same-Sex Marriage Endorsement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002665147

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002668277

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. The way this can be fixed is:

1. By federal legislation regulating marriage. Right now marriage is, by default, controlled by individual states because there is no federal marriage legislation (especially since DOMA is not being enforced), and the Constitution leaves everything to the states that is not specifically regulated by Congress. But I do not see this Congress doing anything to change this situation any time soon. And if they did it wouldn't be anything good. One thing to think about: Right now there are a few states that do recognize same-sex marriage. If Congress - as it currently exists - were to start regulating marriage you can bet same-sex marriage would be outlawed everywhere. So maybe leaving the matter to the states for now isn't necessarily as bad as we think.

2. Or by challenging state laws banning same-sex marriage under the same theory used in Loving v. Virginia, which declared laws against interracial marriage to be an unconstitutional violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Unfortunately this Supreme Court would probably come up with some stupid, politically-motivated and disingenuous reasoning why Loving should not be considered precedent and the Fourteenth Amendment inapplicable to same-sex marriage.

So: For the time being maybe all that can be done is work on changing state laws - all politics is local, after all - and look to the future when a different Supreme Court might consider a constitutional challenge to state laws against same-sex marriage. This can't happen if the Supreme Court continues to be controlled by the likes of Roberts and Scalia. But if Obama is re-elected and can appoint more liberal justices there could be a chance in the foreseeable future.

[Eric J in MN]

12. The Defense of Marriage Act is federal legislation on marriage

States generally have to recognize weddings performed in other states. DOMA makes an exception for same-sex weddings.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. And it's not being enforced by thte DoJ.

My point is that any federal legislation coming out of this Congress would almost certainly be bad. Under the circumstances, it may be better to leave marriage under the control of the states since at least a few states do permit same-sex marriage. In those states that do not, we work to get those laws overturned.

[Eric J in MN]

16. The DOJ is refusing to defend DOMA in lawsuits over federal benefits and federal taxes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.html

"One case, in Connecticut, challenges the federal government's denial of marriage-related protections for federal Family Medical Leave Act benefits, federal laws for private pension plans and federal laws concerning state pension plans. In the other case in New york City, the federal government refused to recognize the marriage of two women and taxed the inheritance that one of the women left to the other as though the two were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes."

One state refusing to recognize a gay-marriage which started with a wedding in another state isn't a DOJ issue at this time.

[jberryhill]

21. On 1 - what is the "correct" federal position on first cousins, 16 year olds and "common law"?

If you want federal marriage legislation, then you have to deal with a thicket of issues other than same sex marriages.

Some states recognize common law marriage - no license, no bullshit, no nothing. Live together long enough and call yourself married and that's that.

Some states don't.

Some states allow first cousin marriages.

Some states don't.

States are all over the place on marriages involving minors.

If you think anyone is going to come up with one federal package that addresses all of those issues in a way that makes everyone happy, you are dreaming.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. No argument from me. Of course that's a huge problem

and one of many reasons why there is unlikely to be a uniform federal marriage statute any time soon. And if there were, most of us probably wouldn't like it, since the way Congress is now I can guarantee that same-sex marriage would be banned.

So to be busting on Obama for referencing "states' rights" is kind of bogus. Since there is no controlling federal statute regulating marriage, the Constitution delegates all that to the states. And that's where we are.

[morningfog]

64. DOMA is being enforced. It's not being defended by the Obama Administration in court.

[dionysus]

68. you've gotta do it through the courts because as it stands legislation would never, ever pass...

[emulatorloo]

11. Yes, I remember when Dick Cheney signed the DADT repeal and stopped enforcing DOMA because

it is unconstitutional. Then I remember when Dick Cheney stepped up and supported the repeal of DOMA when he endorsed the "Respect for Marriage Act".

Dick Cheney certainly pushed hard for gay rights when he was in office. It astounds me how gay-friendly his policies were.

===

This Dick Cheney meme is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on DU.

