.
Feedback

President Obama Backs Gay Marriage: Do You?

The President tells ABC TV that his position has evolved over time and that he supports the rights of all couples to marry.

In a landmark statement, President Barack Obama became the first president to support same-sex marriage. His comments, shared in an interview with ABC's Robin Roberts, were released Wednesday.

"I've always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally," Obama told Roberts, in an interview that will air in full Thursday morning on "Good Morning America."

The Huffington Post obtained a copy of the interview. Click here to see the president's response.

Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality Chair, was exuberant in his response.

"I am overwhelmed with tears of joy, as our millions of other LGBT people and our millions of allies across America," he said. "We will remember for the rest of our lives where we were when we heard the sitting President of the United States say he supports marriage equality. 

"Today’s announcement by the President is of particular importance to those of us fighting in New Jersey and everywhere else marriage equality is up for grabs. No longer will opponents such as Governor Chris Christie be able to take cover by saying, 'Why are you going after me? My opposition to marriage equality is simply the same view as that of our President.'”

Realtor, actress, and blogger Erica Bradshaw of North Plainfield was glad to hear the news.

"We're really pleased and happy with President Obama's decision," she told Patch. Bradshaw and her partner Tevonda Hayes Bradshaw have participated in a lawsuit against the state for marriage equality. Bradshaw pointed out that her one-year old son — Teverico Barack — bears the President's first name as his middle name.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has made it clear that he opposes same-sex marriage. The President's statement is an evolution of his stated position as he campaigned and earned the presidency. It also comes on the heels of two scenarios that unfolded this week.

On Sunday, Vice President Joseph Biden told NBC's "Meet The Press" that he personally supported same-sex marriage. Meanwhile on Tuesday evening, North Carolina passed an amendment that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

President Obama voiced disappointment with the decision in North Carolina. Wednesday, pressure from gay-rights activist began to build for Democrats to move the party's convention from Charlotte, where it will be held in August. Depite coming short of endorsing same-sex marriage before his comments to ABC, the President has overturned the military's position of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the administration has stopped defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.

U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) praised Obama’s statement.

"President Obama's support for marriage equality marks an important moment for civil rights in America. We simply can not treat same sex couples as second-class citizens in our country. Marriage equality is one of the most significant civil rights battles of our time and is critical to guaranteeing the equal protection under the law promised to every American in the Constitution. The President's support for marriage equality should inspire Congress, Governors and state legislatures to advance civil rights for all Americans." 

"Short of when America becomes a land of marriage equality, this is the happiest day of our political lives. I'm on Cloud 18," added Goldstein.

What do you think? Take our poll and post a comment to share your view on the issue.

