AMERICAblog: Tapper asks Gibbs why Obama opposes gay marriage
ShirleyGoodnessanMercy
· 4 months ago
A lot of politicians in the 60's were not comfortable with black people either, but Johnson FORCED them to vote for civil rights for blacks.
It's time for Obama to step up and FORCE his White House and the legislative branch to make justice for all Americans a reality.
Joe P Moore
· 4 months ago
There was no vote for African American's rights. It was granted to them through the courts. If it had been up to a vote, I'm positive that the south still would be fighting it.
The legislation followed Brown V. Board by a decade. Court first, legislature second, the Obama administration last.
Valentinefrey
· 4 months ago
Eventually there will be no legal sanction for discrimination against gay people in this country; as we've seen with the states, sometimes progress is driven by the courts and sometimes by the legislature. That doesn't mean any of this has happened or will happen without applying pressure in the right places. And I don't see how those goals are furthered by cultivating willful historical ignorance about previous civil rights struggles.
The Civil Rights Act of 64 and the Voting Rights Act of 65 were not historical footnotes. And anyone who forgets about them or the real moral leadership Johnson showed in getting them passed (and the political price he knew he was going to have to pay but paid anyway) is missing a chance to appreciate what a shallow poser Obama is proving himself to be by contrast.
Bill
· 4 months ago
Valentinefrey, I think that you are confusing legislation from Congress with a general vote of the people. I did not say that after the courts and the Congress acted that there were no more struggles for African-Americans. But at least President Johnson and the law were on the side of African-Americans by 1965. What I AM saying is that there were no state by state referenda put on the ballots at the time so that the general populace could vote on the Civil Rights Act or on the Voting Rights Act. Put in the vernacular of our modern-day right-wing bigots, President Johnson and the Congress were "activist" and "shoving African-American equality down our throats". This is the difference between then and now. Now we have a President who is too weak to stand up for LGBT rights and equality, and the right-wing bigots seem to think that our rights are subject to approval by a vote of the general populace in each and every state. As Joe P Moore noted above, if these 1960's pieces of legislation had been, instead, put up to the general population in each state to vote on, they never would have been passed at the time.
Valentinefrey
· 4 months ago
Okay, I wasn't thinking of the absurd California-style revocation-of-civil-rights-by-plebiscite option that wasn't a factor in the sixties.
Only other disagreement point about Obama's character: I could be wrong - there's not really enough publicly available evidence to go on yet - but I don't think he's weak. He's certainly able to successfully project an image of strength more than say, Carter was. It seems to me that the most likely explanation for his disappointing behavior (on a lot more issues than gay rights) is selfishness. It's a small but crucial distinction, because it means that he can be forced into action if he's made to understand that the political price of non-action is higher than the political price of action.
Bill
· 4 months ago
Exactly. And that's one thing that really galls me when African-Americans try to distance themselves from our struggle. Their rights weren't a matter for a public vote of approval. The courts ordered it and that was it! No minority's rights should be up for public approval! The constitution guarantees that the rights of the minority will not be subjected to the tyranny of the majority.
Judas Peckerwood
· 4 months ago
Um, Bill, read the link above. And try not to be an idiot, m'kay? I'm looking at you, too, Joe P Moron.
Bill
· 4 months ago
How about trolling another blog Peckerface?
Judas Peckerwood
· 4 months ago
My deepest apologies, Bill -- I didn't realize that calling out racist bullshit and historical ignorance constituted trolling. My bad!
threadmonitor
· 4 months ago
Racist bullshit?
Where in Bill's comment do you see racist bullshit?
Valentinefrey
· 4 months ago
"That was it" huh? Someone should have told all those people who marched to Washington in 63. You're confusing should with is (or in this case, were); as in: The rights of blacks shouldn't have been up for majority rule vote, but in the 64 Civil Rights Act and the 65 Voting Rights Act they were. Johnson knew it would cost him the south for a generation and did it anyway, apparently, and I know this is tough to believe, because he thought it was the right thing to do.
