Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Barack Obama supports ‘equal rights’ but stops short of backing gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 11:50am

    Of course he didn’t there is an election next year after all.

    Mind you with what he has been supportive of I wonder if the Republican campaign next year will be laced with homophobia to try and win votes.
    One to look out for.

    Hoping he wins another term lets hope he does voice his support.
    It hasn’t done our lot any harm after all.

    1. Gov. Cuomo pushed marriage in NY through to completion. Now that Obama has seen what real leadership is like, maybe we can see if he is just incompetent leader or a lyin’ jackass. At this point it is “either / or” – no more excuses!

      My hat is off to Gov. Cuomo. My back is turning to Obama.

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 Jun 2011, 3:44pm

        Problems is whats the alternative to Obama?

  2. It seems that the problem that the majority of people have, including those that support ‘equal rights’, is the word ‘marraige’. They want gay people to have the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple and dont mind if they have a ceremony to make it offical, but they dont want it to be called marriage. Thats fine. In my opinion. Who can be bothered to play word games when its such a huge leap forward for gay rights. Even I think of the word marraige as a hertrosexual thing. We’ll call it something else. makes no odds to me

    1. Agreed!

      1. Perhaps you’re not American so you’re not familiar with the concept and history of “Separate but Equal” civil rights in America. We have found from experience, and the Supreme Court has ruled that, separate but equal rights are NEVER equal. They are inherently unequal and separating them has no other purpose than to give one group lesser status than another; something our Constitution doesn’t allow.

        We once had separate water fountains for black people and black people had to ride in the back of buses. It could be, AND WAS, argued that the different water fountains delivered the same quantity and quality of water and the buses delivered people to the same destination but the mere fact that the GOVERNMENT separated one minority from the rest in and of itself was an act of discrimination and subjugation.

        So, as much as I’m sure you’re intentions are good, they are harmful and counterproductive to the cause of freedom, justice and equality.

      2. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 2:34pm

        Yes, call it something that you can manage to spell. It’ll make life easier for you. So long as it’s offical, whatever offal has to do with it.

        1. Offical? Perhaps you mean official? Lol.

          1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 4:25pm

            No, he really does mean offical. And marraige.

          2. Undermining someone’s argument by pointing out typographical errors is a little underhanded, isn’t it? I was only pointing out that yours also contained an error, which was rather amusing under the circumstances.

        2. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 7:02pm

          No, dear, I was quoting Spiritbody who spells it offical. You really should learn to read properly.

    2. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 12:23pm

      If they don’t want it called marriage then they must question how they support Equal Rights.
      Point is the only people this affects is the very people opting to have marriage, same sex or otherwise.
      How exactly is it affecting those who oppose it?
      If they ain’t Gay, How does it affect them?
      If their straight how does it affect them?
      If they’re already married how does it affect them?

      Truth is to all those question the answer is, It doesn’t affect them in the slightest.
      It’s just cruel nitpicking and just all because of love.

  3. Commander Thor 24 Jun 2011, 12:03pm

    Equal but separate facilities and institutions for blacks then.

    MISQUOTATION ALERT: THIS POST CONTAINS SARCASM.

    1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 2:38pm

      The explanation ruins the irony.

      1. Commander Thor 24 Jun 2011, 5:28pm

        I have been branded a racist before. I’m not racist, my views on the matter are evolving.

        MISQUOTATION ALERT: THIS POST CONTAINS SARCASM.

        1. Alf N. Spit 25 Jun 2011, 11:39am

          No it doesn’t . And your first post is irony not sarcasm.

          1. Commander Thor 27 Jun 2011, 10:00am

            I stand corrected :) Thank you for pointing it out!

  4. www. newyorker. com/ online/video/conference/2001/haidt

    Guys, please watch this. It will explain why Conservatives are opposed to gay marriage in a way that some might actually find enlightening.

    You’ll need to take the spaces out, because PinkNews doesn’t allow hyperlinks.

    1. Sorry, that should read:
      www. newyorker. com/ online/video/conference/2007/haidt

      1. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 12:24pm

        Thats in the US, though yeah? The Republicans

        1. Republicans and Conservatives are essentially the same thing; their role is to protect tradition and the interests of the wider community, while liberals fight for the rights of the individual.

          1. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 12:58pm

            Actually the British Conservatives are far more liberal than the US Republicans.
            Our is actually doing stuff to improve our rights.

          2. That’s true; in fact, the guy even says that in the video, lol.

            But the principal remains the same; Republicans and Conservatives are both conservative (with a small ‘c’, my bad) by definition.

