Nice, though vagueThis would have been far more effective had the statement made plain that the subjects were Maine and Washington State.
Still, this is good stuff! Spread the word — America now has a President who believes in equality and believes in “stopping laws designed to take rights away”!

Better than nothing.n/t

Why Today’s White House Statement is Tainted and Not EnoughI greatly appreciate the President’s stance that ballot measures designed to take away civil rights are wrong, but the statement sounds reactionary, historical and timid, when it could sound bold, current and convincing. While the statement starts out as “The President has long opposed…”, the statement could start out as “The President has long opposed and continues to oppose…” or “The President opposes…” to make the statement still relevant today. The statement then makes references to excerpts from the President’s speech that he made at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner last Saturday. However, the statement seems to place more emphasis on the fact that those excerpts support the argument that the White House has done something in addressing the Advocate’s inquiry than the very important meanings behind those excerpts. It appears to be more important for the White House to argue with the Advocate than reinforce the meaning behind the quoted speech excerpts in a direct communication to the rest of America through its statement. It’s as if the White House is telling the Advocate, “Hey, we’ve already done this for you, what else do you want from us?” Maybe, the White House is too scared to stick its neck out in its strong stance that divisive and discriminatory efforts are wrong and un-American.
Not only is the above statement not enough, but the statement is tainted and could actually hurt the fight for marriage equality in Maine. At the Human Rights Campaign dinner, President Obama says that “committed gay couples” should have the same rights as “married couples”, and this bothers me because of the implication that this statement makes. There is no difference between gay couples and married couples; committed gay couples can be married couples. However, the way that Obama framed this sentence hints that there is a difference between the two. It is this kind of statement that could help reinforce the attitudes of some voters in Maine that gay couples should have all the rights of marriage as long as it is not called marriage, and such hints could actually damage the efforts of Protect Maine Equality that is trying to preserve marriage equality there.
If I were the White House, I would have made the following statement:
“The President opposes divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and he believes strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away from same-sex couples. To ensure that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any committed couple in America, he encourages voters in Maine to vote no on 1 and voters in Washington to approve referendum 71.”

Unless you want to, you knowget married. That’s a whole different can o’ worms there.

Well…sort-of.
“Obama supports equality campaigns in WA and ME”
He doesn’t actually say he supports voting No on 1 and Approve for Rep 71. He’s wiggled more than ever.
I suppose we can be thankful that he didn’t say he thinks marriage is only between a man and a woman? Gosh.

To quote Dick Cheney, “So?’Report it when Obama grows a spine, tosses the pants-wetting stump speech, and specifically names Washington and Maine. Equality is part of his party’s platform; where’s the beef?

…which means, nothing is worse? Just barely. “Lawyerspeak” is hardly Fierce Advocacy.

VagueDoesn’t specifically mention R-71 or No on 1, doesn’t even specify marriage, continues to be vague and murky. Probably will not get press attention because he was simply responding to the Advocate’s question on Maine/WA, which he didn’t directly address in the slightest.
gg, Obama

I disagree. Run with this!In light of the WA & ME campaigns, the important thing isn’t whether his statement was all it could be, it’s whether it was enough in light of general public perception.  The average Jane hears a president defending rights for s-s couples.  Of course a specific statements would have been better, but I think there is a lot to work with here.

Look on the bright side.At least there isn’t anything about any gods being in any mixes.  For now, at any rate.  Wait till his Christian lobbyists spiritual advisers get hold of him.

I give it about a 6 on the “Fierce Advocacy” Scale-10 Fred Phelps                                       0                                                       Harvey Milk 10
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
                                                                                                 ^
Points for effort.
Demerits for:
1. Releasing it only to the Advocate, as opposed to the whole Press pool.
2. Not actually mentioning any specific states or ballot initiatives.
Seems designed to preach to the choir, while flying under the mainstream media’s radar, which it will. But it IS something our advocates can use at least.

Your analysis makes me wonderif internally, the question was never taken to the President, or anyone of note, and the the Press Office just went back and said, “hey he went on the record on that last week, let’s just recycle it…”

Now we need to stay on himso we don’t get another “God is in the mix” statement. Would have been nice if he had been more specific though.

Dear Obama: Please say after me: Maine and Washington………Really Lurleen, lol.  Not sure if this is meant as satire or not.
I don’t see Obama even mentioning these two states or the specific voter referendums they are facing in November.  Please stop giving credit to Obama for something he has NEVER said.  
Very misleading headline to say the least.

Wow, I can smell the fierce advocacy from here. n/t

Of CourseHis “O”-News never said when he planned to repeal DADT and DOMA either, when he graced the Obamaholics at last Saturday night’s HRC fanfest.
So forgive my skepticism.  

So Mark Mutty and now Dave Mortenson can just recycle “God Is In the Mix” in response?Spare us a re-run of THAT robocall.
No, any mention of POTUS in this fight, when he is too cowardly and bigoted to unequivocally stand up for our EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS, will be met with the Yes On 8′s old ads exploiting his fellating of Rick Warren. Far better to get unequivocal statements of support from Representatives and Senators who don’t have Obama’s embarassing record of “he was for it before he was against it.”
We can’t afford to put Obama front and center on this. He’s a lukewarm pantswetter who only pretends to support us when it’s expedient for him to do so. We need strong, unequivocal, ballot-specific support from people unafraid to espouse equality for all. Obama is not our guy.

I’m not sure that’s what you’re smelling…

Clark wins the threadHere, have an internet cookie.  

Christ on a crutch, people.Can’t we have one thread about gay issues on this blog that isn’t awash in negativity and hatred.
News flash: according to that recent poll from the highly respected Pew Research Center, if you walked out your door and gathered 10 random people together not even four of them would agree that we should be allowed to marry. Yes, that can be a never-ending source of anger and bitterness, but if we aren’t able to deal with reality and factor it into our strategies for gaining equality, well, we’ll just continue to bitch and moan and trash anybody and everybody who hasn’t seen the light yet. Not a great way to treat our allies, or to attract others to our cause.
I’m thankful Obama is in the White House instead of the alternative choice. Let’s continue to hold his feet to the fire in a constructive manner.

no they’ll probably run the California robocallThe one, the weekend before the election, in which they said Obama opposes SSM and provided his voice as proof, “I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman[.]” (They cut out the part that starts “but …”).
Just wait.

you’ve got to look on the bright side of lifeObama can probably sing an upbeat version of that. Just forget the circumstances in the movie when it was sung.
Don’t grumble, give a little whistle!/And that will help things work out for the best …

“awash”? “negativity”? “hatred”?Well, it looks different from where I sit, which is in a married household, in California, where I was sufficiently pessimisting to solemnize a 26-year relationship before Prop. 8 went to the polls. My spouse is the last one I see before sleep and the first one when I wake up, so it is kind of central to my life. As is the $5000 extra a year we pay in “single, filing separately” Federal taxes. As is the fact we think twice before traveling outside California, and, God forbid, getting into an accident.
Of course, this isn’t the only issue that Obama has on his plate. Unfortunately, his actions on this issue are matched by soaring rhetoric and little action. Two wars go on, Wall Street is getting more money and little regulation, the renditions and military commissions and detentions continue. It’s all getting rather alarming.
I agree that he’s better than that erupting volcano of a Senator and his horrible running mate, but that’s like saying I’m glad we also didn’t have a major earthquake last year. If Obama screws this up, 2012 will bring the inevitable reckoning, and we’ll have another disaster. Huckabee Administration, next eight exits.

Put not your trust in princes.
– Psalm 146:3

erratumI meant to say, “Unfortunately, his actions on this issue are matched by soaring rhetoric and little action on an alarming number of other issues, all vital in some way.”

you’re assuming that they wouldn’t run that tape otherwise.  of course they will.  and now we have something more recent to counter it with.  i dont’ see anyone saying obama should be put front and center, but i also think it would be a mistake to not use what we’ve got.  because the other side uses what they’ve got and then makes up shit to got with it.  

who said i’m giving anyone credit?rather, i’m saying we should use what we’ve got to its fullest.  or is the other side only allowed to do that?

Hey, I should get some credit here!He wouldn’t have gotten his zinger if I hadn’t fed him the straight (sic) line.

Not really.The statement was in direct response to a question specifically about those two states.
So, it is accurate, even if the state’s aren’t expressly named in the respnse, since it is contextually understood to be so:

In response to an inquiry from The Advocate, the White House sent the following statement regarding President Barack Obama’s position on same-sex relationship recognition voter referenda in Maine and Washington.

Just saying.

The analogy I use is…If the Republican had won, we would be getting beaten to death. With the Democrats, we are merely being left out in the cold to die of exposure. And I should be grateful? What is wrong with demanding for food and a safe, warm place to sleep?

just be prepared to rebut it when it pops upEasy enough, they’re following the California playbook. Fast rebuttal seems to work.

