Please consider for a moment, what if these had been the remarks made.

[Pab Sungenis]

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 women should be able to control their own bodies. Now-- I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn't want to nationalize the issue. There's a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.

And what you're seeing is, I think, states working through this issue-- in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that's a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level.

If it had been that women should be able to terminate a pregnancy, but it should be left up to the states to decide the issue, then would celebration be warranted?

[Ian David]

1. Before Roe v Wade, that would have been great. Today? Not so much.

But there hasn't been a Marriage Equality Roe v Wade decision yet.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Yes. If that statement had been made by JFK, I would have celebrated it.

Up until 1973, the right to end a pregnancy was decided by each state.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. And should it have been?

Let's take another look. If LBJ had said this in 1964:

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 negroes should have equal rights. Now-- I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn't want to nationalize the issue. There's a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.

And what you're seeing is, I think, states working through this issue-- in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that's a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, race relations.

That is not cause for celebrating. Signing the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act were.

I will not celebrate the President enshrining states rights. I will celebrate when he signs an appeal of DOMA, or when he appoints someone to the Supreme Court who doesn't say that there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage and their vote tips the balance.

[DonCoquixote]

4. states right

Funny how the medical Marijuana types are all for states rights when it comes to getting their precious "medicine." as for as this statement:

"I will not celebrate the President enshrining states rights. I will celebrate when he signs an appeal of DOMA, or when he appoints someone to the Supreme Court who doesn't say that there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage and their vote tips the balance."

DOMA I will agree, and as far as the Supremes, there will be no tipping of the balance until at least two of the current right wingers are replaced, something that will not happen with President Romney.

[Pab Sungenis]

6. Will it even happen with President Obama?

Remember, he replaced one of the most pro-gay Justices even with Elena "No Constitutional right to same sex marriage" Kagan.

Sadly, I think we'll have to wait until President 2017 gets his/her first appointments to see anything resembling a move towards equality from the Court. And by then it might be too late since we'll have 8 or 9 "centrist to conservative" Justices to replace instead of 7.

[emulatorloo]

10. When push comes to shove, Kagen will not over-rule a State Supreme Court

which has declared anti-marriage equality amendments are unconstitutional because you can't legislate taking away people's civil rights.

[DonCoquixote]

13. funny ho everyone ignores sotomayor

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/sonia-sotomayor-10-things_n_207724.html

Long-time gay legal activist Paula Ettelbrick said she met Sotomayor in about 1991 when they both served on then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo's advisory committee on fighting bias.


"Nobody wanted to talk to the queer person at that time," said Ettelbrick, who represented Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "She was the only one [on the advisory committee] who made a point to come over and introduce herself. She was totally interested [in gay civil rights issues] and supportive."

"From everything I know, Judge Sotomayor is an outstanding choice - fair and aware, open and judicious," said Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marry organization. "I believe she has the demonstrated commitment to principles of equal protection and inclusion that defines a good nominee to the Supreme Court. In choosing Judge Sotomayor, the first Latino candidate for the Supreme Court, President Obama has made a strong and appealing nomination that should and will receive the supportof those committed to equality for lesbians and gay men."

[emulatorloo]

5. Have you forgotten that Justice Dept is not enforcing DOMA?

And that there are plans/legislation to repeal it? And Obama is backing this?

I am glad to hear you remember the role of the courts for bringing about racial equality.

We've seen similar results with marriage equality. State supreme courts have declared anti-marriage equality laws and amendments unconstitutional. On the grounds that you can not legislate away people's civil rights. The NC amendment will not survive a court challenge.

There is continuing momentum in that direction. Eventually one of these amendments will come before the Supreme Court. I seriously doubt either of the Obama appointed justices would overrule a state courts ruling that legislating away people's civil rights is unconstitutional.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. No I haven't.

And as I said, when Obama signs DOMA repeal I will celebrate.

This announcement is not cause for celebration. At least not on the scale some are demanding.

[emulatorloo]

11. When Obama signed DADT repeal, some DU'ers said it was nothing to celebrate

because Obama did not believe in marriage equality.

Every advance/initiative the Obama admin worked towards or accomplished in the area of gay rights was "meaningless" because Obama was "really an anti-gay bigot who does not believe in marriage equality".

So now we have accomplishments and a clear statement that he was wrong and and a clear statement that he believes strongly in marriage equality.

But what I am hearing from some DU'ers now is

- Obama admin accomplishments and efforts are "meaningless"
- Obama statement of support for marriage equality is "meaningless"

If you don't want to celebrate the fact that Obama is the first president to say he supports marriage equality, that's fine.

But it is a pretty significant historical event and it is going to have some very positive repercussions.

