Another Reason We Need Hillary: Gay Rights Edition

Posted on May 15, 2008 by garychapelhill

The California Supreme Court today overturned a state law banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

Today’s ruling by the Republican-dominated court affects more than 100,000 same-sex couples in the state, about a quarter of whom have children, according to U.S. census figures. It came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Before today, only Massachusetts’ top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.

Hillary has always promoted a state by state strategy for marriage equality, and this news from California shows how it can be achieved. She has said on the record that states should provide for marriage rights and that the federal government should not stand in the way. As she told The Philadelphia Gay News in an interview.

What I say is that marriage is in the province of the state, which has actually turned out to be lucky for us, because we didn’t have to get beaten on the Federal Marriage Amendment because we could make, among other arguments, that it was such a stretch for the federal government and it was wrong to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. And that states are really beginning seriously to deal with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their own state constitutions and under the legislative approach. I anticipate that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple of years that will move this important issue forward and different states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over many years and you will see an evolution over time.

What does Barack Obama have to say? The blank page speaks for itself.

Click for bigger image

So where does Obama stand on gay issues? Most of the time it depends on who he is pandering to at the time. But he has repeatedly shown that he just doesn’t get it. Obama likes to make grand statements about reconciliation and bringing people together, Like when he told the The Advocate:

Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don’t think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.

This is complete BS. As a gay man I have no desire to reach out to the rabid “faith community” that would like to see me burn in hell:

Obama surrounds himself with self-loathing ex-gays like Donnie McClurkin, who had this to say about his own homosexuality:

“Love is pulling you one way and lust is pulling you another and your relationship with Jesus is tearing you,” McClurkin told the media. He now “counsels adolescent boys that homosexuality is a choice they can overcome,” the New York Times reported.

This is reminiscent of Obama’s call to bring the pro-choice/anti-choice forces together to find common ground. As if there were some sort of compromise to be made. Listen up Barry, these kind of issues require bold stands to defend what is right. Would you have suggested negotiating with the segregationists during the civil rights movement? Well, maybe YOU would have, but a principled, courageous, defiant candidate would not.

On gay rights, (as with so many other issues) Obama obviously does not get it. A statement to the The Advocate is telling about his own personal take on homosexuality:

Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental — now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name — Lawrence Goldyn, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.

As a gay man I can’t tell you how many times a straight man has said to me (thinking it was complimentary), that he was surprised to find out I was gay and that I hadn’t tried to come on to him. It’s nice that Barry shares this same kind of frat boy mentality.

HIllary Clinton is the only candidate that not only “gets” the gay community, she knows how to help us get the rights we deserve. Today’s development in California yet again demonstrates that Hillary is always thinking one step ahead, and that only she can help gay people realize the dream of full and equal rights.

*UPDATE* I think it is fitting that this ruling should come down today, May 15th, as Bloggers Unite for Human Rights

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Filed under: Barack Obama, Gender Equity, General, Hillary Clinton, Presidential Election 2008 | Tagged: ,

« »

45 Responses

  1. Teresa234, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:09 pm Said:

    People actually think he’s worth voting for because of civil rights….those people are fools.

  2. katiebird, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:13 pm Said:

    Hillary seems to get a lot of things. She has a natural empathy and self assurance that allows her to share it with us.

    IF Obama has that empathy, it’s kept hidden.

    And since we can only judge the candidates by what they let us see — I don’t see how we can assume he cares much for people outside his own circle.

  3. tabbycat in tenn, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:18 pm Said:

    Nice post Gary. Great news from California.

    Before I left DK back in Feb., I read a wonderful diary there about Hillary. A man who is disabled and in a wheel chair goes to some kind of event for people in his situation every year in NY. According to him, every single year, Hillary comes to it. There is no press and no one to give her any political mileage out of this event but she goes every single year.

    That’s the type of person I want as my President.

  4. Melanie, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:18 pm Said:

    Yep, of course marriage equality was always going to be determined, rightly, by the states, and mostly by the courts. First MA, now CA. Progress is on the march.

  5. jacilyn, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm Said:

    love the smiles on those protester’s faces.

    “God hates fags!” (smile, smile , smile)

  6. riverdaughter, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:20 pm Said:

    Good on CA to have joined the ranks of the enlightened states.

  7. SM, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm Said:

    Congrats to California!!!

    And I’m loving the Phily cover.

    That’s exactly what Obama is, empty space.

  8. Davidson, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:22 pm Said:

    Hilarious that he expects you to have tea with people who wish you to burn in hell while he flips off Clinton for daring to have done better in that ABC debate, basing his entire campaign on Hillary Hate. Touchy, touchy.

