Now Let’s Watch Obama Reconcile His Views on Gay Marriage (Whatever They Are) With His Past Statements and Yesterday’s Gay Marriage Decision
The text of Prop. 8:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. . . . I’m not someone who promotes same-sex marriage.
From the White House statement on Vaughn Walker’s decision:
The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.
From the White House web site in January 2009:
President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.
Will any reporter ask him about all of this?
Don’t worry, Patterico. The MSM will write long love notes about how these are not contradictory statements. After all, remember, if you criticize anything the President says or does, why, you must be uncomfortable with his race. Possibly a racist.
Sadly, the President is an empty suit filled with a whirlwind of entitlement and self-congratulation. So he doesn’t see any contradiction either.
Sort of like a prior President arguing about the meaning of the word “is.”
Hopefully, enough voters will wake up to give a real wake up call to the Democrats. We’ll see.
Comment by Eric Blair — 8/5/2010 @ 7:24 am
Him be perfectly
clear it like He always say
it fault of georgebush
Comment by ColonelHaiku — 8/5/2010 @ 7:32 am
“victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”
What more needs to be said on Obama’s position?
I mean, hell, black turnout in California was bumped up because of the election of obama, and it was believed that the extra black voters, voting for Obama and against gay marriage put them over the top. Literally, if Hillary was running, prop 8 might have failed.
Comment by Aaron Worthing (A.W.) — 8/5/2010 @ 7:47 am
No.
Comment by Lc Scott — 8/5/2010 @ 8:05 am
Whatever his reply is, it will certainly begin with “I’ve said all along”……
Comment by Gary Wishon — 8/5/2010 @ 8:11 am
Let me be perfectly clear.
Comment by Mike K — 8/5/2010 @ 8:14 am
There will actually be one reporter who attempts to ask him this obvious question – but since he’ll be Major Garrett of Fox News, he will be summarily ignored, despite his new seating arrangements at the very front of the room (courtesy of Gollum’s denouement).
Comment by Dmac — 8/5/2010 @ 8:14 am
Good one, Dr. Capt!
Dmac,
What have you got againsst Sméagol, comparing it to such a hideous creature?
Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 8/5/2010 @ 8:19 am
Can we go back to calling them queers now? That’s what they call themselves, so why should we be different.
As in openly queer judge strikes down queer marriage ban.
Isn’t that a conflict of interest ???
Comment by bill-tb — 8/5/2010 @ 8:25 am
He will not rest until the matter is cleared up.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/5/2010 @ 8:31 am
Comment by Dmac — 8/5/2010 @ 8:14 am
Isn’t Major on vacation?
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 8/5/2010 @ 8:40 am
While we have already as a group provided the outline of what he will say, there is one thing, a bit more challenging, that I propose.
We know he will start his response by setting up a straw man to tear down so he can make an argument that sounds good to many people who can be fooled most of the time, the hard part is predicting what the straw man will be. That is my challenge. Perhaps we can give an award to who comes closest.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/5/2010 @ 8:51 am
Isn’t Major on vacation?
I have no idea – I stopped watching WH press events well over a year ago, when Gibbs refused to answer Garrett’s questions regarding the WH’s illegal gathering of citizen’s e – mail addresses. Watch Garrett’s facial expressions when Gibbs pulls his condescending douchebag schtick on him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Lni4ytFt4
Comment by Dmac — 8/5/2010 @ 9:21 am
His lips will be moving, so discount his words and focus on his actions
Comment by ian cormac — 8/5/2010 @ 9:33 am
um…. errr….. ahhh….. unprecedented……mmmm… etc.
Comment by redc1c4 — 8/5/2010 @ 10:28 am
MD …The strawman he will slay when commenting on this will be “civil rights” ie, anyone who opposes this invalidation of 7 million votes is against civil rights.
But hey what do I know he has only murdered me a million times on national TV.
Comment by SomeSay the Strawmarian — 8/5/2010 @ 10:52 am
SomeSay, you should get protected minority status. There is a box for “imaginary” under race, right?
Comment by Vivian Louise — 8/5/2010 @ 11:30 am
Whatever his reply is, it will certainly begin with “I’ve said all along”……
and
“Let me perfectly clear”, …. (unclear gibberish follows)
He is against SSM the same way he’s against socialism. Not for it until it happens, at which time
Comment by Travis Monitor — 8/5/2010 @ 11:33 am
I wonder if anyone will bother to point out that there is no law on the books that actually recognizes gay marriage, just one that doesn’t recognize it and was struck down. IOW, just because this idiot judge struck down Prop. 8 doesn’t meant that same-sex marriage can begin immediately, does it?