You mean you wouldn't take a legislative win with Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas on the court? You may have to.
postdamnit
· 4 months ago
Sorry but I think that it is abundantly clear that he is not interested in "stepping up" for gay issues. I don't think that this is going to change any time soon. He has been making his position on this very clear. We are the ones that don't seem to get it or want to accept it. Too bad for us.
chris10858
· 4 months ago
I have said this before but I think it's worth repeating. I honestly think that several lgbt groups should ban together and target a person such as Rahm. Whenever they get in front of a camera or do an interview witht eh news media, they should throw out allegations of Rahm being homophobic. This always seemed to work with Bush/Cheney and the Repubs. Once they decided to put forth some sort of lie, then the entire Repub establishment suddently repeated the same mantra over and over.
I think if we stretch our muscles and politically eviscerate someone like Rahm, it will put enough fear into others that they will be afraid to recommend going against us to the POTUS.
stldem
· 4 months ago
I strongly agree.
Diogenes
· 4 months ago
I don't understand. If Obama is the decision maker, why target aides who are rumored to oppose s.s.m.? Obama flatly opposes s.s.m. Why not ban together and put the pressure on him? This business of speculating which minions oppose s.s.m., and targeting them, is just enabling Obama to dodge the blame for his clearly-stated bigotry. Stop attacking the lieutenants for following the public orders of the general.
stldem
· 4 months ago
It might be easier to ask questions of Obama's aides. But, by all means, pressure Obama with questions whenever there is an opportunity.
Diogenes
· 4 months ago
Sure, it's easier, but the questions should be ones like: "Why does President Obama support racial equality but oppose sexual equality?" or "Does President Obama believe that sexual identity is a choice? If so, what cause him to choose heterosexuality? If not, how does he justify his separate-but-equal position supporting unions and opposing marriage?"
In general I think speculation on which aides might oppose works in Obama's favor and against the LGBT community. It blurs the focus on who calls the shots. Obama has the final say, and so far he has publicly said "No." Supporters of s.s.m. have to say "No" in return. No, I will not donate to your campaign. No, I will not work for your reelection. No, I will not vote for a president who refuses to acknowledge such a basic human right.
ChrisS
· 4 months ago
John, I have to disagree with the folks who have told you that Gibbs is uncomfortable talking about gay issues. I think we've seen plenty of examples during the campaign and immediately after the inauguration where he was fine.
His problem lately has been the problem that any spokesperson would have when he's getting mixed signals from the folks in the back office and the boss hasn't decided how he wants to address the issue.
I seriously don't think he would have a problem for even a second talking about his own views on the issue -- he just doesn't know what Rahm wants, and POTUS hasn't laid out to his staff what he wants.
A press secretary with no definitive brief on the issue is not a pretty thing to watch.
markinseattle
· 4 months ago
What I find particularly troubling about all of this is that the majority of LGBT Americans don't have a clue as to what is going on with LGBT rights. They hear on the news that Obama signed his glorious memorandum giving State Department employees "some" rights (that they already had, really), and they praise him and think the man is our "fiercest advocate."
I voted for Obama, but that won't happen again. He lied, lied, lied to us during the campaign. The GayTM is turned off, and I don't know where my vote will go, but it won't go to someone who thinks LGBT Americans are second-class citizens.
unitednations
· 4 months ago
How about the President himself NOT being aware of LGBT Rights - even at the Big gay Stonewall Party, like the UAFA-
("I haven't read it yet.") Uuum....This is Major (yet simple) Legislation - he has previously supported and spoke about on more than one occasion??? WTF?
This from an A-Lister, who's 'in the President's ear' and who didn't close the GayTM, instead choosing to get his 10 seconds with Obama. oh and he shouts out to John A. as well, in his Blog-
"Now I realize that getting the President to tell you that he'll look at a bill is not the most earth-shaking development, but if John Aravosis thinks I am going to pass up a chance to get a few moments of input to the most powerful man in the world, he can kiss my you-know-what."
