http://www.theonion.com/articles/town-of-davenport-iowa-descends-into-hell-followin,19446/

New York, I thought thee be informed. Sorry to see you go.

:-P

Because MSNBC, for reasons that are unfathomable, is the prison fetish channel. You wouldn't know this if you only watch Rachel and Keith, uh, Rachel Maddow online like I do. I discovered this fact by visiting a friend who watches MSNBC on cable. It seems to be "all prison, all the time" on MSNBC.

The reason MSNBC is the Prison Fetish Channel is because that is how it competes with Fox News for for the excessively butch Law and Order demographic. Their way of doing penance for having intelligent thoughtful left wing commentary. Left Wing Commentary + Prison Shows = Fox News.

Yeah pretty much Don. Ed said on his radio show that Lockup gets more than 3x the viewership of Fox or CNN combined.

I cannot stand "Lockup" but the ratings bear Ed out, and Ed should know. Lockup at 10pm on Friday night usually beats any of his in the same time slot M-Th.

Besides they are on a per-unit/ useful-life basis cheaper. Once in the can they may be re-run 'til the cows come home.

Kansas? Oh you have my sympathies. Don't look for it anytime soon. Unless you get rid of Brownback.

Trust me; I would oust that horrible person if I could. I'm ashamed to be born in the same city as the man. It's all part of being from the same state that started the Prohibition revolution. At least I know that the average Kansan stands for my rights even if the psychotic, right-wing, anti-choice terrorists don't.

The Assembly voted on the new version earlier tonight, about one hour before the Senate did - the new version was printed out at about 2 pm

Gov Cuomo signed the bill. It's done.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/06/25/ny_gov_cuomo_signs_gay_marriage_law/

lily285etc

Thank you. Now I see how they did it. The reporting on it all week and especially Friday left out the mechanical data and for a legislative mechanic like me that information is important.

Thank you, too, GrrrlRomeo. It is another step forward.

I feel better now. No, actually now I feel great! :o)

The "religious exemption" is problematic, in its own right. Shall we next have a religious exemption for DUI laws?

Anyway, I'd love to be up at the campground my oldest goes to each wkend. & Holiday through the summer with his partner. There's lot of NY people there & I can't wait to find out how many will be applying for marriage licenses.

EQUALITY!

@Gary, that makes no sense.

@Gary. Swing and a miss, troll.

Boys, play nice nice....okay?....we have to respect all mental capacities remember...

Simply because you don't understand an issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist, can't be understood, or hasn't been explained. I'll elaborate. Religious organizations have been exempted from this law. We don't do that for any other laws. Religious organizations are required to abide by the law, and exemptions of this type are very nearly unprecedented. Suppose a church runs a food bank. That food bank cannot discriminate on the basis of race for hiring, nor for serving clients. Under this law, it appears that religious organizations could deny the lawful spouses of any homosexual and married food bank employees the health insurance benefits that they offer to their other heterosexual and married employees.

I presume that your motivation for calling me a troll is that you are a religious apologist of some sort. Feel free to elaborate on exactly why you think religious people shouldn't be required to live by the same laws as the rest of society. That should be entertaining.

That's a good question. To be clear, religious organizations already can limit or be preferencial in employment. I know members are turned down for employment or voluntary work because of their divorce status. It doesn't say anything about not abiding by state benefits laws IF they hired someone from a same sex marriage.

NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL LIMIT OR DIMINISH THE [existing] RIGHT,... TO LIMIT EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELIGION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED OR MAINTAINED.

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8520-2011

The other part of the ammendment deals with action protection from denying services and such for the purposes of ceremony or celebration of same sex marriages.

Oh, and Gary.

Religious organizations have been exempted from this law. We don't do that for any other laws

The Amish can claim exemption from mandated health insurance partly because they don't pay into, nor will receive entitlement benefits later in life.

Federal health care reform will require most Northern New Yorkers — but not all, it turns out — to carry health insurance or risk a fine.

Hundreds of Amish families in the region are likely to be free from that requirement.

The Amish, as well as some other religious sects, are covered by a "religious conscience" exemption, which allows people with religious objections to insurance to opt out of the mandate. It is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, making its appearance in the final version routine unless there are last-minute objections.

Although the Amish consist of several branches, some more conservative than others, they generally rely upon a community ethic that disdains government assistance. Families rely upon one another, and communities pitch in to help neighbors pay health care expenses.

…Lawmakers reportedly included the provision at the urging of Amish constituents, although the legislation does not specify that community and the provision could apply to other groups as well, including Old Order Mennonites and perhaps Christian Scientists.