Monk May 11, 2012 at 04:29 pm
You certainly can come to your own moral positions in life, but you have no right to force the larger society to accept them. "Equality" "evolution" and "tolerance" are badly abused terms here. Next, polygamists, arsonists, necrophyliacs, bestialists and others will be demanding equality and toleration. Are you for those things? If not, why not? What is the basis of your ruling some things acceptable and others unacceptable? As I mentioned, for some this is philosophical, for others religious, for still others financial(?), etc.
Upon what great thinker, school of thought or authority do you base your moral position? If it's just personal, and the larger society doesn't share your moral position, then please consider that your homosexual rights advocacy impinges upon the values that many others hold dear. The larger society doesn't have to accept what it believes will undermine it.
My3Cents May 11, 2012 at 06:11 pm
Tom the problem is you are forcing your moral positions on everyone. Your argument falls apart when you compare homosexuals to arsonists, necrophyliacs, and bestialists. The difference between them is that someone is hurt, harmed, or desecrated that did not choose to be a part of that situation. A gay marriage does not personally effect you, unless you Tom are gay and are concerned that once gays are allowed to marry you might have to marry your partner. But just like heterosexuals you don't have to marry your partner Tom so don't worry.
Tom, the fear of marriage is real. It doesn't mean you and your partner shouldn't get married. I recommend you and your partner speak to a marriage counselor. Even though gay marriage isn't legally allowed yet in this state the theories and issues that arise from marriage are very similar in homosexual relationships. See Tom that would be the government infringing on your rights. Forcing you to marry someone you do not want to marry. Thankfully that's not what is being discussed. We are discussing that if two consensual adults want to marry and receives the benefits of marriage granted by the federal and state governments of this country than the issue of their gender should not matter.
derek May 11, 2012 at 06:12 pm
How dare you compare 2 consenting adults who want to be recognized and have equal rights as heterosexuals have to having sex with dead people or other animals I assume that's what you mean and you have a typo, that can't give their consent. You're an abomination of intellect using those comparisons. The only people FORCING discrimination are the idiots in NC and the extreme conservatives who have nothing to add to an intelligent conversation except misquotes from a bible...I don't care what church wants to recognize marriage equality, but I'll be damned if I'll let the government flat out exclude people from equal rights based on whom they want to marry. Tom, you're ridiculous, no one has to share my moral position anymore than share yours..but protection and rights is the governments JOB. The values that the others hold so dear are based in religion and myth, not in fact, compassion or the equal rights people have under the law. Your comparisons only prove how uninformed, and unworthy your argument is: it's the same thing racists said of interracial couples..OH..and the same states that are so holding onto those ''dear'' values have to now post on websites whether it's still legal to marry your cousin in each county..........yaaaaaaaaa, good examples.
Barney Oldfield May 11, 2012 at 06:26 pm
This is not a productive discussion because neither side will ever convince the other. However, the fact remains that every poll indicates that a majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage. Further, among persons under the age of 35, support for same-sex marriage is greater than 2 to 1. Clearly, this issue will age-out or fade away within a generation or less. What disturbs me most about the issue is that our Governor thinks the people should decide the issue in a referendum. He knows what the result will be but a referendum gets him off the hook with his conservative buddies. A former U.S. Attorney who thinks that the public should vote on who is entitled to basic civil rights. Very comforting.
Monk May 11, 2012 at 07:52 pm
You are missing the point. If you can hold arson, necrophilia and bestiality as intolerable, then you have to accept that others can hold homosexuality as intolerable. It's a matter of degrees. I certainly wasn't equating any one of those with another. The point is that there are already boundaries drawn in society. If the society wants to maintain those boundaries for what they believe is for the good of society, then they will. That you want society to change established boundaries is fine. You only need a majority of the people to abandon their current thinking, traditions and religious beliefs. Or evolve them, as you prefer.
I’ve already made it clear that I think the tax code stinks. I wouldn’t mind at all if homosexual couples got better treatment from the IRS. Marriage is a loaded word, though. I personally don't want or need to know what everyone is doing in their private lives. But when you go after something that carries as much tradition and religious freight as marriage, you’re going to meet resistance. There will be bigotry, resentment and other antisocial feelings as long as people act out and get in each other’s faces. Modesty goes a long way toward building social harmony.
derek May 11, 2012 at 09:27 pm
No one is afraid of resistance...people will have that, YOU however putting homosexuals in the same category as law breakers -- no one has tolerance for arsons, necrophilia, rapists, etc....and no one has to agree with anything as long as equal rights aren't being violated, and denying marriage EQUALITY is doing just that. I don't care how deep rooted it is in someone's religion, NO ONE's religion holds a candle to the governments job to protect people's civil rights...it's that simple. So come up with something that's valid.
Monk May 12, 2012 at 12:51 am
No, Derek, you are still missing the point and distorting my comments. Tolerance is a matter of degrees. Everyone draws the line somewhere.
What really interests me is your comment: NO ONE's religion holds a candle to the governments job to protect people's civil rights. So, you think that it is government's role to shape society and not the other way around. Pardon me, but governments come and go. Society ... people ... just want to be left alone to live their lives as they choose. If you want government to put its boot on the neck of society to accept you, that's fine. I just doubt that the majority of citizens share your philosophy.
derek May 12, 2012 at 01:02 pm
