The White House responds to Iowa same-sex marriage ruling.

[jefferson_dem]

Tepid...certainly not as strong as I would like.

White House responds to Iowa

The White House's response to Iowa's ruling for same-sex marriage today tries to thread the needle:

The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_responds_to_Iowa.html

[Danger Mouse]

1. I wish he would be more supportive.

The message I get from this is 'I ain't getting involved, but I ain't getting in the way either.'
Disappointing, but could be worse...I guess.

[sniffa]

3. Stop bashing him hater

[Danger Mouse]

10. Hush. I need to finish my daily hate thread.

[jefferson_dem]

7. "The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court."

I would rather the statement ended right there.

Yes, it could have been worse though.

[ruggerson]

13. Exactly JD

should have been a one line statement.

[Lyric]

2. .

:(

[sniffa]

4. Stop bashing him hater

[blonndee]

5. Yeah, that definitely "threads the needle."

:eyes:

It's a chickenshit response and a chickenshit position. I support Obama quite strongly in most ways, but this is crap. There's no good reason or excuse for this.

[Starry Messenger]

6. .

Maybe people need to start sending him photos of their same-sex nuptials. Maybe then this will resonate with him. Oh, well. It's still a great day for civil rights. I'm sorry he's not more excited about it.

[Political Heretic]

8. Man that was weak sauce.

It seems like they could have found a way to keep their position without sounding as completely weak about it as they did.

HOWEVER - on the other hand, what does it matter? Why risk stirring up shit with a strong statement rather than just quietly nodding and smiling at the Iowa SC?

[Starry Messenger]

9. The Advocate notes that there has been an update:

It adds the word "equal"

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid77464.asp

""The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."

Still needs more work though. It's pretty lacking in the "fierce" department.

[ruggerson]

11. Why does he have to say "although President Obama supports civil unions rather than..."

why can't he just say nothing?

Why does there always have to be a wink and a nod to the religious right?

[Barack_America]

12. Well, I can't agree with him on everything. nt

[stillcool]

14. I agree..they should have left it..

at states should make their own decisions. The add-on, kind of contradicts that. Why opine if it's up to the states?

[catnhatnh]

15. Wrong Mr. President...

Past National defense the federal government's most important job is to guarantee civil rights. The first ensures we survive and the second ensures we deserve to. No more the back burner or waiting for a consensus. Stand for what is right. To do less is cowardly.

[tekisui]

16. He should have left out this line:

"Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage..."

Pushing the states and supporting equality would have been better.

[Hellataz]

17. One way to look at it

I may not agree with Obama about Civil Unions being preferable to same sex marriage. I think there should be no distinction and everyone should have the same rights to marry no matter what the sex is of the couples involved. However I take comfort in the fact that we have a President that despite his religious or personal views WILL NOT try and impose them onto this country. He hasn't trying to influence anyone on either side, he's not trying to push his own personal agenda and I find that refreshing and admirable.

Do I like that he's displayed some ignorance in terms of Gay rights, no, Nor do I understand his rational, all I do understand is that for so many people including him that are decent and good people that do not make a habit of hate mongering, this is an issue about how they were raised in the church, not an issue about how they ultimately want to treat people. Make no mistake there is a distinction between the fanatical right wing "death to gay people" fringe and the large sector of church goers who have had church "values" fed to them since birth. It's hard to break away from that, from the teaching of your family and community. It doesn't make them bad, it makes them ignorant.

But at the end of the day, you need to look at the mans actions, not just his words or personal views. Because it's his actions that have the lasting effect on us.

1. Action #1 - He opposed Prop 8
2. Action #2 - He released a statement showing respect for the courts rulings in Iowa, while every other republican screams about it leading to a "gay mecca"
3. Action #3 - Or rather non action , he's taken NO action to try and impose his personal views on Gay marriage onto anyone. I think it shows him leading by example to decrease the involvement government has in the issue of Marriage, gay or straight.

It might not be the way you all would do it, if you were him, but I still think that he is working a long term game plan, that included "threading that needle" as you put it, to help ease people into the change he promised us all.