Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions [Agrees that ban on gay marriage unconstitional]

TPM ElectionCentral ^ | May 15, 2008 | Eric Kleefeld

[Brilliant]

Barack Obama is sticking by his defense of same-sex unions, despite the likelihood that it will flare up as a general election issue because of today's California Supreme Court decision legalizing it. Here's the Obama camp's response to the court decision:

"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage." The Republicans are likely to seize on Obama's respect for the court's decision as proof that electing Obama would bring about gay marriage across the country. Of course, it's also worth noting that Obama stops short of embracing gay marriage, putting him out of step with many on the left.

No statement yet from Hillary Clinton. John McCain's spokesman, however, has weighed in with this:

"John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions." Late Update: Here is the Clinton campaign's statement:

Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

[Aquinasfan]

A marriage must be consumated to be legally valid, since one of the two complimentary and defining purposes of marriage is the begetting and raising of children.

Sooo.... Have the Cal Supreme Court geniuses defined consumation for same-sex couples? If not, why not? Aren't same-sex marriages supposed to be equal to true marriages? If so, then what is the purpose of such a "consumation"? Is it subjective (perverse) pleasure? If so, then by this definition of marriage, any interpersonal act that begets pleasure is a "marital act."

The absurdities are endless. It takes years of schooling and never having worked to get this stupid. What complete and utter idiots.

[MrB]

Leftist, postmodernist, “mosaic generation” people are

“comfortable with contradiction”.

Meaning: they are impervious to logic

[Aquinasfan]

There is traditional marriage, defined by God from the very beginning of the human race, then there is everything else. Once THE definition is compromised, no logical argument can be made for another definition that excludes ANYTHING.

Bingo!

[Brilliant]

Note that his official statement mentions “same-sex unions,” while he commented approvingly of the CA decision supporting “gay marriage.” Apparently, while he tries to temper his support by calling it “same sex unions” he’s nevertheless supporting “gay marriage.”

Not that there is any difference.

[Isabelle]

women to dogs~~~~~~~think that’s already happened!

[RobinOfKingston]

Huh! Like I need one more reason not vote for this ... fellow.

[Neoliberalnot]

I am a bit behind the times. Just call me, not progressive. :)

[HwyChile]

The CA decision was a huge decision, yet the media does not report it because it kills the democrats.

Obama is lying as usual. He says he is personally against gay marriage but believes in civil unions for gays, which is a distinction without merit. He is for gay marriage just like every other liberal democrat.

[whatisthetruth]

California already had civil unions, Obama supports state courts’ making law usurping the will of the people through their voting process.

[Missouri gal]

MSM is flat lying about Obama’s position, claiming he opposes “gay” “marriage.” See, e.g., msnbc’s article on the Californicatia ruling today.

[Brilliant]

It won’t make any difference that the media ignores the issue, provided that social conservatives rally behind the GOP. The problem is that they don’t seem to be interested in doing that.

[Alia]

As I understand the tenets of Muslimism, The "Black Church" and Black liberation Theology, homosexuality is not necessarily encouraged nor accepted.

Homosexuality is accepted as a power sharer in the Marxist coalition; but only as a "partner" in the coalition.

Oh heck, let's revisit preGavinNewsom days, and the brawls between the black and lavender lobbies for power in tony little San Francisco. Then, the black establishment won the reigns to the city under Willie Brown. Royally tee'd off the Gay establishment. But they were told their turn at running the city would be next and to be just be patient. And so, instead they got Gavin. The gay establishment got lots of minions to the throne positions. And this is partly why Gavin (Mr. All-Gay-Marriages, like straight marriages, are-monogamous) got so much heat for his affair with a staffer. His affair was AFTER his declaration from the City steps pronouncing hundreds of gay couples as "married". (He couldn't "uphold respect" for the fact that his straight female trystee was MARRIED).

Three guesses who was throwing most that heat at Newsom? (Hint: It wasn't the Black Establishment; they had themselves too many instances of "such" liaisons shelving the concept of monogamy in marriage.)

[Alia]

And during the willie brown days, and in discussions, we did offer "domestic unions". Dems and Gay Lobby said NO DICE: It was "marriage" or nothing. But, what they did was soft peddle and work through the AG's office and the City of San Francisco.

You know what they did in SF? Made a law, that if a business did NOT provide marriage like benefits to gay couples, they'd have to leave San Francisco. Instantly lots of businesses, many unable to beat the deadline, began offering "domestic partnership" benefits around the ring of the Bay Area. And that's how "domestic partnerships" were "forced" into the San Francisco Bay Area.

[Free Bee]

Come’on... Everyone knows that Amendment to the Constitution they're referring to. It reads as follows:

“Congress shall make no law prohibiting Randy and Frank from becoming husband and wife”

[nikos1121]

This is huge for the republicans. MCCain needs to make this a major issue and get Obama to scream his endorsement. McCain needs to make his views clear and not wishy washy.

[jmaroneps37]

Unfortunately Mccain will be able to win easily without conservatives. Look barack mcgovern will find it hard to break 42%. He will NOT get the Hispanic vote because the Hispanics will not turn over their very hard won place as the number one minority in America. He will NOT get the Jewish vote because he is suspect on Israel and has a dangerous habit of surrounding himself with anti Semites like Wright and Carter. He will not get the 20% of rank and file Democrats who have already said they will NOT vote for him. They have said they would vote for McCain. If that were so it would be over in early October. Those people won't vote for McCain, they will STAY HOME, which is far worse for the rat.
That he will not win the White male vote is a given, but what the ratmedia is trying to cover up that fact that nobody in his right mind believes he will do even as well as frenchie and algore who ARE White males. I believe he won't break 22% of White males. California has just 7% Black voters, Hispanics make up 35%, do the math. barack mcgovern will set records for the biggest ash kicking in history.

[Neoliberalnot]

I do pray you are right.