Comment by Icy Texan — 8/5/2010 @ 11:42 am
off topic follow up on a DRJ post from a couple weeks ago
Comment by happyfeet — 8/5/2010 @ 11:56 am
President Obama has been trying to have it both ways on this issue forever; why should anything change?
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2010 @ 11:57 am
Icy Texan – absent a stay pending appeal, it does mean that gay marriages in California would resume immediately. (There is currently a stay pending a determination on the stay pending appeal).
The California Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution’s equal protection clause treats discrimination based on sexual orientation as a suspect classification, and that the state is required to recognize gay marriages.
Prop. 8 prohibited gay ‘marriage’, but the state supreme court’s decision interpreting Proposition 8 read it as narrowly as possible – basically, gay ‘marriage’ isn’t allowed, but the state is still required as a matter of state constitutional law to provide gay couples with legal recognition equivalent to marriage. Proposition 8, in the court’s view, only effected the use of the word ‘marriage’.
So with Proposition 8 overturned, state law is returned to what it was before Proposition 8 was passed – eg, the in re Marriage Cases ruling which read gay marriage into the state constitution.
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2010 @ 12:00 pm
Obama’s strawman will be the example of his own mixed marriage. He wed and Klingon and so far it’s worked out alright.
Comment by ropelight — 8/5/2010 @ 12:03 pm
aphrael, that would be the ludicrous CA state supreme court ruling that asserted over 100(?) times that there is a “constitutional right to marriage,” even though such a right is NEVER asserted in ANY part of the CA constitution?
Yeah, great.
Comment by Icy Texan — 8/5/2010 @ 12:07 pm
(Channelling BBJF, circa post #8:)
What have you got against Klingons, comparing them to such a hideously spiteful creature?
Comment by rtrski — 8/5/2010 @ 12:10 pm
Icy Texan: why would it be anything different? The state supreme court’s interpretation of the state constitution generally stands immune to federal re-interpretation.
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2010 @ 12:12 pm
Ropelight,
You owe me a monitor.
Comment by Virtual Insanity — 8/5/2010 @ 1:17 pm
I think “SomeSay the Strawmarian” is on the right track, it will be about how the judicial system has protected civil rights against “bigoted and hateful homophobes” and will include a statement on how this brings about basic fairness to our society and does nothing to upset the foundational role of marriage in Western Society.
He will also say something about how this shows leaving the matter up to the states is the proper thing to do, even though such a statement is in direct contradiction to the reality of the situation, that the issue was not left up to the state but was taken to federal court.
Any reference to previous statements will be handled by ignoring the request or pretending such comments were never made.
If the question is raised as to how we can reconcile favorable treatment to Muslims who favor Sharia law and same sex marriage we will be told “this is what’s great about a pluralistic society” and leave it at that.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/5/2010 @ 1:52 pm
Actually, all kidding aside, the authority for allowing gay marriage resides in the Federal government’s responsibility to ensure equal protection so state and local government can impose a tax (in the form of a fee) for a marriage license.
There you have it, if men and women have to pay a fee in order to make their marriage contract legal, then it would be unequal and discriminatory to deny any other American or undocumented human being of any race, religion, or parole status, the equal opportunity to pay the same tax as descent people.
Comment by ropelight — 8/5/2010 @ 2:21 pm
ropelight- I’m not quite sure what point you are making, and exactly how you are using language. The argument is that no one is being prohibited from marriage, anyone can marry a willing eligible partner, which means a person of the opposite sex, whether they are a “decent” person or not.
If someone wants to enter into a contract with a person of the same sex that is somewhat analagous to marriage, that is, according to one view, something different from “marriage” as it has been known for thousands of years.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/5/2010 @ 2:31 pm
Team D should articulate its position on gay marriagings for the world to see.
It’s funee how a lot of Team D politicians try to avoid the subject and instead talk about religious freaks on Team R.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/5/2010 @ 2:37 pm
Walker’s stupidly argued decision, whether upheld or not, may hopefully spell the end of the stupid hate crime laws where people are treated unequally under the law based on gender, race and sexual orientation.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/5/2010 @ 2:39 pm
MD in Philly, assume my tongue is firmly in my cheek, that my fingers are crossed, and that I’m speaking gibberish.
Comment by ropelight — 8/5/2010 @ 2:42 pm
If my understanding of Prop. 8 is correct, it sounds to me like Obama is channelling one of the standard viewpoints on this whole thing:
1)Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman and therefore it is impossible for a gay/lesbian couple to marry.
2)Gay/lesbian couples are entitled to receive all the legal benefits of marriage, so civil unions should be legal.
