Obama: I Support Same-Sex Marriage [POLL]

President Obama becomes first active commander-in-chief to champion gay marriage

In a historic moment Wednesday afternoon, President Barack Obama voiced support for same-sex marriage, becoming the first sitting commander-in-chief to do so.

Over the past few years, Obama had said his views on the issue were "evolving," but never expressed open support—just the belief that gays and lesbians should have access to the same civil rights as married couples.

But today—on the heels of a state ammendment in North Carolina that outlaws gay marriage—Obama spoke in support of same-sex marriage with ABC News.

(Watch the clip here.)

"I've just concluded that for me personally it is important to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," he said.

Obama noted staff members and soldiers he knows who are in committed, same-sex relationships with children were an impetus for his change of heart.

Obama's stance is one several in his party and administration have recently championed. Vice-president Joe Biden announced earlier this week while on Meet the Press that he is comfortable with gay marriage.

After Obama's statement, senator Nita Lowey (D-Rockland/Westchester) soon echoed his stance.

"I have been blessed to have a long and happy marriage," she said. "I strongly believe all Americans deserve that same opportunity."

WR May 11, 2012 at 04:27 AM
Obama has already directed his Attorney General to not defend a key portion of the Defense of Marriage Act which is vulnerable to legal challenge, because . . . they feel it's vulnerable to legal challenge. Without the Republicans squashing past attempts by the Democratic Senate to bring Feinstein's proposal forward to repeal DOMA, it has to be state-by-state for now, with legal challenges of the act further whittling down legislation based on bias. So, I have no idea what you are getting at.
Issy May 11, 2012 at 10:18 AM
So you are asking why can gays not be happy with being second class citizens? Maybe we should re-class gays as being 3/5ths the worth of heterosexuals. Respect is a two-way street. How would two people who love each other getting married be disrespectful? . You use the same arguments used by those who opposed mixed marriages.
Susan Troop May 11, 2012 at 10:28 AM
The President basically said that he personally believed that lesbians and gays should have the right to marry, but he's leaving it up to individual states. It's another case where those on the right would agree with him if he had an (R) after his name, and those on the left would be angered.
Mary May 11, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Issy...apparently you're referring to the 3/5ths compromise...which was a good thing...it had to do with representation in Congress...not the worth of a person.
Dan Seidel May 11, 2012 at 11:03 AM
It's a purely states' rights issue - THAT is THE CONSTITUTION. Federal gov't/ 14th Amend prohibits discrimination against anyone, but the issue is still purely states' rights. Push for legislation - that is the American Way! Change comes slowly, the way the Framers intended. If soceity wills it, the laws evolve and change - the beauty of The System!! Think about it! We all need reeducation camps - in American Exceptionalism - the Beauty of The US Constitution - its applications and its limitations on government intrusion into Citizen's (s') Liberty.
Mary May 11, 2012 at 11:04 AM
He's trying to make everybody happy...again. He raised $15M at his Hollywood fundraiser, hosted by none other than George Clooney, the day after he made his big announcement. I'm sure there's no connection there.
Issy May 11, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Mary, no three/fifths refers to the taxable value of a slave. Slaves were taxed at 3/5 of a freeman. And despite being TRADITIONAL slavery was not a good thing.
Issy May 11, 2012 at 11:16 AM
But it clearly is not a States' rights issue and being a Constitutional lawyer Obama knows this, but is hedging his bets. Almost every State that has gay marriage has done so because of the courts, not legislation. Which is why the bigots are trying to introduce Constitutional amendments to prevent gay marriages, because they are trying to avoid the inevitable consequence of the constitutionality of gay marriage.
Conservative NYer May 11, 2012 at 11:22 AM
@ Issy "We are talking about Gay marriages, not teaching children about 'alternative lifestyles. These are two separate topics." These are NOT two separate topics. Because you see the LGBT community is a large community that has reached beyond the bedrooms and into mainstream life.... I don't know if you have children in school at the present time but I can assure the LGBT community is streamlining everywhere... So again where is the tolerance for those folks who do not believe in gay marriage?? So yes Miss/Mr. Issy is DOES GOES BOTH WAYS!!
Conservative NYer May 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM
But yet again this guy who treats the Oval Office like his personal playground will be out of here come November, so it's a moot point...
Richard Kavesh May 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Here is the relevant section of the 14th Amendment which, many others and I believe, provides constitutional protection for same-sex marriage and forbids marriage discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In other words, liberty and justice for all, not just for for some. I expect that the U.S. Supreme Court will endorse this position next year, legalizing same sex marriage throughout the country -- finally, and it's about time.
Theresa May 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM
NC voted. End of story.
Issy May 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM
So please tell me how, since the legality of gay marriage in NYS, has it had an effect on your lifestyle? Yes I do have children in schools and they have 'gay' friends and it is no big deal. Sorry but until you can give a logical reason why anyone should object to two people who love each other getting married, I can only assume that such objections are based on bigotry or homophobia which in a rational society, should not be tolerated.
Issy May 11, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Civil and equal rights are never a moot point, it is what this country is founded on.
Issy May 11, 2012 at 11:52 AM
They also voted to secede from the Union, supported slavery. opposed mixed marriages, and favored integrated schools etc.
Conservative NYer May 11, 2012 at 12:02 PM
MaoBama's comments and what he feels are a MOOT point because he will not get elected! I did not say civil and equal right are a moot point (perhaps you should read it a bit better next time) As for gay marriage I have several family members who have partners and I could not give a blink about it or how they do it because they don't force it down my children's throat. Oh and by the way ISSY once again you really need read posts more thoroughly because it seems you have a habit of interjecting personal comments towards a person with whom you have never met before. I did not type it "AFFECTS my lifestyle “personally. Quite honestly and matter-of-fact It has no effect whatsoever because it's a nonissue on my lifestyle as well as my family and our foundations..
Francis T McVetty May 11, 2012 at 01:14 PM
legalized beastiality, is that next?
Theresa May 11, 2012 at 01:17 PM
Issy, maybe you can explain how Prop 8 failed in California when put to a vote. Few support gay marriage. Homosexuals are a scant fringe of society, so who really cares about the "gay vote" besides the radical Left?
Richard Kavesh May 11, 2012 at 01:17 PM
The following letter from Nyack's own Richard Deats appeared in this morning's New York Times. Thanks, Dr. Deats! "To the Editor: In affirming marriage equality, the president reflected the admonition of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who said we should be the headlight, not the taillight, of history. RICHARD DEATS Nyack, N.Y., May 10, 2012"
George Datino May 11, 2012 at 01:21 PM
Well, here's one guy who would say yes.. http://rye.patch.com/articles/ex-rye-building-superintendent-indicted-in-burglary-sex-acts-with-dog
Mary May 11, 2012 at 01:59 PM
Issy...I did not say slavery was a good thing...I said that about the compromise. The three-fifths referred to the population...not person. It was put into the Constitution as one step closer to abolishing slavery.
Mary May 11, 2012 at 02:08 PM
To all who have posted here...this is a great discussion going on... I wanted to give you another Dr. King quote... "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
Bjorn Olsson May 11, 2012 at 02:09 PM
Mary: Wow, never heard anyone defend "the 3/5ths compromise" before. the one where slaveowners would increase their representation to allow them to perpetuate slavery further.
Walden Macnair May 11, 2012 at 02:20 PM
Prop 8 failed because it was flawed. One doesn't take a vote to decide who has civil rights. If we did, there would still be segregation and slavery, marrriage of two African Americans would still be illegal in some states and marriage between Whites and Blacks illegal in even more. Women wouldn't be allowed to vote because men would have voted against it and they were the only ones allowed to vote at that time. I for one don't believe that there is any such thing as the "gay vote". I've never seen a voting block or super-pac organized by the gay community and for reasons I'll never understand there are many gay people who are actually Republicans. In the end, this issue is about all Americans having equal rights under the law. The Constitution guaranties everyone civil rights, not just the people you agree with.
WR May 11, 2012 at 02:29 PM
You don't want kids growing up to learn that gay folks are just mainstream people, trying to get by and be good neighbors, etc., but instead to perhaps fear, loathe or just ignore their existence? Or, are you the person oddly fearful that gay people actually exist, are naturally so, and can't accept that your "values" in this regard are based on traditions which have bias and hatred of "others" at their core? I could replace your term "gay" with "mixed" above and nothing would change, btw: embedded bias for no good reason is still bias with irrational fear as its basis. Only adults teach such backwards and fear-mongering concepts to our kids.
Conservative NYer May 11, 2012 at 03:23 PM
Brilliant quote Mary...for all! http://video.staged.com/dtglobal59/tennessee_football_coach_fired_for_making_obama_so
tom bosco May 15, 2012 at 09:21 PM
If you think Social Security is broke now just wait. Each partner (average of 4 per year) will be entitled to spousal and suvivors benifits.
WR May 16, 2012 at 01:03 AM
Social Security isn't "broke", so it's a non-point. Anyone paying into it - married or not - is supposed to obtain their share of the future benefits, regardless. Are you saying that it's fair to make people who happen to be gay not allow their benefits to be routed to their significant other after they pass on? That is, gay folks are not equal to non-gay folks, so not deserving of the same benefits?
Pat Gharet May 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM
I encourage all of you who hope to save tradtional marriage to join me in urging our representatives to outlaw divorce and enforce the laws against infidelity. Only when we punish those hypocrites who make a mockery of this sacred bond, can we preserve marriage and the family.
mimi May 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM
You call this "progress"??? Those of you who even try to equate this with women's or black's rights are insulting. There is absolutely no comparison to what blacks went through!!!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »