Response to my letter to the Obama-Biden campaign, and a new letter

[Athelwulf]

I wrote this letter to the campaign the night of the vice-presidential debate. Here is their response:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting Senator Barack Obama and Obama for America with your thoughts on LGBT rights. We appreciate hearing from you.

Senator Obama supports economic, social, and legal rights for gays and lesbians. He supports full civil unions, expanding hate crimes statutes, fighting discrimination at work and in housing and other places of public accommodation, and wants to increase adoption rights. He opposes any Constitutional ban on gay marriage, opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, and opposes the current “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, which weakens us in a time of global challenges.

Barack is a global leader in the fight against AIDS. He traveled to Kenya and took a public HIV test to encourage testing and reduce the stigma of the disease. In late 2006, Barack Obama worked to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act, one of the largest sources of federal funds for primary health care and support services for patients with HIV/AIDS.

Senator Obama has consistently supported LGBT rights, and will continue to work for an open, tolerant society where people of all sexual orientations are protected and their contributions are valued. If you'd like to read more about the work our campaign has done in the LGBT community please visit here:

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

Thank you again for writing.


Sincerely,

Obama for America

And here is my response to their response:

I wrote the Obama-Biden campaign a couple days ago, the night of the vice-presidential debate between Senator Biden and Governor Palin, about their unanimous and unequivocal agreement that marriage is not a right that gay and lesbian American citizens deserve. I received a response that told me all the ways Sen. Obama supports GLBT Americans. I appreciate what support Sen. Obama does lend us, but my original complaint still stands that both Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden fail to realize that equal rights for gays and lesbians under the law INCLUDES the right to MARRY who they love.

The response letter says that "Senator Obama supports economic, social, and legal rights for gays and lesbians." I am aware of what Sens. Obama and Biden say, and I do sincerely appreciate the fact that their stance on the issue of my civil rights is much better than Sen. McCain's and Gov. Palin's. But I argued in my original letter that legal rights for gays and lesbians INCLUDE the right to MARRY. Yes, Sen. Obama supports civil unions, and I assume he wants civil unions to have all the same rights and responsibilities as marriages. This is great, but I believe he fails to realize that there is no point in having two separate but equal institutions of civil bond, unless your intention is to say to gays and lesbians, "Sorry, your love and commitment to each other is not worthy of a marriage license." If civil unions are identical in legal effect to marriages, why not call them marriages? If you support civil unions that are identical in legal effect to marriages, why not go one step further and support marriages instead?

Sen. Obama was born in a time when, in some states, his parents wouldn't have been allowed to marry. They wouldn't have even been allowed to have a son. Certain state governments would have deemed the love between Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. not to be worthy of legal protection of any kind. Luckily for them, Hawaii was never one of those states. I don't pretend to know Sen. Obama's parents, but I imagine they would not have been happy settling for a civil union simply because some people thought people of different races shouldn't marry.

Just as there is no point in marriage laws making a distinction based on race, there is no point in marriage laws making a distinction based on sex. While it is good that Sen. Obama would never approve of any bans on same-sex marriage, and while he does support expanded rights for gay couples, he refuses to take the next and final step by supporting same-sex marriage, even though his and Sen. Biden's pro–gay rights rhetoric includes the right of gay couples to MARRY. Gay and lesbian American citizens are not completely equal as long as we are denied the right to MARRY. This is my original complaint.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Zuiderelle]

1. You write very well. And I appreciate you writing on my behalf as well.

:thumbsup:

[Athelwulf]

5. Thank you. And no problem. :) n/t

[barbtries]

2. that's an excellent letter you wrote.

it is maddening when they write back without addressing your original point. i feel sure that obama is not taking that extra step of saying that he's for gay marriage for political purposes, but i would just as soon he took the principled stand and say, yes, i believe that all of our citizens have every civil right that is available to every other citizen.

i had an argument with my fundie friend over this. she did admit that we need a democrat in the WH as the world is so fucked up behind bush, but still said she didn't agree with gay marriage. "let them live where they want and do what they want, but that's not marriage." i said if they perceive it as marriage, who are we to naysay that, and i asked her what it was that bothered her about the issue. she said "they make so much noise." i said if women hadn't made so much noise you and i wouldn't be allowed to vote; if black people hadn't made so much noise they'd still be slaves. she agreed. she had no argument.

here's what i think: obama's campaign didn't address your specific issue because they couldn't say straight up, we don't support gay marriage because so many people are irrationally opposed to it that it might cost us votes that we will win otherwise. anyhow. if you ever do a get a response that speaks to your letter, please share it.

