Obama and the Gay Issue–Still Inconsistent, Still Not Discussed

For several years, Barack Obama claimed he was opposed to gay marriage because of his religious faith. He belongs to a denomination that supports gay marriage, but no television host or reporter ever questioned him about this inconsistency. Now that political correspondents have learned more about Obama’s religion, he has stopped making this claim.

The entire concept of gay marriage is, of course, totally phony, though no candidate or politician dares to point this out. All marriages in this country are civil unions; there is no difference between the “civil union” of a gay couple and the “marriage” of a straight couple. Without the paperwork, a marriage is not legal, no matter how many priests are present at the wedding ceremony. Giving gay couples the right to marry is the same as giving them the right to have a “civil union,” but rather than make the obvious clear, politicians keep stepping around the non-issue. Under any system, a particular church has the right to refuse to perform a ceremony, but that is the only factor involved. Otherwise, there is no difference between two straight people going to City Hall for the paperwork, two gay people going to City Hall, two bisexual people going, etc.

But back to Obama…Having dropped the “religious faith” argument, he proceeded to present a pro-“civil union” plan as part of his platform. Of course, he did this while promoting gay-hating and gay “conversion” via Donnie McClurkin in South Carolina (compliments of some of that non-existent PAC money, of course). And at the same time, there has been little to no discussion of his 2004 statement, “I don’t think marriage is a civil right.” Even the interviewer in this debate let the statement go, but the statement is important because–if Obama believes that marriage is not a civil right–then he could not have supported his parents’ marriage had they met at a time when miscegenation was a felony in the U.S.

There could be more conflict, too, if man-of-the-hour Bill Richardson becomes more involved in the Obama campaign. In the 2007 presidential debate on Logo, Richardson stated that homosexuality is a choice. How enlightened is that? By the way, that is a belief Obama does not share–well, “in most cases,” he says (I would love to know who “chooses” lifelong oppression and abuse), and of course, most Americans do not care about gay rights, but the LGBT community needs to pay attention.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Obama and the Gay Issue–Still Inconsistent, Still Not Discussed

  1. Gilbert Martinez says:

    Richardson’s “choice” comment was most likely a misstatement. Besides that one statement, his record is pretty consistent.

    One thing that I keep noticing about Obama, however, is his use of a large number of qualifiers, e.g., “in most cases” or “in general” or “occassionaly”. This makes me really question his capacity to lead. Secifically, in what direction he would try to take the country. Fortunately, I don’t think he’ll be the nominee so it doesn’t much matter this time around.

  2. Diane Elayne Dees says:

    Richardson’s choice comment, if it was a “misstatement,” was a huge one, and–in my opinion–inexcusable. The rest of his statement was even worse. He became very defensive and demonstrated, to me, that he is clueless about LGBT issues, despite his having done the “right” thing as governor.

  3. ironxl84 says:

    Talk, talk, talk….

    Here is the bottom line for all those “shoot themselves in the foot Democrats”…

    A Vote for Obama becomes a Vote for the Brain-Dead McCain.

    Get it?

    DUH!

    Tom

  4. chris c says:

    I saw the Logo program last summer. Richardson was so uncomfortable being there with the gay interviewers and the small gay studio audience that he looked like he would rather undergo a slow and painful root canal than stay any longer than he had to. He seemed almost proud of his ignorance about us–as if not having any knowledge of gay and lesbian people proved how heterosexual he was. It was pretty gross. Clinton was by far the most comfortable–that was totally obvious. I wasn’t impressed with Edwards level of comfort around us either, and I was a supporter of his back then.

    Obama panders to homophobes in the black religious community. I believe the black church has influenced his views on gay civil rights. But there is rampant sexism in the gay and lesbian community, which is the reason why Obama is not called on his contradictory behavior—gay men excuse it. They just don’t want to see a woman elected.

    John Aravosis and Andrew Sullivan are mere examples of the large number of gay men who have no use for women, not just sexually, but in general. Their Clinton hatred is disturbing and feels quite personal. Men like Aravosis and Sullivan do not get called on this nearly enough by lesbians.

    I am not saying all gay men are sexist. But look at the gay and lesbian organizations that have all thrown their support behind Obama–they’ve all got gay men at the top levels.

    Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton the first black president. I think Hillary Clinton would make the first gay president—she is straight, but she understands what it’s like to have her image distorted and to be labeled an enemy of tradition.

  5. There is a distinct difference between mating and marriage. Humans have always mated (generally in the mode of serial monogamy, as that’s what our biology dictates), giving rise to generations of children for a million years. Marriage, however, not so much. Maybe a few hundred years.

    Homosexuality, on the other hand, seeems to go back much further towards the origins of life.

  6. bjerryberg says:

    Why are you talking about sex — when life and death issues of foreclosure and health-care are obviously far more important to the future of the country?

    Folks, the economy of the world is in free-fall.

    It is the System that is the problem–not the mortgages, not the gas prices, not the sodomy laws, etc., etc,

    Bear, Stearns collapse and its Federal Reserve bailout is the tip of the iceberg–the rest of the good ship Titanic has hit that iceberg. The Nixon-Schultz post-1971 financial system has died. Let it go.

    Who is going to bailout JPMorgan Chase now that the FED has bailed them out to bailout Bear, Stearns? JP’s portfolio of worthless mortgage securities is far larger than Bear, Stearns.

    Who in the Dem Party wants the taxpayers to be hammered for this bailout–without their actual knowledge or consent?

    How many people are you willing to let die to pay for this bailout process, corporate Dems Dean, Pelosi and Obama?

    Do these media-preferred anti-FDR Dems want to protect people or bailout financier gamblers?

    Why has the Chicago Board of Trade’s ‘Hope’ candidate Obama had so little to say on real economic issues?

    The much-maligned LaRouche has had this matter right–for decades.

  7. myiq2xu says:

    I recall the debate when Richardson made that statement. It was hosted by the LBGT community so such a question should have been expected and moderator Melissa Etheridge gave Richardson a second chance to make sure he understood the question.

    It was no “misstatement.”

    The Daily Show even ran the clip because Richardson looked so stupid.

  8. Janis says:

    Darrell, here’s an idea — instead of just blithely guessing that marriage has been around for “maybe a few hundred years” why not actually read a bit of history and do some research? The idea of sanctioning a relationship that will result in children — and thus settling the question of inheritance and property transfer — has been around for millennia. For as long as there have been humans we have given a lot of thought to who gets out stuff when we die. And some form of legal/religious recognition of who’s boinking whom is a crucial part of that.

    For pete’s sake, read a book. There really is no need to make off-the-cuff statements about things that have been researched into the ground. You actually can just go and find out for real instead of talking from a position of ignorance. Merely saying something and believing it to be true is enough to win arguments on Usenet or 4chan, but in the political arean, it’s considered good form to ask a question and then dig up some real information. *sigh*

  9. Eakarach says:

    I think Bill Richardson is a traiter,backstabber and hypocrite.

  10. Janis: What was taught at the law school where I got my J.D. Degree in 1976 is that “marriage” was created by British Royalty as a means of raising revenue, through the sales of high priced marriage licenses to well to do folks. Poor people need not apply, because they could not afford the price of admission. Previously, your spouse was your spouse because you both said that and no one else had the right to dispute the matter. That is, when people mated and stuck to each other they were husband and wife and no certificate was needed from government to add legitimacy to the matter.

    Also, my undergrad was in biology, so let’s take it back 20,000 years. We had ancestors then, and they we’re clearly human. Let me ask you what formalities, if any, you believe they had to go through before their peers would affirm that they were as much together as anyone else around them?

  11. Janis says:

    Um, Darrell? Try reading some ancient history — Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, middle Americans of all stripes, people in the high cultures extant in India and China … all had ways of solemnizing procreative relationships.

    Your law school taught you when modern marriage as bureaucratically defined came into being, not when marriage-period came into being.

    History. Read it. Seriously — go read it. I’ll wait.

    Or do you seriously think that everyone just boinked at random prior to 17-something or other? Jesus.

  12. Janis: I’ll think what I’ll do, instead, is wait until you read what I actually worte and then go from there. I’ve already trumped your history by, what, 17, 18 thousand years and you blithely move on as if reality is required to bend to your will.