…Congressional aides said the exemption is based on a carve-out the Amish have had from Social Security and Medicare taxes since the 1960s. Whether Amish businesses, however, would fall under the bill's mandates is still an open question.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who was a key negotiator on the Senate bill, supports the religious exemption, said a spokesman, Maxwell Young, who called the provision a "no brainer." ~Watertowndailytimes

locknpost - Fascinating tidbit about the Amish-inspired religious exemption from the health care reform act. Apparently this is a new trend which must be resisted by all those who wish to defend western civilization from the forces of theocratic domination.

The Amish don't show up at emergency rooms for treatment that the rest of society will pay for through premiums and higher health care costs. Good of 'em. Now THAT'S faith in their clan and Lord, to care for their own.

Thanks GrrrlRomeo, now to get CA back "online", eh?

A big court case in the system and a question on the 2012 ballot, gay marriage will be won in CA by one of those avenues.

sandyc Yes! What is it about moving into the 21st century that folks cannot wrap their heads around?

CA needs to get on board!

I'm already married in Aug. '08, so still have issues with Federal taxes and such, not the State of CA. My employer/group insurance will not add my wife to Health Insurance without "imputed income tax" for that amount and I cannot get them to allow a female "spouse", just domestic partner. It's the laws, I suppose. This will eventually get ironed out, but it's a bit aggravating.

And yes Grrrl & Maggie, I think CA may have a different outcome if another vote was taken and/or the court decision changes things. The people are coming around, but they get stuck with laws because their beliefs. There will always be those beliefs, but the laws cannot use religious beliefs or "traditional" to define (smokescreen for religious beliefs) marriage and be consistent with the Constitution. Tradition was once only same race couples could marry. I could go on, but I won't this time

Hrm... I wonder if the churches might next seek exemptions for recognizing the marriages of Asians and African Americans... and liberals while they are at it.

@Gary, who cares what they THINK! Religious leaders will no more be able to block NYers right to marry whom they love any more than atheists would be able to block others' freedom to practice a religion. To each their own within their rights, as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights.

Hrm... I wonder if the churches might next seek exemptions for recognizing the marriages of Asians and African Americans... and liberals while they are at it.

They don't need to seek exemptions. Clergy can't be forced to conduct rites outside of their faith (it's a First Amendment thing.)

@locknpost - You may have missed an important part of this news. The law which passed included an exemption for religious organizations - they are not required to recognize homosexual marriages as legitimate. So, it matters what the religious leaders think. This was never a question of, for example, requiring the Catholic church to perform marriages for homosexual couples. It's a question of homosexual Church employees receiving the same rights to spousal benefits as other heterosexual employees, for example.

@Gary - I might be mistaken, but I thought churches could already refuse to hire gay people. If churches do not hire them (us), there is no question about spousal benefits.

My good friend Liz Cooper was on CBS news Saturday morning explaining that the exemption was about not requiring religious institutions that oppose gay marriage to marry gay couples. She did not mention anything about not providing spousal benefits. I am not sure what the exact wording of the amendment is, but I do plan to read it.

NY State Republicans passed gay marriage. It passed with a Republican majority in the NY Senate.

What are u trying to do reform the repub party? Repubs are nothing but racists. Always have been and always will be. Gay republicans helped put gay marriage bans in 30 states. Trying to blame the Pres for the lazy advocacy of gays is repugnant. Funny how gay advocates let their own put these bans in 30 states. Now it is the Pres's fault. Some people have some serious mental issues.

Nothing has changed because a state had some repubs push a vote for this. Silly to suggest anything different.

I actually think that there are things that are slowly changing. Republicans (at least a few of them) realized that they should act in the interests of their constituents, 60% of whom statewide said in polls that they support equal rights for LGBT folks. While I do NOT think it appropriate to leave it up to the people to determine whether I have access to rights that should be guaranteed by the Constitution, I do think this is a good indication that public pressure can get a few politicians to respond in accordance with public preferences. I am still naive enough to think that this is how the process should work.

... now if only they would also act on public polling, which overwhelmingly indicates support for taxing the wealthy, reducing concessions to oil companies, union rights, and (a slimmer majority for) choice.

Oh, I'm still not going to vote Republican. But homophobic, racist Democrats aren't going to scare me with a GOP boogeyman. They can go find another political football.

......actually the majority of the Democratic party does worry about gay rights issues. They worry about black issues, too. I am sick and tired of you pretending like there are no gay blacks and that gays asking for equal rights is somehow a bad thing. NEWSFLASH: gays asking for their rights doesn't mean you're losing your rights.

Illinois just passed a civil unions law so we are getting there, albeit slowly. Republicans have said they will repeal the law and the ban on the death penalty when they take control of the Illinois legislature. But that appears to be a very remote possibility. The next state elections will be in 2014. The Republicans lost the last elections and we have a Dem governor along with a Dem legislature. Maybe we will get to a marriage law down the road.

The overlap between religion and party membership in the United States of America shouldn't obscure the fact that the root of the social authoritarianism here is religion.  