          3. Progressive though today’s Tories might be, I wouldn’t put money on Cameron supporting equal ‘marriage’ when that particular debate comes along though.

          4. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 4:29pm

            Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have publically supported both Marriage and Civil Partnership Equality.

            I’m guessing like many these changes of opinion comes from actually getting to know LGBT people and no longer just assumptions as now that it is the UK Conservative party that has more LGBT members of Parliament than any other.

          5. Given Cameron & Clegg’s record on keeping their promises, I fail to share your optimism. And probably just as well. If Cameron doesn’t defend the religious right, then they’ll go even further right (the BNP) and our country will go straight to hell in a handcart.

  5. If there is one thing that I know about the English language it’s that the word “but” at the end of any statement negates everything previous to it.

    @Jock, what do you mean by “It hasn’t done our lot any harm after all”?

    1. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 1:02pm

      We have marriage consultation.
      Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have voiced their support for both marriage and CP Equality.
      Why can’t Barack Obama? Oh thats right because the religion will probably lynch him, plus the Republicans will probably use all to fight a dirty homophobic campaign.

      1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 2:45pm

        If that”s the one thing you know about the English language it’s a shame you got it wrong. It comes at the beginning of the next statement, and it’s a qualifier, not a negation.

      2. You know, I keep hearing that Cameron support Marriage Equality, but I’ve never seen where he said this…

        Is there a video/ press conference or article saying he did? I must have missed it.

  6. Pure politics as usual. Obama is now pandering to the LGBT crowd to get money for his campaign. That;s all.
    Yes, he’s done more than past Presidents , which was nothing, so that’s not such a great achievment. Unfortunately, our election choice is a to choose between the lesser of two evils.
    I prefer Hilary Clinton.

    1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 2:48pm

      You’re saying Obama and Clinton are evil?

  7. Annoying.

  8. Sigh, here we go again.

    Marriage is a straight institution and a religious ceremony. We can not and should not force gay marriage. The majority of most religious see us as wrong…

    Civil partnerships should be equal in EVERY way and open to both gay and straight people as well as being reconsidered world wide.

    Let’s pick our battles people… FYI this is not one of them. By forcing those who hate us to accept us all we do is compound their fears.

    1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 2:57pm

      No one is forcing straight people to marry gay people, it’s really none of their business and doesn’t affect them at all.

    2. Marriage is not – let me shout that again out of pure frustration not rudeness – NOT NOT NOT – a religious institution. People can CHOOSE to make it a religious marriage by marrying in a church, etc, but if they don’t do that then it is NOT a religious marriage, simply a CIVIL (ie non religious) marriage.
      Nor is it a straight institution. There have been same sex marriages throughout history and there are currently same sex marriages in a number of countries.
      You might prefer a CP. Fine, that’s absolutely your choice, but I want the option of choosing a MARRIAGE just like I would have had if I’d been straight.

    3. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2011, 4:40pm

      Andy Q
      Prehaps you can explain Civil Marriage and how come marriage predates religion?

      1. @ Jock, I think you mean marriage predates Christianity, don’t you?

        1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 7:13pm

          Well we don’t know when the first religion was invented, and we don’t know when the first marriage ceremony was celebrated.

        2. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2011, 9:28am

          Yes I guess what I mean it it was around before which ever religion hijacked it.

  9. Spiritbody and Flamineo….if you think they’re equal, why aren’t straights clamouring for a civil union or partnership, those who don’t want to marry? If government tried to abandon marriage for straight couples, there would be civil unrest in America and I daresay in the UK. Civil unions will NEVER be equal anywhere in the world. Why do you think ten countries abandoned them and more countries will follow? They can’t all be wrong. There isn’t even a universal standard for these non-marriages, not even in Europe. A civil partnership in the UK is by no means equal to the French PACs. Plus, they’re not portable in a lot of countries.

    Just because you don’t want marriage, doesn’t mean that the rest of us don’t or shouldn’t. I support both unions for both orientations, there should be choice for everyone. Real equality for all. We never had segregation in the UK, so you really haven’t grasped exactly what separate but equal or unequal means from the American perspective.

