Which is bs, probably aimed at getting him votes from the center (”reaching across the aisle” etc). Marriage equality should be a topic of discussion - That doesn’t mean that he can’t have other parts to his platform that he gives more precedence, at all. But saying that we shouldn’t be arguing for it is just wrong…

1) It’s not an either-or choice. Caring passionately about equal marriage rights doesn’t preclude me from caring passionately about Iraq, or about the environment.

Straw man. Obama isn’t saying we shouldn’t care about equal marriage rights. He’s saying we should be discussing other things with our limited amount of discussion time. That doesn’t mean we can’t care about them. In other words, it is an either-or.

2) It’s too easy for heterosexuals to decide that equal legal rights for lesbians and gays is trivial.

Straw man, again. He didn’t say that it was trivial. He said that we should be discussing other things.

3) Fuck you, Barack Obama. Seriously.

Finally, a well-reasoned, erudite argument.

Look, if you want to take issue with what Obama actually said, then by all means do so. There is an actual, reasonable counter-argument to what he said: for those who believe that equal marriage rights are more important than the war/economy/environment, it’s reasonable to argue that we SHOULD be talking about equal marriage rights. Or if somebody thinks that gay marriage has been getting stiffed on the press coverage, or is more important than its place in the national debate, then they should be arguing that we should be discussing it more.

But, for a lot of people, its importance doesn’t rise to that level. And by “a lot of people”, I’m not just talking straight people: I suspect that quite a few gays (some of whom have commented in this thread) who might be unemployed, or have kids in Iraq, or who think they might get sick some day and be unable to pay for treatment, might reasonably consider that these issues have a greater impact on their lives than the (entirely non-trivial) question of how long it takes before the government recognizes their marriages.

The knife cuts both ways on this one, too. I suspect that a lot of the anti-equality right wing, who may feel strongly that marriage is a privelege for straights only, might nonetheless feel that the economy, war, environment, and health care have a bigger impact on their life than the (once again entirely non-trivial) question of whether their own marriages are sullied/nullified/whatever because the government recognizes same-sex marriage. (Or whatever anti- argument it is that they feel is important to them; I don’t know, they never made any sense to me.)

It is entirely reasonable for these people to press for debate on the issues that affect them most, and it is entirely reasonable for Obama to encourage them to do so.

Sorry, Amp, I think you really dropped the ball on this one.

Marriage equality is a pretty narrow thing to focus your drive for equality on. It’s also kind of needlessly divisive; surely a good number of people out there who have a problem applying the word marriage to gay people could get behind a movement that gives everyone getting “married” the option of civil unions through the govt and leaves marriage to churches, etc. And another upside of such a movement might be that it could potentially recognize and give economic stability to other kinds of relationships.

Yeah, they have it pretty good, so they should just shut up about equality. Marriage equality is totally trivial compared to the environment, so we should just stop talking about it… They should be happy with second-class citizenship, at least they are relatively comfortable. (sarcasm) …. BTW, there are many poor queer folks who would really benefit from the security of marriage-rights; in fact, they likely need it more.

I do like his positions and record on a number of gay rights issues. And, you know, there are other issues out there besides marriage and even besides “gay issues,” and many of those are important to me, too. Funny that. I get the impression that most of the people driving the gay marriage push are relatively affluent gay folks who already have it pretty good. That and “straight but not narrow” or gay but transphobic HRC staffers and the like. I’m not saying anyone here fits that description, of course.

No, he’s saying that politicians IN GENERAL use wedge-issues to garner power but that these issues are really trivial when compared to other problems we face. He’s pulling the whole “post-partisan” theme that is pretty much the staple of campaign and he’s totally calling gay marriage a non-issue (and I suspect he doesn’t support it because it appears too radical; his support of civil unions in place seems nebulous).
…So I second Amp’s fuck you to Mr. Obama.

I’ll certainly agree with your anger over the fact that Sen. Obama isn’t really driven by principles rather than expedience. I just hope it’s not excaberated by surprise. To listen to the media you’d think he was the Second Coming. Hah!

I’m with Jasmine on this and I am in a similar position. Marriage equality matters to me for a lot of practical reasons, but less that global warming and pre-emptive wars for even deeper reasons.

If Obama is half as influenced by Rev. Wright as his detractors claim, then he is light years ahead of Hillary on gay rights issues. I don’t recall Hillary confronting homophobia in the African-American community on the scale that Rev. Wright has, for years.

“I am a Hillary Clinton supporter because I believe she is the most qualified and the most sensitive to human needs and rights.”

If DADT is part of the presidential experience she is claiming, then no she isn’t all that qualfied and sensitive to people’s civil rights. Support her if you like; just don’t expect her to return your loyalty.

Having said that, Senator Obama is undoubtedly the suckier of the two remaining Dem candidates.

I’m offended that he refused to pose for a picture in 2004 with Gavin Newstrom–who, at the time, was one of the few outspoken allies (among elected officials). Now–when it is safer and self-serving–he’s all about advocating for LGBT folks.

Just by making an extra Obama logo with a rainbow [hello? separate is never equal, dumb ass] and flooding gay media, we’re supposed to vote for him?

He’s also chickenshit on being vocal on feminist issues like reproductive justice. I have a post on my blog on how he’s hiding stuff on his campaign web site.

He’s saying the Republicans used the anti-gay sentiment in America to do some of the worst things to America in this century. He’s saying “look what you did by coming out to vote against gay marriage - you gave Bush the power to fuck this country up.”

He’s not playing down gay marriage - he’s playing down ANTI-gay-marriage.

Come on, people. Go beyond the first thought you have when you read something.

So the “O” man was saying this needs to stop and let’s start talking solutions. But, we need to see the whole context of the question and answer. These short sound bites are killing the political process.

But even then there was a sense that it was not the most important issue. In fact, there has been a lot of concern that “gay marriage” has sucked all the oxygen away from HIV/AIDs, employment discrimination, anti-gay violence, etc.

I always find that concern weird. The pro-civil union backlash against the anti-marriage backlash against Multnomah County’s marriage license decision pushed through both civil unions and state-wide ENDA, and civil unions are far more likely to be rescinded at the ballot box than ENDA. We almost passed ENDA at the national level last year and we almost certainly will next year.

Oddly, while Clinton and Obama both suck on marriage rights, both are explicit supporters of ENDA with protection of transexual and transgender people and based on gender identity. They have also both been active in the fight against AIDS, so it is really only the marriage question sucking up all the oxygen that makes it possible to say that they suck on LGBT issues.

My take on Obama’s statement is that I agree with those who say that he was saying that anti-marriage amendments are divisive, but I also think it is noteworthy that what he is saying is that the issue that anti-marriage amendments are fighting against (same sex marriage rights) are a much less important problem than global warming, etc. He is saying that we shouldn’t bother to fight against same sex marriage rights because the fight to “protect marriage” is not all that important. He is placing himself on the wrong side of the issue and saying it isn’t that important. I can’t imagine Clinton doing that. I think Clinton’s anti-marriage position is entirely political, but I think that saying what Obama said really requires that you actually believe the crappy position you are holding.