Where are they hiding the ORIGINAL Barack Obama?
CANDIDATE Barack Obama. February 28, 2008:
“As your President, I WILL USE THE BULLY PULPIT to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.”
Does the above read like using the bully pulpit to you? How much you want to bet that his far more forceful statement on record opposing marriage equality because “God is in the mix” will not wash away this limp wimpy comment and audio recordings of it be used in Maine and Washington the same way it was in California in robocalls and textually in this mailer:

They would have used it anyway? As IF that’s an excuse for him not to have learned from the worthlessness of the wimp ass statement he released before Prop 8 and come out with something really strong this time IF he really cares. Ya know, like someone who uses “the bully pulpit” as something more than campaign language.
The Obamabots are, of course, drooling, “But it’s unseemly for a President to become involved in a state’s rights issue.” Does anyone GENUINELY believe that were the rights being voted on at the state level based on race that this POTUS would not be more forceful in opposing it? As any President SHOULD!  
Fortunately for him and them, his parents divorced before they could make the mistake of traveling to a state that banned mixed race marriages as the Lovings did after they married in DC but returned to Virginia where they were arrested and were given the choice of leaving the state or going to jail before their lawsuit resulted in all such state laws being overturned by the Supreme Court.  
He showed a little knee for our votes; he still needs gay money…but our rights are secondary to state’s rights and Rev. Barry’s interpretation of God’s wishes.
Oh, well, there’s still next spring’s White House Easter Egg Hunt to look forward to.

That’s been a blessing for our sideThese people have been following the Yes on 8 playbook to a T. They weren’t expecting truly effective grassroots campaigns, but a repeat of the corporate fail that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Of course, it doesn’t help that they also ran ads with Gavin, “It will happen whether you like it or not” speech. We also need to prepare for this one, because it’s going to be the final attempt at fear-mongering in both Washington and Maine.
Here’s the rebuttal ad, in advance:
FOOTAGE of Gavin, “like it or not.”
GAY or senior couple: “So what if it does? Massachusetts has had marriage equality since 2004, and they now have the lowest divorce rates in the country, pre-WWII levels! Iowa instituted marriage equality earlier this year. People said the sky would fall, just like they’re saying now in Maine/Washington. And yet, just a few months later, 92% of Iowans said that having marriage equality in their state didn’t affect their lives at all.
Pastor of public official of some sort: Fellow Mainers/Washingtonians, the data is in, and the answer is clear: when more people have access to civil marriage rights, marriage is strengthened, not weakened.  

The vagueness ensuresthat nobody on our side will be able to use any particular Obama soundbite to counter the flood of hetero-supremacist ads and robocalls (due any day now) quoting Obama’s hetero-supremacist version of “marriage”.  He’s a “fierce advocate” — just not “fierce” enough to do anything to counter the continued use of his positions to support hetero-supremacist campaigns.

nice rebuttal ad!

It true the straight man never gets his dueThank you techbear!

Riiiiight!And Bevan Dufty and Michael Petrelis had a “beneficial first step” in their meeting with Buju Banton.
Do you really believe what you are saying?

AgreeStill not sure why he could not come out and mention these two states at the HRC dinner when he was urged to by many.  
“The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and as he said at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, he believes ‘strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.’ Also at the dinner, he said he supports, ‘ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.’”
So yes, thankfully he says he feels this way. But I still do not understand why was it impossible for Obama to say Washington and Maine at this same HRC speech? Sounds just like his position on Prop 8.  Never directly confronting specific antigay political manuvers of the right.  

ThanksSee my post below Lurleen….

Whateverthe man is a liar.  Post something when he actually does something to back up all these speeches and (buried) statements.

If Obama were serious, which he’s not…he’d call a special session of Congress to repeal Bill Clinton’s DADT and DOMA. And to pass the original version of ENDA (before Barney Frank invited the Democrats and Republicans to gut it) and a tough hate crimes law.  
As it stands this is just more bullshit from a Clinton clone.
Democrat politicians are Republicans in drag.  

Only one “Vice” President in US history left his vice presidential office and reported to his parole office the next day. His name was Spiro Agnew and he too was infamous for berating all those millions of mean spirited critics of the president as “nattering nabobs of negativism” and “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history”.

“just more bullshit from a Clinton clone.” That’s called “Billshit,” donal1944…LOL

I’m not going to turn cartwheels or deride the commentObama made a statement to show he disapproves of states taking our Rights. It’s not everything we could dream he’d say, but would you prefer dead silence?

I stand corrected.

How is Maine?What do you think of our chances?  

^^

YES! Run with this Lurleen, with dys’ introFlood it everywhere.
Yhey will use everythig against us, lets do the same, plus maybe background on NOM board members who actually want to recriminalise.