Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama Favors “Equivalent Rights” for Gays

Just finished the chapter on faith in Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream and found it to be the best so far. Here, he presents a largely sympathetic portrait of the rise of social conservatives, reserving most of his criticism for Alan Keyes, his self-righteous 2004 rival for Illinois’ US Senate seat.

He even faulted one of his core constituencies (“academics, journalists, and purveyors of popular culture”) for failing to appreciate “the continuing role that all manner of religious expression played in communities across the country.”

That appreciation might upset some of his secular supporters in those constituencies as well as in the gay community.  As I read further in the chapter, I wondered if gay activists would call him heterosexist for his failure to embrace equality in his book (even though he has in his rhetoric):

I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex . . . .

Emphasis added.  Equivalent not equal?

Will the heads of gay organizations call him to account for this language? Have they?

Also note that while he says later that he opposes same-sex marriage, he is quite mealy-mouthed in defining that “special place” carved out for traditional marriage. On gay marriage, he seems to want to have it both ways. As I’ve previously observed.

But, have his gay supporters taken note?  Or do they care so long as he is the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee?

Share

21 Comments

  1. virtually equal works for me.

    Comment by michael — September 18, 2008 @ 8:53 pm - September 18, 2008

  2. Even the Gay Left bloggers like Andy Towle have noted that Barry’s now laying the groundwork to wiggle-out of getting rid of DADT. He’s gone from promising to end DADT, to “working” to end DADT, now it’s he’ll lay the groundwork to “discuss” DADT with the Congress and the Joint Chiefs.

    And from my perspective, he’s never been much of a champion of gay rights, nor of “gay marriage”, from the very beginning….just lot’s of promises that pushed the correct buttons for the G/L Dhimmicratic ATMs to continue to pour money into his coffers…without demanding any accountability.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — September 18, 2008 @ 8:57 pm - September 18, 2008

  3. Nah. They’ll circle the wagons around Comrade Obama and defend him to the death. When the sh*t hits the fan, they’re liberals first and foremost.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 18, 2008 @ 11:29 pm - September 18, 2008

  4. I have to agree that the wagons will be circled…the same thing happened with Bill Clinton. He was responsible for DADT and signing Defense of Marriage, and still he and Hillary were some how supporters of gay rights. I never figured that out, and when I pointed the contradiction out to liberal gay folks, I got the standard, “Republicans want to put gays in concentration camps” retort.

    Comment by Hunter — September 18, 2008 @ 11:50 pm - September 18, 2008

  5. #1: BULLSH*T.

    Comment by Sean A — September 19, 2008 @ 2:41 am - September 19, 2008

  6. Yep, because McCain and Palin are all for same sex marriage. Throwing rocks from the windows of your glass house is so much fun.

    Comment by xyzzy — September 19, 2008 @ 3:00 am - September 19, 2008

  7. burying xyzzy in some sand, up to the neck and tellling an Imam that xyzzy raped his mother and 145 sisters.

    Watching xyzzy get ripped to shreds is more fun

    Comment by Vince P — September 19, 2008 @ 3:09 am - September 19, 2008

  8. 2 + 2 = 6. Yay for Vince P mathematics!

    Comment by xyzzy — September 19, 2008 @ 3:32 am - September 19, 2008

  9. So the answer is no, they don’t care as long as there’s a D after his name.

    Thank you michael, xyssy for proving Dan correct, again

    Comment by The Livewire — September 19, 2008 @ 7:04 am - September 19, 2008

  10. Perhaps Mr. Obama, Rev. Jackson, and Rev Wright will ‘settle’ for “equivalent rights” for people of color.

    At least with Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin I know exactly where they stand on gay issues. With Mr. Obama and Mr…. (I forgot his name), they lie to you while taking your money.

    Comment by TnnsNE1 — September 19, 2008 @ 7:28 am - September 19, 2008

  11. […] Obama Favors “Equivalent Rights” for Gays […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Barack Obama: Indecisive Demagogue — September 19, 2008 @ 7:18 pm - September 19, 2008

  12. “So the answer is no, they don’t care as long as there’s a D after his name.”

    Incorrect. I would vote for a Republican if they had views more similar to my own than a Democrat candidate. However in this instance I support neither Obama or McCain fully, but Obama is at least making an effort to meet my values and needs half way. The same cannot be said of McCain.

    You chastise Obama for supporting civil unions. But what’s the alternative? A couple of neocons who would like to see same-sex marriage banned constitutionally. Really, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater the best approach to take? I would have thought that some rights > no rights at all.

    Comment by xyzzy — September 19, 2008 @ 10:07 pm - September 19, 2008

  13. This idiot thinks neocons are against gay marriage.

    lol

    Comment by Vince P — September 19, 2008 @ 10:17 pm - September 19, 2008

  14. Once again Vince, you’re reading things that aren’t there. Maybe you should see a doctor about that.

    Comment by xyzzy — September 19, 2008 @ 10:43 pm - September 19, 2008

  15. “A couple of neocons who would like to see same-sex marriage banned constitutionally.” – your other persona wrote that perhaps? Seems Vince pegged your position pretty clearly.

    And DOMA is a -reaction- to judges redefining terms to support their agenda. The Consitution is quiet on the matter, thus leaving it to the states to decide. Not the states’ courts to go “Look, we’re going to quote phrase a, text b and penumbra c to redefine it as we see fit.”

    Comment by The Livewire — September 21, 2008 @ 11:30 am - September 21, 2008

  16. Livewire: good message!

    Comment by Vince P — September 21, 2008 @ 11:34 am - September 21, 2008

  17. […] favor gay marriage today than did a decade ago, Barack Obama, the guy who says he favors “equivalent rights” for gays, has moved in the opposite […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama: For Gay Marriage Before he Was Against it — October 8, 2008 @ 5:45 pm - October 8, 2008

  18. […] Barack Obama has defended social conservatives who favor the traditional definition of marriage.  Heck, he favors such a definition […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Defining Opposition of Same-Sex Marriage as Hate Speech — February 17, 2009 @ 2:18 am - February 17, 2009

  19. […] has tried to soft pedal his opposition to same-sex marriage by professing his support for “equivalent rights” (whatever that means) for gay people. Meanwhile, Scott Schmidt, a former senior strategist […]

    Pingback by Pajamas Media » Can Michael Steele Really Reframe Gay Marriage as an Economic Issue? — May 26, 2009 @ 4:24 am - May 26, 2009

  20. […] has tried to soft pedal his opposition to same-sex marriage by professing his support for “equivalent rights” (whatever that means) for gay people. Meanwhile, Scott Schmidt, a former senior strategist […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » How Should the GOP Address Gay Marriage? — May 26, 2009 @ 5:25 am - May 26, 2009

  21. […] on gay marriage further expose the Democrat’s mealy-mouthed record on gay issues (”equivalent rights” anyone?), some, including blogress Dr. Melissa Clouthier, are wondering why gays don’t […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Gay & Lesbian Leftist Lickspittles — June 3, 2009 @ 4:07 pm - June 3, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.