Obama Tells MTV He Won't Push Gay Marriage in Second Term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party_(United_States)

 

But if that's a problem for DOMA, doesn't that also blow a hole in any argument for federal SSM?

On this one Obama has been a bit stupid anyway.

 

No dude, I'm talking about modern federalism, also known as "states' rights." Not federalism from the First Party System.

New Federalism

 

Not surprised. He already broke his promise to repeal DOMA in his first term. Wasn't expecting him to do it in his second term.

 

I don't really consider gay marriage to be politically important. I kinda hope that people will eventually figure out that there isn't a difference between hetereo- or homosexual marriage. The government stepping in and making it legal won't just magically fix everything. People would still be against it. So I don't think it's surprising for any politician to go back and forth on this issue.

 

i know DOMA's on the spot at the moment, but the repeal of DADT in his first term was a big step.

i voted a couple days ago btw. i was very happy to do so.

 

I concur with the Presidents stance here. Discretion is the better part of valor.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

the issue is that the federal goverment is not incharge of marriage. that has ALWAYS been the job of the states.

Obama is following the rulebook by promoting marriage equality, but leaving it to the only entities that have the constitutional right to pursue it, the states.

 

Maybe I was one of only a few people on earth to paid attention when we were all taught about the different areas and powers of government, because I feel that 99% of this countries population doesnt.

President=/= King

Everyones always shocked when the president doesnt make drastic changes in law and legislation during his term, as if he has the power to simply waltz in there and change whatever he likes. Many of the promises that Obama, and any other president have made, they have tried to fullfill. However, just because they wish it, doesnt make it so. There are various sections of government for a reason. The president cannot do whatever he wants, and the same people who disagree with him pre-election will disagree with him post-election.

He doesnt even say I give up I wont quit. He says "it is up to the states/people". Which numerious topics have always been. Why are we shocked here? Why are we so ready to get offended when in reality we have no valid reason?

 

There isn't a rats chance that Obama could get gay marriage passed federally. The congress is more conservative than the general public(reflecting the # of Republicans, and the base they represent). Hence, the difficulty in repealing DADT.

Really, if we were lucky(and I mean lucky) we might get DOMA repealed in Congress. But I highly doubt it. Most legislation gets passed/repealed early on in a presidents first term.

 

A bunch of crazy rednecks are waving the rebel flag and shouting "States Rights!".

 

For example, racial segregation statutes and bans on interracial marriage...which remained laws on the books until the federal government told the states and the people in the South that it was not acceptable. Civil rights is a federal issue, not a state one. If we left racial equality to the states/people, then segregation would still be in force in Alabama. And if we leave LGBTQ equality to the states/people, we will NEVER gain equality under the law in some states.

And Obama hasn't tried to do much of anything he promised; he certainly hasn't tried to advocate for marriage equality for LGBTQ couples to anywhere near the extent he could have as president of the United States- if he had wanted to. Ultimately, Obama is nothing more than another slimy politician who does what is best for his checkbook and his re-election chances. A lot of people were fooled in 2008 into thinking Obama was actually going to be a strong president to stand up against injustice and put what is right over what is best politically. But they were wrong.

 

In order for any federal level politician to stick his neck out for lgbt rights on a national level he will need some level of support from a good portion of states. Its kind of hard to expect any President to do much when even some of the US's most liberal states won't legalize gay marriage. He would be directly attacking the decisions of the vast majority of the country. When everything was desegregated, at least a large portion of the country favored those measures already, and even that action changed the political landscape in the US forever. Who knows what would happen if gay marriage was handled the same way (from a politician's point of view).

 

When the federal government struck down states' laws against interracial marriage in 1967, the American public overwhelmingly opposed interracial marriage. A year after the ruling, still only 20% of Americans supported it. American popular opinion did not catch up to the court ruling until the 1990s, 3 decades after the federal government FORCED them to accept civil rights for a minority population.




This idea that the federal government can't act until there is a majority in support of marriage equality is total nonsense and a cover for cowardice. In the 60s the federal government told the majority that their opinions on the civil rights of a minority population were irrelevant; they were entitled to equal protection under the law no matter how small a minority they are.

On marriage equality, the country today splits about 50-50 between support and opposition, with probably a small majority in favour now...a far stronger position in terms of popular support than the Supreme Court had when it ruled in Loving v. Virginia against the wishes of 73% of Americans.



It will take federal action first, to implement marriage equality in all 50 states, and then that will be the catalyst for changing hearts and minds, just as how popular opinion eventually caught up to the court ruling legalizing interracial marriage. Look at states where marriage equality has been implemented: even people who fought against it tooth and nail when it was first being discussed are realizing that it isn't the end of the world they had thought it would be.

 

I agree that it has to be a federal strategy, and I think it also needs to be a judicial strategy. The Congress will never pass it, while it's remotely (only just) that the Supreme Court might do it. The point is, marriage equality is a constitutional requirement.

 

leaving it to the states and working through the courts is ultimately a tactical move. Frankly what he has done is about as much as he can do. The argument which Obama helped write to challenge DOMA would result in the federal government being required to recognize same sex marriage performed in the states. The plus side is he argued for heightened scrutiny which would classify all issues related to LGBT individuals as deserving of heightened scrutiny by the courts. As a result any and all legislation that would effect LGBT people would have to be argued to them and the proponents of such legislation would have to make the argument that what they are doing is not discriminatory, will not have any negative effect on LGBT people, and is necessary. Basically heightened scrutiny tells the courts "hey no ones looking out for these people you have to." If that argument passes then the result would mean an easy overturn of any same sex marriage bans through the courts and basically a fast track for the states all passing marriage equality through the courts. What he has done for marriage equality and gay rights in general is actually very impressive and there is not much more he needs to do unless he wants to get involved with how they will change the paperwork for same sex spouses lol.

I don't think there is a way he can't go down in history as the best president for LGBT rights in the history of the united states regarding the tireless work the administration has done foreign and domestic. hate crime laws, protection of LGBT students, anti-bullying work, using U.S. influence to help combat legislation in other countries, challenging DOMA while also ordering the department of justice to stop defending it, repeal of DADT, etc.

There is definitely still other work to do but if you look at where marriage equality is all we are doing is playing a waiting game at this point. Waiting for DOMA to be repealed, waiting for the public opinion to shift just a teeny bit more, and waiting for the heightened scrutiny argument which will ultimately help us in every LGBT rights related battle till the end of time.

 

It was the federal courts that did that though. While Congress isn't part of the Presidents jurisdiction, he at least has influence over their agenda.

The courts are another matter. The SC is currently considering DOMA cases, and has the opportunity to, should it choose, to open marriage rights to same sex couples. Their choice to decide on that matter, is hopefully not influenced by the Presidents decision to push for it or against it. They are meant to be an entirely separate entity.

 

The federal government would not have struck those laws down had they not been forced to by the courts.

 

Yes, it was the Courts. That's precisely Rakkaus's point. That the highest Court in the land obliterated the will of an overwhelming majority of Americans because we have a constitution, and we're not a direct democracy.

I like Rachel Maddow's take on rights: "the thing about rights is that you don't get to vote on them. That's why they're called rights."

Yes. He knows that. That's why he cites Loving. Did you read what he wrote?