  9. Rich in PA, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm Said:

    This gets us full-circle to the original (fall of ‘07) reason Obama is a lousy candidate, especially in a year where Dems have so many advantages: he’s a temporizing not-a-Democrat. I can imagine a political landscape where we have to find common ground with our Republican fellow citizens on issues from gay rights to global warming to whatever, but we’re not in that landscape. Clinton will sock them to hell (while winning over the reasonable among them, via a substantive conversion), while Obama won’t…he’ll value them, as new allies, much more than he values actual Democrats. He will, because he already does.

  10. Davidson, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm Said:

    @Rich in PA: And don’t forget the GOP will hit him with: “Can you name any bills he has passed?” I know one involved naming a post office and I believe the other was congratulating a local Chicago team (White Sox?).

    This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so disturbing.

  11. Pat Johnson, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm Said:

    We here in MA were way ahead of the curve when we passed the Marriage Law a couple of years ago. It takes awhile for the rest of the USA to catch up. Congratulations to CA for upholding a law that paved the way for equality for all. Now if we could just get rid of sexism……………….

  12. Pat Johnson, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm Said:

    Charles, best wishes to you and Paul! Wish we could all be there to help you celebrate!

  13. Davidson, on May 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm Said:

    Congratulations, Charles! Truly May you have a wonderful ceremony and marriage!

  14. Honora, on May 15th, 2008 at 4:03 pm Said:

    Charles, I hope he says yes, pls don’t assume! Just kidding, mazel tov! (This Catholic girl thinks that is spelled correctly.

  15. Briana, on May 15th, 2008 at 4:09 pm Said:

    …. ;) ) – Charles !!! – that is Great News ..

    Thanks for letting us celebrate with happy thoughts coming your way , Congratulations

  16. garychapelhill, on May 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm Said:

    Congratulations Charles! I’m jealous. Just hope you’ll share wedding pics with us : )

  17. katiebird, on May 15th, 2008 at 4:16 pm Said:

    Charles, My husband and I were so charmed by the stories and excitement during the San Francisco Weddings that we went there for our wedding. It was very romantic (we were married under the dome in the court house.)

    Sadly, the Gay Weddings were shut down by the time we got there, but we’ve always felt bonded to the issue.

    (I only mention this because you mentioned Gavin Newsoom and his name always reminds me of that time)

  18. Ohio, on May 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm Said:

    Charles, congrats. Wedding in San Fran? Or the most fabulous British Columbia?

    Seriously, dude, BC is gorgeous. And Canadians ain’t so bad, neither.

  19. garychapelhill, on May 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm Said:

    I love that this is what knocks the Edwards endorsement off the front page : ) Edwards is quite an ass when it comes to “getting” gay rights as well. Good thing he has Elizabeth to set him straight….

  21. Pat Johnson, on May 15th, 2008 at 4:29 pm Said:

    Rumors running wild out on the blogosphere that Obama will choose Clair McGaskill for a running mate. I suppose in my own cynical way that this will be considered an act of appeasement to us women voters. I remember when she was a guest on Bill Mahar’s show and said that she was led to Obama by her teen aged daughter. Give me an f’**king break! The only thing my teenagers led me to was a nervous breakdown.

  22. Puget Sound Island Girl, on May 15th, 2008 at 4:35 pm Said:

    Remember when Obama made a group of LGBT meet him in the basement of some building where he had just had a rally. Before that I believe he sent them to some bar (out of the building) while he gave his speech. What a guy!!

  23. Pat Johnson, on May 15th, 2008 at 4:46 pm Said:

    Let’s start the count: He has alienated women, ignored the gay community, dissed the blue collar crowd, severed Rev Wright, threw his racist grandma to the wolves, and now the Jewish vote may be in doubt since our beloved Commander in Chief just threw out the first of many shots regarding his commitment to Israel. Sean Hannity will not be able to sit still for 5 minutes tonight chewing over this one.

    Yep, our presumed nominee has got lots of ’splainin to do. He is going to need to do a lot more than display a flag pin and stand in front of a crucifix to make his case.

  24. 7utu, on May 15th, 2008 at 4:55 pm Said:

    Except for some gay guys who seem to be hoping he’s on the down low (and I don’t get that, but I am a lesbian), the GLBTI community isn’t that crazy about him. There are some. I heard him say in Ebenezer Baptist Church that black people needed to think about their homophobia, and I thought that was a good think to say, because for people of colour, except maybe for Native Americans, being gay is anathema. But I think Clinton is way out in front on gay issues. The problem with the state by state thing is that the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution doesn’t mandate that one state recognize another’s marriages. I am in a civil union in a state that allows them. I can move to only places that also allow them. DOMA needs to go away. I know this is too hot for her to push, but I hope she’ll do it. Obama has no standing with me.

  25. jacilyn, on May 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm Said:

    and now the Jewish vote may be in doubt

    pat, the jewish vote was lost the day they found out about Rev. Wright’s political support and admiration for a man who is an avowed enemy of the Judaic faith.

    Jews aren’t likely to be swayed by Obama throwing Wright under the bus. There are suggestions linking Obama directly to Farrakhan, which I am sure will be brought up come the general election.

    Incidentally, Wright’s hero Farrakhan has things to say about gays, too:
    http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/on_homosexuals.asp

  26. Pat Johnson, on May 15th, 2008 at 5:05 pm Said:

    7utu: What does “down low” signify? To me it suggests something on a low boil, takes awhile to heat up. But I really don’t have a clue.

  27. garychapelhill, on May 15th, 2008 at 5:23 pm Said:

    7utu, Hillary has addressed the full faith issue. She has said the federal government should comply with states that make marriage legal (for such things as immigration, for example). I think it is a much more manageable situation, an she was right to predict that more and more states would start to stand up for marriage rights.

    pat – being on the “-down low” is often used in the gay AA community to mean closeted.

  28. Bully Pulpit, on May 15th, 2008 at 5:35 pm Said:

    We should not delude ourselves on this issue.

    Hillary has always promoted a state by state strategy for marriage equality, and this news from California shows how it can be achieved. HUH?

    Actually all that the news does is show that each state can decide whether it will allow it or not. The decision says the domestic partnerships laws in California are not equivalent vehicles as marriage. If they were then the state could define marriage as man/woman. That’s actually what Obama’s position is too at least as he defined in on hardball from what I recall.

    But folks the reason gay marriage is not going to recognized between states is the defense of marraige act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton. So California now gets its marriage back back it means diddly as 7utu explained.

    “The problem with the state by state thing is that the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution doesn’t mandate that one state recognize another’s marriages. ”

    Exactly because B. Clinton signed a law saying it CANNOT be recognized federally.

    Here is what Mr. Clinton signed into law:

    No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

    The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

    That’s what he signed. And I’m not counting it against HIllary really (unless she wants to point to it as experience) but she didn’t exactly put her foot down I think youd have to reluctantly admit. The state by state solution is no solution at all with the DOMA in place.

    Now I agree that Ms. Clinton is more out front on the issue than Obama. But part of the problem even if California allows it is that neither the federal government nor any state that so chooses has to recognize it.

    I’m for HIllary but I cannot accept that the Clintons did anything but cave in to political reality on this.

    Arizona – Connecticut – Delaware – Florida – Illinois – Indiana – Iowa – Maryland – Minnesota – New Hampshire – New York – North Carolina – Pennsylvania – Puerto Rico – Washington – West Virginia – Wyoming all prohibit same sex marriage.

    So anyone that goes to California to be married and goes back home or moves into any of these states is not really married where it counts.

    Clinton is better than Obama on it but let’s not get silly a big obstacle was put in place by Bill Clinton.

  29. Ann On, on May 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm Said:

    Just a little observation, here. It strikes me almost as a law of human nature that the volume of a person’s apparent disgust with teh gay is directly proportional to the likelihood of that person being gay.

  30. garychapelhill, on May 15th, 2008 at 5:46 pm Said:

    bully- one small problem with your screed, Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. They are actually two seperate individuals. Hillary has said on the record she will fight to force the federal govt to recognize state marriage laws. Obama is not even close to her on gay issues. He is totally unacceptable to the gay community.

  31. Bully Pulpit, on May 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm Said:

    Maybe I missed it but garychappelhill implies Hillary wants to see the DOMA eliminated. I have not paid close attention if that is her federal position on gay marriage.. But that is what is required for state by state laws to relevant at all to being a President.

  32. garychapelhill, on May 15th, 2008 at 5:50 pm Said:

    She said as much when I saw her in person in winston salem in response to a question on gay marriage. Specifically she was talking about gay people that marry foreigners and the feds not recognizing the marriage for immigration purposes. She says she is committed to ending this and bringing fed laws into line with individual states that recognize gay marriage.

  33. Bully Pulpit, on May 15th, 2008 at 5:53 pm Said:

    point taken gary,

    but many in the gay community saw signing DOMA as a sell out. And Hillary wants to claim white house years as experience which if I am to allow I guess I logically screed at inconsistent work product from those years at times. I’d like to hold every President’s feet to the fire and I’d like to see her as President.

    I realize these are pro Hillary waters but a dose of reality is all I was chiming in with.