This idea that somehow we shouldn't call into question these patently bad ideas for fear of offending people, for fear of glossing over their despair, for fear of not criticizing other problems in the world -- I would never argue that religion is the only problem in the world or the only source of human conflict-- but it is a source, and we are mightily attached to it, emotionally attached to it, and we are loath to criticize it even when it is declaring its ugliest intentions and its ugliest certainties.  The problem with the bible is, however you pick and choose, whether you're a literalist or a selective literalist the problem is there is just a mountain of divisive nonsense in there and that's where people get ideas about homosexuality being an abomination and why our country in the 21st century debates gay marriage as though it were the great moral issue of our time,  this is coming from religion and it seems to me it's time we had an honest conversation about that.

-- Sam Harris (The Witchcraft Argument ) [YouTube video clip ]excerpt from a debate 

You know when are you going to learn we are all God's children. If things were going to be so bad as you say, it would be the GLBT people who would be saved first. Remember, one's who think they are saved will be last and the least of us all will be first.

I wonder when the bubble will get strong enough that the news in it will contain items like "Gay marriage reinstated in California; Hurricane devastates San Francisco. Nothing left in the Castro district."

lol DC

You'd think these people would be smart enough to realize that humans no longer have need to reproduce naturally. Why must these people pit science and religion against one another? It makes no sense to me.

Considering the Fox network and these other people are based on the principal of hatred, it is totally understandable. Do they even follow what it is to be a christian?

Absolutely, I'm also waiting for an apology.

Rachel don't need to apology. Obama is changing his view and his view is civil union but again he is changing he is flighting against his religion. Gays are born and God is happy.

You might want to do some fact checking, similar to the type that TRMS staff does before they air their pieces. The POTUS has been very vocal on many occasions inre his opposition to gay marriage, but his believe in civil unions as excerpted below. The internet and libraries are full of such references. Should an apology be necessary I believe it should come from likes you to the TRMS staff for, unless the POTUS has changed his opinion within the last 24 hours, his position is as stated below.

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

From the White House Web site: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

The fact that Obama doesn't publicly support marriage equality is simply a political game. He openly supported full marriage equality in 1996 and 2004, and from what I can infer, still does. He's just being more cautious as to not loose votes in his upcoming election.

Do I like the fact that he's playing politics with our lives? No. But it is what it is, and at least he supports marriage equality in his head.

...

Whatever happened to freedom of speech and reporters reporting on what is going on. Don't be silly she is doing her job. If you have a comment than say it, but don't go jumping off like it was something tragic that was said. If it wasn't for the reporters no facts would be revealed or discussed to what went on.

Rhoda, can you refer to a link that shows the President clearly coming out in favor of same-sex marriage? Like others here, I have seen that he claims his views are "evolving," but he has not, to my knowledge, made any formal statement or press briefing that suggests he has finally crossed that line. He has made some important inroads on LGBT issues, including pushing for ENDA, expanding rights for LGBT federal employees to extend benefits to partners, and he has toed the line by instructing the Justice Department not to defend DOMA. But on that last point, that is not the same thing as supporting same-sex marriage.

As well, while the President is certainly more liberal than many in recent memory, I don't think the label "progressive" is a fair one for him. Go look to the progressive caucus to see that many within that cohort have tried to engage the President to push further on a number of issues, including US involvement overseas, the budget, and yes, even gay rights (where they want to see him make a more formal push on declaring DOMA unconstitutional). While I support the President and respect your right to call him "progressive," my own view is that he is more moderate than that.

More to the point, Rachel Maddow, who has a doctoral degree in politics, certainly has enough experience and knowledge about politics to be able to characterize the President as she did. If you expect a journalist to simply be a soundboard for the politicians they like, what's the point of asking hard questions or testing public opinion? She didn't lie; she did hone in on the sharp rift that still exists-- some people say they are for equal rights for LGBT people, but they will not go so far as to support marriage or a system in which LGBT people are guaranteed absolutely equal treatment under the law in so many arenas-- health care, hospital services, club memberships (you can get one for a spouse, but not an unmarried "partner"), and so on. Till that happens, I'm glad to see Maddow tracing the contours of that difficult progression.

hoosierprof:

"President Obama Is Against What Just Happened" -- Rachel Maddow

Rhoda-- I know what Maddow said, but what I'm asking you to do is to back up your statement that this is a lie. Obama, to my knowledge, has not stated that he supports gay marriage, only that he believes in civil unions or other legal protections. I'm asking you to point me to a new clip, a presidential briefing, a video clip, or other news source that clearly establishes that the President is now for gay marriage. Civil unions and gay marriage are not the same thing.

hoosierprof

So what you're saying is that since, to your knowledge, Obama has not stated that he supports gay marriage, that that automatically means he is against it?

Does that logic even work?

His official position is that it should be a states' issue and not a Federal issue.

Which means that if the states decide to vote for gay marriage, then he, as head of the Federal government is not going to stand in their way and block it.

How is that being against gay marriage as Rachel stated?

Obama is NOT Progressive. If he was, the Bush Administration would have been investigated to the inside of their toenails TO A MAN! Instead Obama protected them and gave them cover. Obama sat on his hands during the BP oil spill and allowed BP to usurp the authority of local and state law enforcement, OSHA, the EPA and NOAA...all IMMEDIATELY after he opened up the Gulf for oil exploration and the regulatory and emergency action regimes remain UNCHANGED. He has consistently sided with Wall Street over Main Street, the robo-foreclosers over home-owners, Republican and conservative critics over those of his own party or the people he is supposed to be representing. He has placed the Republican framing of deficit reduction over job creation, frozen the wages of federal public employees rather than go to bat for unions.

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT PROGRESSIVE!!!

The President ended Don't Ask Don't Tell strictly as a piece of meat thrown to his own party to buy forgiveness for extending the Bush tax cuts for two years in return for 9 months of unemployment insurance extensions.

Rhoda, you still have yet to provide a link where Obama said that he explicitly supports marriage equality.

If you don't know how to make a link I'll tell you.

Go to the page that you want to make the link TO. Right Click COPY on the address bar at the top of your browser. Then go to page you want to make you want to post your link from. Make your post, at the appropriate place, Right Click PASTE. Finish your post. Viola. Link.

It took me YEARS to figure that out, so don't think for a second that I am impugning you on that score...though I doubtless will on others.

<Climbs onto soapbox>

Is it Let's bash Obama and Maddow day?

People ought to cool down. The recurring pattern reaction among those passionately for or passionately against a given issue is speaking from the seat of their passion; the "if you are not with me as much as I am with me then you are against me and you must be shot!" reaction.

There is a lot of that going on here, and, yes, Maddow is guilty of it too. Obama was, in her book, not for it enough so obviously he was against it and so should be shot.

But, hey, let us stop for a moment and ask ourselves, "What happened?" Well, what happened is the bill passed, went to the Gov. and the Gov. signed it. It is now law and will take effect shortly.

There is another issue tomorrow and there will be another issue the day after that. Do we really want to shoot our allies and our friends and our fellow travelers simply because we feel they were not rabid enough on this question? To me, and I admit I am a simple man who is none too bright, doing so seems foolish.

We won, people. Get over it. Hard as it may be to accept, we won.

But if you want I will award gold stars to the most vocally committed out in front of the Stonewall Inn next Thursday at 1:45pm. Be aware, though, I happen to be straight. If that fact offends you I apologize. I know, given the comments here, it might offend some as I suspect some will say because I am straight I cannot possibly be for LGBT rights enough.

Sheesh.

<sighs>

<steps down from soapbox>

Reporters/journalists/tv commentators do not always depend upon direct, face-to-face communication for what they report.

See comments farther down in this exchange-- Kelly at #28.3 lists quotes from the White House Web site that say the President does not support gay marriage. Period. Why are people so upset over someone pointing out a verifiable fact that is on the US government's web site?

In fact, in a press conference on June 20, someone pressed WH Press Secretary Gibbs about that (go way down, maybe 4/5 down the toolbar on http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/20/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-6202011 ). This exchange to me makes clear that the President, while he has supported many forms of legislative progress for LGBT rights, does not support same-sex marriage:

Q On Thursday, the President is attending a LGBT fundraiser in New York, and it’s a state that could have same-sex marriage by the end of this week, it’s very possible. Next week, he’s hosting a Pride reception here at the White House. Isn’t the President selling this audience short by saying he supports them and wants their money for his reelection campaign, but also saying at the same time he does not support their right to marry?

MR. CARNEY: Chris, I think you know that this President is very supportive of and strong on LGBT rights and his record is significant with regard to that. He’s been very clear about his position on gay marriage. He has been very clear about how that position is evolving. I don’t have any new announcement to make. But I think you know his record, and he’s proud of it.

Q Just one quick follow-up question.

MR. CARNEY: Let me get -- okay, one more.

Q You said before you don’t have an update right now on the President’s position on same-sex marriage. But is it possible that the President will come to a conclusion on this evolution by Thursday to make an announcement on --

MR. CARNEY: I don’t anticipate that, Chris.

So, to get back to my original question:

1. can you refer us to any link-- ANY AT ALL-- that points to a clear, definitive statement by the President that says he supports gay marriage? If he is not for same-sex marriage, he can't be for what happened in New York. If he is for same-sex marriage, then he should by all means clarify that he has "evolved already," given that his prior campaign and media sources suggested that he was not, in fact, for same-sex marriage.