Read through the whole thing - whether Gibbs, the DOJ or Obama- all invite scrutiny and freely create more questions than they provide answers. Meanwhile, the enablers and the apologist keep scrounging for table scraps! (from the finest linens, of course)
It is quite frightening speaking to friends that know nothing of what I'm talking about regarding Obama and LGBT rights. And until we can get at least half of our community on board to make noise and turn off the gAyTM, we will not hold enough sway over the Dems who sit on their arses and do nothing for us. The 18 moratorium on DADT and the Matthew Sheppard Act should be able to pass as stand alone bills now that we have the 60 seats in the Senate. Just goes to show that they are all hot air and no spine.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
Aw! He's not comfortable with some gay issues. Poor baby! I haven't been comfortable with straight issues my entire life and I've had to deal with them, like it or not. Movies, weddings, books, relationships, LIFE has been predominately str8 and we've had to deal with it. While the majority of the population is str8, the minority is supposed have rights. In this case, it is the gay minority.
So, RG, either deal with it or get over it. Get comfy. It's gonna be a long ride.
tlsintx
· 4 months ago
i'm afraid Obama and Gibbs share the same affliction... homophobia
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
Let me get this straight? The "spokesperson" is "uncomfortable" with gay issues so Obama is treading softly so his "spokesperson" won't have to feel "uncomfortable..." WTF?!!?
JohnnyG
· 4 months ago
Exactly. I don't care if Obama has surrounded himself with every homophobe (or useless centrist fuck-up) on the planet, the buck ultimately stops with him.
Indigo
· 4 months ago
Could it be that Gibbs is heavily closeted and President Obama doesn't know that? Oh, my!
JeepTreats
· 4 months ago
Yep. Gibbs always gave off a closet case vibe.
SD_Dave
· 4 months ago
PLEASE NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! Like Karl Rove, WE shouldn't want him!!!!!!
stldem
· 4 months ago
Tapper, please pressure Obama to dispute the words of the Civil Rights icon Julian Bond when he said, "The right to be married is a CIVIL right...Who ought not have civil rights? No one." Bond makes these statements in a wonderful interview. Hope everyone listens takes time to listen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoIlHTIq8BQ
In that interview he talks about Mildred Loving (Loving v VA). She came out in support of gay marriage. Bond feels like her statement should be raised up and used as an icon in the fight for marriage equality.
Why not ask Obama why he disagrees with Mildred Loving, a woman who blazed the trail for interacial marriage. I personally would like to hear Obama disagree with Mildred Loving AND Julian Bond.
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
exactly!
fuzzzy
· 4 months ago
hmmmm. i wonder about this discomfort - seems more like discomfort at not having answers on our issues - no timetables, no idea what, if anything is going on regarding the promises made - not a job i'd want!
remember way back when asked about DADT and it was the famous "one word answer" - he seemed gleeful being able to give that answer; now, when we ask when, and he has no answer.....
and the press seem to press him harder than they do Obama - Look at anderson cooper's questioning on DADT - "do you have a timetable for when you'd like to get this done" - an odd, yes or no format, and he let Obama get away with "sooner rather than later" - well who WOULDN"T say that on something they've promised! but not pressing him for a more definitive answer, and then not questioning or asking for clarity on why CHANGE is now used instead of repeal.....
wish these guys would press our president as hard as they press Gibbs -
cowboyneok
· 4 months ago
Well, Mr. Gibbs BETTER get comfortable with gay issues because the reporters are going to be asking him.
publicsteele
· 4 months ago
My goodness that was a stumbling response.
John, I'm intrigued. Can you do some reporting on the Gibbs position? Who's alleging that he's uncomfortable?
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
Trust me, we're investigating it further. And plan to keep letting people know of Gibb's discomfort with a major part of the base of the Democratic party. Imagine the White House spokesman having an issue with blacks. He'd be fired on the spot.
bruisernyc
· 4 months ago
Imagine a democratic nominee all through the primaries and the general election saying that blacks shouldn't have the right to marry whites...he'd be laughed out of town.
