In December 2010, Vice President Biden was asked about marriage equality and he noted that the White House's position, like American attitudes in general, was "evolving." Biden added that there is an "inevitability for a national consensus" in support of gay marriage.
With that in mind, Biden inched closer to that inevitable position when NBC's David Gregory raised the issue on "Meet the Press" yesterday.
For those who can't watch clips online, Biden said the question about marriage rights effectively comes down to "a simple proposition: who do you love?" He added that this principle applies equally to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. Asked whether he's "comfortable with same-sex marriage now," the vice president said he's "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex couples enjoying "the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties."
When Gregory asked, however, whether the administration will endorse marriage equality in a second term, Biden said he doesn't know, before emphasizing the strength of President Obama's record on LGBT rights.
So, what did we learn from this exchange? It depends on whom you ask. For many, this certainly sounded as if Biden had endorsed marriage equality, taking a big step forward in the administration's "evolution" on the issue. For the White House, however, Biden didn't break new ground, and didn't explicitly endorse full marriage equality.
If you're confused as to exactly where the White House stands on this issue, as of this morning, you're not alone. It appears administration officials support giving same-sex couples "the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties" as straight couples, and at the same time, also believe they haven't endorsed marriage equality.
I don't understand it, either.
Part of the problem here is that most objective observers believe Obama and Biden are, in their heart of hearts, already on board with same-sex marriage rights, but are reluctant to say so for political reasons. As such, whether he meant to or not, Biden has increased the pressure on the president to say what many assume he already believes.
Making matters slightly worse, if the Obama team tries to walk back Biden's comments, it will only annoy the liberals the president's re-election team needs for fundraising and activism.
It stands to reason Republicans will be pleased with the center-left divisions, but it's worth noting this isn't a risk-free debate for the GOP, either -- a debate over marriage equality will necessarily lead to renewed questions about how far to the right the presumptive Republican nominee is on civil rights issues.
Leave a Comment:
I'd like to know what those 'political reasons' are, as they seem to be producing incoherent public statements and policy positions. Support for marriage equality is becoming the mainstream, consensus opinion, while those who oppose it are at the same time also in opposition to the Obama administration. Unless I'm missing something (always a possibility), the administration has much to gain and nothing to lose by openly favoring marriage equality.
"I'd like to know what those 'political reasons' are..."
The "moderates/independents" that aren't comfortable supporting "marriage equality" - those people may be turned off if the President openly supports it.
He has, effectively, approved the Keystone pipeline by allowing construction. He will evolve into supporting marriage equality if reelected. Until the election he will not tick off either environmentalists or independents. I await the uproar when he approves the full Keystone.
I wonder. I think Sam Stein is correct and the administration's fan dance on the issue is no longer providing any benefit. We pretty much know what's going on under the feathers, so let's just have the full monty.
(DNFTT)
Even though the polls of Americans in general are very favorable to gay marriage, I would guess that stats for "likely voters" might not be as favorable, because there is such an age factor in this and older people vote in much higher numbers than young people.
This is just Obama being his usual frustratingly cautious self. I don't approve, but I'm not all that surprised.
Maybe Joe Biden should run at the top of the Democratic ticket seeing as his position on basic equality and acknowledging the constitutional rights of every citizens has "evolved" far better than that of President Obama. This is no longer a debate., America has come a long way in just a few years, to where a solid majority of the public agrees that marriage equality should be recognized. Why is the president still clinging to some ridiculous notion that he can get Republicans to vote for him if he only discriminates against gay Americans? http://www.sunstateactivist.org
The interesting thing here is that because it's Biden we can't really know if it was something he did on his own or if it was some kind of planned trial balloon. Hmmm.
I go with rope a dope , because they know that the Right wing and Faux nooze will go off the rails and occupy themselves for the next few news cycles getting their pantyhose in a knot. It's like they dangle it in front of them and the Republicans just can't stop themselves playing it like it's 2004. Meanwhile Obama goes about his business.
Does anyone really care about this anymore except for Mormons and other religious cults.
The confusion is less about where the White House stands on this issue than it is about the terminology used to discuss it. Civil rights is a term fairly clear and well understood by most people. Civil union, on the other hand, is less clear. It appears to many to be a second class marriage: something lacking the full trimmings of full marriage - a sort of makeshift marriage, one might say.
The confusion is neither with civil rights or civil unions, since these are clearly defined terms both legally and practically. The confusion is with marriage itself. A civil union is a civil or public statement of relationship for practical and fiscal purposes. Marriage, on the other hand, is a religious statement in the form of a vow sanctified according to the tenets of the faith adhered to.
That distinction is crucial in this debate. Who can possibly object, in fairness and honesty, to the civil right of a civil union? However, as soon as one enters the religious domain one encounters an entirely different kettle of fish. The religious issue, as a matter of personal appraisal and choice, has basically nothing to do with the civil issue of recognition and statutory rights, which is mainly what couples are concerned with on a day to day basis.