Realistically, my guess is that President Obama will keep mum on the issue in order to placate moderate/centrist voters, at least until the election-- ie, he'll avoid taking too strong a stance on almost any "hot button" issue in order to protect what votes he can get. Does this make him a bad person? Not necessarily; I think it makes him a pragmatic politician. But in the end, his unwillingness to state publicly what you insist he is for leaves the issue open and unresolved.

2. Why are you so upset about people wanting to be careful in how they cast this development? I hardly think it would have been fair to say that the POTUS is 100% behind the idea of what happened in NY. If he were, then he might have taken a much more direct stance on the question when he addressed the campaign event in NY days ago instead of stopping short at "I support equal legal rights [but did not say marriage]."

It is true that NY is a very important step, but it is, after all, a state-level development and provides no additional protection for LGBT folks in other parts of the country.

Finally, let's be clear. I'd ten times rather have a moderate Democrat than a conservative in the White House, any day of the week. But I don't think that support for ANY politican has to mean that you support him/her on 100% of their issues or statements. I think I'm a little suprised not only by the vituperative commentary from some here, but even more because you seem to be acting as though people on this site should be marching in lock step with everything that the President says or does. I expect that kind of thing from other journalists (unfortunately, usually the conservative ones), but it seems this has been a site in which people can respectfully present different opinions. I'd hope that would continue.

....gay advocates don't target the Republican party? Wtf Tanyars do you even listen to yourself half the time? Rachel lives in the political reporting world which is a world of extremes. If someone doesn't say they are clearly for something then it automatically means they're against it. Should it be like that? No. Do I blame you for calling her out on it? No. But where I get annoyed is you too operate on that same pendulum. I could totally understand you trying to say cool it to her for going to the extreme w/o prompt, but when you do the same thing then you're just being a blatant hypocrite. In your world if gay issues are put to the forefront of anything then that automatically means nobody gives a damn about black issues. In your mind if Rachel even so much as hints that she is in favor of something pro-GLBTQ that means Rachel is automatically saying she doesn't care about blacks. You do this over and over and over again. So don't chastise her for something that you do.

Wow....so much tension on this blog. And here I thought we were celebrating. Guess I better watch last nights show (I can only watch online) and see what Tanyars5, Rhoda and others are so upset about. I've got the gist of it but don't want to opine without watching it myself.

In the meantime....geez people, lighten up. What happened [the vote] is a good thing. At least I think it is.

The issue isn't that Obama is against marriage equality. He isn't. The problem is he, along with the Democratic Party, is using gay rights as a political football.

It's politically advantageous for Democrats to keep certain issues like gay rights unresolved. And then turn around and tell us we should fear the Republicans.

We can see through the politics, and it's insulting.

Once more, with feeling: In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Pretty damn definitive, I'd say.

I will give Obama for some of the steps he has taken for LGBT rights while in office, but I don't think the statement above minces words.

Stop trippin', people. It seems we are all on the same side here. Differences in opinion happen, and different viewpoints can exist within the progressive/left. But the reason we keep getting our asses handed to us by the a-hole Right, is because they are unified in the quest for power and money, and we sit and bicker.

Good job. Kudos. Pat on the back and all that. And we are still frakking losing. Get over yourselves.

Oh, and P.S. Did all the Dem apologists here happen to catch what DEMOCRATIC NY Senator Ruben Diaz had to say? "God, not Albany, settled the issue of marriage a long time ago."

It's NOT just Repubs and Tea Partiers that are the problem. It's religion and theocratic politicians, regardless of party.

She's reporting facts on what people were saying so guess what that is news reporting. If Obama has something to say about it, then that is his right to clarify or explain himself on what he means, instead of his evolving comments. If you don't learn to give serious questions to both parties, how will you ever learn what the real facts are.

BO said he supports equal rights for all. He shouldn't have to lead EVERY single state battle for us. We are American citizens and it is our responsibility to be involved in our state's politics, not his.

Not to mention, Obama throwing on a superhero cape just for visuals isn't going to win state battles. But there is a potential for people to then want to hand over citizen responsibility and sit back in their lounge chairs sipping their slushies thinking he'll magically fix it all for them.

Dear Deb,

Fact: Rachel Maddow said: president barack Obama "is against gay marriage"

Fact: President Barack Obama "Never ever said that"

In Fact: what his spokesperson said is that his view on gay mariage is evolving, but in the meantime he Is For "legal" equality.

And Rachel should lighten up, and stop trying to get attention in this most tacky way

It's just beyound facetious to hit on BO in such a way, all the while being clearly aware of how much the guy cares and does about civil rights for LGBT Americans.

Sheesh, just look at this article in the WH Blog:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/09/champions-change-creating-path-transgender-equality

Still dissaponted. Beyond all the juvenalia, I thought she was a lot more thoughtful and classy than that.

LOCKNPOST,

excellent observation....and statement.....People go vote and stop crying about what the President is or is not admitting to. You voted your state legislators in office they "jack up your life" with crazy laws and you want the President to fix it? He is not Superman....he is one man. The Right wants it their way...The left wants it their way. Get off your butts and vote! Stop blaming your messed up state on the back of the President, no matter who is in office. If the rule is to be set by the President, then guess what?...everytime you have a new president we are gonna be right back here as a Country. If Barack Obama put on Rainbow underwear and marched up and down the Mall, it woruld not change a thing in your state. The States should decide......He's the President...not mr. fix-it.

The president is elected to show leadership, not to play politics with the lives of the people of this country. Obama has said in the past that he thinks a marriage is between a man and a woman. He has not refuted that statement. Claiming that his opinion is "evolving" is just too mealy-mouthed. So the clearest representation of his position is that he still thinks marriage is between a man and a woman.

In his own words, he promised to be a "fierce advocate" for the concerns of the gay community. We were hoping for a fierce defense of our equal status before the law. Personally, I don't really care if he doesn't want us to walk down the aisle of his church. I do expect him not to block my access to the clerk's office at my local city hall.

In all respect @bagelbones, when I'm looking at protections against discrimination under the law, marriage rights are not the first thing I think of. And I'm sure most have seen President Obama's list of accomplishments protecting/advancing gay rights.

The marriage issue, at this time, I feel is following the most steadfast path to longevity through the states first, preceding any courts. Because of that, Obama giving lip service to the issue may not provide the benefit some would expect.

You may feel he's not opening the "door" for you, but he certainly isn't standing in our way.

I'm not asking for "lip service", I'm expecting leadership. This article really says it all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/opinion/sunday/26dowd.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

Personally I am not seeing what we are really arguing about because both sides of this has shown Obama has made comments and I guess it is just up to each person believing what they want to believe. But to continue fighting about this is ridiculous, especially when we do need to pull together and let the Republicans know we have had enough of their BS. Reporters report the news on what is being said and that is it. If they do need to do a correction they do it. Now I have seen Rachel do many corrections and to me that makes her a better reporter at least she lets people know if something has to be corrected. But to blame her for something that apparently has been stated and there is evidence of that, well what can you say that is what it is, even though some people may have never even seen it or heard it. I give Rachel a lot of credit for looking to be truthful so if something has to be corrected on whatever it will be it probably will be done. She is one of our better inquirers why would you simply want to loose that. Is there someone planted in here to try to get rid of her.

Bagelbones,

I'm not sure what your, (or MD's,) notion of leadership entails. To me it means--in a represeantative democracy--to be competent at building consensus. Maybe there's a latent nostagia for confrontational retoric that-in my opinion- very often fails to achive anything of value while at the same time It leaves behind a trail of spite and vindictiveness. BO has made the case for social equality over and over agian. But maybe to you, he's just speaking too softly about issues you care strongly about. But I appreciate that in him. Don't confuse timidity with prudence. He's clearly not timid. On the other hand I sense that whenever he's forced to "Bush up" or act macho, he tends come through as awkward and insincere. In the end what matters are results.

I Enjoy RM's program, and I understand that marriage equality is very important to her-- It is to me and my son. It just saddens me when she resorts to sensational oversimplifications we've come to expect from you know who. And the fact that she said that on the eve of the NYS vote came through as shill and opportunistic.

Maybe she should have waited a few days and discussed BO's position on the issue more in depth.

I am calling upon the president to assert that I am equal to him before the law. I am calling upon him to be that "fierce advocate" that he promised he would be. These are HIS words.

There have been those on this blog who have excoriated Rachel for always defending Obama and never criticizing him. I think she criticizes him aplenty and at appropriate times about pertinent issues. This is one of those times and one of those issues. She is striking the iron while it is hot.

This is not simply about marriage equality. It is about who is and who is not a full citizen of this country. It is never the wrong time to hold our politicians' feet to the fire about that.

President Obama says he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. That is exclusion. It means he does not believe marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Legal equality isn't the same as social equality. And socially, heterosexual marriage is treated as superior, from the President's mouth to America's ears.

It's significant that the President is saying that while gays should have all the legal rights, he doesn't believe their marriages are socially equal.

i agree, bagelbones.

150% agreement here.

I have found it very, very strange how Rachel is being criticized here and elsewhere. The comments are stronger on other sites, like HuffPo, with some people characterizing the remark about the President's position on marriage equality as an 'attack'. It was hardly that; it was a statement of fact.

Others simply call it a criticism, but imply or state that criticism of Obama is not allowable for one reason or another. No one is above criticism, and the fact that this President has been better on LGBT issues than previous Presidents doesn't change that.

