Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Obama ‘still working’ on gay marriage views

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I think he may be…well, manipulating a little. I think Obama is well aware of what will happen if he says he is Pro marriage equality as he is at the stage in a Presidency where his direct power is limited and all efforts must go on election (rather a joke that a 4 year term really is 2 at the most, hooray for politics). If DOMA falls, which it is very close to doing, then the ducks are lining up nicely for a change in the law. But this assumes a Congress that is in line with the President. A Democratic President with a Republican congress is a duck so lame that it can only limp in circles trying to save its own ass.

    1. Some would view that as manipulation, some would see that as political realism …

      I think Obama wants to support equal marriage, but is playing his cards close to his chest until he has both the opportunity and the strategy to ensure he is likely to succeed in achieving that

  2. Sound like he’s hedging his bets.

  3. I know I will be accused or racism for saying it, but he won’t offend the black community and they don’t like us!

    1. If you look at the colour of skin of the Republican potential presidential candidates and compare their views on homosexuality to those of Obama – you will see that the issue of homophobia can often be blind to skin colour ….

    2. Peter your comment is racist and ignorant do you not realize there are also black gay people out there? You make the assumption that to be gay means to be white. There are millions of queers of colour in America who are NOT white and who have support of their families and communities.

  4. Obama will be ‘working on it’ until he leaves office and only make a decisive pronouncement, if at all, when he is long gone from the White House.

    1. I think if he does achieve a second term he will be more demonstrative in his LGBT rights commitments – although abolition of DODT in the military and welcoming the decisions for equal marriage in NY state and elsewhere are important steps.

  5. Eddy - from 2007 4 Oct 2011, 11:27am

    We all had high hopes for Obama when he was elected President. We have now learnt that he is not the man of principle we thought he was.

    He has not supported the right of the Palestinians to be acknowledged as the occupants and holders of a state. He has warned that he will veto any UN move to grant the Palestinians statehood. The Jews continue to encroach upon Palestinian land and to build new housing estates there. Only this very week have they begun to build a new housing estate for Jews on Palestinian land. But Obama supports them.

    Why has this black President, whom we thought would help the underdog, whom we thought would assist minorities, openly supported the Jews and not the Palestinians? Because for him winning the next election is more important than matters of principle and human rights.

    Obama will continue to “work” on the idea of gay marriage. He will do nothing truly brave and noble. Unfortunately.

    1. gaymenwithsense 4 Oct 2011, 11:55am

      why should he support the palestinians? they’re murderers and terrorists.

      1. As are the jews, who systematically invade palestine by terrorize the poor with their american tanks & guns.

        Sorry, the jews prefer to use the word “peaceful settlement” rather than military backed forceful and systematic takeover.. SHOCKING!

        Jews use the travesty of WW1/WW2 to justify their behaviour! The victim has become the criminal!!

        1. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 2:34pm

          how the hell did someone speaking about the ‘travesty’ of the Holocaust get positive votes? Are we that anti-semitic now?

          1. You know that was a mere slip of the tongue and that John C meant “tragedy” not travesty.

          2. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 4:09pm

            No Simon, he meant Travesty.

          3. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 4:13pm

            indeed does it matter what he meant? He’s saying that the Jewish People ‘use’ the death of millions for their own ends.

            Well if that’s not Anti-Semitic I don’t know what the hell is.

          4. No one can READ MINDS, theotherone. That includes YOU. You do not KNOW what JohnC meant.

            “Travesty” is obviously not the correct word in the context in which it was used and very clearly the context suggests that the word that was intended was “tragedy”. Some linguistic slips are common. We all make them.

          5. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 4:19pm

            Actually simon it’s the perfect word if you’re an Anti-Semite.

        2. Actually, theotherone, in saying that “The victim has become the criminal!!” JohnC has demonstrated that he knows and accepts that the Holocaust was a tragedy. Checkmate.

          1. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 5:42pm

            ‘Jews use the travesty of WW1/WW2 to justify their behaviour!’