[Athelwulf]

6. Yeah, it annoys me too.

I understand it'd be difficult for the campaign to write direct, original responses to all their letters, so I don't worry too much about it. Still annoys me though.

And I definitely will share any response that doesn't appear to be a mere boilerplate. :)

[Miss Chybil]

3. I thought Joe Biden said they were for civil unions but that

marriage was something for people's religious institutions to decide. So, if you belong to a religious organization that performs marriages and that institution performs same-sex marriages that has nothing to do with the state. You get your marriage license, like anyone else who gets married in a courthouse and then you got get your religious ceremony done in the church of your choice.

MS. IFILL: Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same- sex benefits to couples?

SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely.

Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely, positively.

Look, in a(n) Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple. The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution, we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospital, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair. It's what the Constitution calls for.

And so we do support, we do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights of insurance, the rights of ownership, as heterosexual couples do.

MS. IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?

GOV. PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman; and unfortunately, that's sometimes where those steps lead.

But I also want to clarify. If there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant. And I have a very diverse family and group of friends, and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.

But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.

But I will tell Americans straight-up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman. And I think through nuances, we could go round and round about what that actually means, but I'm being as straight-up with Americans as I can in my non-support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

MS. IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator.

SEN. BIDEN: Let me be straight for --

MS. IFILL: Do you support gay marriage?

SEN. BIDEN: No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically a decision to be able to be left to the faiths and people who practice their faiths, the determination what you call it.

The bottom line, though, is -- and I'm glad to hear the governor -- I take her at her word, obviously -- that she thinks there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

Am I wrong in this? What am I missing? Is it just that it's not called a "marriage license?" Do you think they may be trying to avoid the actual verbage in order to forego having to fight a "wedge-issue" battle right now during the election? I don't know, maybe I just don't get it. I'm not gay. My sister is and has been a relationship for almost 10 years. Maybe, I'll just ask her. I am in an interracial marriage, though, and I suppose if I had to settle for "civil union" as opposed to marriage, I probably wouldn't be too happy about it either. I think things are coming along for everybody. Little by little. And I realize nothing would be coming along without anybody pushing it, or pulling it, and I do get your point. I just wonder if you feel they just can't go any further on the issue right now than they have.

[Athelwulf]

9. I think you interpreted it right.

Although Biden doesn't mention civil unions in that debate, I assume he supports civil unions with the same legal effect as marriages. It seems to me that most liberal Democrats think this way who talk about gay rights the way Biden did in the debate, yet still make an exception for same-sex marriage. He also seems to think that allowing churches to choose for themselves who they will marry — as if we weren't allowing them to do that as it is, and as if anyone would try to change that — will somehow resolve the issue.

He failed to realize that civil marriage and religious marriage are only related in the minds of voters and politicians. Ministers of my local United Church of Christ, for example, who are granted permission by the state of Oregon to perform legally binding marriages, cannot perform a marriage for same-sex couples and have it recognized by the state, even though they want to, because Oregon's constitution forces the state not to recognize any marriage other than ones between different-sex couples. Same-sex couples who get married by the United Church of Christ, or any other church, can't go to a county or state office and say, "We were married by our church. Can we get a license?"

What really eats me is that Biden's rhetoric completely and powerfully supports same-sex marriage. When I heard him start to talk about gay rights, I got excited. I heard it with my own ears: Just as on every other issue, his beautifully forceful rhetoric was actually arguing in favor of my rights!

MS. IFILL: Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same- sex benefits to couples?

SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely, positively. Look, in a(n) Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

I was exhilarated. Yes, "absolutely no distinction", yes! Go, Joe, go! Tear that stupid governor a new one, for me! I became especially hopeful when he actually mentioned same-sex marriage in a positive way. It seemed to good to be true.

As we now know, it was.

MS. IFILL: Do you support gay marriage?

SEN. BIDEN: No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that.

"Absolutely no distinction," eh? Nice cop-out, bastard.

What am I missing? Is it just that it's not called a "marriage license?"

That's one way of putting it. Another is that marriage laws (except in very few states) make an unfair distinction based on sex. I can't marry Joe Blow because I happen to have a penis, despite the fact that I love him, I'm committed to him, and I want legal protection for our relationship, just like any other couple. If it were pre-1967 Alabama, Joe Blow were straight and white, and he wanted to marry Jane Doe, who happened to not be white, they would have exactly the same legal problem.

Having access at least to a civil contract with the same rights and responsibilities that come with marriage would be nice. The larger part of the struggle is obtaining those rights and responsibilities, after all. The problem is, a "marriage for different-sex couples, civil unions for same-sex couples" type of system would preserve the problem of the law making an unfair distinction based on sex. They have this system in the comparatively progressive United Kingdom. Only couples of a man and a woman can get a marriage license; only couples of two men or two women can get civil partnerships. Their respective legal effects are perfectly equal. Separate, but equal. Like I wrote in my second letter, if civil unions are equal to marriages, why not call them marriages? And why not support marriage if you support the idea of same-sex couples having all the same rights as different-sex couples?

Referring back to the UK, there's an interesting problem with their laws that reveals both the senselessness of separate institutions for gay and straight couples and the senselessness of refusing to allow same-sex marriage in the first place. Since the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the UK has allows transgendered people to change their legal sex, and has legal procedures to facilitate the change. According to Schedule 4 of the act, if a person who changes his or her sex is married, their marriage is voidable. As this article on Wikipedia explains, a marriage must be dissolved before the person seeking to change their legal sex can do so. The Civil Partnership Act 2004, passed subsequently, theoretically makes this problem better, but a marriage cannot simply be converted into a civil partnership.

Do you think they may be trying to avoid the actual verbage in order to forego having to fight a "wedge-issue" battle right now during the election?

Possibly. They may feel intimidated into softening their support for GLBT rights, for the sake of appealing to more people. But one has to wonder, aren't the American people generally fed up with the Republicans' divisive politics? Isn't this precisely what Obama is campaigning against? It seems entirely compatible to me to support same-sex marriage completely and unequivocally to spite the Republicans' attempts to make us vote against it. Alas, on this particular issue, Obama's call for change has a strange ring to it. When I fill in Obama's bubble on my mail-in ballot later this month, it won't feel as good as it really ought to. I won't be filled with as much hope as I should be.

I don't know, maybe I just don't get it.

All that matters is you're sincerely trying, and you're approaching the issue with an open mind. :)

[hulklogan]

4. Why does Senator Obama's office automatically connect LGBT issues with HIV/AIDS?

Sure it's an issue, but isn't it more of a health care issue?

[Athelwulf]

7. I never thought about that, but you're completely right. n/t

[davidinalameda]

12. because it's a health care issue that affects a large number of gay Americans

and I for one am interested in what an Obama administration will do for people with HIV

[Athelwulf]

14. It affects more than just gay people.

Even if it were conceivably a "gay issue" in the past, I believe times have changed. The connection is tenuous now. I don't see a reason for the association to persist. In fact, I think it's more effective to address it as a health issue than as a gay issue.

[hulklogan]

16. Obama has been doing this since McClurkin - connecting HIV/AIDS with LGBT issues

In fact, one of the main bullet points on Obama's LGBT issues page talks about how he supports HIV/AIDS funding for heterosexual women! Why, of all the things LGBT Americans are concerned with, does he think straight women's health care is near the top of the list?

[Zuiderelle]

17. I agree. I find it increasingly odd to always bring up HIV/AIDs when talking about gay issues.

It serves to inexorably tie it to us, as if it's only our issue, and no one else's. Why not always bring it up when talking about African American issues, or women's issues? Continuing to advance the notion that it's mainly a gay issue, serves to marginalize the issue itself, as we are marginalized, and does a disservice to the millions of other people it affects.

[davidinalameda]

21. times haven't changed

hate to burst your little bubble

you still have thousands of gay men being infected

the Bush administration effectively killed any sex positive advertising on HIV

it's all sex negative

It doesn't sound like you know much about marketing but you have to tweak your message to get to the various target audiences

I want to know what they're going to do in the GLBT community to help fight the disease

[hulklogan]

23. There is no doubt that HIV/AIDS is still an important issue for many LGBT Americans.

My problem with Obama's linking of HIV/AIDS and gay people is that it reminds me of two falsehoods:

1. Only LGBT people need be concerned about HIV/AIDS, even when the specific policy is HIV prevention among heterosexuals.

