I voted for Pres.Obama back in 2008. I'm afraid he just gave the election to Romney.

At least at face value, it seems like a bold statement of his personal conscience. He may actually think that's more important than the political implications of saying it.

Erik Campano

Hail to the chief!

I would rather lose because I took a stand for what is right (personal or otherwise) than to win by kissing up to the smallness of some folks.

TBTG! THANK YOU, Mr President! :-D

JC Fisher

About your political analysis, Nicole, "we'll just have to agree to disagree."

I think he pandered like every other politician does. I'm not a one issue voter though,he still has my vote.

I hope to be corrected, but it seems his evolved to "personally I support marriage equality, but it's a state issue.'

Let's not a federal issue of it? That's like saying let's not make a federal issue of slavery or Jim Crow.

Here's my source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/05/09/whether-obama-likes-it-or-not-gay-marriage-is-a-federal-issue/

quote/
the President’s comments, and the talking points that accompany them, take pains to make clear that the White House views marriage as a state issue, and that the President thinks it should be up to the states to decide who can get married.

We haven’t seen the full quotes yet, but the ABC News summary says “the president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states’ deciding the issue on their own.” The White House talking points include the statement “this isn’t a federal issue.”
/unquote

@John: Regulation of marriage is traditionally the province of the states, which is why DOMA is such a curious construct.

There's also the issue of the constitutional requirement that states give "full faith and credit" to contracts made in other states. Since marriage is, legally speaking, nothing more than a bundle of contract rights, it is far from clear that DOMA would survive.

As to state DOMA provisions, whether legislative or constitutional, the provisions of the US constitution, when applicable, trump those of the states, so those in NC and elsewhere may eventually come to find that their recent vote was nothing more than a waste of time.

Eric Bonetti

It would seem that it ceased to be a state issue when your federal congress passed federal laws with reguard to marriage.

Bro. David

@Bro. David. Regulating marriage is one of the rights reserved to the states, which is why the federal legislation is so silly.

I find it interesting, too, that this is an issue that appeals to the left and the far right. Recall that Ted Olson, the former Reagan solicitor general -- and hardly as liberal by any stretch of the imagination -- was one of the attornies behind Perry v. Brown, which struck down California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that purported to amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. The case, which is likely to head to the Supreme Court, found that Proposition 8 violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment to the US constitution.

Eric Bonetti

@Bro. David: One would think so, but for now Obama prefers to move from one straddle (I'm evolving) to another (I've evolved, but it's something that's a state decision).

Credit where credit is due: The Obama administration doesn't defend key aspects of DOMA against constitutional challenges.

For all of the talk of President Obama "pandering," I think back to President Kennedy, who very much tiptoed around civil rights and kept it at a distance, for fear, as a Roman Catholic with a tenuous grasp on electoral victory, of losing the needed support of conservative Protestant Dixiecrats in his own party -- until he finally came around and realized it wasn't a legal or political issue, but a moral matter of justice, as he made known in his famous Civil Rights Address. Sometimes it's not pandering. Sometimes it really is evolution reaching a breakthrough about what is right and decent and fair to all Americans, to such a degree it simply can't be ignored anymore, political expediency be damned.

I wish TEC would come around on offering the Sacrament of Marriage to LGBT couples. It would be very nice if my church supported us in this way. And it's hurtful that it doesn't. And still debates blessings, a separate and unequal alternative.

I'm glad the President came around. When my partner and I are eligible for each other's social security, and have all the rights of legal marriage, I'll take it seriously. Until then, it seems like cynical rhetoric.

Glad news on a number of fronts. The obvious one being what he said. The less obvious one being that a politician actually publically spoke to changing his mind. Not so long after John Kerry and others were accused of flip-flopping on issues, to have a politician come right out and say, "I used to think that, I had these experiences and conversations, and now I think this?" That's huge. Also, yes, as difficult as it is - I do believe, personally, that marriage SHOULD be regulated on a state by state basis. Not everything should be a federal law. (In fact, MOST things probably shouldn't be!)

Adam, the problem with saying that it is a state issue is multiple. First of all, it is a basic human right that shouldn't be subjected to popular vote any more than Civil Rights for African Americans. Second, there are Federal issues at hand with Social Security and taxes. My partner and I have thrown in our lot together, I'm the "trailing spouse," and I'm not eligible for her social security if she passes first (and vice versa). This would/will be a huge financial hit, likely at a time when I'll be elderly. Medicaid, here I come, even though we've been responsible as a couple. Plus, we need to do the Medical and Financial Powers of Attorney and our Wills at great expense, to get a small fraction of the rights of marriage. Who wants to pay the legal bill? And these are the problems of middle age. Let's not forget that LGBT teens hearing the debate about how they aren't accepted is taking a terrible toll. The teen suicide rate is awful. Leave our human rights and legal rights in the hands of state government, which is even easier to purchase than federal (cheaper)... Human Rights for sale, or not, to the highest bidder!

All great points, Cynthia. Thank you for broadening my own understandings of this issue.

It's progress. It happens in stages. I wish it would happen all at once, but it doesn't. So, yes, right now he leaves it to the states--but DOMA is bound to fall. And the momentum continues.

So when marriage for same sex couples was legalized in CA, we considered: what difference would it REALLY make? It isn't federally recognized, because of DOMA. But we felt it was important to take every step we could, to demonstrate its importance and keep the momentum.

And I'm so glad we did; marriage affected us in ways we didn't begin to anticipate, even as it complicated our lives legally (again, because of DOMA). It feels a lot better to step out on the rocky road rather than wait till it's paved.

Similarly, with the blessings issue. Yes, there are some additional hoops for a same sex couple in our parish. But we were happy to jump through them, because again, the only way to make the path easier for those who follow, is to start walking on it now.

In time, marriage will come back to CA and be federally recognized. In time (I hope!) TEC will recognize same sex marriages formally, and not leave them in a gay ghetto of "different". Meanwhile, we'll take every step that we can along that road.

And as a gay person, I can't begin to tell you how much it meant to me to hear that our president is now walking that road too.

Susan Forsburg