  35. sister of ye, on May 15th, 2008 at 6:07 pm Said:

    The DOMA was a better alternative than the constitutional amendment the Republicans were aiming for. As hard as it is to pass an amendment (remember the ERA?), the Rethugs had the momentum to make it a possibility. DOMA was a bone thrown to them to forestall something worse.

    It will only take a willing Congress and President to overturn it. If Obama gets into office, shall we start a clock timing how long it takes his buds like Kerry and Kennedy to push a bill thru and for him to sign it?

  36. Bully Pulpit, on May 15th, 2008 at 6:18 pm Said:

    I dunno sister ye but he does want it repealed or so he claims according to that link. She wants it partially repealed.

    This is not not exactly my issue I suppose I just see DOMA as the real issue federally and they are about the same on it really.

    Actually he is more progressive on DOMA than she is as he wants it fully repealed which would allow the decision today to mean something elsewhere. Facts are stubborn but I support her too. But if you really care about DOMA you should encourage Hilllary to adopt the full appeal position Obama has I think.

  37. Bully Pulpit, on May 15th, 2008 at 6:19 pm Said:

    OK hurl tomatoes LOL.

  38. jacilyn, on May 15th, 2008 at 7:17 pm Said:

    Melanie, thanks for providing that link about how Obama is hiring people to come and persuade us to fall in with his plans for our party. His party. Well, we’ll see whose party it ends up being.

  39. Becki Jayne, on May 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm Said:

    Dropped in to say well done, Gary. Great post. Shout to ya.

  40. Rich in PA, on May 15th, 2008 at 8:46 pm Said:

    Congratulations Charles :) I do mildly agree with the long screed by Bully Pulpit, but when you have two candidates you go with the better one, and on this as well as most other issues Clinton’s better. There’s no reason to turn her into some kind of paladin of gay rights, though.

  41. 7utu, on May 15th, 2008 at 9:26 pm Said:

    Pat Johnson, being on the down low is something that is alleged about Obama. It usually refers to a (black) guy who is straight but who has sex with men. Men on the down low don’t believe they are gay. They do not necessarily have sex with other men who identify as gay, but with men who identify as straight. Sometimes they have sex with gay men. There is no evidence Obama is on the down low. Clearly if he were that would kill his candidacy. America is not ready for a president who even is remotely gay. Sad but true.

  42. WillBFair, on May 15th, 2008 at 9:43 pm Said:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The Clinton’s made the deal on DOMA and don’t ask but went to the mat for universal healthcare. And it still makes sense. Healthcare for all Americans is a tad more important than having a five star general that can do the triple snap. healthcare is especially important for our community.
    I’m not a single issue voter, but I’m worried about Obama because of the anti gay sector in the black community. Considering Obama’s public disdain for us, they already seem to have a large influence on him.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

  43. Mawm, on May 16th, 2008 at 8:49 am Said:

    “Don’t ask don’t tell” did not start out as “Don’t ask don’t tell”. Bill Clinton wanted to include LGBTs in the military with no conditions, but it WASN”T going to pass, thanks in no small measure to the Democrats in congress. “Don’t ask Don’t tell” was a compromise.
    I’m not sure how old people are here, but it was so politcally courageous of Clinton to take on this issue. Many may criticize DADT, becaue in the end the policy has been a failure, but to me the fault for it lies with Republicans and sell-out Democrats who wouldn’t go along with full-rights for LGBT.

    As far as DOMA, I think of DOMA as defensive legislation. By pushing it out to the states, making it a states issue, we avoid a federal ban which would be disastrous. I think the Clintons learned a lot about the incredible obstacles to LGBT rights in their struggles with DADT, and they learned that compromise is the only way to moce forward from a legislative perspective They know that the direct approach has consequences for down ticket Democrats. Look what happened in the 2004 election.
    If LGBTs are looking for a champion that will never compromise in their efforts to give us full rights, they will never find one that will get elected, at least not now or in the forseeable future. The difference to me is that I know Hillary will take the opportunities to advance our rights when they come. Obama just doesn’t seem to care.

  44. Has the “states’ rights” argument become a progressive argument? « The Confluence, on June 17th, 2008 at 12:32 pm Said:

    [...] to keep the federal government from impeding states from pursuing progressive agendas.  In an earlier post I argued that this position made Hillary a much greater, and practical ally for the gay [...]

  45. Has the “states’ rights” argument become a progressive argument? « Electric Blues, on October 25th, 2008 at 3:25 pm Said:

    [...] wanted to keep the federal government from impeding states from pursuing progressive agendas. In an earlier post I argued that this position made Hillary a much greater, and practical ally for the gay [...]

Comments are closed.