In other words, they should be able to marry but not allowed to actually call it marriage.
This is premised on what I understand Prop. 8 to have entailed–that it ruled out not only marriage per se for gay couples but also marriages by any other name (ie, civil unions).
(Californians, please speak up if I am wrong.)
Which would allow someone to be against gay marriage but for civil unions and against Prop. 8 at the same time without any logical inconsistency.
Isn’t Major on vacation?
And now for a more important question, because the answer is not predictable: how does someone end up with “Major” as a first name
Comment by kishnevi — 8/5/2010 @ 4:15 pm
Your understanding of Proposition 8 is wrong, kishnevi.
Proposition 8 did not say anything whatsoever about civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. It *only* referred to ‘marriage’.
California had, by that time, had domestic partnerships-as-marriage-equivalents for several years, and attempts to qualify a ballot measure repelaing them had repeatedly failed to qualify. (Those marriage-equivalent domestic partnerships were enacted by the state legislature, not by the courts).
The advertising and political rhetoric around the amendment made it quite clear that it referred only to marriages, not civil unions or domestic partnerships.
The state supreme court, when called upon to interpret the measure in Strauss v Horton, said that it applied entirely to the *name* ‘marriage’, and that the state constitution still required marriage-equivalent status.
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2010 @ 4:20 pm
Kishnevi, to follow up, here’s what Protect Marriage (one of the lead sponsors of Proposition
has to say on the subject:
Ballot arguments
“Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 DID NOT change this.”
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2010 @ 4:26 pm
Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses.
Then, why the fight over “marriage”?
Is it so you can be “divorced”?
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 8/5/2010 @ 4:56 pm
AD – I wouldn’t have brought the suit, so I’m not quite sure what the motivation is.
I think at the end of the day, however, it boils down to:
(a) “domestic partnership” is harder to explain to third parties than “marriage” is (which is a stupid thing to be concerned about – call your relationship a marriage and don’t bother explaining further unless challenged).
(b) “domestic partnership” isn’t portable to other states, even those states which recognize gay marriage, while “marriage” would be.
(c) a feeling that the change embodied in Proposition 8 was explicitly intended to be discriminatory.
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2010 @ 5:09 pm
(c)…Then they must have felt that the Status Quo Ante that Prop-8 returned us to was a priori discrimitory?
To me, that attitude would not be one of seeking rights denied, but thumbing one’s nose at tradition.
They’re going to love Shariah!
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! — 8/5/2010 @ 5:16 pm
Prop 8 didn’t actually restore the status quo ante. Large sections of In re Marriage Cases remain binding, including: (a) strict scrutiny for discrimination based on sexual orientation; and (b) a constitutional requirement for marriage-equivalent status.
That said, certainly almost everyone who thinks that Proposition 8 was intended to be discriminatory also thought that the status quo ante was discriminatory.
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2010 @ 5:18 pm
Allahpundit ridicules Obama’s advisor’s attempt to explain the hypocrisy.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2010 @ 6:27 pm
SPQR: Good! The Obama administration’s position on this is incoherent and deserving of ridicule.
Comment by aphrael — 8/5/2010 @ 6:35 pm
aphrael, Obama’s positions on this topic have shown us all the real core of his character, I believe.
Comment by SPQR — 8/5/2010 @ 6:50 pm
Comment by ropelight
Thank you for relieving me of one mystery for the day.
I think the constant drone of Newspeak is starting to get to me.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/5/2010 @ 7:35 pm
the real core of his character
That assumes there is a core there at all.
Aphrael, thanks for the correction. I revise my opinion to this: Obama’s views are so incoherent even he probably doesn’t know what they are–all he has done is spout verbiage on the subject that he hopes will gain audience approval.
Comment by kishnevi — 8/5/2010 @ 9:07 pm
Comment by JD — 8/5/2010 @ 9:12 pm
Will any reporter ask him about all of this?
Exactly when has this President (or even as a candidate) opened himself up to a real interrogatory ?
Comment by Neo — 8/6/2010 @ 5:05 am
Only Gibson in the spring, really got close, and the
Journolist told him, not to do it again
Comment by ian cormac — 8/6/2010 @ 5:23 am
He seems a social chauvinist and reactionary but
a political radical, his willingness to disparage
the women who raised him, his contempt for female rivals, all bear that out
Comment by ian cormac — 8/6/2010 @ 5:26 am
Marriage/Schmarriage,
as long as they can’t donate Blood…
not if they answer the form truthfully anyway..
Frank
Comment by Frank Drackman — 8/7/2010 @ 11:27 am