In November, when Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan said he "absolutely" supports marriage equality, he became the first sitting cabinet secretary in American history to do so.
This morning, he got a little company.
For those who can't watch clips online, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan appeared on MSNBC earlier and was asked by Mark Halperin if he supports same-sex marriage. "Yes," Duncan said, "I do." There were no qualifiers or addendums.
Time will tell, but I suspect the White House will make no effort to push back against the comments. When Donovan endorsed marriage equality, officials told reporters the cabinet secretary still enjoys "the trust and respect of the president" and Donovan faced no pressure to change his position. I would imagine the same would be true with Duncan.
But as we discussed this morning, developments like these only increase the pressure on President Obama to take the next step in his "evolution."
Leave a Comment:
The comments, including Biden's yesterday, is part of an effort to fire up the gay and lesbian base of the Democratic party without the President actually taking a real position. You know, actually standing for something is often a good thing.
Although the President has not taken the position you WANT, maybe he has taken a position by staying neutral.
Wow..."taken a position by staying neutral"... Only in liberal logic could that sentence even make sense.
Unlike Republican administrations, there does not appear to be a litmus test in Obama's.
And, Ron Byers, I don't think the LBGT base needs firing up, considering their voting alternative!
I'm not sure it's possible to script Joe Biden. If the administration had such a plan, I think Biden would be the last person they'd choose to initiate it.
I place my money on Pres. Obama any day, who have actually have a record on LGBT issues... Now show me your guy record on LGBT issues.... In fact, here are a few:
1) VOICED his (Pres. Obama) support for equal marriage rights, at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner in 2011. He explicitly said, "I supports equal rights for all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation."
2) Every area of policy espoused by his administration from end DADT, STANDING DOWN DOMA, advocating for benefits for same-sex partners for federal employees includes the military...
3) In both states cases of NC & MN prospective same-sex marriage bans currently being consider, the Obama campaign have issued official statement in opposition, further signaling that the campaign does not intent to shy away from the issue...
Now show me your your boy backbone.....
What makes me uncomfortable about this whole 'debate' is that Democrats, especially the President are not allowed to have differing opinions. Although I applaud the cabinet members that support gay marriage and don't find it controversial, it bothers me that the snarky 'evolution' of Obama is brought out again and again. Maybe he IS evolving and hasn't gotten there yet. There are many people that aren't 'there' yet and it just adds more and more divisiveness to demand it. In case you haven't noticed, not all Dems, in fact not all PEOPLE agree on every issue. Before I get attacked, I in no way think that gay marriage should be illegal but I do respect the right of people to be 'on the fence' between marriage and civil unions.
If he is "evolving" he "re-evolving" because he was FOR gay marriage before he was AGAINST it and now he's not sure.
As noted before, one of the things participating on this blog has done for my thinking is a realization that despite our personal position, creating an atmosphere that allows young people struggling or confident with their sexuality to be bullied or ridiculed is wrong and cruel.
If you think opposition to gay marriage is contributing to that then you have to take the side the President Obama is doing so as well. Sad, but true.
I don't think so, RobDon...the President has said he is for civil unions but not that he is for gay marriage. So I don't believe he's 're-evolved'...
You need a better search engine, Mego. President Obama stated the following as a Senator candidate:
Source
I don't know why this is so hard. Biden wants gay marriage. Duncan wants gay marriage. The President doesn't think there should be a law that prevents it. Never has he said that he believes in gay marriage. He has said that he believes in civil unions. Every single media pundit and GOP talking head has accused the President of every side of this issue. I guess no one is allowed to have differing views. It is one way or the other.
Mego: The President's position is, "Let the States decide." Since spousal sponsorship for immigration and citizenship is a Federal right granted to bi-national married couples, then that would mean states (such as Arizona) would be capable of passing immigration laws, or it would mean that spousal-coupling (whatever label you want to get it) is actually a Federal issue and not just a State issue.
And if it's not just a State issue, then that says a lot about the apathetic statement, "Let the States decide".
Yes, President Obama needs to "evolve" his personal beliefs on marriage equality and join the likes of his own vice-president in publicly backing legal marriage for every American citizen. But to somehow unfavorably compare the president's record on gay rights to that of Mitt Romney or the Republican Party is absurd. Romney has had every position possible on marriage equality, the hallmark of a politician with no moral compass and a conscience which is unsuitable for the job of commander in chief. Mitt Romney has now fully capitulated to the most vile and extreme on the right, some of whom have even spoken favorably of laws in other nations which legalize the killing of gays. Romney is a bigot by association. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Using that logic, the current occupant of the job should be fired. President Obama was for same sex marriage, then against it, now evolving. Are you willing to admit this, Activist, or will you claim I'm lying, this is different, or I've twisted your words?
