Obama’s position on gay marriage faces new test
Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times illuminates on the climate on the White House:
President Obama will be hosting a Gay Pride reception later today at the White House. But the host, who does not endorse same-sex marriage, this could prove be somewhat awkward.
“I think they are trying to share the joy, which is genuine on their part, without changing his position,” Hilary Rosen, a prominent Democratic strategist, said of the White House. “I don’t think he can have it both ways here.”
For months, Mr. Obama, who has in the past opposed same-sex marriage, has said his views are “evolving.” But last week’s vote in Albany has intensified pressure on the president to say where he stands, particularly after remarks he made at a Manhattan fund-raiser disappointed and confused many gay rights advocates, including some of his most ardent supporters.
Some have taken issue with Mr. Obama’s word choice at the Manhattan fund-raiser, where he noted that “traditionally marriage has been decided by the states.” His critics say that by invoking states’ rights, the president — a former constitutional law professor and son of a black father and a white mother — brought up arguments once used to justify laws that would have prevented his own parents from marrying.
“That was the argument they made about segregation,” Ms. Rosen, who has long been supportive of Mr. Obama, said Tuesday. “I don’t think people really believe that he believes that. It flies in the face of everything he has stood for.”
The states’ rights argument is not new for the president; he has used such language in the past to explain why he believes Congress should repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of all federal laws.
Legal scholars say Mr. Obama is correct; regulating marriage is indeed the province of the states — to a point. Federal courts have at times intervened to declare state marriage laws unconstitutional, as was the case in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that effectively ended all race-based restrictions on marriage.
Yet in the context of the New York debate, Mr. Obama’s comments infuriated some prominent advocates and potential donors. They include Chad Griffin, who sits on the finance committee for Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign and recently co-hosted a fund-raiser featuring Michelle Obama that raised more than $1 million, and Paul Yandura, a Democratic strategist who advises gay philanthropists, including some Obama donors.
Mr. Griffin, who said he intended to continue to work to re-elect the president, called the comments “a step backwards,” and said Mr. Obama should use today’s reception to clarify them. The White House sees no need to clarify.
“The president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples and believes strongly in stopping efforts designed to take rights away,” said Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s communications director.
Indeed, Mr. Obama has opposed Proposition 8, the California initiative barring same-sex marriage. Mr. Griffin and other backers of the lawsuit that seeks to overturn Proposition 8 say they do not understand how Mr. Obama can square that position with his comments about leaving marriage to the states.
Mr. Obama has said in the past that he opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds; as a Christian, he has said, he views marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Many Americans agree, although public opinion is rapidly shifting; a handful of polls now show a slim majority in support of same-sex marriage.
Now, with a growing number of Republicans, including the handful in the New York Senate, supporting initiatives to legalize same-sex marriage, some Democrats are wondering why Mr. Obama does not do the same. Mr. Cuomo, too, has helped change the landscape, said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist who is gay. He predicts support for same-sex marriage will soon be “a litmus test” for Democratic candidates.
Mr. Obama ran for office promising to be a “fierce advocate” for the rights of gay people, and advocates say that in many respects, he has delivered. He signed a new hate crimes law, pushed Congress to allow gay men and women to serve openly in the military and withdrew legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act.
But now, in the wake of the vote in Albany, Mr. Cuomo is the new gay rights hero for many.
“People know a fierce advocate when they see one,” Mr. Yandura said, adding, “Andrew Cuomo was a fierce advocate.”
President Obama will be hosting a Gay Pride reception later today at the White House. But the host, who does not endorse same-sex marriage, this could prove be somewhat awkward.“I think they are trying to share the joy, which is genuine on their part, without changing his position,” Hilary Rosen, a prominent Democratic strategist, said of the White House. “I don’t think he can have it both ways here.”
For months, Mr. Obama, who has in the past opposed same-sex marriage, has said his views are “evolving.” But last week’s vote in Albany has intensified pressure on the president to say where he stands, particularly after remarks he made at a Manhattan fund-raiser disappointed and confused many gay rights advocates, including some of his most ardent supporters.
Some have taken issue with Mr. Obama’s word choice at the Manhattan fund-raiser, where he noted that “traditionally marriage has been decided by the states.” His critics say that by invoking states’ rights, the president — a former constitutional law professor and son of a black father and a white mother — brought up arguments once used to justify laws that would have prevented his own parents from marrying.
“That was the argument they made about segregation,” Ms. Rosen, who has long been supportive of Mr. Obama, said Tuesday. “I don’t think people really believe that he believes that. It flies in the face of everything he has stood for.”
The states’ rights argument is not new for the president; he has used such language in the past to explain why he believes Congress should repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of all federal laws.
Legal scholars say Mr. Obama is correct; regulating marriage is indeed the province of the states — to a point. Federal courts have at times intervened to declare state marriage laws unconstitutional, as was the case in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that effectively ended all race-based restrictions on marriage.
Yet in the context of the New York debate, Mr. Obama’s comments infuriated some prominent advocates and potential donors. They include Chad Griffin, who sits on the finance committee for Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign and recently co-hosted a fund-raiser featuring Michelle Obama that raised more than $1 million, and Paul Yandura, a Democratic strategist who advises gay philanthropists, including some Obama donors.
Mr. Griffin, who said he intended to continue to work to re-elect the president, called the comments “a step backwards,” and said Mr. Obama should use today’s reception to clarify them. The White House sees no need to clarify.
“The president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples and believes strongly in stopping efforts designed to take rights away,” said Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s communications director.
Indeed, Mr. Obama has opposed Proposition 8, the California initiative barring same-sex marriage. Mr. Griffin and other backers of the lawsuit that seeks to overturn Proposition 8 say they do not understand how Mr. Obama can square that position with his comments about leaving marriage to the states.
Mr. Obama has said in the past that he opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds; as a Christian, he has said, he views marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Many Americans agree, although public opinion is rapidly shifting; a handful of polls now show a slim majority in support of same-sex marriage.
Now, with a growing number of Republicans, including the handful in the New York Senate, supporting initiatives to legalize same-sex marriage, some Democrats are wondering why Mr. Obama does not do the same. Mr. Cuomo, too, has helped change the landscape, said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist who is gay. He predicts support for same-sex marriage will soon be “a litmus test” for Democratic candidates.
Mr. Obama ran for office promising to be a “fierce advocate” for the rights of gay people, and advocates say that in many respects, he has delivered. He signed a new hate crimes law, pushed Congress to allow gay men and women to serve openly in the military and withdrew legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act.
But now, in the wake of the vote in Albany, Mr. Cuomo is the new gay rights hero for many.
“People know a fierce advocate when they see one,” Mr. Yandura said, adding, “Andrew Cuomo was a fierce advocate.”
Comments