            Does that include getting served before you in the coffee shop? Farting in public? What behaviour?

          2. Er, like, their outrageous behaviour in Palestine?

          3. theotherone 5 Oct 2011, 2:25pm

            That’s Israel Suzy not ‘the Jews.’

            Can’t we discuss Israel’s actions without falling into Anti-Semitism?

      2. Why should he side with the Israelis, who carry out illegitimate actions against the Palestinians and those seeking to help them?

        1. What about the illegitamate actions of some of the Palestinians like firing over rockets on Israeli citizens?

          1. lots of wrong on both sides

          2. If it was up to me I’d go bang their heads together, make them sit on the naughty step and then send them to bed without any dinner. Both sides are a pack of wankers who should just learn to play nicely with others and that SHOCK HORROR other people do exist in this world who have different views, are of different religions, or different nationalities. Grow up and co-exist.

      3. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 2:44pm

        both sides are as bad as each other.

        There should be an end to Israel’s encroachments into the Occupied Territories but likewise why should a State run by a Terrorist Group be invited to sit at the UN?

        1. The people of Palestine do not constitute “a Terrorist Group”. There are some amongst the persecuted people of Palestine who believe that the extraordinarily arrogant greed of the Jews deserves to be met with force. Should they be called “terrorists”? Who calls them terrorists? Why, those Israelis who are desirous of taking more and more of the Palestinians land, of course.

          Let the Israelis get back behind the 1967 borders.

          It is outrageous that a people who were subjected to the terror of the Holocaust should take more and more of the Palestinian people’s land.

          1. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 4:07pm

            The Palestinian Government are the Terrorists – a Government who launch rockets against inocent people.

          2. When did the Palestinian government themselves target Israelis with rockets – wasnt that Hamas (who arent the Palestinian govt!)?

            WHat about Israeli military action against Palestinians and their supporters – numerous examples over the years? What about Israeli settlements in the previously negotiated Palestinian areas?

            Sheesh!

            Not that this has anything to do with Obama’s gay credentials

    2. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 2:28pm

      Not ‘the Israelis’ but ‘the Jews.’

      Why not take your predacious somewhere else, we’re discussing Queer Rights here.

      1. Obama’s track record with regard to the ongoing persecution of the Palestinians by the Israelis, who are building more and more Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, is relevant in this thread, because he has shown that his support of THAT minority, like his support of OUR minority, depends not upon his sense of justice and principle but upon who he should please in order to try and get re-elected.

        1. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 4:15pm

          you see Simon you couldn’t help slipping from ‘Palestinian’ to ‘Jewish.’

          Slip of the old tongue there.

    3. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 2:32pm

      ‘ The Jews’ not ‘the Israelis’

      Take your prejudice elsewhere son.

    4. You’re just showing yourself up as a rabid anti-semite by not being able to tell the difference between ‘Jews’ and the ‘Israeli Government’. Not every Jew supports the Israeli Government’s actions, thankyouverymuch.

      1. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 2:42pm

        I find it ironic Alice that there are people on here discussing Queer Rights while claiming that the Holocaust is somehow nothing.

        As you said ‘You’re just showing yourself up as a rabid anti-semite by not being able to tell the difference between ‘Jews’ and the ‘Israeli Government.’

      2. One would have to wish to live in a deluded la-la land to believe that there is a divide between the behaviour and beliefs of the Israeli Government and the behaviour and beliefs of the majority of the Jewish people.

        All of those thousands of homes which the Israelis/Jews have built on land which IS NOT THEIRS are occupied in the main by ordinary Jewish people who are very supportive of the actions of the Israeli government.

        Obama knows this and Obama prefers to support the Jewish side.

        Obama knows that gays and lesbians deserve marriage but he prefers the support of the Republican side (including US Jews. )

        1. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 4:06pm

          US Jews are Republicans? You, ofcorse, have studied the history of Jewish Communist movements in the US?

          Are you saying (‘One would have to wish to live in a deluded la-la land to believe that there is a divide between the behaviour and beliefs of the Israeli Government and the behaviour and beliefs of the majority of the Jewish people’) that Jews are driven to occupy other’s lands?