Obama has evolved over time; Romney has switched every time his audience has changed. That's the difference.
Grumpy, where am I wrong here?
President Obama supported same sex marriages as a Senate candidate and Senator. He believed marriage is between a man and a woman as a Presidential candidate and as President. Now he is "evolving."
Governor Romney supported putting same sex marriage on the ballot in Massachusetts. As a Presidential candidate he believes marriage should be limited to male and female couples.
And you think there's a difference between their flip flop and stance on marriage?
Yes I do... Obama doesn't deny that he had a different position, thus the use of "evolving". Romney, on the other hand, shifted positions and pretends that he never thought differently. Romney pandered to liberals in Massachusetts, then tried to bury that past once he needed the support of the Tea Party and other hyper-conservatives; Obama went against a key liberal constituency at a key moment, his election run, when traditional anti-equality forces weren't going to vote for him anyway, so his shift gained him nothing (and probably lost him some).
You're a smart fellow, RobDon; you can't seriously tell me that you haven't actually thought about the real differences in the circumstances.
Romney's defense is that he never support same sex marriage but thought it appropriate to put on the ballot. So, in his view, his position never changed. Agree with his position or not, the defense of little change in his position is logical. (Unless you have support that he has said something else.)
Obama stated as a Senate candidate that he supported same sex marriages and then as a Presidential candidate (at Saddleback) said he did NOT support same sex marriage. Why the change? It makes no sense other solely for political purposes unless you can explain why he was for it then against it and now evolving better.
While seeking the US Senate seat in 1994, Mitt Romney wrote a letter to a gay rights group known as the Log Cabin Club claiming that he supported full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens. He claimed that even though has opponent - Senator Ted Kennedy - was an ardent supporter of gay rights, he would be more effective in moving the issue into the main stream of American concern. While seeking the governor's seat for Massachusetts in 2002, Mitt Romney's campaign circulated a flier in a gay pride weekend asserting his support for equal rights for all Americans regardless of sexual orientation. During his tenure in office, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued a ruling claiming that denial of marriage to same sex couples was not legal. Governor Romney supported the establishment of civil unions to satisfy the court decision that a legal alternative be available. Beginning in 2005, Governor Romney appeared on numerous news outlets restating his previous opposition to gay marriage, and stating that he opposed civil unions and stating that every child deserved a mother and a father.
So, first he was for full equality then he was against it; he was for civil unions and is now against them. That's not little change. That's a complete reversal.
What political purpose did Obama's change serve? Did he think he was going to win too strongly, so he handicapped himself so as not to spike the ball? He has never not supported equality; it's the form that equality is taking that has shifted, in his attitudes.
I'm not sure where you get your information on Romney's positions. This from a recent article in the LA Times:
He seems to have consistently been for gay rights but against marriage.
In 1996 President Obama stated:
At the debate at Saddleback as a Presidential candidate, Obama said that he believed the marriage was solely between a man and woman.
As to President Obama's "political purpose," it was the same in 2008 as it is now, he doesn't want to alienate some of his key constituents, namely Blacks and Hispanics who in large numbers are against same sex marriage.
The LA Times isn't paying attention to his variance over time, while this one does - http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/Gay_Marriage/ You'll see I've used their terms exactly.
If that was his purpose... then why is he evolving now, and allowing a change-by-association through his administration? Blacks and Hispanics will still be voting. Your supposition doesn't hold water, especially in an election that promises to be much closer than the last.
I looked at the link but don't see anywhere where Gov. Romney states he supports gay marriage or gay unions. He states in more than one way he is for gay rights. But he is consistent these rights do not include marriage. Unless you see where he says I am FOR gay marriage.
I can't say "why" President Obama is evolving, only speculate. There have been many who say he's handled it poorly. Others who say he is on the fence to try and get more money from the gay community and those who favor a change AND not tick off the constituents I mentioned earlier.
Let me ask you, why was he FOR gay marriage in 1996 and then AGAINST it in 2008? He stated as much.
"Governor Romney supported the establishment of civil unions to satisfy the court decision that a legal alternative be available." Direct quote. He's changed on the rights issue, switching from "claiming that he supported full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens" to the complete opposite. He is completely against gay rights, and any claim to the contrary is laughable.
I'd have to be psychic to know what is behind the President's changes; they certainly don't follow traditional political reasons, that's for sure.
