The Gay Agenda video blog: Why gay marriage doesn't matter?

afhickman

"It takes a village (to make Village People)"

Obama continues to disappoint.  As do all the candidates.  It's hard out there for a media-created Messiah/John Kennedy-surrogate.  As usual, I will hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, and this time around that means whoever is running that promises to get us out of Iraq. 

Obama has my full support.

No mainstream candidate can publicly endorse same-sex marriage rights without torpedoing their candidacy.  That's why both Obama and Clinton have only gone so far to as profess support for civil unions.  (Personally, I don't think either have a problem with same-sex marriage and would endorse it were the political climate more favorable.  But that's simply not the case.)

There are some differences, though.  Obama has called for the full repeal of DOMA; Clinton has not.  Obama also recently wrote an open letter to the LGBT community that I found sincere and encouraging.  (On the other hand, the Clintons have shown they will do whatever is politically expedient, even if that means shafting their gay supporters.  Sorry, I don't trust them.)

In an ideal world, I would love to vote for a candidate for President who openly supports same-sex marriage.  But that's not the world we live in...yet.  So the question becomes:  Am I willing to concede this point for the time being, recognizing that that's the only way a progressive candidate for President can be elected?  And that only through such an election, may we hope to create a political atmosphere more hospitable to real change for GLBT Americans?

Without a doubt, yes.  And for that reason, among many, I'm going to do everything I can to support Obama's candidacy. 

You've misunderstood his comments. When he says "Why are we talking about gay marriage", he's obviously referring to the Republicans who have used it as a wedge issue to energize the Evangelicals.

But instead of talking about why Hillary isn't sure if homosexuality is immoral or not, or why Hillary doesn't want to repeal DOMA but Obama does, you're talking about this comment that you've taken out of context and misunderstood.

Sad.

I've done my research, thank you, and I don't appreciate the implication I'm just blindly supporting him.

I recognize that Obama, as well as Clinton, have spoken out in favor of civil unions but again same-sex marriage.  I recognize that's the political reality, but I think (and yes, this is my opinion) that at least some of this opposition is influenced by concerns about alienating so-called "mainstream" voters regarding the wedge issue of gay marriage.  As smart people with legal backgrounds, IMO they know the deal.  But they can't say they do.

But even if that weren't so, my original proposition stands because (a) Obama HAS called for the full repeal of DOMA, which federalizes anti-gay marriage, where Clinton has not; and (b) I do think an Obama candidacy would shift Washington politics in a much more progressive direction and, in time, could lead to some real change on this front.  But it will doubtless take time on a federal level.

How am I fooling myself? Where did I claim he was in favor of gay marriage? Neither Obama nor Hillary are in favor of gay marriage, so no matter where you go, you have the same result on that issue.

My point was simply that they've misunderstood what it was he was saying, and that they need not nitpick over something so stupid when the candidate they are in support of has made comments that actually ARE something to be offended by. In addition, Obama is in favor of repealing DOMA. Hillary isn't.

I think that this issue needs to be approached with a certain grasp of reality before anything else. Contrary to the mistaken beliefs that many people have, the president does not actually create laws. Constitutionally speaking it is Congress that actually passes laws. The president merely ratifies or vetoes them. The president's veto can also be overturned by a large enough majority.

So regardless of whether Clinton, Obama or McCain takes the White House, none of them could actually legalize same-sex marriage. Period.

All the president could do is put their support behind pending legislation and then sign it once they reached their desk. Alternatively, they could appoint judges who favor gay rights, but it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would find in favor of a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage unless all the conservative justices went and dropped dead and were replaced by extreme liberals, a very unlikely scenario.

So judging the candidates purely on their positions on same-sex marriage is a futile endeavor. None of them are likely to support it in the current political climate anyway. And even if they did they would need solid support from Congress and public, which they don't have right now. Remember that not all Democrats support same-sex marriage so you cannot simply count seats in Congress to determine how the vote would go even if they were willing to pass a bill at the federal level, which nobody seems ready to do.

Those who expect that there will be a single grand victory that will usher in same-sex marriage nationwide in the U.S. are deluding themselves. The numbers just aren't there yet. And a Supreme Court case would very likely not go our way. So hoping for a presidential savior is a vain hope. The best we can look for is a president that would be willing to sign a repeal of DOMA and appoint more gay friendly judges to the federal bench.

I'm not going to say who to vote for. But let's not be stupid and boycott the ballot just because we don't have a pro-same-sex marriage candidate on the slate.