But Obama said that about gay people and we threw him millions of dollars and voted for him.
Go figure.
diderotfan
· 4 months ago
Yes, and that needs to stop ASAP. My partner and I were recently stopped on a street in the Castro by canvassers for the Democratic Party here in SF trying to raise money to fund that party's opposition to the Prop 8 mess we were left with out here on election day. The same Democratic party that threw us under the Prop 8 bus during the entire campaign, along with Obama. I told them we were no longer giving to the Democratic Party but *were* giving our money to organizations that do support us, like the ACLU and Lambda Legal. If they don't support us, we need to not support them. Period.
chrisnyc
· 4 months ago
if you know that...then lets take him down.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
Ya know, he may not be "comfortable" because he's never had anybody show him how to do those gay "issues" correctly. Technique has a lot to do with comfort. And lube. And maybe a couple DVDs.
Where's Jeff Gannon? He knows his way around the WH.
ShirleyGoodnessanMercy
· 4 months ago
I PRAY that Robert Gibbs has at least one gay child.
megatronbomb
· 4 months ago
That's sorta mean. Think of the poor kid!
Coffacuppee
· 4 months ago
WTF? Selfhate much?
Diogenes
· 4 months ago
I think megatronbomb was implying that it would be a burden for a gay kid to have a homophobic dad.
megatronbomb
· 4 months ago
Bingo! ;)
Jim Olson
· 4 months ago
Seems to me that it isn't Gibbs' job to be comfortable or uncomfortable with anything. It is only his job to answer questions on the President's policies, positions and actions. If he can't be impartial, he should get out of the way.
SamH16
· 4 months ago
John, What do you mean "not comfortable"?
Is he not comfortable in that he doesn't feel comfortable being the mouthpiece for a position he does not agree with, or he is not comfortable because he is a bigot?
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
I haven't heard what the motivation is, but that he is simply bad on our issues, and is a major cause of the problems we're having with the White House. Not the only cause, but a major one, I'm told.
watchington
· 4 months ago
sounds like Gibbs needs a cock up his ass.
melchore
· 4 months ago
I am SO not taking one for the team with him.
SD_Dave
· 4 months ago
A-EFFING-MEN!!!!!!!!!!! I'm not either!!!!!!!!!
michaeltracey
· 4 months ago
I'm thrilled that my story has had such an impact!
leliorisen
· 4 months ago
Why do I have visions of Gibbs, at the end of his day...retiring to his vanity, slinking into a pink, satin negligee, and applying mascara, while bursting into a full-throated chorus of "I Feel Pretty?"
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
Not talking about them. WITH them. I'm told that he is a big part of the problem we're having with the White House backing off of it's support for us. That he has a problem with us.
Diogenes
· 4 months ago
Gibb's discomfort isn't the issue. Obama is his boss and it's Obama's call. Blaming the minions is a lame excuse. Obama has said he doesn't support gay marriage. If you want to support that kind of bigotry, go ahead. I'm switching to the Greens. Will they ever win? Certainly not if dopes keep voting for candidates who think they're sub-human. The Dems keep winning LGBT votes by giving them banquet scraps thrown from the kitchen door. As long as that works, nothing will change.
Bill
· 4 months ago
Yeah, Gibbs was just babbling like an idiot toward the end. Could it be that he is gay himself? Personally, I do find him attractive.
SD_Dave
· 4 months ago
Really? Gibbs? Really?
Bill
· 4 months ago
Yep, I'd do him in a heartbeat! I may not agree with or like how he answers questions from the press, but I sure enjoy looking at him! To each his/her own.