But as criticism goes, Rachel's remark barely rates. The President's supporters, the country as a whole, and even more than a few Republicans are way ahead of the President on the subject of marriage equality. No matter how much some people want to deny it, Obama has publicly stated that he believes that marriage is only for different-sex couples, and nothing he has said recently indicates any fundamental change of mind.

The gulf between the President and his supporters, and some of his enemies, is an important thing and deserves to be pointed out. In fact, I think that gulf absolutely needs criticizing. Rachel's remark could have been much stronger, and probably deserves to have been. So, in my mind, she has nothing to retract or apologize for. In fact, I wouldn't mind if she developed the remark further.

Well said Monk, I attempted early to point out that nothing said during TRMS broadcast on Friday evening contradicted the POTUS' stated position which is well documented and voiced. He, in fact, is not above criticism, it is not racial in its nature; it is criticism of his known opinion. Yes, he is more progressive in this area than previous presidents, but he has far to go and grow before it can be said he is 100% supportive of total equality for all.

It almost seems as if there is something else going on - not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but I agree with you Monk, Rachel's point about President Obama's position on marriage equality wasn't that inflammatory, but there is practically an all out smear campaign going on.

I've seen it so far on this blog (Thank you, Will, for jumping in on that!), in the #maddow twitter-feed and over at Huffpo (who of course didn't help with one of their as per usual sensationalizing headlines).

I don't know if the people involved have some sort of personal vendetta (one of them, at least, seems to be motivated by something else and is just using this as an excuse to spread nastiness), or what, but I've never seen the hate quite so widespread, at least outside of conservative blogs.

bagelbones, I'm trying

What do some expect of Obama? "I believe all Americans, of all sexual orientations should have the equal right under the law to select and marry their partner of choice." I'd be happy with that, but it wouldn't be enough for some.

Perhaps we'd like him to add, "...despite my personal beliefs." Do we want him to lie? Or maybe, we could convert him to our own personal belief systems. (That could be tricky, there's bound to be much diversity there.)

We shouldn't need Obama's or anyone else's approval or blessings to marry whom we wish. Why would anyone care what others think anyway?

Social equality? Social justice I believe in. But I don't dare comment on "social equality" atm. Tangents... I'll get lost.

Frankly, I'd rather Obama stay out of it, atm. I don't want him wasting political capital on what he can't do. Besides, this is the people's movement, not his. If he starts interjecting his presence, and brings animosity from those we're actually winning over... I'm afraid I'd get the overwhelming desire to petition the need for construction of natural speed bumps across all golf courses he frequents.

Sorry, locknpost, I've been as clear as I can be. I don't think I can be any clearer.

Does Obama even need to add his personal beliefs to the statement? If "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" has no relevancy to the policies he advocates, then it's a dog whistle to those who oppose gay marriage. Otherwise, he doesn't need to say it.

He's the President, and so what he says matters a great deal and carries more weight than anyone.

Rarely is it a good idea for a President to interject himself directly into a hotly contested debate in a State Legislature -- any State Legislature, any Issue -- at or near the climax of that debate. It is a turf thing and an ego thing among the members of the Legislature having the debate. The President is not a member. The President is the President. In the case of Obama this would apply even if the State was Illinois where he once was a member because he is not a member now.

That is just the way it is.

Yeah if he had the right would've been trying to demagog the situation saying that PBO is a bully and he's overreaching gov't power. You know how hypocritical the right is. They are in favor of federalism when federalism advances their agenda. When it doesn't they automatically become confederates claiming that states should be the supreme power. Sometimes the best thing for the President (and other national representatives) is to just stay out of it to not bring more ire.

She is not being misrepresented. That is what she said.

Keeping the pressure on the president? @Maddow notes: "President Obama is against what just happened."

https://twitter.com/#!/brianstelter/status/84450361674432513

Tanyars5 & Rhoda — Where are your facts.......................????

You might want to do some fact checking, similar to the type that TRMS staff does before they air their pieces. The POTUS has been very vocal on many occasions inre his opposition to gay marriage, but his believe in civil unions as excerpted below. The internet and libraries are full of such references. Should an apology be necessary I believe it should come from likes you to the TRMS staff for, unless the POTUS has changed his opinion within the last 24 hours, his position is as stated below.

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

From the White House Web site: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Just who reads HuffPo anymore? It is so over.

The proof? Where is the proof he said he was against what was going on in New York last night?

Rachel lied and needs to apologize. It rhymes! LOL

Anyway Rachel hatred of the President is obvious. She cannot believe a Black man is more intelligent than she is. He is 100 steps ahead of her and the rest of the pundunces in the MSM.

She is being outed for the hater she is. oh well

Bye Rachel

The proof is right before your eyes. The POTUS is AGAINST gay marriage, while he supports civil unions. Nothing said last night disputes or contradicts this.

I feel sorry for you. You allow your anger and your own racial bias show through in all of your posts. Your prejudice will keep you from enoying many great pleasures in life. You might want to try Tai Chi and find your inner peace.

