So, I have two thoughts about President Obama's Gay Marriage Endorsement

[stevenleser]

First, it is huge and important. This is the first time a sitting President has endorsed marriage equality for LGBTIQ folks. The effects of that endorsement alone are powerful. I checked around at a number of sites and a lot of folks are celebrating today and issuing tweets of thank you.

My second thought is that he should have stopped there as far as a statement goes and then rolled up his sleeves and started to make it happen. The portion about 'states rights' is completely unnecessary, nonsensical and wrong and takes something away from the impact of the statement. Whoever helped craft this part of the President's statement should be taken out behind the woodshed and flogged.

While true that states craft their own rules about marriage, like the age you can get married with or without a parent, whether you have to get blood tests, who can preside over a marriage, etc., that has nothing to do with gay marriage. Its a civil rights issue that will be decided once and for all at the federal level. Is there anyone who disagrees with that? I dont think so.

I just cannot get over how dumb this was to say. Who thought that this would help the President in any way? Anti-gay bigots are not going to vote for the President anyway after the dismantling of DADT. They certainly would not vote for him after coming out in favor of gay marriage no matter what he said about the states. It just makes no sense at all. It really doesnt mean anything or help anything. It's about as dumb a political move as I have seen.

I just hope that nonsensical statement doesnt take away from what just happened. The President of the United States endorsed marriage rights and equality for the LGBT community. That is a beautiful thing.

[obxhead]

1. Adding the "states right" argument

allows supporters to explain why Obama still can't do anything about the issue.

While a hugely positive statement to make, the states rights aspect makes the statement ring hollow.

[stevenleser]

3. But nobody buys that. Just look at the discussions here in LGBT

No one buys that after going over it once or twice. Several people changed their minds in those threads and agreed it is a federal issue.

I know what you are trying to say but it just doesnt work. It doesnt make sense to even try to suggest it.

[Warpy]

2. He just drew a very clear line in the sand

between us and the religious crazies and the Republicans who use them. None of those people were going to vote for him anyway and now they're going to double down on bigotry and show us all just how ugly they really are.

This has pretty much given him the youth vote if we can persuade them to put down the games and go do it. My guess is that the last 2 years of seeing teabaggers in the House will do just that.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. I find myself less than pleased.

The fact he made such a wonderful statement, then added a "state's rights" caveat on the heels of a state passing an amendment to prohibit GBLT equality, makes my blood run a bit cold.

[justiceischeap]

6. I agree. It's like

handing a ball to a kid, saying, "Want this?" and when the kid grabs for the ball, he pulls the ball back while saying, "Psych! You can't have it."

In other words, tacking on the bit about states rights, looks a bit like this to me:

[laconicsax]

8. +1

There's no way he wasn't aware of the implications of endorsing "state's rights" immediately after NC.

It was a perfect opportunity to take a stand without having to choose sides.

[dbackjon]

5. Good post

[Marrah_G]

7. I agree with your post mostly

Except I think the states rights part was purposefully put in. I think he wants both the support of progressives in the party and also wants to keep the support of the religiously conservative part of the party. I am left feeling that Equality is being used as a pawn.

I wonder if I will ever see a President who will do the right thing simply for no other reason then it being the right thing to do.

[uriel1972]

9. I have mixed feelings about his statement also.

The state's rights part makes it feel like "I believe you should be able to marry, but I'm not going to support you in getting there." I hope I'm being too cynical.