JohnnieWalker
· 4 months ago
I still think that the problems lies with Rahm, he calls the shots, and I still think its interesting that Obama voiced one different opinion during the campaign and another after Rahm came on board. Afterall any press secretary is only voicing the message he is given, and Gibbs being uncomfortable with gay issues is being given a mixed message.
offspring
· 4 months ago
gibbs is a jack ass period
GusII
· 4 months ago
Gibbs is uncomfortable because there is no glib answer to swat away the question, a tactic often used in the campaign. I am beginning to sense the White House thinks the best possible legal solution would be civil unions for all, with all the accompanying government recognition, and the word ‘marriage’ being left to the religious. (the British model) They do push the words ‘civil unions’ without further explanation. I don’t know how you do that federally, thus it is not really their problem.
The President has said he would prefer to start all over and have a single payer plan for healthcare, but that is not possible. The administration is working a plan that will incrementally reach the goal.
We are stuck with incremental progress on many fronts.
caphillprof
· 4 months ago
It's always funny with these foot draggers. They believe in civil unions and not marriage, but . . . they did not promote or establish civil unions. Now we have marriage in 7 states (?), not to mention much of Europe, so the toothpaste is out of the tube on marriage.
Marriage it will be. Obama is allegedly smart enough to know this, Gibbs, I'm not so sure. He takes a wide stance.
GusII
· 4 months ago
In many European countries there has been a separation of church and state in marriage ceremonies. The religious are not given the legal authority to grant a state marriage. This is done by registrars. Part of America’s problem is ordained ministers are deputized, or licensed by the individual state to perform a legal function, a left over from the circuit riding days of ministers. In many flyover regions of the US it is still possible to see a raised eyebrow and to hear the question, “Oh, you didn’t have a CHURCH wedding?” It has a Las Vegas taint, as if a ceremony performed by a judge or civil servant is not as legitimate.
When the conservative ordained complain about the destruction of marriage, are they really complaining about the loss of the strangle hold they have over the lucrative marriage industry? Even unaffiliated brides grow up dreaming of a church wedding. They are worried by the secularization of marriage, if the gays can legally marry, the practice of church weddings diminish.
Redwoodguy
· 4 months ago
I couldn't agree more with markinseattle! I also agree with John Av. that Gibbs is a real problem too. After 22 years of being married to the same guy, having a married daughter and now a grandfather, plus surviving the AIDS epidemic (I'm now in my 29th year with the virus), the heady days of Gay Liberation, etc....I do think too many LGBTQI folks take their current status for granted and I think Obama, apart from being two-faced and certainly NOT getting my vote again or effort, made a thinly veiled suggestion to us during his NAACP Speech-"It took us a 100 years to get here and we're just getting started"--me thinks he was talking to us too. And in part I really have to agree with him, but our society today is so much more diverse, complex, lovely and very dangerous, (read Idiot America-a Must Read: even Rachel urged her viewers to read it). Again, thanks mark for letting me know I'm not hugging trees down here in very No. CA and keeping my activist hat alone!
All Comments
It's time for Obama to step up and FORCE his White House and the legislative branch to make justice for all Americans a reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_o...
The Civil Rights Act of 64 and the Voting Rights Act of 65 were not historical footnotes. And anyone who forgets about them or the real moral leadership Johnson showed in getting them passed (and the political price he knew he was going to have to pay but paid anyway) is missing a chance to appreciate what a shallow poser Obama is proving himself to be by contrast.
Only other disagreement point about Obama's character: I could be wrong - there's not really enough publicly available evidence to go on yet - but I don't think he's weak. He's certainly able to successfully project an image of strength more than say, Carter was. It seems to me that the most likely explanation for his disappointing behavior (on a lot more issues than gay rights) is selfishness. It's a small but crucial distinction, because it means that he can be forced into action if he's made to understand that the political price of non-action is higher than the political price of action.
Where in Bill's comment do you see racist bullshit?
You mean you wouldn't take a legislative win with Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas on the court? You may have to.
I think if we stretch our muscles and politically eviscerate someone like Rahm, it will put enough fear into others that they will be afraid to recommend going against us to the POTUS.