          1. theotherone, I don’t know you, but here’s a hopefully helpful piece of feedback for you: you suffer from seriously faulty logic. If you have psychological issues you should see a mental health counsellor. Sorry for suggesting this, if you already are. Have only stated this here because I know how sudden and honest feedback from a total stranger can sometimes be of great help to people. Good luck.

          2. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 5:44pm

            yes simon because if someone argues with you all you do is say ‘you’re mentally ill.’

            Debate is not dead then.

        2. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 4:18pm

          Indeed simon as someone interested in the Tea Party I can’t help but notice the lie in what you say – the Right Wing of the Republican Party is an avidly Christian group.

    5. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 2:40pm

      I can’t see my comments and votes on this article – I’m not being censored am I?

      1. Sometimes takes 10 minutes or so for them to appear – I know not why

        1. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 3:04pm

          to make us paranoid I think.

          I get a little worried sometimes, there has been issues of censorship on this site in the past.

          1. Things are bad for you, theotherone, if a delay in the posting of a message is interpreted by you as stemming from a desire “to make us paranoid I think”.

    6. I’m not even going to listen to an anti-semite like you!

      Long live the State of Israel.

      Btw Obama is mixed race. Not black. His mother was white.

  6. Jock S. Trap 4 Oct 2011, 11:28am

    It’s simple then.. work harder!!
    -
    Surely they must see that with Equality comes stablity and with stabilty comes a fairer, progressive society.
    -
    It’s clear what religions fears most is stabilty but look where it gets them.

    1. I’m not so sure that for Obama this is about religion (although understandably others religious views (voters) are relevant). I think its also not particularly about votes in its entirety … I think its more about practical considerations of whether he can deliver what he wants to achieve in terms of LGBT rights.

      1. paddyswurds 4 Oct 2011, 1:38pm

        No it’s about realism, and realism is
        about getting elected a second term. That is when most American Presidents can make their most controversial moves as they don’t have to worry about getting re-elected. As someone above said the term, at least the first term, is really only 2 years but the second term is the full four as he won’t be running again, so if he doesn’t make equality moves this term he certainly will next and he will be re-elected because there is no-one on the GOP side to challenge him…no-one that will be electable in any case and Americans have had it up to here with the Republicans because they do realise it was on the Republican watch that the economy was destroyed. Clinton left a very healthy black bottom line of almost a trillion $ behind and within six months Bush was 7 billion in the red.

        1. You may be right about the bigger picture, Paddyswurds (although I am unconvinced on all that you say there)

          However, I was more referring to Obamas views on LGBT issues … and that his motivation (from my perspective) appears to be about determining what is deliverable when he gets the opportunity

    2. theotherone 4 Oct 2011, 3:03pm

      bot Jock: he’s looking to get elected. Surely that’s more important (to him anyway.)

      1. Jock S. Trap 5 Oct 2011, 9:26am

        Yeah, pretty apparent isn’t it.

  7. Translation- i dont want to say anything that could scare the bigots. Had high hopes for Obama and hes been very dissapointing in general.

    1. But infinitely better than his predecessor on all fronts.

    2. Not at all: medicare, repeal of DADT – he’s been a massive improvement on his predecessors.

      1. its hard to imagine how he could have been worse than Dubya. Hes done everything without expressing open support from it, hes hardly been dancing in the street over DADT and his administration has appeared lukewarm at every opportunity to avoid scaring potential voters.

  8. Gay marriage is probably too conservative a policy for him.

    As Douglas Murray writes in the latest Spectator:

    “…true conservatives should welcome gay marriage. For its increasing acceptance across civilised countries represents not the making gay of marriage but the making conservative of gays. The desire of an increasing number of gay men and women to have their stable and lifelong relationships recognised equally by family, friends and society as a whole demonstrates the respect of individuals within, and towards, an important institution.