[Pab Sungenis]

15. Obama has a mixed record on gay rights.

He signed DADT, but only when his back was to the wall.

He threw us a lot of little bones and a lot of eyewash early on, while belittling us, insulting us, and giving face time to anti-gay pastors like Rick Warren.

And what he said isn't what you think he said, either. He isn't calling for marriage equality he's for maintaining the status quo where our rights are up for popular vote, something that would not be tolerated if said about any other minority.

[emulatorloo]

20. "He signed DADT, but only when his back was to the wall." Unmitigated bullshit.

[Pab Sungenis]

21. He had just lost the House.

The Congressional leadership knew it was then or never.

The Obama Administration was defending the policy and still kicking people out until the very last second.

[MNBrewer]

29. Please clarify your statement

The Justice Department is not enforcing DOMA, or not defending it?

There is an important distinction.

[MNBrewer]

31. 2nd request for clarification. Is the Justice Dept. not enforcing DOMA or not?

My understanding is that they ARE enforcing DOMA, while not defending it in court.

[Pab Sungenis]

32. There isn't really much enforcement for them TO do.

The main problem with DOMA is the amount of power it gives to the states. And other divisions of the Federal Government (like the IRS) ARE enforcing DOMA.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. I'm not going to argue about whether something 'should' be or not. The facts

are that prior to 1973, abortion was decided by the states. Prior to 1964, 'civil rights' for blacks were decided by the states. And currently states are deciding 'gay marriage'.

Seems like the states have always had the right to muck things up, until such time that a case appears and the feds take action.

[emulatorloo]

12. And that is pretty much what it is going to take - a court decision. And it will happen.

[xchrom]

9. du rec. nt

[emulatorloo]

14. WAPO: As Obama backs gay marriage, House GOP tries to limit gay-friendly policies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014118133

As Obama backs gay marriage, House GOP tries to limit gay-friendly policies

Source: Washington Post

On the same day President Obama became the first president to fully embrace same-sex marriage, House Republicans once again approved measures that limit Obama administration policy decisions and federal policies favorable to gays and lesbians.

House Republicans voted Wednesday night to bar the Justice Department from using any federal funds to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act. They added the prohibitions to an appropriations measure. The Obama administration last year said it would no longer defend the federal law that bans the recognition of same-sex marriage because it considers the legislation unconstitutional.

Also Wednesday night, the House Armed Services Committee voted to bar gay and lesbian service members from getting married or holding “marriage-like” ceremonies at military facilities.

Both measures, or similar bills, have been introduced or successfully added to appropriations and authorization measures in recent years, but the proposals are often dropped as part of negotiations over a final version of the bill with Senate Democrats

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/obama-backs-gay-marriage-house-gop-tries-rolling-back-gay-friendly-policies/2012/05/10/gIQAOKpLFU_blog.html

[Pab Sungenis]

16. And will Obama veto either bill?

This is the difference between words and deeds. If he's serious, let him veto these bills.

[emulatorloo]

17. First those provisions will never reach his desk. >Democrats< in the Senate will strip them out

Second you continue to refuse to acknowledge THE DEED: The Obama admin says DOMA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and the justice department is refusing to enforce it.

That is a DEED, whether you acknowledge it or not.

That WAPO article is a reality check regarding who the real enemies of gay rights.

The article is quite EXPLICIT that the gay-friendly policies Republicans are trying to reverse are policies/DEEDS of the Obama admin.

[Pab Sungenis]

18. Refusing to enforce it?

Try filing a joint Federal tax return as a married male-male couple. See how long they "refuse to enforce" it.

I repeat my question: will Obama veto either of those bills? Will he even THREATEN to veto those bills?

[emulatorloo]

19. July 19, 2011

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.”

The issue has become politically dicey for Obama as he and his Republican rivals ramp up for the 2012 campaign season. The president was booed last month during an appearance in New York, when he told a gay audience that “traditionally, marriage has been decided by the states.” Forty-one states currently ban same-sex marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage have decried the Justice Department’s refusal to defend the law as an unjustified political move.

Daniel Blomberg, an attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, denounced the administration’s decision.

“Our perspective is that it’s not only incorrect, but deeply disappointing, to have a politician claim support for marriage between one man and one woman on the campaign trail, then actively undermine that once in office,” said Blomberg, whose organization will testify in support of DOMA during Wednesday’s Senate hearing. “We are confident Congress will make the right decision here.”

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.”

--------

I am starting to find it very difficult to understand your need to pretend that Obama is anti-gay despite all evidence to the contrary.

There have been words and deeds. You seem to want to deny the deeds and pretend the words don't matter.

