« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
05/16/2008
Is a 'congratulations' too much to ask for?
You know what would be great? If our most visible Democrats would acknowledge the historical decision that was cast yesterday, and the positive effects if will have on the millions of the supporters whose votes they've solicited. But that's not what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have done. Instead, the White House hopefuls have offered nothing more than tepid statements through their spokespeople:
Obama:
Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.
Clinton:
"Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states."
Alright, so we all know they're not going to go beyond civil unions, regardless of how they personally feel. But these weak comments delivered via surrogates only highlight the outraging way our would-be, should-be progressive icons in the Democratic party have been botching the push for marriage equality for years. Rather than counter the loud, forceful condemnations that come from our opponents with equally staunch voices for fairness, our Democratic leadership, as a whole, tends to offer up only the most timid of pushbacks. And in doing so, they have allowed the conversation on this issue to largely be shaped by the other side.
Whereas right-leaning citizens have seen their party's top dogs give them much fuel for their anti-marriage equality stances, those of us who've worked to cut through the divisive spin of the other side in order make true connections with the American public have done so with little help from our left-leaning elected officials. Compare Team Obama and Team Clinton's comments with the one from McCain's camp:
"John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions."
Now, clearly his comment is worse than the Dem hopefuls. But have either Clinton or Obama presented a real voice of "change" when stacked up against McCain? On this issue, we'd say not so much. Sure they aren't denying the courts their powers, backing the idea of "traditional marriage," or fostering the idea that civil rights should be put up to a popularity contest. But they're also not hailing the landmark decision, acknowledging that marriage inequality is wrong, or seizing the opportunity to lead on this matter. If you listen to McCain, the courts were out of line because the people of the state should decide on our equality (and when it came to his own state of AZ, he decided "no"). But if you listen to Obama and Clinton, the court was also sort of wrong because the courts didn't provide an alternate, not-quite-marriage system for the gays. How can we expect the public to get on board with our full parity when these are the presented options?!
B & H: You can't escape the cameras these days if you try. Whatdya say that today, you maybe look one of them in the lens and act like true Dem heroes?
**NOTE: Nancy Pelosi does a far better job:
“I welcome the California Supreme Court’s historic decision. I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the State Constitution provides for equal treatment for all of California’s citizens and families, which today’s decision recognizes.
“I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment. I encourage California citizens to respect the Court’s decision, and I continue to strongly oppose any ballot measure that would write discrimination into the State Constitution.
“Today is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride.”
Pelosi Statement on California State Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage [Pelosi]
Your thoughts
I'm very bothered about McCain's statement: John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman. So if an amendment goes to the people to vote on and it gets defeated will he still support the right of the people to recognize same sex marriage?
Posted by: Ron | May 16, 2008 10:22:51 AM
I agree, except that McCain isn't being brave by making his statements against equality, he holds the majority (if dwindling) opinion. For Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama to stake out a leadership position for equality, they are at the risk of losing much more than Johnny Boy does.
McAdultery has shown very little bravery; in fact, he seems to be visibly shrinking (did you notice?) from all his bowing and scraping to the right-wing of his party.
Mr. Obama has made some very eloquent appeals for equality, even "bringing it up" to hostile audiences. He may not be comfortable with the word marriage for gay couples, which isn't inconsistant with most people's opinion. His actions speak loudly - even if he may not be our hero on this issue.
Posted by: andrew williams | May 16, 2008 10:25:33 AM
Andrew: Who indicated McCain was being brave?
Posted by: G-A-Y | May 16, 2008 11:22:24 AM
No one here...except those who still fool themselves thinking his "Maverick" label still applies. But if we got announcements of unequivocal support from Mr. Obama that would be a brave thing indeed. It should happen, but I'm not holding my breath it will.
Posted by: Andrew Williams | May 16, 2008 12:27:38 PM
I am so f*****g tired of straight people deciding that civil unions are "sufficient" and "the right way to go."
Why not let glbt families decide what is best for themselves.
Okay - back to the amendment. Any one know of some legal way to stop this thing? Can't someone argue that there is nothing in the state constitution that allows voters to invalidate legal marriages?
Think about it. Tell the kooks that in order to invalidate legal marriages, they would first need to pass a ballot measure allowing them to invalidate legal marriages. THEN if that passed, they could start a petition drive to change the constitution. That could take years and would probably fail.
C'mon Arnold, Jerry and fair-minded lawyers! Find a freaking loophole!
Posted by: stojef | May 16, 2008 12:56:03 PM
Ron,
to answer your question, I think that McCain wouldn't like that decision by the people, but I think he wouldn't take any steps to oppose it.
I believe (though trying to find a way to have Google provide backup is eluding me) that he has said that states should be able to do what the citizens want about gay couples as long as other states don't have to recognize it.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | May 16, 2008 4:28:56 PM
One thing that is pretty telling about this California Supreme Court ruling is that at least part of their decision was based on the fact that California already has a very strong Civil Union statute. And the argument made by the court really sounds very similar to arguments for overturning "separate but equal" laws.
They basically said that since the state already provides most of the substance of marriage to same-sex couples, then where is the harm in going that one extra step. It may feel like baby-steps, but "Rome wasn't built in a day."
And, I know that every day we are marginalized we are worse off, but like the Herbicidal Maniac that Jeremy reported on today, it is these roots (god! I hate horticultural analogies) that eventually bear fruit. And I said that all without saying weed-whacker!
Posted by: Dick Mills | May 16, 2008 7:48:23 PM
comments powered by Disqus