    “Those who fear or dislike perceived aspects of gay life should particularly welcome gay acceptance into the marital fold. An aspect of male ‘gay life’ some heterosexuals claim to have a problem with is the perceived promiscuity. Whether this is in reality any more distinctive than among straight people, gay marriage offers a remedy, giving gays, like straights, a public and private path towards commitment. At a time when many heterosexuals are spurning the idea of marriage, here is a section of society positively lobbying for the right to respect and continue the institution. Perhaps gay marriage will encourage more straight people back on to the marital path?”

    1. This is spot on. Have been saying this for years.

  9. He may not quite be there yet, but the important question with elected politicians is not “has he made progress” but “has he made more progress than the other lot would have done over the same period”.

    Given that, in America, the other lot consists of a bunch of frothing homophobic gargoyles with the social and economic sense of a mashed turnip, this is not a hard question.

    1. Wonderfully put.

  10. It is shameful that PinkNews has chosen NOT to report the death of a true gay hero, Dr. Robert Frascino, who died last week.

    See over 400 tributes to him from all over the world, at :

    http://www.thebody.com/content/64008/remembering-robert-frascino-md.html

    1 in 7 gay men in London are estimated to be HIV positive, but news which is of interest to that seventh of the gay population has been avoided by PinkNews.

    To quote the words of blogger PrairieMary on this particular matter:

    “By denying the death – and thereby the existence – of a man who was so deeply loved and so great a contributor to our modern lives, those who sell “propriety” are simply widening the gap in our society between one kind of person and another – even though AIDS is an equal opportunity infector. When even the gay community rejects one of their own heroes they reveal the reservoir of guilt and shame that still prevents a cure. They are ostriches who reveal their plumed rears.”

    1. Thanks very much Peter for posting this. I had no idea. Dr. Bob was a wonderful man. I’m truly gutted.

  11. He is such a coward and such a slimy opportunist.

    Does ANYONE really believe that Obama does not support marriage equality?

    He blatantly does and is on the record as saying he does.

    He is now worried about the reaction of the bigot christians of the Republican Party.

    Listen Obama – they will not vote for you regardless of whether you support marriage equality.

    I wish he would find some backbone and a smidgeon of integrity and stop this pathetic behaviour.

    1. It’s not necessarily Republicans he’s scared of. Remember that the ballot to ban gay marriage via the Californian Constitution was passed at the same time that he won a landslide in the Presidential election. One theory for that was that the liberal Democrat vote in California, which is obviously pro-equality, was drowned out by a combination of some anti-gay Republicans (a minority in California where pro-gay types like Schwarzenegger are more common) and black Democrats inspired to vote for the first time who are influenced by their conservative church leaders.

  12. “still working on it”??

    Wrong verb there, I feel. “still procrastinating” is more accurate.

    1. It does rather sound like a euphemism for procrastination . . .

    2. I think I am a tad more generous than you, Iris …

      But I do feel frustration that there is not more cohesive and clear development both in terms of succeeding in getting true equality in all the US but also in ensuring the Presidents position in unambiguous.

      1. Yes, definitely Stu :D You are unbelievably kind and patient to even the most vile people (talking about certain trolls….) and whether I always agree with you or not, I’m always impressed by your generosity.

        But, back to Obama – I just think he’s prevaricating because he still feels uneasy about gay people but can’t quite say why. That’s the reason I think he’s being vague about what he feels. I can see there are political issues too, but I still think there’s a certain reluctance from Obama sometimes and I wish he’d deal with that. He often sounds rather half-hearted about equality, in my opinion, and he doesn’t seem to see the need to get on with things. Sometimes I get the impression he’s musing over it as some kind of philosophical question with no sense of urgency.

        1. I don’t think Obama feels remotely uneasy about gay people.

          15 years ago he was on record as saying he supported marriage equality.

          However now that he is a career politician he is willing to throw us under the bus, in order to get re-elected.

          Change when it is convenient for him.

          1. Like so many politicians sadly – say whatever seems best at the time. I’d like to see a little more conviction from all of them but I’m not holding my breath.

          2. @Iris

            Thanks. Some of the trolls are so inadequate in their arguments that they are easily exposed …

            I have to say I am not always patient, and have been impressed by your patience and argument – and I usually agree with most of your comments …

            Its possible you are right that Obama is treating this as a philosophical exercise. I tend to look back at some of his comments many years ago and the undertones of some of his more recent comments and I suspect he is very much pro LGBT. I do agree I am impatient for him to act, but am curious if there is a strategy to his timing?

          3. You could well be right, Stu. I’m only going on my personal feeling which could be wrong, and I’m interested to hear that he was more pro-LGBT years ago. That would indeed suggest that he’s compromising his beliefs for political reasons, or at least, keeping them rather quiet. I do think his heart’s in the right place in general. I suppose I’m just impatient :D And with the UK government too, to be fair.

          4. @Iris

            Will be interesting to see which of us is right on this one …

            I too am impatient for the UK and US governments to get this sorted … also Australia, New Zealand, and many other nations

            I do hope that action is taken in all countries as expediently as possible to ensure equality but in a measured way that ensures (as far as possible) that there are not inappropriate and unnecessary delays by failing to win votes. We have to move forward smartly, sometimes that will be fast – but not always … unfortunately.

      2. paddyswurds 4 Oct 2011, 4:26pm

        True equality in all the US is a pipe dream while the christo fascists are allowed to freely peddle their lies and bigotry. America will only ever be truly free when this nonsense is consigned to the dustbin of History and that is a long way away.

  13. Obama doesn't believe in equality 4 Oct 2011, 11:50am

    I’m ‘still working’ on my personal views of ‘interracial marriage’. My views are ‘evolving’ though, having seen that interracial marriages are ‘thriving’. I support civil unions of course, but I will not tell you exactly what I think of ‘interracial marriages’, I will not tell you if I think black people should have equality. Although I suppose by me not saying that I agree with marriage equality, it means that I don’t believe in equality.

    1. With all the riders I have given above, I do share your views …

      His manner of communicating this does seem to be cowardly – although I can understand why … its a bit like “the love that dare not speak its name” … We all know he supports equality – but he dare not say it …

    2. Thank you, I hadn’t thought of that analogy. Spot on.

  14. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 4 Oct 2011, 12:16pm

    Hey everybody! It’s the Obama Flip-flop©. What is he waiting for? What final push before finally come to that eureka moment of decision about it all? Tune back after these lobbyist sound-bites. It’s a right laugh! What’s the worst that can happen? Come on Barry! America is full of religious fruit-loops and his opinion/popularity is on the wane, but if a couple of men and women getting married to each other is all you have to procrastinate about, then democracy will never thrive.

  15. I don’t know if people understand how much power a President does (or doesn’t) have. The power to act unilaterally – by Executive Order – won’t help as it bypasses the regular passage of law and can be over-written by whoever is next in office (don’t say rights like marriage equality cannot be taken away, that is exactly what happened in California). The President can urge his party in Congress to put forward legislation and can veto legislation that comes forward. But what he cannot do is change the law all by himself. If Obama gets back in 2012, and if he is given a strong Democratic congress to work with (preferably a filibuster proof super-majority) then I would expect a change in the law to happen. DOMA should have been defeated in the courts by then and there will be nothing standing in the way. What Obama says now is just the game of politics and I know that it sucks to be the ones being used to score points but it’s just practical reality.

    1. I hope you are right. I understand that the president is not all powerfull, but what worries me is the the way he justs seems to shuffle into the things that should be slam dunks. The whole time he was saying that DADT was wrong and that he was working on it, his government was still actively ruining peoples lives and as the policy was overturned, he was still prosecuting Lt. Chou. As he is saying that deportations of same-sex, bi-national couples will be a very low priority, families are still being destroyed. He needs to be clear about who he is and what he stands for; anything else is dangerous for us. I’ve seen the change in Canada and in Argentina where the PM and the President came out and said that anything less than full equality is just not acceptable in a modern society and that it was time for people to get on board. The backlashes in these countries have been minimal and I believe it is because of the firm stands that were taken.

  16. If he ever fully evolves, this won’t happen unless he wins a lame duck term in November 2012. he’ll have nothing to lose. You’d think an American president would be the trail blazer when you consider America is always trumpeting how great it is, the freest country on the planet as far as personal freedoms are concerned. It led on civil rights for blacks and women but now has taken a back seat on a lot of social issues, primarily marriage equality. Sad, very sad.

    1. True. But if Obama doesn’t think he can get legislation through Congress, and I doubt very much that he could at this point, then trying and failing now could see any attempts in the future off the table. Right now, it isn’t a fight he can win. Take the ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) it has been put up every year for more than a decade, but they can’t pass it. There has to be a wider political will. It’s a sick game, and it hurts people, but Obama cannot help by declaring support at this point. Sure, it would make LGBT people feel better – of course it would – but the law has to pass and right now it just won’t, even if he whole-heartedly supports it.

      1. I think Obama is playing the long game – he knows what he wants and it isnt achieved by frightening off some people whilst popularising yourself with others …

        I think he is strategising on this – I hope so anyway …

        1. I do think it’s a long game. And he is playing for the better chance to win. Like it or not (and I would guess most of us would say not) the wedge issues are called that for a reason – guns, gays and abortions. The position on those issues can be used to cause people to vote against their own best interests. It’s playing politics and it stinks but that is how it works and reform isn’t exactly on the cards.

    2. But America can scarcely describe itself as a democracy any more.

      Obama and the Democrats make nice noises (but are willing to throw us under the bus whenever convenient).

      The Republicans are rabid, christian bigots.

      BUt neither party works for the electorate. Both work for corporate America.

      The sad reality is that unless there is a huge shake-up in the US electoral or political system that it doesn’t really matter who gets into power, as their primary loyalty will always be to protect corporate America. The ordinary population come a very distant second in terms of priority for the US political system.

      1. David, I absolutely agree. But reform to the political system isn’t on the cards and marriage equality will certainly happen sooner. The big issue is this, of course – to make it unlawful for politicians to accept money in terms of lobbying and election donations, you have to get those self-same politicians to vote against their own interest. And pigs don’t like taking their snout out of the trough. The alternative is a massive civil up-rising. But I wouldn’t hold your breath for that either.

      2. America led on civil rights on blacks? After being one of the last countries to have slavery and definitely the last western country to grant full civil rights only in the 1960s! Even for women rights, the right to vote was granted only in 1920, which is earlyish but hardly a trailblazer (for eg in Russia it was in 1917). The US has always been a historically conservative nation, albeit with very liberal pockets

  17. Marriage equality is a wedge issue, which along with abortion rights and immigration serves to highlight the differences between the 2 right-wing parties in the US political system.

    The real tragedy is that these controversial wedge issues serve to disguise the FACT that 10% of the US population control 90% of the country’s wealth.

    1. Is it really as high as 10%

  18. Commander Thor 4 Oct 2011, 6:19pm

    Excuse me while I work on my views on black people in office and interracial marriage.

  19. “Working on it”? How comforting that must be to American gay people who are denied equal treatment under the law of the land. This guy has failed to live up to expectations even more than the latest iPhone release.

    1. Oh come on, do you really think John McCain would have repealed DADT, etc ?

  20. Sometimes you just have to be patient: Obama has to re-elected before he can trail blaze for marriage equality.

    There wouldn’t be much point in making a big song and dance about it now, only to be beaten by one of the nuts in the Repugnant Party. Right now, he has to keep his powder dry.

    Only when he’s safely secured his second term will he be able to proceed to do what he really wants.

    Until then we’ll just have to wait, and be grateful for what he’s achieved so far.

  21. Obama=election year. What else would this politician=lawyer say?

  22. bullfaeces, he’s waiting for the election

  23. Give Obama a break. He has done more for gay rights than any of his predecessors and is continuing to do so!

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