    1. In answer to your points:
      There are straight people who have expressed that they want civil partnerships in the UK, and even gone to court to fight for them.
      Even if a gay couple got married in America, they still wouldn’t be portable into countries that don’t recognise gay marriage.
      And it’s not that we don’t want marriage, it’s that it’s more complex than a simple matter of equal rights because it wanders into religious territory. I’m all for equal legal rights, but for the sake of the name ‘marriage’, we’re setting ourselves up for conflict with the Right that can be avoided.
      Why do it? It’s not a matter of segregation; we still are part of the wider community and entitled to the same rights. Why risk what gains we’ve made for the sake of a name that the religiously-minded hold sacred?

      1. I don’t agree, Flamineo. Pandering to people’s prejudices never works. I thought choosing to have CPs was good at the time because it would stop the religious people objecting, but it hasn’t. They still go on and on about it, and just put ‘marriage’ in inverted commas. The problem isn’t the word, it’s that some people (both religious and non-religious) don’t want us to have equal rights.
        As for the “wanders into religious territory” – so does marriage for divorcees. The Bible looks very dimly on that, which is why most divorcees re-marry in a civil marriage. So let’s ban civil marriage for divorcees, yes? No, let’s keep it exactly the same for gay couples as it is for straight couples where one or more person is a divorcee – that is, allow religions to choose who they wish to marry.
        We can then choose to marry in a civil marriage and religions can continue to marry whom they choose according to their own faiths. There is no conflict there at all.

        1. ‘Allow religions to choose who they wish to marry.’ Interestingly, I’ve already had a debate on here with someone who said the Church of England were legally bound to accept sexually active, civilly partnered gay priests as per the terms of the Equality Act, when matters of state and church should be kept separate.

          We can assure the churches all we like that they won’t be bound by law to do anything they find unconscionable, but that fails to acknowledge those in our community who are fully prepared to use the law to whack people who don’t agree with us, particularly those with religious views. I think we are beginning to develop something of an entitled attitude here, when the wider society really are doing their best to accommodate us.

        2. Do religious people go on and on about civil partnerships? I’m not aware of it. And if they do, they don’t have a leg to stand on in court as they are nothing to do with the church. Insisting on marriage doesn’t equip us with that safeguard.

          1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 7:24pm

            Yes they do. The Pope has embarked on a global offensive against civil partnerships.

          2. The Pope has embarked on a global offensive against any concession towards gay rights full stop. The Pope has it in his head that gay people are responsible for all the world’s ills.

  10. Andy Q, civil marriage is NOT religious marriage, the two are entirely different. Civil marriage does not involve religion and does not mandate procreation either. On what planet are you living?

    Many of us don’t much care for religion, but we’re not calling for a ban on it like the religious nutters are doing with same-sex civil marriage. Its none of their damned business. They need to STFU, now!

    Hayden, WELL SAID!

    Jock, Cameron has said he supports marriage equality? I thought he only said he’d “consider” it prior to the last election? Maybe I missed something.

    1. Not the same as you Bob. Re-read my post. I never said Civil Partnerships involved religion and mandate procreation. WTF???

      What are you on?

      You have missed the point COMPLETELY.

      1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 3:00pm

        He’s on the planet where people can read and know the difference between gay civil marriage and gay civil partnership. And that evidently is a different planet to yours.

        1. Clearly and the difference doesn’t stop there. Americans, sigh.

          1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 4:30pm

            I was talking about you.

  11. Barack Obama is a hypocrite. I ‘ll tell you why.

    He said that the federal government should not be making laws regarding same-sex marriage, but should be left to each state to decide. Hmmmm, so by that admission, he would have to agree that civil rights for blacks should not have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, a branch of the federal government? What hypocrisy, exceptions made for blacks, a minority no less, but none for gays? Beyond the double-standard. Its downright hypocrisy and bigotry combined. He’s learned absolutely nothing from the civil rights movement.

    1. www. newyorker. com/ online/video/conference/2007/haidt

      Robert, please watch this. No-one’s asking you to change your opinion or your belief that gays deserve equality, but it might help you see things from a broader perspective, and explain why Obama’s reluctance to leap into this with both feet may prove to be better for all of us in the long run.

  12. He’s a liar.

    Marriage is a civl right. Therefore if he pretends to support equal rights then he must also support marriage equality.

    Otherwise he’s just full of it.

    1. Everyone has the right be in a legal aggrement with a person of their choosing that give them certain benefits and rights.

      Forcing a group of poeple to change their rules is not a right.

      I don’t like it anymore than the rest of you but that is how it is.

      1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 4:37pm

        Do switch your spell check on Andy, it’s hard enough trying to work out what your point is. No one is forcing anyone to change their rules about who is allowed to get married in their church or religious institution. You’re inventing it.

  13. Hes obviously not saying his support now, its a political move because elections are coming next year. If he says now it would be foolish, he might find himself with a big trouble when republicans make a big election campaign stating that the democrats want to stablish gay marriage. We all know that although there is a majority of americans that think that marriage between people of the same sex is ok, that doesnt mean they actually support the measure, or that those people will sto voting for Obama if he doesnt support it now, they’re common people not activists!, just stop picking up on him, hes the most lgbt friendly president that the us has ever had!

  14. Civil unions will never provide equality to gay Christians or Jews whose marriages performed in their own churches or synagogues are treated with disdains and ignored by the state, while their heterosexual counterparts are treated with respect and their marriages are recognised.

    Just equalising civil marriage would not bring equality. There is a serious issue of religious freedom too.

    1. That is a subject for those you are in that religion to work out.
      We can not and must not FORCE ourselves on them.
      There are places where people can get blessed if they want to.

      1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 3:09pm

        We’re not in a position to force anything, but in a democracy if most people, or human rights law, agrees that religious groups have the religious freedom to offer marriage to the gay members of their congregation it seems appropriate that that should be available to those that want it. Religious freedom cuts both ways.

        1. However if the governing body do not want it then it cannot be forced. You seem to view religion as the same as a government. It is VERY different.
          Religion is very specific.

          Religion should not be allowed to interfere with politics and unfortunately it cuts both ways.
          I wish it were different. I hate dogma and religion and that is a strong word.

          1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 3:36pm

            This is just drivel. Do try and make an intelligible point.

  15. Just one more PM/President wanting equal rights for gays but seemingly shying away from the word marriage …did Cameron mention the word at all in his reception a day ago, no!…is it so hard to do….there seems to be 2 definitions of eqaul knocking around, one that’s ok for politicians and means something completely different and another for us…

    1. We REALLY need to get over this.

      as long as we have the same rights as marriage and it is open to both hetro and homo then that is what we should be wanting.

      I want NOTHING to do with their religion and most gay and most straight people agree.

      Times have moved on and so Partnerships should be world wide alternative

      1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 3:23pm

        You really don’t seem to twig that there are three legal types of marriage in the UK: Civil Marriage (straight) and Civil Partnership (gay) at the Town Hall, or a Church Wedding (straight). So far as I know the only people raising even the possibility of religious gay marriage are a few religious groups who would like the freedom to do so, as a matter of religious freedom, but even then they may have just been talking about the carrying out of civil partnerships at their premises, which I think is in the process of being permitted, but that is essentially an issue of religious freedom to do so.

      2. Absolutely not, we want equality and non discrimination. If straights are allowed to do something then it’s obvious that we should be allowed to do so as, otherwise we can never regard ourselves as equal. The right is to get married not the actual rights within a CP or marriage which will differ since they are NOT the same. As for religious marriage then of course it’s an absolute right that gays should be allowed this if the relgious body allows it. The Quakers do NOT want to do a secular registration of CP in their meeting house they want to do marriages. THey don’t make the distinction. That is their right as well. The Christian lobby is working two fold hee , removing religious freedom and our rights as gay couples to get married. YOU ARE WRONG.

  16. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 2:54pm

    No one wants to force a straight person to marry a gay person. It’s really none of their business.

    1. Eh???

      Please think before you post

      1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 3:24pm

        This one got posted in the wrong place by pink ware.

  17. This is why he will be remembered as a president o all mouth and no spine.

    Saying he supports us and wanting equality yet he won’t support full marriage equality.

    It’s cowardly.

    1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 3:29pm

      The expression is all mouth and no trousers. All mouth and no spine is a squid.

  18. Miguel Sanchez 24 Jun 2011, 3:33pm

    Personally I don’t care what it’s called. The term “marriage” has long been associated with the church.

    What I truly don’t understand is this: “New York lawmakers are currently considering a bill to give gay couples marriage equality. The bill needs one more vote to pass, but has been held up over concerns about religious freedom.”

    Many clergy have said they would perform ceremonies in their churches so that’s their right.

    1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 3:46pm

      Religious groups want to make sure they won’t lose government funding and perks if they discriminate against gay people and their families.

  19. Flamineo, I fail to see where civil marriage gays wanders into the religious component of marriage. SInce when? Have you ever attend a civil marriage ceremony? I’ve not heard one invocation in the name of religion or a mandate to procreate. Religious and civil (secular) are two entirely different things. Marriage is continuously evolving, it always has and it always will. It existed in various forms long before organized Abrahamic cults came along and screwed it up.

    If civil unions or partnerships are so equal to marriage, why aren’t the majority of heterosxuals demanding them. Ask David Cameron or Barack Obama if they would be comfortable downgrading their marriages to either of the non-marriage unions and the answer would be a resounding no. They wouldn’t even be able to provide a rational answer as to why they’d prefer marriage other than revert to religion to get them off the hook. They two can’t distinguish between religious and secular.

    1. Alf N. Spit 24 Jun 2011, 7:20pm

      Flamineo, which I guess is pseudo Latin for I Flame, a bit reminiscent of the pseudo Greek Agapo, a similar contributor, hasn’t got the faintest idea about marriage in the UK, or that we have distinct civil and religious marriages here as a choice for heterosexuals.

      1. I understand the difference between a religious and a civil marriage. But, whether it’s done in a church or a registry office, marriage is never thereafter referred to by anybody as either a religious or a civil marriage… just ‘marriage’. Both are considered equal in law and in the eyes of society at large. And there lies the rub: if civil marriage is equal to religious marriage, then the religious (rightly or wrongly) don’t want gay unions to have the same status.

        But, we say, we want complete equality. Two gay men’s love for one another is as profound and heartfelt and natural as a straight couple’s love. We want families like they have. And children, like they have. In fact, we’re looking to build on the same solid family values that they hold so dear, it makes no sense that they’re stopping us from embracing the lifestyle they so vehemently endorse… except with two penises in the house, instead of the usual set-up.

      2. The problem is that the religious right see the signs of social decay all around them–we live in an individualistic, largely amoral society where religion (we are frequently told) is outdated, stupid and has no place. They see us (the group at the forefront of sexual liberation and most vociferous oppponents of religion) as part of the problem.

        Now, to them, the sacred institution of marriage has had a rocky time of late and nobody seems to take it seriously any more. Consequently, children are growing up without stable role models and developing antisocial behaviour and psychological problems that we’re all paying the price for socially..

        To top it off, a group whose cultural identity is tied to moral and sexual subversion wants to take a shot at it too. Can you see why they might be more than a little reluctant to throw open the doors and drastically change the 2000 year old definition of marriage?

  20. Miguel Sanchez, you should care about the terminology. The fact that religious bigots want to keep us from having civil marriage proves that marriage is an extremely important institution and the universal standard as we know it in much of the world. Civil unions or partnerships will never attain such status ever. If they were so equal, why aren’t both forms of unions available? If civil unions or partnerships were mandated for everyone, regardless or sexual orientation. you can bet there would be public uproar coming from the straights, further proof of why marriage is so important.

    As for the religious freedom issue. Its the roman cult and a handful of right wing evangelicals who are the ring leaders, the ones pulling the strings of bigotry in the GOP.

  21. Freedom of choice, the right of marraige, the right to choose, not to marry. That is Equal Rights for All.

  22. make MED, if only! I agree with you.

  23. make MEB, sorry for the misspelling, I’m tired today.

  24. Ricardo Duarte 24 Jun 2011, 9:03pm

    To say you are pro equality but not marriage is a TOTAL contradiction.

  25. We seem to have no shortage of politicians who are passionately in favour of equality for gay people – as long as it stops short of actual equality. Winning the votes of bigots is more important to them than integrity. This isn’t pragmatism – this is cynical vote mongering and sending a message to the bigots that their bigotry is, in some way, acceptable.

  26. Over the bull____ 25 Jun 2011, 3:10am

    It’s either all or nothing in reference to our politicians’ support of EQUAL rights. The continued vague support we receive is just about enough. It’s time we realize together with our true friends/supporters we carry some powerful weight if only we’d use it! Those who do not vote do not have the right to complain!

  27. Our President needs to take the next step and “do the right thing”!

    He needs to support us ALL and allow us the rights we deserve.

    It’s the right thing to do and the “American” thing to do!

    Michael
    OutMaturity

  28. Martin Legan 26 Jun 2011, 3:51pm

    I have no idea if Jesus would vote for or against same-sex marriage,
    but I do know that he would not condemn homosexuals like society still does.

    People should show compassion towards others who are different to them, and who suffer because of it.

    For inspiration, everyone should read “The Lottery Code” for free from http://www.thelotterycode.net

  29. Of course Barack Obama spoke carefully. He ALWAYS speaks carefully….and sincerely…looking directly at the camera. The one with the red light. No, over here Barack. Keep looking earnestly, sincerely….

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all