Tweet
At the briefing yesterday, ABC's Jake Tapper asked, but didn't receive, a coherent answer from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the reason for Obama's opposition to marriage equality, given former President Bill Clinton announced he had changed his mind about the issue.
TAPPER: Former President Bill Clinton recently said that he’s basically in support of same-sex marriage. “I think it’s wrong,” he said, “for someone to stop someone else from getting involved in same-sex marriage.” Has President Obama heard these comments? Does he have a reaction? And why is Bill Clinton wrong about this issue?
GIBBS: Well, I’m not going to get into anybody’s opinion — I’m not going to criticize anybody’s opinion, least of all a former President of the United States, on something like this. I am not clear whether the President has seen that. I don’t know where that was from, so I don’t know if the President has seen it.
TAPPER: But President Obama holds a different opinion?
TAPPER: President Obama holds the same opinion he has earlier today.
TAPPER: Which is that same-sex marriage is wrong.
GIBBS: He does not support it. He supports civil unions.
TAPPER: Why does he feel differently than President Bill Clinton?
GIBBS: Because they don’t agree on the issue. (Laughter.) I’ve not obviously spent a lot of –
TAPPER: That’s not really an explanation of why he feels differently. That’s another word for it.
GIBBS: Well, I mean, I’m happy to — I mean, I think the President has answered this question a number of times. I can’t form a basis for why former President Clinton — I’ve obviously not had a conversation with him on this issue, so I don’t know what — it’s hard for me to compare some of this because I don’t have the basis by which he’s making that decision.
Have you noticed that Gibbs comes prepared to answer a wide range of questions on many topics, having been briefed in detail on them, yet when someone asks about LGBT issues, he suddenly 1) hasn’t spoken to President about it or 2) he hasn’t read/heard/seen about the given event that spurred the question.
Do you get the feeling that he thinks he’s going to “catch the gay” if he dares do a little research into policy issues? It’s not as if LGBT legislation and DOMA lawsuits aren’t in the queue, and states adopting marriage equality.
At this point Gibbs will continue to look like a kid on a stool with the dunce cap on if he thinks the reporters in the room, including Jake Tapper, have run out of questions in this area. It’s the press secretary’s own fault because because he never competently answers them. Being or feigning that you’re clueless isn’t working, Bob.
Related FAILs:
* WH Press Secretary Gibbs gets thrashed again on DADT, DOMA
* Gibbs @ WH Presser: unaware of any plans to address heinous arguments in DOMA brief
* Today’s WH presser: Gibbs flunks questions on DADT
* Gibbs at presser: can’t explain whether civil unions violate the Equal Protection clause
* Robert Gibbs on Prop 8 ruling – he hasn’t talked to the President about it
* Gibbs humiliated AGAIN when questioned about DADT at today’s presser
13 Comments
there is only one reason for this ongoing behavior:string along the gays without having any intention of following through on anything of substance. the reason i conclude this and not the opposite, that he’s waiting to upset the conservatives until he’s ready to roll with legislation, is that he ALREADY has upset the conservatives for not outright vilifying gays (i won’t even include t’s in this, because obama stays even farther away from acknowledging t people).
I was hoping……that Obama would pick someone great as his press secretary. Nope. He chose a typical asshole spin doctor.
So much for change.
Bill Clinton’s positionis irrelevant. Bill Clinton is not running for any public office. Notice how people comfortably change their minds once they no longer have to face voters.
All Gibbs needs to say is that, “we respect President Clinton’s decision to support same sex marriage. However, The President agrees with a plurality of Americans that Civil Unions are a sufficient option.”
The President should NOT wreck his presidency based on the opinions of folks that can only see the light once they stop facing voters.
On 21 January 2017, Obama should feel free to come out in support of full marriage equality. Until then he should leave this to the states.
States Rights
Absolutely. And while we’re at it, let’s allow the states to revisit that 1967 SCOTUS decision banning anti-”miscegenation” laws. States rights and all that.
After all, a “civil union” should be plenty good enough for Barack and Michelle, right?
Same reason my young AA neighbor doesMIBAMAAW
O Canada!!!!As we all know, you can’t have Civil Unions for some [violates due process and equal protection]. Civil Unions for All are coming. In the meantime, if you so desire, check out the Law Commission of Canada’s Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships report. All means ALL…not just for SGL and DGL couples but for ALL committed couples, eh?
And don’t worry, we’ll always have marriage (strictly ceremonial)…just like we’ll always have Paris…France.
À bien tôt!
Yep.Civil Unions will be good enough for EVERYBODY.
Gibbs getting any LGBT questions just comes off WEASLEYWhich will just make LGBTs and our allies less likely to listen to him about ANYTHING.
Can’t we have a CJ Craig?
marriage for some, not all,also violated due process and equal protection. since when has that mattered to presidents, lawmakers and others who pledge to defend the constitution?
BINGO!It’s best (for them) to just keep on deflecting our issues. We are, after all, the third rail of politics.
Gibbs is nothing but a dancing marionette…and we know who’s pulling the strings.
Clinton’s position is irrelevant because he’s not running for office?I just have to ask, then, Geek: Are YOU running for office? No? Oh, good gosh, then your opinion must be…well, why even bother pointing it out? LOL.