Society ... people ... just want to be left alone to live their lives as they choose. Only when it's to their was of thinking.....you don't like the FDA protecting drugs (although they take too long sometimes compared to the rest of the civilized world), you have problems with the EPA? Social Security? Medicare? safe bridges? Safe roads? Department of Insurance and Banking - every have a problem with an insurance company or bank and contact them and find your problem resolved in 24 hours? I have..You don't like Board of public utilities? Air port security (no matter how much of a pain in the ass it is, people feel somewhat safer), So NO people want government. I'm not distorting your comments, you are the one who chose poor examples of what you're trying to say ; Morality can't be legislated. Yes, in fact it can and has been.....heterosexuals have had the right to marry for centuries AND USUALLY TO MULTIPLE WOMEN AT THE SAME TIME...ROMNEY's religion still practice that...do I care how many wives he has ? NO. You're the one who put illegal activity with tolerance. I have no tolerance about some kid burning down the complex on St George Ave in Rahway or setting fires in Rahway, the kid needs help ..RELIGION by no means has a place in society to shape CIVIL rights. You go to your church and want to follow people who say they know what God wants, go ahead, ..those values you can follow in your home and in that church, no room for it though in CIVIL law.
Will May 12, 2012 at 01:27 pm
Not really sure how you can say that "every poll indicates that a majority ....", since the record of states voting 32-0 in favor a marriage between one man and one women.
Monk May 12, 2012 at 01:36 pm
Derek, it sounds like you place more trust in government to shape society than the members of society themselves. Well, OK. Suppose the November elections are a rout for Democrats, and the Presidency and Congress goes to the Republicans, and limited fedral government-type Republicans at that, what then? It really sounds like you are for a massive, authoritarian, central government that shapes society to your advantage in spite of and against the will of the majority.
As for the myriad government agencies, that only creates a nation of government dependents with less personal freedom and sovereignty.
derek May 12, 2012 at 02:28 pm
Against the will of majority...bingo....the US government is to protect the minority as well as the majority. Of course govt shapes society, that's pretty much a given, govt teaches us to drive on the appropriate side of the street, that no child is left behind (cough cough), What sounds like to your perception as me wanting a massive, authoritarian central govt is you going way over the top, when all I said was people deserve equality, you're the one who read into it, dragged illegal activities and religion into the equation....you sound like a Fox News sound byte.
Monk May 12, 2012 at 05:04 pm
Equality isn't so black and white as you may want, Derek. Fight it all you want, but the mores of society ebb and flow, and they are moving to the right at the moment ... largely due to liberal overreach. In fact, one of Barack Obama's legacies is renewed interest in and advocacy for Constitutional, i.e. limited, federal government. But for Barack Obama, there would be no Tea Party movement.
This is why I said before that there will be bigotry, resentment and other antisocial feelings as long as people act out and get in each other’s faces. Modesty goes a long way toward building social harmony.
derek May 12, 2012 at 05:29 pm
Modesty? You use that word along with social harmony while comparing the equality of those wanting to be married to criminals???? This is where you make no sense. Equality on the books vs how people respond to it is yet another matter, but at least it's a starting place. And quite frankly the movement towards the right is over and lost for people under the age of 35. There's room for Tea Party movement, it serves a purpose to those who align with it and for those of us who know it's exactly how not to be, how not to flat out lie and believe it cause I said so Sarah Palin. This country was founded on getting in faces of the opposition, The bush legacy did everything it could to divide this country, down to using 9-11 as a football rally and excuse to devastate Iraq. Boo. Be a tea party..it's a fabulous group of individuals who have been so misled by Fox news and lies and exaggerations. The social tide is hardly moving to the right, I have no idea how old you are, but as the boomers leave us, the movement will be very much more progressive..Romney as the only viable person to run against Obama is pretty much an indicator of what's not going to happen. And I don't fight or resist people, I accept everyone for whom they are and respect their opinions---when there's no pairing of people that are in love with criminals-and that Tom, is how you started the whole dialogue.
derek May 12, 2012 at 06:42 pm
Are you serious? when a state votes for intolerance, that's the least of our problems. OH because it doesn't have anything to do with you Heather? How stupid of me to assume that most of us are capable of handling one or more issues at a time. You're narrow and selfish. And the only thing failed of this president is when he had to deal with congress being obstructionists - opposite of pro? con. Progress or Congress...Really, someone standing for equality is now a diversion? and our 'fearless leader"..um George Bush tried for how many years to get bin laden? Oh but that's right, the bin laden family were the ONLY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, to be able to fly out of the US on 9-11..why? because Bush and them are besties...get a whiff of reality and stop using party line teabagger comments, they're offensive.
derek May 12, 2012 at 06:43 pm
why don't you fly off to where ever your people came to pops.....
derek May 12, 2012 at 06:52 pm
you make absolutely no sense...who taught you how to have a complete thought process?
derek May 12, 2012 at 06:57 pm
alpha2041, your time's up, God has nothing to do with civil rights, get over it. practice that in your chosen church and in your house---not in public where your antiquated references to god are solely used to secure your own validation as a good person...you're not, you are condoning and fostering hate. So heterosexuals that don't plan on having children are breaking your gods purpose for creating male and female??? then why are people sterile? God makes no mistakes right? OH and in parts of this country it is still legal to marry a cousin...first cousin...and that's deep in your religious belts states....I resent the attack you have on butting your nose into other peoples lives in the name of your God. tick tick tick
Monk May 12, 2012 at 08:06 pm