2. LGBT people have shorter life spans than heterosexuals because they all have or might get HIV/AIDS.

Seriously, though, the sex negative puritanical attitude that always pops up when someone comes up with an interesting and relevant HIV/AIDS awareness campaign isn't going to go away just because Barack Obama is in the White House. We'll never be able to pay for those effective marketing techniques with taxpayer money as long as there are repressed Republicans controlling the cash register.

[Zuiderelle]

24. Then write them a letter and ask. The fact remains that HIV/AIDS has nothing to do with the letter

written by the OP.

[Athelwulf]

37. Yes, in fact they have.

you still have thousands of gay men being infected

What of the thousands of straight people that are infected too?

It doesn't sound like you know much about marketing but you have to tweak your message to get to the various target audiences

Indeed, that must be done. So why isn't AIDS being addressed as a health issue that affects the entire population of the United States? Why the restricted, myopic focus on gay people? The message won't get out to as many straight people, who are among the various target audiences unless you, well, target them.

I want to know what they're going to do in the GLBT community to help fight the disease

And I have straight friends who want to know what they're going to do in the "straight community" to help fight the disease. Doesn't the straight community's equal vulnerability to HIV matter?

[davidinalameda]

43. I'm not straight

I care more about those in my community who are being infected

that's my concern

I want to know how my community is going to be helped.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. i disagree. in america hiv and aids is very much still a gay issue

our denial of it just goes to show how stigmatized gay men with hiv and aids are.

[Zuiderelle]

25. But it has nothing to do with the letter the OP wrote. And it doesn't answer the OP's questions.

And using it in the response to him indicates that they consider it a gay issue... when it is an issue that affects everyone, not just gay men. It's like they have this list of issues they consider gay and they list them off in response to anyone gay asking a question.

I care what they are doing about HIV/AIDS, but if I asked them specifically what their position is on gay marriage, I certainly don't expect to get as an answer what they are doing about HIV/AIDS.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. i guess they are trying to make a point that they are working on issues relating to us

that are not gay marriage

which is better than nothing

which is what eventually all elections come down to for gay people... i agree its sad and clearly prevaricating the issue/.

[Zuiderelle]

28. Yeah. That is what they're doing.

And it's frustrating getting that spiel as a response to a direct question about one specific issue. But yeah.. it's what we've got and we have to keep working at it and on them.

[Athelwulf]

38. It's equally an issue for every other demographic in this nation.

Therefore, it cannot be termed simply a "gay issue."

Gay men with HIV or AIDS are not stigmatized in my mind. They don't deserve their stigma, and neither does anyone else that has contracted any sort of disease, including AIDS. I see them as among the many unfortunate victims of a grand epidemic that equally affects everyone it touches. I see HIV/AIDS as a general health issue, not specifically a "gay issue."

I totally agree that gay people should be concerned about HIV/AIDS, but HIV doesn't only affect gay people. Everyone should be worried; thus, it's a general health issue.

[EC]

8. Good letter,

but I guess I'm confused...aren't all "marriages" considered civil unions to the government and considered marriage in the church? Even when I got married in the church the license stated it was a civil union...



I do and I don't have a dog in this fight since my daughter is gay...she just doesn't care to get married again, even though she's planning on staying forever with the woman she loves, she just doesn't want to marry...so it's not an issue for me. Just wanted to know what the difference is.


Also on edit: I think Obama isn't addressing this as an issue because he is trying to stay away from the morality issues or as they are called the hot button issues...and trying to stay with the issues that are universal to all, the economy and peace....I think he believes the government has no right to legislate morality.

[Athelwulf]

10. Thank you.

As for your question, marriages conducted by the government are purely civil, but they aren't officially "civil unions," as far as I know. Otherwise it would make no sense, for example, in Vermont to talk about the rights that come with a civil union as compared to a marriage.

Which state did you get married in? I'd like to find a sample license for that state, so I can see what you're talking about.

[davidinalameda]

11. does it matter to you that Obama has come out against Prop 8?

probably not

face it; the majority of Americans don't support marriage rights for all

unless there's a legal challenge that gives us that right, it's going to take a while to get full marriage equality

voting for a third party candidate only helps McCain no matter how good that candidate is on GLBT issues

an Obama administration will be the most gay positive administration in history

he wants to repeal DOMA, DADAT and enact ENDA

since people can still be fired for being gay, I'd say that marriage rights run second to ENDA

[Athelwulf]

13. Don't put words in my mouth.

Don't assume I don't appreciate the support Obama actually does lend, as I quite plainly said in my second letter to the campaign. Thing is, because he does support a wide array of rights for gay and lesbian Americans, I cannot criticize him on the points where he and I actually agree. So it's kinda pointless to bring them up except to praise him for it, which I did.

face it; the majority of Americans don't support marriage rights for all

The majority of Americans are also tired of the Republicans' divisive politics that make use of such wedge issues as same-sex marriage. This is the very thing Obama is campaigning against, so I'm at a loss as to why he fails to completely support gay rights. I intend to draw attention to this inconsistency. I don't intend to "face it": I intend to affect change.

unless there's a legal challenge that gives us that right, it's going to take a while to get full marriage equality

And in the meantime, I'll do what's within my means to keep pushing for these legal challenges, and to support them when they arise.

voting for a third party candidate only helps McCain no matter how good that candidate is on GLBT issues

And this is relevant to me and my letters how?

he wants to repeal DOMA, DADAT and enact ENDA

Does he really? If only I had read the campaign's response to my first letter. Then that wouldn't have been news to me.

since people can still be fired for being gay, I'd say that marriage rights run second to ENDA

I think they are concerns of equal import. What I mean by that is, I'm just as concerned by labor rights, adoption rights, and any other issue you could possibly think of as it relates to GLBT rights (and this is not the whole of my political scope, mind) as I am about equal rights for same-sex relationships.

If my goal is to hammer a nail and my only options are a loaf of bread and a shoe, I'll take the shoe in the meantime, but I'll also keep trying to get a hammer.

[MNBrewer]

15. "since people can still be fired for being gay"

Not true. Not everywhere.

Not in Minnesota! I can't legally be fired for my sexual orientation in my home state. But guess what. I can't get married here.

I'd say in MN that Marriage Equality comes before job protections. Do gay Minnesotans have to wait for Federal ENDA to pass before we can move on Marriage?

[TankLV]

18. In other words: TRUE, except in a FEW places like Minnesota...

People CAN BE FIRED FOR BEING GAY.

In MOST places.

That's the REALITY...

[MNBrewer]

29. and in MORE places, they can't get married.

So what do we do now?

[MNBrewer]

30. 43% of Americans live in states with employment protections

When 51% have such protection, can Marriage move above employment in terms of priority, or do we wait until it's 100%?

<http://www.hrc.org/documents/Employment_Laws_and_Policies.pdf>

[dsc]

31. I would imagine it would depend upon where the person you are talking to happens to live

but it actually also affects you since it keeps people in red states in the closet and makes it harder to get pro gay people elected in those states.

[MNBrewer]

32. Life is full of choices

and, that's a pretty weak argument. I can't go for marriage in Minnesota, because a gay friendly US Senator won't get elected in Alabama, because someone in AL won't come out, because they might get fired?

[dsc]

33. I don't think anyone is saying you can't go for marriage

but we are saying that for some of us, a federal ENDA law would be a higher priority. In the long run, a federal ENDA law would make marriage equality far more likely.

[MNBrewer]

34. This is not a zero sum game

We CAN have it all.

[dsc]

35. there is an eventual limit on resources

which Arizona is finding out now. It surely isn't a zero sum game but it is eventually a limited sum game. My state is starting out by attempting to prevent bullying in school as a first step to get gay in legislation.

[MNBrewer]

40. oh yeah, I forgot about that!

We should stop pushing for employment protections until all the states pass anti-bullying legislation, THEN employment, THEN what.... DADT? Marriage? what? When?

[Athelwulf]

42. Totally!

OMG! We must focus only on anti-bullying legislation. Only once we've won that battle can we move on to the next. We can't be any more daring than this, or else we risk losing an election! Winning the election tops every other concern. Never mind the chance we might actually win despite supporting same-sex marriage outright, and never mind that compromising ourselves would be yet another example of the harmful effects of the Republicans' divisive politics. It's too risky!

Sarcasm aside, I think people ought to read MLK Jr's quotes. They would find this among them:

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.

[dsc]

44. when he was fighting for the civil rights bill

how many public statements about interracial marriage did he make? I bet it was close to zero.

[TankLV]

45. SO IN MOST PLACES THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS!!!

MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT/CRITICIZM OF YOUR POST IS CORRECT...YOU SAID SO!!!

[MNBrewer]

52. Depends on how you define "most places"

Kinda like how GWB won overwhelmingly based on geographical land mass.

