White House reaction to Prop 8 ruling

[ruggerson]

Gibbs at presser:

"I have not spoken with the President about it. I think the issues, uh, uh, the issues involved you know where the President stands."


End of comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g459NrfxxWk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eamericablog%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

[Bonn1997]

1. Uh, Uhm, You Know, I think Gibbs uses A LOT of filler words.

I like the guy and the content if his comments is usually good. But for someone whose job contains such an important public speaking component, I would expect his speech to be better polished.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

2. Wow -- what a strong statement

Actually, I prefer he keep his mouth shut about this.

[Renew Deal]

4. Gibbs was asked a direct question at the end of the presser.

He didn't bring it up. Unless you mean Obama...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

5. I was referring to Obama

[CreekDog]

15. Obama did oppose Prop. 8

it felt far less than forceful, but nevertheless, unless his position changed since then Gibbs should have been able to state that Obama disagreed with Prop. 8.

[Renew Deal]

3. Sounds reasonable

He can't speak on his own.

[flvegan]

6. What else is he going to say? Obama doesn't support gay marriage.

Doing cartwheels would be tacky, or at least tasteless.

[customerserviceguy]

7. During the election

President Obama's official position on equal marriage was substantially the same as Caribou Barbie's.

[TommyO]

8. But unlike Barbie, he opposed Prop 8

[NYC_SKP]

14. Right you are. Obama Opposed Prop 8.

comparisons to Sarah Palin, now?

[Cha]

9. President Obama opposed proposition 8

<snips>

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote."

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1051404.html

[customerserviceguy]

10. True, but even CB was fine with civil unions

All they differed on was the methods that would be used. He opposed constitutional amendments on equal marriage, and she favored them. Neither one seemed to oppose civil unions.

That's not an appreciable amount of difference in leadership. Especially today.

[Cha]

11. Yeah, there's a big Difference between the

lying hypocrite carrie prejean and President Obama.

[customerserviceguy]

17. All I'm asking for

is some leadership from President Obama on this issue. He's won his election, he still retains enormous popularity, and he'd be on the right side of history to really come out and make a statement in favor of marriage equality.

If he has to fight CB in the next election, he'll be making such a distinction then (let us hope fervently!), why not make it now, when it can make some difference?

[Hippo_Tron]

21. My guess is that he's going to take some time to take a strong stance like Kennedy did

The politically smart thing to do is sit on the fence and stay out of it. But there will come a breaking point when he can't sit on the sidelines anymore just like that point came with Kennedy and civil rights. Hopefully that point will come sooner rather than later.

[Toasterlad]

18. Wrong. CANDIDATE Obama Opposed Prop 8. We Don't Yet Know How PRESIDENT Obama Feels.

[friedgreentomatoes]

12. yawn! n/t

[hulklogan]

13. About what I expect to hear from the White House.

Pathetic.

[cboy4]

16. So informative.

[Starry Messenger]

19. I'm underwhemed.

That's just sad. I'm feeling a gamut of emotions. Angry. Bewildered. Scared and concerned for gay friends and family members. I was hoping for some words of comfort and leadership from a person I totally looked up to a year ago. This wasn't it.

[depakid]

20. It's a state matter- though some believe (prematurely?) that there's a federal question involved

and the law does sometimes make for strange bedfellows:

Bush vs. Gore rivals challenge Prop. 8 in federal court

Two prominent attorneys who argued on opposite sides of Bush vs. Gore, the legal battle over the 2000 presidential election, announced Tuesday that they will challenge Proposition 8 in federal court and seek to restore gay marriage until the case is decided.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented then-Vice President Al Gore in the contested election, have joined forces to tackle the same-sex marriage issue, which has deeply divided Californians and left 18,000 gay couples married last year in legal isolation.

In a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson and Boies have united to represent two same-sex couples filing suit after being denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8. Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the proposition, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

The California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that state law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the privacy, due process and equal protection guarantees of the California Constitution.

<snip>

Legal scholars have observed that proponents of gay marriage have avoided taking the issue to federal court so far because of the dominance of conservative judges and justices on the federal bench after the eight-year tenure of President George W. Bush.

The U.S. Supreme Court has what usually results in a 5-4 majority against extending rights to gays by recognizing sexual orientation as a vulnerable class of citizens in need of protection.

More: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/bush-v-gore-rivals-challenge-prop-8-in-federal-court.html
-----

For the record, my choice of approaches on the broader issue(s) has long been- as in 15-20 years long been, to utilize the growing and increasingly incontrovertable science that demonstrates an "immutable characteristic" as set out in the Civil Rights Act- and find a case of discrimination with "bad facts" that would otherwise fall under its auspices.

That has nothing to do with Lamda or others who work hard in the legal trenches- and have their own strategies. And indeed, the old Brandeis Brief deal has been criticized more than once:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-nell-warren/civil-rights-for-gays-doe_b_148587.html

My thoughts were (and are) that in doing so- fraught as it is with ambiguity around the edges, the science can (and does) cut right through the sophistry to the chase.

So- now that there's a challenge on the Constitutional level it'll be interesting to read what Bois & Olsen's team comes up with.

Might be kind of risky to go for the jugular at this point.

But the die is cast and I guess that we shall see.