[morningfog]

65. DOMA is still enforced.

[emulatorloo]

74. Feb 23, 2011: "President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending DOMA"

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/president-obama-instructs-justice-department-to-stop-defending-defense-of-marriage-act-calls-clinton/


Feb 23, 2011 12:39pm

President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law “Unconstitutional”

President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since 1996 allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships legally recognized in other states.

<MORE AT LINK>

See also:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html

Obama backs bill to repeal Defense of Marriage Act
July 19, 2011
By David Nakamura,

The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books.

Feinstein’s bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act, would “uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples” the same rights as others, according to Carney.

The Senate is scheduled to hold an initial hearing on Feinstein’s proposal on Wednesday.

“The policy was wrong then and it is wrong today, and I believe it should be repealed,” Feinstein said Tuesday morning during remarks at the National Press Club.

Obama’s decision came five months after his administration instructed U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to stop defending DOMA and represents a continuing evolution in Obama’s views on same-sex marriage. In February, Holder said parts of DOMA were unconstitutional because of “classifications based on sexual orientation.”

<SNIP>

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese hailed Obama’s decision to back the congressional push.

“We thank the President for his support of the Respect of Marriage Act,” Solmonese said in a statement. “By supporting this legislation, the President continues to demonstrate his commitment to ending federal discrimination against tens of thousands of lawfully married same-sex couples.”


<MORE AT LINK>
--------

[morningfog]

79. It is still in effect and enforced. DOMA is still currently good law.

No defending it it court is not the same as not enforcing it. See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002674005

[uponit7771]

15. Great, are you going to fight to get Obama a ruling majority progressive ?

[rapturedbyrobots]

17. NO

But i might fight to get US a ruling majority of progressives in both houses AND a socially and economically progressive president too. You seem to have the roles reversed.

[ProfessorGAC]

30. Oh Brother

It would appear you are the one confused, not the poster you accuse of being.
GAC

[emulatorloo]

40. + 1 It was a very telling response.

[cali]

22. let me suggest you read Prism's excellent OP which addresses this.

[rapturedbyrobots]

23. would love to

link?

[emulatorloo]

26. Link here:

President Obama joined us yesterday. Now I'll join him.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002670651

[rapturedbyrobots]

31. Thanks for opening up the discussion

I have no problem with people weighing the good & bad of the administration's accomplishments and positions. I have no problem if after doing so, they decide to throw their weight behind the administration.

I have a BIG problem with people calling things what they aren't. Obamas statement in no way is a "defense" of marriage equality. It is a statement of moral support. That's all well and good, but the attacks that are coming are NOT moral attacks. They are legal attacks. As a constitutional lawyer Obama knows this. He knows full well that what was on the ballot in NC (where I live and vote) was not "do you think it is OK for same sex couples to marry?". The question was basically "do you think same sex couples have an inalienable right to marry?". And based on Obama's statement essentially affirming the validity of Ammendment One, the simple answer is NO. There were no "Maybe", "Sometimes", or "If the states decide its OK" boxes on the ballot.

You can't selectively quote his position and conveniently ignore all the stuff about states rights to make this seem like more than it really is: a clever bit of triangulation in an election year. And it is working.

[Prism]

62. You're correct, it's not a defense of a constitutional right

I think, legally, where this helps us is with the traditional weather vanes on the Supreme Court. When I look at thirty states, all the amendments out there, and think about picking them off one by one, we're looking at an effort that would stretch into decades. I don't think that's how this issue will go down. I think this is going to go down to the Supreme Court. By solidifying support for marriage equality's mainstream status on a national level, I think the President is creating more wiggle room for the Court.

I know we want him to go all the way and declare a constitutional right, but this announcement was more than I was expecting before the election, and I think we should embrace the situation on the ground. That being that the Court is probably going to do a Loving vs. Virginia at some point, and we need to lay down as many stones as possible to pave that way so it happens within the next five to ten years. A presidential endorsement is a pretty big stone.