What's the proportion of gay people that make up the 44% of the US population that live in states with employment protections? Could be 44, could be 50, could be 60! We don't know. Might be able to guess at it.

My politics is unrestrained by the limits you want to place on me.

[davidinalameda]

22. not everywhere no

and for your last question-its a matter of resources

take a look at the three anti-gay marriage ballot measures-what state is getting the most attention-California

people aren't really paying attention to Arizona or Florida because people know that the measures will probably pass-more than probably but I'm not psychic

if you want to move on to marriage in your state-do it but people in other states are still fighting for the right to keep their jobs if their boss tries to fire them for being gay or if their landlord tries to evict them (yes, I realize that that is a separate issue from ENDA but it's still an issue)

I'd say that is much more important right now than marriage rights for more people

and why are people focusing on California-because we're the largest state in the nation and allowing same sex marriages here will resonate across the country

I don't see gay marriage being legalized by Congress; if it does happen on the federal level, it will from the Supreme Court

[Creideiki]

51. Arizona seems likely to pass

Florida seems likely to fail.

[davidinalameda]

53. the Arizona measure will pass

by a small margin

the Florida measure might not but only because the vote has to be 2/3 in favor

[keepCAblue]

49. The only reason Obama has come out against prop 8...

...is to keep in step with his stated position that marriage equality should be left up to the states, and not to the federal government. By passing the buck of responsibility to the states, Obama is likely trying to dodge a bullet. However, when so many federal laws affect marital status, it is irresponsible of Obama to pass the buck, leaving it for individual states to decide. I'm quite sure MLK and other civil rights fighters of the 60s would have been deservedly outraged had they been told that THEIR rights were left up to individual states to decide. Hell, if that had been history's course, blacks would still be sittin' in the back of the bus in most Southern states.

[Creideiki]

50. The Prop 8 statement was very, very quiet

It was a letter from the campaign to a gay organization. It's not like he's appearing in commercials saying that he, Barack Obama, opposes discrimination, or that inequality anywhere is a threat to equality everywhere.

Still, it was more than I was expecting.

[TankLV]

19. Now, I know this is a valid criticism, but KEEP THE EYE ON THE PRIZE!

Yes, this issue is important to me and my partner.

BUT WE HAVE MUCH BIGGER FISH TO FRY.

Sorry, but this discussion, while valid, even EXTREMELY valid, only serves to divide us now, at this crucial time...

You don't point out all the disagreements within your own army, when you are in a battle with the ENEMY...

Hey, we're fighting HITLER at the moment at this battle of the bulge, and this could make or break civilization, but last week at the mess hall, you said my girlfriend was ugly, so I'm not gonna fight THIS battle, but I'm gonna pick a fight with, YOU - MY FELLOW SOLDIER - over what you called my girlfriend/mom/brother...so THERE! Now put up your dukes...!!!

Sorry.

Wrong Place.

Wrong Time.

[Athelwulf]

36. It's never the wrong place nor the wrong time to fight for civil rights.

However, I do appreciate the fact that you agree with me.

[keepCAblue]

48. How many times was MLK told "It's not the right time..."?

So glad he didn't listen. So sorry Obama apparently learned nothing from the example of MLK.

[BR_Parkway]

26. Now if I said "I support the right of blacks to vote, but not to run for office"

I'm guessing the campaign would be quick to tell me how wrong that idea was.....

[Athelwulf]

39. And if you had said that and were running for office on the Democratic ticket,

I'm sure most people, Democrats included, wouldn't hesitate to criticize your incomplete support for the rights of blacks.

It's sad that civil rights are cast aside equally as readily as any other political issue when it's not seen as popular.

[BR_Parkway]

46. Even sadder that we used to elect leaders who championed issues

rather than the more likely "hold you nose" crowd that we normally get to pick from.

You would think that with a grand total of 537 people to be elected between the Pres/VP, Senate and House - we ought to be able to find a majority of electable people who truly champion some of the progressive values we liberals stand for instead of so many CorporateRepublican Lite

[keepCAblue]

41. Guess the Obama camp didn't get the memo...

"continue to work for an open, TOLERANT society ..."

That word - TOLERANT - is such an insult to many LGBTs. It's ACCEPTANCE, numbskull, not TOLERANCE!

[amb123]

47. Absolutely, GLBT's either have 100% or their rights or 0% of their rights.

There is no in-between. There is no such thing as having some rights but not others.