Obama Engaged on Gay “Marriage”?

The New York Times has an interesting piece on President Obama’s engagement on “gay issues.” In short, gay activists think that Obama is not doing enough, and they are pressing him to advocate publicly for their causes. Here’s an excerpt:

‘WASHINGTON — President Obama was noticeably silent last month when the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

‘But now Mr. Obama — who has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a Christian but describes himself as a “fierce advocate of equality” for gay men and lesbians — is under pressure to engage on a variety of gay issues that are coming to the fore amid a dizzying pace of social, political, legal and legislative change.

‘Two of Mr. Obama’s potential Supreme Court nominees are openly gay; some advocates, irked that there are no gay men or lesbians in his cabinet, are mounting a campaign to influence his choice to replace Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring. Same-sex marriage is advancing in states — the latest to allow it is Maine — and a new flare-up in the District of Columbia could ultimately put the controversy in the lap of the president. . .

‘While Mr. Obama has said he is “open to the possibility” that his views on same-sex marriage are misguided, he has offered no signal that he intends to change his position. And as he confronts that and other issues important to gay rights advocates, he faces an array of pressures and risks.’

This article is pretty telling. Activists recognize him as “the most pro-gay president in history,” yet that is clearly not enough. They want more. Read the rest here.


  • Lucas Knisely

    So they want equality, I get that. What I don’t get is some activists wanting to influence Obama’s decision to replace Souter with someone who is gay. That is precisely what gay activist are fighting against: being treated differently based on your sexuality. Showing preference to a replacement just because he/she is gay is just as bad.

  • defalco


    But, their argument will be the same as every race minority since the 60’s. And that is that we need to fill a certain quota in order to get over the hump of inequality. In other words, we have to give that minority a chance if they’ve never had a chance at it before.

    In short, they’ll say they’re playing with a handicap and therefore need a temporary boost to get UP to an equal playing field.

    What they don’t see is that in doing that, a gay judicial candidate will work a little less harder knowing they have that edge of their competition. Which means the country will be getting mediocre judges.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.