Wake up most of America is against gay marriage. WTF is wrong with u? THIRTY or more states have bans on gay marriage. Barack Obama saying yes or no would have done nothing. Jon Hunstsman was on morning JOe the other day and say NO. Where is the outrage?

Stop acting like the Pres created homophobia. Please stop donating to the Dem party because the Dem party needs to focus on the real issues of people, like jobs, voter disnfranchisement, healthcare, eductation, and people eating. Tired of all the time beng taken up with Obama Yes or No . How selfish. Join the repubs so they can take care of your gay marriage.

Your posts aren't even rational, you might want to try some decaf and sleep as well as Tai Chi.

Tanyars homophobia becomes more and more apparent every time she posts. Oh and by the way if you aren't watching Rachel anymore then wtf are you posting here?

The POTUS is AGAINST gay marriage, while he supports civil unions.

I don't get why ppl are so hung up on words if both are rights inclusive. I never liked the word "marriage", so overrated. I prefer the wording "legal union", "life commitment" or "BOUND together in life". Can we include those descriptive words in future bills plz.

@Tanyars5's motto is "FACTS? WHO NEEDS FACTS?". She is the quintessential HATER.

Anyway Rachel hatred of the President is obvious. She cannot believe a Black man is more intelligent than she is. He is 100 steps ahead of her and the rest of the pundunces in the MSM.

She is being outed for the hater she is. oh well

Uhh....What? What the hell are you talking about? How are you getting from the POTUS doesn't supoort gay marriage to Rachel hates Obama and black people? I've been reading your posts and they don't seem to be based on any rational thought. "She can't believe a black man is more intelligent than she is"? Are you kidding me? How in the hell did you come to that conclusion? Besides, Rachel has a PhD in (Political Science)? I doubt that there are very many politicians that are smarter than her. And I bet that she would love to debate with him, because he, too, is very smart. I sincerely doubt, tho, that she hates him for it. I'd be willing to bet that she wishes more politicians were as smart. I'd really like to know why you think that?

God...your posts are just so....out there....that I didn't even know where to begin...but this one was too much.

BTW.....While I like Obama, he is not a progressive. At least not as much as progressives would like him to be. If you think so, then you should look it up again.

i have heard this so many times....he is not progressive....do you think that it is easy getting anything thru this congress....look at it now....all this ruckus and confusion...around the debt ceiling...i wonder if Mr McCaine and Sarah Palin...would have done better by you...or if Romney and the rest will be good for our country....i do agree that activism is needed to push our elected officials forward....but keep in mind that the Rep/TP folks have their activists pushing as well...

sheba:

I love how whenever someone has the slightest critism of Obama, some immediately jump to "I wonder if Mccain and Palin would work better for you?" As if going from a moderate Democrat to an extreme right winger is a natural segue. Don't even talk to me about McCain. He's out of my state. I know what he's about. And I'm not critisizing Obama. I like the man. I will vote for him. I was merely pointing out that he is not a progressive as some claim. At least his current policiies don't indicate it. And since you brought up the rep/TP activists pushing hard....I agree. So don't you think that Obama should push back harder?

I think it's pretty telling that although Rachel Maddow has been tough on Obama when it comes to Civil Rights, it's when the gay community wins something that the homophobes have an all out freak out.

If Obama doesn't need money from gays then he should stop coming to LGBT DNC fundraisers. Obama doesn't have to do anything for gay rights. But he does. I think's what pisses off heterosexist Obama supporters, and they're taking it out on gays, Rachel Maddow or anyone but Barack Obama.

My position has evolved on civil unions, domestic partnerships, because I have experienced the difference. After being married in 2008, still experience some inequalities. I have decided that equal means equal and there was a time when people said they opposed "special rights". There is always some excuse for people to validate their prejudice. When it is validated by laws, then what have we got? People that condone marginalizing, maiming or killing LGBTQ. That's where I'm coming from and I am happy for NY!

Let's face it; the terms are used to separate these from those and keep some sort of "mark" against this group or that one. I am for equal=equal.

As for President Obama,I think he is probably FOR marriage equality, but hesitates to say it outright because of perceived lost votes. I doubt he will say that outright because of the people that support him, but have negative ideas about LGBTQ folks or the effects that topic might have on elections. I have evolved on that as well. Major guilt trip in 2004, but was shown the error of that by straight allies. I think the LBGTQ community is doing a good job to show who they are and it is changing attitudes.

I think I agree with you sandyc: Obama may be all for marriage equality but he can't say it cuz he doesn't want to alienate any of the christian base. I get it...I do. And his actions do speak louder than his words. He repealed DADT and attempted to take the teeth out of DOMA. So he's trying, I get that and I applaud it. But it still disappointing that he can't (won't?) come out in favor of marriage equality.