In general I think speculation on which aides might oppose works in Obama's favor and against the LGBT community. It blurs the focus on who calls the shots. Obama has the final say, and so far he has publicly said "No." Supporters of s.s.m. have to say "No" in return.
No, I will not donate to your campaign.
No, I will not work for your reelection.
No, I will not vote for a president who refuses to acknowledge such a basic human right.
His problem lately has been the problem that any spokesperson would have when he's getting mixed signals from the folks in the back office and the boss hasn't decided how he wants to address the issue.
I seriously don't think he would have a problem for even a second talking about his own views on the issue -- he just doesn't know what Rahm wants, and POTUS hasn't laid out to his staff what he wants.
A press secretary with no definitive brief on the issue is not a pretty thing to watch.
I voted for Obama, but that won't happen again. He lied, lied, lied to us during the campaign. The GayTM is turned off, and I don't know where my vote will go, but it won't go to someone who thinks LGBT Americans are second-class citizens.
("I haven't read it yet.") Uuum....This is Major (yet simple) Legislation - he has previously supported and spoke about on more than one occasion??? WTF?
This from an A-Lister, who's 'in the President's ear' and who didn't close the GayTM, instead choosing to get his 10 seconds with Obama. oh and he shouts out to John A. as well, in his Blog-
"Now I realize that getting the President to tell you that he'll look at a bill is not the most earth-shaking development, but if John Aravosis thinks I am going to pass up a chance to get a few moments of input to the most powerful man in the world, he can kiss my you-know-what."
Read through the whole thing - whether Gibbs, the DOJ or Obama- all invite scrutiny and freely create more questions than they provide answers. Meanwhile, the enablers and the apologist keep scrounging for table scraps! (from the finest linens, of course)
http://www.glaaforum.org/glaa_forum/2009/06/get...
So, RG, either deal with it or get over it. Get comfy. It's gonna be a long ride.
homophobia
Bond makes these statements in a wonderful interview. Hope everyone listens takes time to listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoIlHTIq8BQ
In that interview he talks about Mildred Loving (Loving v VA). She came out in support of gay marriage. Bond feels like her statement should be raised up and used as an icon in the fight for marriage equality.
Why not ask Obama why he disagrees with Mildred Loving, a woman who blazed the trail for interacial marriage. I personally would like to hear Obama disagree with Mildred Loving AND Julian Bond.
remember way back when asked about DADT and it was the famous "one word answer" - he seemed gleeful being able to give that answer; now, when we ask when, and he has no answer.....
and the press seem to press him harder than they do Obama - Look at anderson cooper's questioning on DADT - "do you have a timetable for when you'd like to get this done" - an odd, yes or no format, and he let Obama get away with "sooner rather than later" - well who WOULDN"T say that on something they've promised! but not pressing him for a more definitive answer, and then not questioning or asking for clarity on why CHANGE is now used instead of repeal.....
wish these guys would press our president as hard as they press Gibbs -
John, I'm intrigued. Can you do some reporting on the Gibbs position? Who's alleging that he's uncomfortable?
But Obama said that about gay people and we threw him millions of dollars and voted for him.
Go figure.
Where's Jeff Gannon? He knows his way around the WH.
Is he not comfortable in that he doesn't feel comfortable being the mouthpiece for a position he does not agree with, or he is not comfortable because he is a bigot?
The President has said he would prefer to start all over and have a single payer plan for healthcare, but that is not possible. The administration is working a plan that will incrementally reach the goal.
We are stuck with incremental progress on many fronts.
Marriage it will be. Obama is allegedly smart enough to know this, Gibbs, I'm not so sure. He takes a wide stance.
When the conservative ordained complain about the destruction of marriage, are they really complaining about the loss of the strangle hold they have over the lucrative marriage industry? Even unaffiliated brides grow up dreaming of a church wedding. They are worried by the secularization of marriage, if the gays can legally marry, the practice of church weddings diminish.