Obama opposes gay marriage ban

[Zeno Swijtink]

Obama opposes gay marriage ban
By Aurelio Rojas - [email protected]
Published 7:18 pm PDT Monday, June 30, 2008

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

In a letter to Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.


Obama had previously said he personally opposes same-sex marriage, but each state should make its own decision.

A spokesman for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who last week endorsed Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 California ballot, accused Obama of continuing a pattern of changing his position on issues.

"It just depends on where you catch him and what time of day ... whether it's public financing, town hall debates and now gay marriage," said Rick Gorka, a spokesman for the Arizona senator.

Ben Lebolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, declined to comment on the McCain campaign's allegations. But LeBolt noted the Illinois senator opposed a proposed federal ban on gay marriage.

"Sen. Obama opposes all divisive and discriminatory Constitutional amendments such as the one in California," LeBolt said.

McCain endorsed a 2006 Arizona initiative defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, which was defeated. But he voted against a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families -- which backs the California ballot measure -- called Obama a "hypocrite."

"He says he believes marriage is for a man and woman, yet he's promising he would undo federal marriage protection and oppose California marriage," Thomasson said.

Thomasson predicted Obama "will lose votes in California due to his pandering to San Francisco extremists."

ABOUT THE WRITER:
Call Aurelio Rojas, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 326-5545.

[Braggi]

... the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law." ...

Karl Rove couldn't come up with advice like this. What was he thinking?

Of course, it was the only moral thing to say and, eventually, it will be law when the Supreme Court grows the moral fiber to make that case.

But what a stupid thing to say now!!!!

-Jeff

PS. Is this another attempt by the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? As in 2000 and 2004, so in 2008????? I sure hope not.

[PeriodThree]

Yeah for Obama!

The structure of a two party system means that there is a pressure on both parties to win the nomination by appealing to their more conservative/liberal bases, while becoming at least somewhat more centrist in the general election.

It is very nice that the question now is whether or not to support state level discriminatory ballot issues.

Both candidates have opposed a federal ban...

Thomasson predicted Obama "will lose votes in California due to his pandering to San Francisco extremists."

[Lenny]

What a country!
States Rights!
What a concept!

[Braggi]

What a country!
States Rights!
What a concept!

Read the Constitution, Lenny. This isn't really a State's rights issue. This is a Federal issue that hasn't been addressed by the Supremes. Of course, it's somewhat absurd that it would have to be addressed by the Supremes since equal protection under the law is supposed be the norm in this country.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Read the Constitution, Lenny. This isn't really a State's rights issue. This is a Federal issue that hasn't been addressed by the Supremes. Of course, it's somewhat absurd that it would have to be addressed by the Supremes since equal protection under the law is supposed be the norm in this country. -Jeff

No, Jeff. We've been down this path before. No point in that.
I was admiring Obama's skate through the park utilizing the States Rights path of double-speak, even raising it to the level of double duck speak. He already has those zip codes sewn up, and his position allows them to stay happy, while at the same time allowing his handlers to tell those far away that won't get this message, Obama's for States Rights. It's a win-win for him. He wouldn't do the States Rights thingy for abortion would he? And that involves death.
That's all. Politically astute in doing so. That's what I was commenting on.

[Braggi]

... Obama's for States Rights. It's a win-win for him. ...
That's all. Politically astute in doing so. ...

OK. I do hope you're right.

Thing is, every misstep is taken as far out as can be by the opposition, so Obama needs to be really careful.

It's his race to lose.

Just ask Presidents Gore and Kerry.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

OK. I do hope you're right.
Thing is, every misstep is taken as far out as can be by the opposition, so Obama needs to be really careful.
It's his race to lose.
Just ask Presidents Gore and Kerry.
-Jeff

If he loses, then the party has to decompose, and that ain't happening either. He WILL be this country's next president.
We live in interesting times.

[Sciguy]

I want to throw a prediction into the ring, just for the hell of it.

I expect Bush to be uptight enough about being treated like Pinochet, and be prosecuted for his crimes, that he will break precedent and give a pardon in advance, to himself (and his cronies, though he is so self righteous, maybe he will toss them to the dogs) for all possible crimes.

Then, if that is laughed out of court, Obama will grant him a presidential pardon for all his crimes, intoning the usual mealy mouthed rationalization that all politicians use, of "healing the country" (read: no politician will allow any other politician to pay for his crimes anywhere because that would set a dangerous precedent).

And then I woke up .....

Paul Palmer

If he loses, then the party has to decompose, and that ain't happening either. He WILL be this country's next president.
We live in interesting times.