If this country acknowledges two types of marriage (civil and religious), then can anyone seriously believe two types of privileges won't follow? The theocrats will do everything in their power to ensure we once again have two separate classes of citizens. It is in their DNA. I doubt it is feasible, but it sure would be nice if government recognized only the civil form of marraige. After all, it is their duty to serve all their citizens, not just the theonuts. It should follow that any and all laws (past, present and future) that currently refer to "marriage" shall forever more refer now to "civil union". That way the nuts can have their label back and define its terms any way they see fit and the government can go on about its business with a common and neutral term defining couples. Churches can marry whomever they feel comfortable marrying and JP's can marry whomever requests their services, just like it works now, including the current basic requirements of minimum age and mutual consent (sorry fundies, the concept of dogs giving consent is STILL as stupid as your arguments that this would be the natural outcome). Any and all lawful ceremonies will be recognized henceforth as legitimate "civil unions" to the government and be subject to all benefits and responsibilities associated by law to same. Any attempt to write laws that provide benefit to church-conducted "marriages" at the expense of "civil unions" shall be deemed exactly what they are - descriminatory and unconstitutional.
I have a question: Does a civil union come with federal recognition of it? Can they file married status on federal tax return? I am both married and in a Domestic Partnership in CA. Married in summer of 2008, when it was readily available to me, as any of age, unmarried person.
However, I do not have the capability of adding a female spouse to my health care policy, as other married people have only to provide an opposite sex spouse with no federally taxed "imputed income" withheld. I tried to do so as Domestic Partner and was taxed at a higher rate. It is a plus to be able to do this, but not equally taxed (or recognized) as opposite sex in the federal arena. I am not legally allowed to file married status filing jointly. There is no civil union or Domestic Partner status on federal tax return form.
A marriage is a marriage regardless of whether a justice of the peace or a member of the clergy performs a ceremony, because it isn't the ceremony that makes two people married. It's the paperwork, signed and witnessed. And with a slowly-increasing number of denominations getting into the marriage equality groove, it's absurd to suggest that marriage should or even can be segregated into religious and non-religious varieties (even if you were to ignore the irrelevance of the ceremony to the legal contract).
It appears administration officials support giving same-sex couples "the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties" as straight couples, and at the same time, also believe they haven't endorsed marriage equality.
I thought we already figured out that there's no such thing as "separate but equal."
Arne Duncan supports marriage equality. http://tinyurl.com/cwgvxsf
Gay people are scary. Two of them, united in a quaint ceremony by a cult are twice as scary!
To understand this POV check out:
http://www.alternet.org/media/155210/Why_Is_the_Conservative_Brain_More_Fearful%3F_The_Alternate_Reality_Right-Wingers_Inhabit_Is_Terrifying/?page
(It is based on the amygdala- not a medieval cabal, but a part of the brain.)
Honestly, it sounds like the White House is trying hyper-parse a distinction between equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, and state recongition of durable unions between gay and lesbian couples being called marriage per se. And, this does seem to be a largely political decision to stay as close to the status quo as possible on this issue.
Of course, attempting to argue this distinction leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth -and presumably many other liberals as well- as it means that the first African-American president is essentially arguing that a separate legal status for gays and lesbians need not be unequal, with all the unfortunate historic baggage that comes with that notion.
And presumably, the White House realizes this too, which is the source of much of the studied inarticulateness surrounding the administration's statements: the last thing they want to do is actually use the phrase "separate but equal".
I am gay. I get the frustration.
However, we must be a tad smarter about this situation and give this administration the latitude they need on this issue. In a perfect world, Obama would be able to take the lead on this and write the legislation giving everyone equal right to a union, leaving the word marriage to houses of worship. The problem is this...he can march in every gay parade and officiate a gay wedding himself; however, that does none of us any good until we get rid of DOMA which is the real barrier. We are not going to move towards getting rid of DOMA with Romney at the helm. He will be on a very short leash. We need Obama at the helm as this debate gets easier with the passage of time. So, in comes the politics. Obama is NEVER going to utter the phrase "I support gay marriage." That is a politically charged statement that carries too much religious/fundamental baggage. What is not a politically charged statement but still substantive and supportive of equal rights is frankly...exactly what Biden said.
I am an admirer, Steve, but I think you are being a little naive by saying you "do not understand it, either".
The "separate but equal" issue is a debate for another time. We have bigger fish to fry (i.e. DOMA). Unfortunately, this is a "baby steps" kind of issue.
This isn't about politics, this is about people's right to believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone elses right.
It is hypocritical and wrong for the LGBT community to pressure President Obama into saying that he supports gay marriage. It's no different than someone demanding that they abandon their gayness and be straight. LGBTs don't want anyone pressuring them to stop being gay.
President Obama is the most evolved president in history to support LGBT community. No president has ever cared or paid as much attention to gay rights than he has and in spite of what he believes in, Obama has not done, nor does he intend to do anything to stop gays from marrying. He believes that everyone should have the right to marry anyone they choose.
I think Obama shoudn't have to endorse gay marriage it if he doesn't want to. I hope that he stay true to what he believes in.
OK. Fine. But what does he believe about marriage equality? Is he for or against? The problem is largely that he won't say definitely yea or nay.
The belief doesn't infringe on rights, it is the action that perpetuates the discrimination to deny rights. The belief is not denied. The law that states these are entitled and those are not is unequal protection of the laws.