[rapturedbyrobots]

63. I can respect that.

Getting the Dems to put legal same sex marriages in the platform is a big step too.

[Prism]

71. 100% agreed

We need to make sure we're prepared for the convention fight. That's our next big stop before the election.

[wandy]

24. Am I the only one to notice how 'tricky' this states rights thing is.....

If marriage equality is left up to the states, then what about.....

Abortion?
Legalizing marijuana?
Birth control?
Racial equality?
Health care?

It just doesn't appear that we are dealing with all matters in a consistent manner.

[emulatorloo]

25. Abortion and Racial Equality were states rights issues until Supreme Court intervened.

The same thing is going to have to happen with Marriage Equality too, IMHO.

A case on one of these anti-marriage-equality cases is going to have to come before the Supreme Court. Court will have to rule that is is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue, not a "States Rights" Issue. Then federal govt will be able to intervene.

If I had to bet, I would bet something like this is already in the works.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. I hope that issue doesn't come before the current Supreme Court.

Instead I hope Obama will have the chance to appoint a couple more justices, because the five conservative nutjobs we have now will most likely torpedo any civil rights claim for same sex marriage, notwithstanding the precedent of Loving v. Virginia.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Meanwhile, Romney will campaign on a constitutional ban on all marriage equality

removing that power of the states to decide the issue. No marriage equality in America, nowhere, no way, no how.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/05/10/481772/romney-adviser-gillespie-constitutional-marriage-ba/

[rapturedbyrobots]

28. what romney does or doesn't do isn't the issue

nice try to deflect attention from obama's lack of a real stance (legal not moral).

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Au contraire, it's at the heart of this issue.

Obama has made a real stand. So has Romney. You have a clear choice in November.

[rapturedbyrobots]

34. Obama has not taken a stand

Romney's position is clearly an attack on marriage equality. But Obamas statement in no way is a "defense" of marriage equality. It is a statement of moral support. That's all well and good, but the attacks that are coming are NOT moral attacks. They are legal attacks. As a constitutional lawyer Obama knows this. He knows full well that what was on the ballot in NC (where I live and vote) was not "do you think it is OK for same sex couples to marry?". The question was basically "do you think same sex couples have an inalienable right to marry?". And based on Obama's statement essentially affirming the validity of Ammendment One, the simple answer is NO. There were no "Maybe", "Sometimes", or "If the states decide its OK" boxes on the ballot.

You can't selectively quote his position and conveniently ignore all the stuff about states rights to make this seem like more than it really is: a clever bit of triangulation in an election year. And it is working.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Yes, he has and you won't change that by copying and pasting your answers

"You can't selectively quote his position and conveniently ignore all the stuff about states rights to make this seem like more than it really is: a clever bit of triangulation in an election year. And it is working."

So you are here actively working against what you see as the President's re-election strategy? You openly admit this?

[rapturedbyrobots]

41. I just want people to be honest about what he did and didn't say

I don't have any influence over what the president's campaign strategy is.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Well, then, let's be honest about everything Barack Obama has done for the LGBT community

and continues to do.

And let's be honest about what kneecapping this extraordinary President and getting Mitt Romney elected will mean for our rights as LGBT Americans.

Let's be honest about it all.

[rapturedbyrobots]

47. OK

Has this administration done a lot for the LGBT community...I'm not the spokesperson for an entire group of people...but sure.

Would Mittens be worse for everyone including the LGBT community (excluding the rich...LGBT or otherwise)? We can all probably agree that's a Yes.

Does that mean we should call a sitting president stating a personal opinion that (when read in full) validates the discriminatory Amendment One taking a stand? uh...NO.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. I am sick and tired of anybody trying to tell me that the President has handed me lemons

and I need to make shitaid out of them.

Yesterday was a banner day. The sitting President of the United States endorsed marriage equality in an election year. You and any other poster still raining on this parade are doing MORE damage to your cause than you know.