Still wrong, Derek, on the examples issue. Different activities have gone back and forth over the line of legality. Drugs and alcohol are apt examples. So, what's legal today cannot be expected to remain legal forever (and vice versa), if the government is in charge. My point in mentioning arson, polygamy, bestiality, incest and necrophilia is to say that some things are widely considered less tolerable than others. There is a continuum of tolerablity, and whether its a small step or a big leap, everytime society tolerates more, it gets closer to tolerating everything. In this vein, it is good to have limits.
Keep fighting your fight, Derek, and please realize I have nothing against you personally.
derek May 12, 2012 at 08:17 pm
lol you contradict yourself again...''in this veing, it is good to have limits''...so, as I said, when you want gov't to set your limits , as long as they're in YOUR best interest and affect your life in some way, it's fine...but when it comes to something that has no bearing, all of a sudden, government should stay out. Govt job is security and safety of it's people, I'm pretty sure we're both happy people drive on the appropriate side of the road USUALLY. But when you bring into the equation equal rights, and throw illegal activity into it, you make assumption that they are the same. When one has nothing to do with the other. If you brought up interracial couples, women's right to vote, the black civil rights movement, YOU'D NEVER DARE UTTER THAT YOU TOLERATE AFRICAN AMERICANS...or maybe you would-I would hope you have seen the errors of our ways from slavery until now regarding white people's behavior towards blacks...but you wouldn't throw women or blacks into any category of adjectives that were illegal because your ''political correctness'' won't allow you to...But you put gays there because as of now it's a 50/50 chance you PC will allow you...not on a blog I'm on.... I never take what people write on blogs personally, i don't know you , you don't know me...i respect your opinions your way of living your life, as long as it's not stopping someone else from living theirs.
Monk May 12, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Missed it again, Derek. I meant for you to understand that it is good for society, not government, to be the arbiter of what is tolerable. I just don't see social engineering as a legitmate function of American government. It is certainly not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.
I am puzzled. What are you deprived of, apart from equal treatment with respect to taxes and health benefits?
derek May 13, 2012 at 02:42 pm
"I am puzzled. What are you deprived of, apart from equal treatment with respect to taxes and health benefits?"--------are you that ignorant...?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? you're the most insulting, ignorant, misinformed, arrogant individuals to ever write on a blog...I hope that's not name calling,,,,I MISSED IT? Whatever I missed in your posts could fit into an Ipod compared to what you've missed by your oblivious posts, which could fit in your 8 track player.
Monk May 13, 2012 at 03:13 pm
Well, if you're not going to tell me what you feel so deprived of, how can I sympathize with you and be persuaded to become your ally? You are your own worst enemy. (And take it easy on your keyboard or touch screen with all those punctuation marks.)
derek May 13, 2012 at 04:31 pm
I don't need you to sympathize with me, nor persuade you to become my ally..your ignorance in and of itself shows fair minded people how poorly you state what you feel because you can't give examples on the subject using a level playing field. It's like Fox News...everything contrived, to the point of putting (D) under a (R) congressman when he supported the health insurance bill..that's NO mistake..nothing Rupert Murdoch has his greedy, criminal fingers is has ever been a mistake- even when he got busted..it's all connected, we're all connected..
As for deprivation: I won't ever feel deprived of anything I want. I am happily married, have a great family and fantastic friends as well as loyal business customers; I am happy, fulfilled, compassionate and generous. The fact that the government see's me as less than deserving of equal rights will never define who I am. It's only a matter of time and this conversation will not ever be needed...because my way will be the way, not yours. At some point the young people who are more evolved than you'll ever be, will be in charge, and understand the differences between us is what makes for a strong society. We WILL bridge this country back morally, ethically, spiritually and financially because our knowledge and use of modern technology has soared over the past 15 years more than the past 150 years..Unfortunately it seems it's the older people who abuse technology, not the younger ones..we see it as neutral, most see it as threat.
Monk May 13, 2012 at 08:09 pm
OK, suit yourself. We're probably boring everyone else anyway.
Mary Mann May 13, 2012 at 11:51 pm
I was just about to suggest that Tom and derek get a room! ; )
Thanks, guys, for all your comments!
Robert F. Galgano May 14, 2012 at 02:48 am
stealing money is wrong, but Wall Street does it every day!
Robert F. Galgano May 14, 2012 at 02:50 am
Nope. The majority of Americans are now in favor of gay marriage.
Concerned May 14, 2012 at 01:09 pm
Robert "wrong a majority of a
Americans are for gay marriage". Well robert you forget that the election is not won by a majority of votes but by winning the electoral votes. If you analyze the swing states you will see that the swing states are not for gay marriage. So Obama has handed Romney the swing states and definitly he lost say 45% of independents with his gay marriage support. He really did this for $ for his campaign. In the same interview he stated that gay marriage is a states rights matter, not a federal civil rights matter. So by leaving it to the states he in effect is not supporting this as a civil right! He speaks with forked tongue and is misleading once again.
Concerned May 14, 2012 at 01:15 pm
Obama did not stand up against bigotry. He said he is for gay marriage but he said its a stated rights issue and not a federal government civil rights issue. By leaving the decision to the states he is not making gay rights a civil right! He misled you and everyone who did not hear what he said. He essentially gets to the same position as Gov Christie at the end of the day. Let each state vote on gay marriage. Unbelievable how people just read headlines and not the full text of what is being said on issues like this.
derek May 15, 2012 at 02:19 pm
hahahaha:) as long as it involves an infinity pool, with cocktail servers in the pool and two bedroom suite, i'm cool. haha...peace

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Springfield Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something