I understand the frustration that marriage equality does not exist now. I share it. I don't understand the need to continue to paint the Obama admin as anti-gay when the facts do not support that position.

[Pab Sungenis]

22. And if that passes, and he signs it

Then it is something worth celebrating. Not now.

[emulatorloo]

24. You know the path to that happening - GOTV

I will be doing everything I can to make sure we strengthen our majority in the Senate and take back the house.

[Pab Sungenis]

25. As will I.

But some of our Democrats don't make it too easy.

[emulatorloo]

27. I hear you on aggravating Democrats.

See you there.

[justiceischeap]

23. I don't see Pab suggesting Obama is anti-gay

I see Pab expressing what many in the gay community feel--that for as supportive as Obama claims to be he hasn't really done much. Granted, he's done more than any other President but that's only because no other President has done anything positive, so the bar was pretty low to begin with. The things he has done don't do much to effect the majority of the gay community (most of the things he's done only effect Federal employees) and those things he has done can be undone as soon as a Repub pres is elected. That is the issue for me and why I don't jump for joy every time Obama does something positive for the LGBTQ community--most of it just has no effect on MY daily life.

Your arguing that Obama has "done so much" doesn't mean much when the next Repub comes into office and strips away all he has done. If he doesn't win in November, and I hope he does, the only thing he'll have left the LGBTQ community with is the Matthew Shepard Act (amazing), the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act (amazing) and the repeal of DADT (rock on). Everything else can be undone with the stroke of a Presidential pen. If any other legislation was passed that I've missed, please correct me.

So, as much as he's done, and it HAS been a lot, only 3 three will continue to effect the overall LGBTQ community when we get a Repub president (provided that that President doesn't push for repeal of any or all of that legislation). There's a lot of things left to do for the LGBTQ community and we can't be complacent about that and if saying that it isn't enough, don't blame us for wanting more... like full equality. I, for one, won't rest until that happens. I'd love to see ENDA passed, I'd love to see marriage equality go to the USSC (because that's where it will really be decided because it SHOULDN'T be a states right issue even though it technically is).

[emulatorloo]

26. I agree wholeheartedly with 95% of your post

In terms of the tactical issues, the necessity to get things into law, and I agree it is going to take a court case for marriage equality to finally be recognized legally as what it is: A civil rights issue.

I also understand that much of what Obama has done on his own can be taken away by the next President.

On the other hand several posts back, Pab Sungenis claims Obama was forced against his will to sign DADT. So he is unable to concede that Obama admin has done anything.

In other threads he has insinuated that Obama will appoint right wing reactionaries to the Supreme Court during his second term.

Which he is certainly entitled to do. I really wish all this anti-marriage-equality shit was over too.

[Pab Sungenis]

28. I did no such thing.

I said that he only signed DADT repeal when his back was to the wall. If he had his choice on timing, I'm sure he would have dragged it out as long as possible but signed in the end.

As for right wing reactionaries, his two choices have moved the Court even further to the right. Sotomayor is more "centrist" than Souter was, and Kagan (who I consider a disgrace) is considerably to the right of John Paul Stevens. What do we have to suggest he'll actually appoint a liberal in his second term, especially to replace a conservative? I'll tell you: nothing. It's just taken as an article of faith by many on here.

[emulatorloo]

30. Obama called on that Congress to repeal DADT. Your assertion is pure speculation

January 2010 SOTU:

An End To "Don't Ask Don't Tell"?

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said that he will ask Congress and the military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve, without hiding their sexuality.

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

"I said that he only signed DADT repeal when his back was to the wall. If he had his choice on timing, I'm sure he would have dragged it out as long as possible but signed in the end."

Your speculation and "mind-reading" are not facts. No matter how many times you try to assert that they are.

As to Supreme Court Judges:

"What do we have to suggest he'll actually appoint a liberal in his second term, especially to replace a conservative? I'll tell you: nothing. It's just taken as an article of faith by many on here."

I find it VERY DIFFICULT to believe that having come out strongly on the side of marriage equality, Obama is going to appoint judges who are anti-marriage equality. It doesn't make sense. That's not 'faith', that is logic.

If you work to get a stronger Democratic majority in the Senate, it will makes it much more likely Obama can get a liberal judge on the bench. I am sure you remember how difficult the Republicans have made getting Obama appointees approved.

Here's my prediction: when Ted Olson and David Boies [or some other lawyers defending a state supreme court decision (Iowa, etc)] present their arguments to the Supreme Court, Sotomayor and Kagan will affirm and support the ruling of the California Supreme Court that Due Process and Equal Protection make restriction of marriage equality unconstitutional.