People are ecstatic over this. Even the gay bloggers I usually avoid for their constant drumbeat of doom (AmericaBlog, Glenn Greenwald, etc.) were unanimous in saying this was a big fucking deal. Greenwald even batted away the temptation to do exactly what you are doing.

And yet within an hour of this breaking, some sainted few were here telling us the proper way to think about this was OMG OBAMA FAILED US AGAIN.

You are right about one thing. You are NOT the spokesperson for an entire group. I'm gay and you sure as hell don't speak for me or any of my friends, gay or straight, nor most of DU. I certainly do thank you for your concern that we all see this as the foul defeat for LGBT Americans you see it as, but I'm not gonna. I got better things to do than attend your sad little party.

Marriage is a state issue. Until we get rid of DOMA, which is happening, the Feds can't get involved. And until we stop losing state battles for marriage equality and start winning them (the way that interracial marriage bans were being overturned right and left before Loving), it's not going to happen. And the way to win state battles is for people like the President to stand up and say I am for marriage equality. But not just him:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

We have to be visible. We have to serve our country with honor. We have to take our place in open society. And every indignity visited upon us, every injustice seen by our family and friends will only hasten the day when we cannot be denied any longer. The President is on our side. I for one am completely knocked over by that and join every other DUer who is celebrating this milestone.

[SidDithers]

55. Well said...

Sid

[rapturedbyrobots]

56. That's fine for you

but in NC, the day after Amendment One passed, it sounded like "Oh well...too bad."

[Bolo Boffin]

57. Yes, NC, the day after Amendment One passed, the President endorsed marriage equality.

You heard, "Oh, well, too bad."

I heard, "Oh, hell, no."

[rapturedbyrobots]

61. That's just it

endorse and defend are two different things

[dionysus]

69. bravo! excellent post!

[emulatorloo]

75. If I could rec your post, I would.

[dadchef]

58. This is my first post, because it seemed too important for me to stay quiet..

I can't believe what I am reading on my only site that brings me any relief from the nuts that surround me each and every day.. Our President, and yours too I add, has taken what could be the deciding factor in his reelection aspirations, and put it on the line.. I have my personal doubts about the polls that more than half of the cretins in the USA, welcome same sex marriage.. It may be so, but I know that the real fervor on the subject lives in the black hearts of the opposition, and the poor folks that live under the jackboot of the bigots.. The rest couldn't care a wit, except it sounds ok..

It's time to stand together, and work inside and out of the public view to bring this injustice to an end.. I can't believe how far this administration have brought us in the fight for gay rights and ultimate equality, in just 3 1/2 years.. GIVE ME A BREAK, WHAT OTHER MAN HAS DONE SO MUCH?

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT!

[Swede]

77. And welcome to DU

[dadchef]

78. My pleasure to have the an safe port in the violent storm..

Thank you Swede, I have been a viewer for years.. I finally signed up, but always read and research before responding to the many topics, but if I wait, some of the many experts, like you, will say exactly what I feel before I botch my emotional, uneducated response.. Better to be thought a fool, than speak up and remove all doubt..

[ecstatic]

37. The ball is rolling now

He has gone further than any other U.S. President and I'm guessing he'll go even farther if re-elected. Did you expect him to sign an executive order during the appearance? Feel free to stay home in November, I'm sure Romney will be so much better.

[rapturedbyrobots]

43. I expected him to say what matters

Its nice that he feels this way. But I also expect him to say that it doesn't matter whether he, or I , or you, or anyone else thinks same sex couples should be able to do or not. That marriage equality should be defended equally under the law.

I didn't expect him to validate Amendment One by giving a nod to states rights.

[emulatorloo]

46. Reid: Democratic party platform will include pro-gay marriage plank

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=118317

Posted by kpete:


Reid: Democratic party platform will include pro-gay marriage plank [View all]

Source: The Hill

Reid: Democratic party platform will include pro-gay marriage plank
By Alexander Bolton - 05/10/12 01:44 PM ET

The Democrats’ top leader in Congress said Thursday that the party’s platform will soon include a plank calling for the legalization of gay marriage.

