Leave a Comment Sagesse
News roundup: reactions to President Obama’s marriage announcement, and other headlines
May 10, 2012
Community/Meta Marriage equality
By Jacob Combs
Yesterday was a hugely historic day, with President Obama becoming the first sitting U.S. president to endorse full marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. Yesterday, we brought you live updates before, during and after the President’s announcement; here is a collection of news items from late yesterday and early this morning on this game-changing endorsement and other marriage related news.
Speaking to The Daily Beast, Ted Olson, the Republican member of the two-attorney duo that successfully litigated the Prop 8 trial at the district court and before the Ninth Circuit, said that he was “gratified that the president has thrown his personal support and the authority of the presidency behind the goal of justice, equality, and decency for all citizens.”
He also spoke out about the passage of Amendment One in North Carolina on Tuesday, noting the similarities between the nullification of domestic partnerships there and the rollback of marriage rights effected in California by Prop 8. ”This is a law,” Olsen said, “that withdraws existing rights from people based upon their sexual orientation. It withdraws rights and privileges that gay and lesbian citizens have had in North Carolina for some time now. That is one of the bases on which the Ninth Circuit specifically struck down Proposition 8.”
Yesterday, Scottie reported that two U.S. Senators had made public their support for marriage equality as well. Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed finally completed his (extremely gradual) evolution on the issue of DOMA, tweeting that he now supported marriage equality and would cosponsor the Respect for Marriage Act. The support of Senator Reed puts us at 33 Senators in support of repealing DOMA–we need 17 more for a majority and 27 more to break a filibuster.
In addition, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his support as well in a nuanced statement, saying, “My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But in a civil society, I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they want, and it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married.”
For anyone trying to parse out the political and electoral effect of Obama’s announcement, the short-term reaction yesterday was apparent and crystal-clear. According to Buzzfeed, the Obama campaign received an astonishing $1 million in spontaneous contributions in the first 90 minutes after the announcement yesterday. Clearly, supporters were fired up about the President’s move.
The marriage announcement will also undoubtedly help Obama with big-money donors as well. The Washington Post reported the other day that gay men make up 1 in 6 of Obama’s top fundraising bundlers. For those who had hesitated to raise money for Obama as he continued evolving, yesterday’s announcement removes a final barrier to outright support for the campaign. ”This is beyond unifying–it’s electrifying,” said Eugene Sepulveda, a former top bundler.
It’s also worth noting just how much the Obama campaign has embraced this announcement and chosen to make it a significant news story. Not only did the campaign send out a fundraising email touting the President’s new views and seeking donations, it also put Obama’s announcement on the front page of the campaign’s website. Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt sent two tweets out highlighting the marriage announcement as part of the campaign’s narrative that Obama is a forward-looking leader while Romney is a creature of the past. ”We’ve amended Constitution to expand rights. Romney, RNC on record saying they want to enshrine discrimination into it,” read one of them.
UPDATE: The Obama campaign is out today with a new ad titled “Mitt Romney: Backwards on Equality.” It really is amazing how actively the campaign is incorporating marriage equality into its messaging.
Follow the link for more marriage and LGBT news, including an update on civil unions in Colorado.
In related almost-marriage news, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said in a press conference yesterday that he would call a special session to make sure the legislature took up the civil unions bill that was killed on Tuesday night by Republicans’ parliamentary machinations. Hickenlooper, who at several points during the conference began tearing up, said that blocking civil unions legislation is tantamount to “depriving people of their civil rights.”
The governor’s staff will spend today deciding which bills he will call up for discussion in the special session. Most likely, the governor’s instructions will focus on bills concerning public safety, economic development and water projects. He also said that civil unions will “certainly” be considered. The special session could begin as early as Friday, but will probably start Monday. Under Colorado’s constitution, the Denver Post reports, ”lawmakers don’t have to do anything other than convene the special session.”
In an editorial praising the governor’s decision, the Post wrote simply, “Bluff called,” and blasted House Speaker Frank Nulty for his actions on the House floor on Tuesday:
Let us be perfectly clear about what happened. Civil unions were supposed to die in a House committee on a party line vote and spare the speaker the embarrassing duty of killing them through anti-democratic legislative gimmickry — but SB 2 wouldn’t die. Not once, but three times in separate committees a Republican broke ranks and sided with Democrats in favor of the bill. The tide for civil unions had risen so far that it was lapping deep into the GOP itself. Unexpectedly cornered, McNulty invoked the phantom of an “impasse.”
In a special session there will be no excuse to cite an impasse.
McNulty will either have to admit he’s refusing to allow debate because he doesn’t wish to allow debate — if nothing else, an advancement in honesty — or he will stay true to his word and let the process proceed fairly.
And finally, take a look at this excellent and provocative graphic from the UK’s Guardian, breaking down LGBT rights state by state in the U.S. It’s remarkable to look at the geographic breakdown of tolerance and discrimination visually.
What are you reading today?
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
16 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Menergy | May 10, 2012 at 8:21 am
And yet immediately following the President's statements, the House took action to attach an amendment to a defense spending bill which would prohibit same-sex marriages on military installations:
from Military.com's article (AP participated in the report):
"On the same day that President Barack Obama declared support for gay marriage members of the House Armed Services Committee included in the Defense bill for next year measures intended to prevent gay marriages from taking place on military bases.
One amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act provides “conscience protections” for chaplains whose religious beliefs and sponsoring agency are opposed to homosexuality and gay unions. Another amendment states that no base chapel shall be used for gay marriage or marriage-like ceremonies.
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., defended his amendment to bar gay weddings from base chapels in part by saying servicemembers opposed to having openly gay men and women in the military are not allowed to state their opinions openly, according to a report in The Hill newspaper.
Critics of the amendments responded Wednesday night by pointing out that the Defense Department has already stated that decisions on the use of base facilities should be made on a sexual orientation neutral basis.
The Servicemembers legal Defense Network also said existing law guarantees that no chaplain is required to perform any kind of ceremony that is contrary to his or her religious beliefs.
Obama, who had been on the fence on gay marriage since becoming a candidate for president in 2007, announced his support for it during an interview Wednesday with ABC News.
Obama said in the interview that he thought about "those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf, and yet feel constrained even though now that `don't ask, don't tell' is gone because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
Obama also said he was taking a personal position, and his aides said his shift would have no impact on current policies.
The President's endorsement of gay marriage came three days after one given by Vice President Joe Biden during an interview on Meet the Press.
Obama’s announcement was the first by a sitting president, and Republican challenger Mitt Romney swiftly disagreed with it. "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," he said while campaigning in Oklahoma."
Most of the comments on that site are vehemently conservative religious-based diatribes against gays and lesbians, equality, the Obama presidency, etc. etc. – most likely older, some retired, service members or those who are evangelicals and rabidly anti-gay, with their feet dug firmly in the ground and not going to progress willingly into the new US military.
2.
AnonyGrl | May 10, 2012 at 8:24 am
You can call the Presidential Comment line at the White House at 202-456-1111 and add your voice. They are open 9-5 and an operator there will take your message and add it to the list.
Lets make that a VERY long list saying "Thanks".
3.
MightyAcorn | May 10, 2012 at 8:33 am
Sorry Menergy, meant to give you a +1 for posting that, fat thumbs on my part. Looks like it's on, huh?
4.
K. Travis | May 10, 2012 at 8:40 am
This is not an electorally safe move, but a principled stand. For someone as cautious and conciliatory as President Obama, it is significant for him to come out for marriage equality in terms of how it frames his presidency thusfar, and possibly moving forward.
What we should make a note of now and check in after the November elections is whether or not this campaign version of Barack Obama (bold leadership on touchy subjects) is maintained in some way after his re-election (assuming) or if he will return back to his 2009-2011 days of seeking bipartisan agreement in an era of extreme partisanship.
This outcome will have a significant effect on the chances of a potential executive order on nondiscrimination protections for our community.
5.
Richard Lyon | May 10, 2012 at 8:54 am
The POTUS really does have the power to impact public opinion. You can see the media narrative being rewritten before your eyes.
6.
MJFargo | May 10, 2012 at 9:10 am
Isn't THAT the truth…previously we had to wait until the day before a vote for the national media to jump in. Hope this lasts.
7.
James in Hollywood | May 10, 2012 at 9:38 am
I suspect Obama's announcement makes it more likely that marriage equality will be a part of the Democrat's platform. I haven't heard anything about this lately. Any guesses, comments…?
8.
Str8Grandmother | May 10, 2012 at 10:14 am
Scottie I think the most interesting part of this article is when you pointed us to what Ted Olson said about the new North Carolina Amendment. I had not seen that, thanks for that. It gives me hope.
9.
Michael Scott | May 10, 2012 at 10:41 am
Seriously, you guys… ya gotta change the embed width on your YouTube videos to 460. The current 630 width is causing the video to be obscured. And, a height between 360 and 400 should work well with that.
10.
Michael Scott | May 10, 2012 at 10:51 am
It didn't occur to me either until this was just pointed out, but I remember that being one of the key points to overturning Prop 8. That's why I was hoping marriages would begin in Washington state before the November elections because we'd have a precedent for overturning a voter-approved ban. Washington may be harder, though, if they get enough signatures before the first week in June. If they don't, marriages could commence that week (June 6th or 7th, I believe).
11. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | May 10, 2012 at 11:03 am
[...] News roundup: reactions to President Obama’s marriage announcement, and other headlines [...]
12.
Adam Bink | May 10, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Michael: It's fixed.
13.
Michael Scott | May 10, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Awesome. Thanks, Adam!
14.
Pat | May 10, 2012 at 10:31 pm
By the way, from Harry Reid's comments, shouldnt we conclude that he s our 34th senator in favor of DOMA repeal?
Or is it possible to support the president's views, yet not support DOMA repeal? Maybe im missing sth? Are there procedural reasons maybe?
15.
Jacob Combs | May 11, 2012 at 9:00 am
Hi Pat. I was wondering this too. I called Sen. Reid's office today, and was told that he supports the President's position (as we already know) but was told that have no statement on the Respect for Marriage Act and/or whether he will sign on to the bill as a co-sponsor. I'm not sure if this is for procedural reasons.
16. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | May 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm
[...] on-board with DOMA repeal, but his change of heart on marriage equality is progress. Reactions from LGBT organizations, labor unions and others swiftly [...]
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.