Correct, and if you read the sentence and other sources you'll find after the court decision allowing same sex marriage, Romney felt forced to try and provide something "lesser" to satisfy the court. It was not successful. He would have preferred neither marriage or union, but chose to try and craft union legislation to satisfy the court ruling.
In the end, you see the changes of position differently from me. I say President Obama has NOT been consistent and has taken completely opposite sides of the issue of same sex marriage. I see Gov. Romney as fairly consistent but acknowledge there was some incident where he briefly supported civil unions. I think the comments of both support this position.
The president is not going to endorse gay marriage because it will cost him votes in the election. These statements by administration officials are the way Obama can endorse the marriage equality issue without directly saying it. This allows Dems the room to maneuver for elections. Conservative Dems will not have to defend the president's position while progressives can still push the issue. But don't expect a Dem Congress to do much about the issue because they are not going to do anything that would give the far right evangelicals an issue to mobilize votes in future elections.
I agree. It seems that the wisest strategy would be to implicitly endorse the idea without providing the Right with talking points that will they will inevitably distort into Obama forcing children to attend gay weddings and to write reports on the consummation. I think he'd come out much more forcefully after the election, since I think everyone knows where he really stands on the issue. His hand may be forced to confront it earlier, but I'm not sure if he has anything to gain from volunteering the information beforehand because of your aforementioned reasons. Why energize a religious base that is disheartened with their candidate? Maybe if Romney chooses a energetic fundamentalist as his running mate then maybe it would be beneficial to "complete the evolution", so to speak.
In the "War on Women", the Republicans keep denying that the war exists, and Rachel's response has consistently been that while they deny it, they continue to make laws that indicate that they're consistently against women's issues. I'd like to use that logic and apply it to President Obama's "evolution" on gay issues. He's moved to repeal DADT. His administration won't defened DOMA. He made a public statement against Amendment One in NC. He doesn't push back against people in his administration who come out in favor of gay marriage and make them resign. He sounds pretty gay-friendly to me, much more so than Romney. Instead of ticking off the gay and lesbian members of the Democratic Party by pointing out what he hasn't said or done, why don't we get fired up over how much he actually HAS done for us.
Change, in this case, is slow.. As a married gay male (grandfathered in while it was legal in CA) in a state where it is not legal to be so, I couldn't give two squirts about where the President is in "his evolution".. Every queen in CA who complains about gay marriage not being allowed either had the opportunity to marry before Prop H8 passed or continues to complain about it with absolutely no prospects on achieving a long term relationship. I know, it appears to be skewed toward snark it is what I encounter most often, albeit not acceptable as a long term solution. The President's surrogates are holding carrots out for the gay-base, it is obvious and potentially worthwhile.
Sweet~!!!!
Yes I do have an alternative. I am going to break my lifelong commitment in voting for Democratic Presidential candidates. I am voting for Gary Johnson this year.
Will not vote for Obama this time. Gary Johnson supports same sex marriage, and he has my vote!
What's a Gary Johnson? Whatever it is it will never get elected. You have your fun being fed up with the way things are but not actually doing anything meaningful to change whats going on. But you do that, you vote for this Gary Johnson and when he's not elected we'll either have this president or one who has shown to be much less friendly to the LGBT community... But at leats you can hold your head high, being proud that you actually accomplished nothing.
Why not just take your ballot and put it through the shredder?
9.1, 9.2: just because a vote isn't cast for who you want or for the 1st alternative doesn't mean it's wasted. A vote cast is never a vote wasted no matter what long shot or protest-candidate is selected.
Frankly, I wrote in "Bradley Manning" in the primary and I'll write him in again. Proudly.
(and if you are so scared of "the alternative" then perhaps you should have fielded a stronger candidate)
I will admit right here, up-front, that I am not a Constitutional expert, but it seems to me that if Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop H8 is unconstitutional and that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment same-sex marriage is as equally valid as conventional marriage, then won't this argument (and all such laws, including Oregon's Measure 36) be moot?
Just thinking...
Not quite. The issue in California is whether a right given can be taken away which is not the same as all gay marriage referendums. California recognized gay marriage and then tried to take it away by Prop 8. But Prop 8 raises other issues for gay people who were legally married before the referendum. Can the law be retroactively applied? It should not but you never know what kind of legal dance a judge may do.