“The president’s in favor of it — I’m sure it will be included,” said Reid.


..........................

President Obama said on Wednesday that same-sex marriage should be legal. He said his thinking on the topic evolved after mulling the Golden Rule.



Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/226709-reid-democratic-party-platform-will-include-pro-gay-marriage-plank

-------------

IMHO you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole by continuing to claim Obama's statement yesterday is meaningless/bad

[rapturedbyrobots]

48. That's what's up n/t

[LiberalFighter]

42. Do states have the right to dictate religous beliefs?

[rapturedbyrobots]

44. No

but they have the responsibility to defend your right to choose or not choose whatever religion you wish.

logic fail.

[K8-EEE]

53. My daughter is a medical marijuana patient here in CA so yay for states rights!!

The states however do not have a right to deny civil rights granted by the constitution-- that has already been hashed out.

[Mass]

54. Without state rights, no state at all would have gay marriage. VT and MA got the ball rolling.

I hope DOMA gets reversed quickly, but it will be by the Supreme Court, given the wonderful congress we have.

[xchrom]

59. Du rec. Nt

[treestar]

60. I don't see why states need these amendments

If they have no gay marriage, why do the need a "law" or "amendment" against it? They are afraid the voters want it, and so they go for a 'constitutional' amendment that it can't be done. But if they can change their Constitution by plesbecite, then they can change the laws.

[morningfog]

66. It is to pre-empt courts, exercise bigotry, intimidate and

make it harder to change legislatively.

[randome]

70. Legislative bullying.

[SteveG]

67. It's a beginning

It's a major first step. It's like Truman's integrating the Military. He didn't end segregation, but he ended it in the Military. Eisenhower went a little bit further, as did Kennedy. LBJ's great saving grace was that he went all in, but he knew that American People were mostly ready for it. Obama has ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell. he won't defend DOMA and now he supports Gay Marriage in principal. Taken all together, that is huge.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. It's a legitimate criticism and I thought it diminished the annoucement somewhat, BUT

Lets be fair to the POTUS here...

1) He has demonstrated clear initiative on the federal level by not defending DOMA in court

2) Though he said it is a state issue, he has stated a clear preference for how states OUGHT to handle the issue by consistently opposing gay marriage bans on the state level.

3) If the Supreme Court does one day rule that marriage equality is a fundamental right that can be derived from the US constitution, it's likely that justices he has appointed will be on the majority side.

And with all due respect, what the fuck has Dick Cheney ever done for gay rights?

[emulatorloo]

76. Good post. BTW, Cheney talking point appears to have originated with log cabin republicans

Log Cabin Republicans: Obama Announcing Support For Marriage Equality Is ‘Offensive And Callous’
By Zack Ford on May 9, 2012 at 3:42 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/09/481318/lcr-obama-marriage/?mobile=nc

The Log Cabin Republicans’ R. Clarke Cooper was quick to try to discredit Obama’s announcement supporting marriage equality today, calling it “cold comfort” and “offensive and callous” in the immediate wake of Amendment One’s passage in North Carolina:

COOPER: That the president has chosen today, when LGBT Americans are mourning the passage of Amendment One, to finally speak up for marriage equality is offensive and callous. Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch. This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign’s ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short.

Though LCR claims not to endorse candidates, this absurd attack suggests the group would rather stand with Mitt Romney, who has pledged to support a federal marriage amendment banning same-sex marriage nationwide. Coming from a group whose mission is to “secure full equality for gays and lesbians,” this is a stunning example of petty partisan politics.

--------------------------

Several DU'ers seemed to have latched on to this talking point, despite the inane absurdity of it.

[bhikkhu]

80. ...as defined by the constitution

That's kind of a job requirement.

[ibegurpard]

84. don't care

The President of the United States came out in favor of gay marriage is what is being talked about. all the parsing in the world is not going to diminish the significance of that.