However, the reasoning in parts of the decision does answer issues that relate to all gay marriage laws. The SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right that is constitutionally protected. This allowed the court to strike down laws against miscegenation and contraception. There are a host of other laws that have been struck down based on the ruling. When the Prop 8 case arrives at the SCOTUS, it will be interesting. They can reverse the case on a procedural ground and send it back for a new hearing or the court can overturn the whole case. But that is going to require a lot of legal machinations on the part of the conservatives.
Easy to understand the polarization on this one...
Most Republicans don't believe in evolution anyway...
That's understandable considering it would force them to acknowledge there's so little genetic difference between the various world populations that anthropologists refuse to recognize "race" as having any useful scientific validity.
And as for genetic or in utero factors that give rise to gays, fuggetaboutit... They must've made a choice to be evil since it is an abomination in the Lord's eyes....
I happen to agree with Joe Biden and his evolving view on gay and lesbian culture. I believe that the right of marriage is a small, but significant, part of it. As an Irish Catholic, I am perplexed with the how adamant is the opposition of some in North Carolina based on religious beliefs.
Religious beliefs are, as interpreted by those not present, a fierce subject for debate among biblical scholars. As a lay person, my belief of the teachings of the bible are very rudimentary; love thy neighbor as thyself, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. My modern interpretation of these fundamental teachings; live and let live.
Jesus himself, when confronted by a group of pious people wanting to pass judgement on someone they considered a sinner, by casting a stone, stopped this injustice with the comment; "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone." The crowd dispersed.
The lesson; judgement of right and wrong belongs to God Almighty not to those that believe they know what God wants. Next Tuesday the voters of North Carolina go to the polls. They will vote on the right of Gays to marry. I believe Gods advise to these pious people would still be the same; "let the one without sin cast the first no vote." The lesson; judgement of right and wrong belongs to God Almighty not to those that believe they know what God wants.
Jesus advised Mary Magdalene to go and sin no more. He did not address what he considered her sins to be. He reserved his right to determine that on judgement day! As a lat person, I do know this; a ban on gay marriage is in direct conflict with two loving tenants of of Christianity, love thy neighbor as thyself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Marriage equality is one of several civil liberties issues that I support and I'm more interested in what our elected officials do about these issues than what they say is their position on them. For those of you who regard marriage equality as THE main issue, I say: considerable the real alternatives. Either Obama or Romney is going to be elected in November and, if you reside in a swing state (like Ohio or Florida), it matters very much how you vote. If you live in a state where the level of bigotry is high and the intellectual level is low, it doesn't matter how you vote. Romney is going to win those states and voting for Obama or a minor party candidates or just writing in a name won't change that. Then there the states like mine (where Obama is going to win). So I can, in good conscience, write in names for president and vice-president. But it won't be because Obama is engaging in political strategy on the marriage equality issue.
Again, I say that the bottom line is that either Obama or Romney is going to be elected in November. So. if you are in a swing state, it is well to think twice, before you vote, about which of them you really want to serve as your president for the next four years.
It's time for President Obama to stop evolving and take a stand for the civil rights of gay American citizens. He's stood against DADT and DOMA which has been a great thing to do. Now it's time to stand FOR Marriage Equality.
Live and let live is just a guide for those that believe in Christianity, and that God is the final arbiter. Jesus did take a stand against the pious wishing to pass judgments that belong to God alone.
This is not a political belief, but a moral imperative for true Christians. Voting in the 2012 elections has absolutely no bearing on the upcoming North Carolina vote on gay marriage. Unless the goal is to come to grips with recognizing those people whose beliefs reflect Christian teachings.
I think the president would do his campaign more good making a decision. He needs to stop hiding in the fog and let us know his stance. The good thing about Biden and Duncan voicing their position so close together it puts pressure on Obama to respond before November.
nobody seemed to notice, or be bothered by Joe Scarborough's comments and attitude during the discussion. Where can I SCREAM that he is becoming more and more superficial and an idiot by the day? What bothers and scares me most about him is the fact that I know that he represents an important (and ignorant) demographic that could put M Romney in the White House. Oh, and by the way... all his guests are pussies (except, of course MrBrzezinski -fiu, had to look that one up)
A person is entitled to any personal opinion he or she wants.
AMERICAN EQUALITY IS NOT DETERMINED by the "personal opinion" of any person, any more than it is determined by the "religious opinion" of any church!
Further, it is the U. S. Constitution that GUARANTEES all Americans FREEDOM from all those "personal opinions" that would otherwise destroy our liberty as humans as well as our democracy as citizens!
The President is entitled to any opinion he wants as well…
The question here, is about OUR FREEDOM, OUR EQUALITY AND OUR LIBERTY…
Not who you choose to sleep with!