I gotta say, that sentence knocked me over for some reason. I think part of the reason is that it is a heterosexual person saying it. That may be unfair, but as someone who came of age during the height of the AIDS crisis, when the nation was literally telling us to "just go die already," I'm often shocked by the pace of social change.

While I was working on my dissertation, there were certain articles that always elicited a very emotional response. A couple of them involved a conservative Republican member of the House standing up and dedicating his speech to a lesbian member. I had never heard a heterosexual legislator, never mind a Republican, stand up and defend lesbian love.

Like I said, the pace of change, the fact that straight folks are becoming "fierce advocates" sometimes still throws me off a little....in a good way.

I tend to think that tackling the religious argument head-on, while part of the long-term strategy for full equality, doesn't make sense as part of the short-term battle for same-sex marriage. I spent the last few years teaching writing at a Catholic college. When the issue of gay marriage came up, students were initially fairly evenly divided. But it became clear pretty quickly that what worried most of the opponents was the idea their church would be forced to recognize a practice they saw as contrary to their religious beliefs. When marriage was framed as a purely civil or legal arrangement (which is all that's on the table from a policy standpoint), they were without exception in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage.

My point is simply that, whatever Obama's personal views on same-sex marriage, the path to recognition is not through convincing opponents that there religious convictions are wrong, but that they're irrelevant. To the extent that the state has any role in adjudicating it, marriage is a civic, not a spiritual, matter.

Actually, Obama needs to take his message to those non-Black Democrats, independents and liberal Republicans that voted for him, but who are uncomfortable with supporting gay marriage and repealing DOMA and DADT. If he can get that segment of the American people off the fence in support of equality for gays, he would have the political momentum needed to counter the hostility toward gay rights found in large segments of the Republican base electorate.

It would be courageous for him to take this message to the Sarah Palin devotees found in the conservative white evangelical communities found in the South, but it would also be a waste of his time and political capital. He would be better off talking to members of his poltical coalition, such as white and Hispanic Catholic voters in the Midwest, who are on the fence on gay rights issues, but who would respond to arguments which demonstrated that support for banning gay marriage and discharging gay servicemen violates principles of fairness. If he could get those voters to support full equality for gays, gay marriage would become a political reality in the Midwest and the West Coast (as it is in Iowa already, a state that served a considerable role in making Obama president.)

My Dad is case in point. He lathers at the mouth at the thought of gay marriage but supports civil unions almost as adamantly. He conflates religious and civil marriage. I think the LBGT community in their quite understandable demand of equality missed an important strategic opportunity. It's not fully foreclosed either in Obama. Just sieze it my same gender loving brothers and sisters!!!

One love, baby.

It is. Iowa.

The other issue is that a lot of religious supporters of marriage equality muddy the waters and make claims to civil marriage based on their religious beliefs.

It seems to me that Obama is hoping, by putting out a message of tolerance to the black community, the rest of the country will get it indirectly too, if not only for the reason that whatever he says to the black community is endlessly remarked and commented upon. Only problem is, that he is asking for acceptance and tolerance within a religious context, which is absolutely baffling to me, in two respects. 1) the gay rights issue has long outstripped the limits of acceptance within religious bodies, and is now a matter of equal rights under the law, and 2) as a student of history, he should know that often legal/social change comes long before changes in religious stances.

why is he appealing for spiritual balm to a problem that is now in more legal straits? more churches welcoming the gay community with open arms may be nice in that touchy-feely way, but a change in the civic posture of this country would be a real, and more necessary, change. let the acceptance come, as it often does, after the fact.

This is why even though I love politics, I study politics, I believe in democratic politics, I would never, ever be a politician. Complex talk is not rewarded. Obama has done better than any politician in a generation in terms of attending to nuance, but even he can't/won't keep it up on all issues all the time. Nuance gives the 24 hour news cycle too much to misunderstand and misrepresent. That doesn't get him off the hook, but it does provide a plausible explanation in my view.

You clearly don't understand the religious mind! ;-)

Exactly, and if Iowa can make gay marriage a reality, then Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, and maybe even Indiana could do the same.

It's those damned constitutional amendments that are going to be a much bigger issue in coming years. Trying to get those overturned may be even uglier than the campaigns to get them passed in the first place.

I loved this. This is so you, and you were beyond deep here.

Moreover, he's invoking his relationship with religion, and his God, in that lie. Perhaps worse, he isn't being fully honest with the very audiences he wants credit for addressing--the very audiences, that by his logic, would most benefit from that honesty.

This is so brutal and beautiful, I had to pull it out and spotlight it. Thank you, Coates.

He did. Yesterday. On your teevee...

Whatever your cavils, that was a historic and very important moment.

Going into a Rick Warren-type church would be a waste of his time. He would be more useful going to a predominantly white or Hispanic Catholic parish in Chicago or South Bend, and telling the Irish, Italian, Polish, Mexican or Puerto Rican parishoners about the fundamental unfairness at the heart of the anti-gay marriage movement that goes counter to the spirit of true Christianity. The same applies to politically moderate white evangelicals in Jim Wallis-type churches throughout the Midwest.

Obama doesn't need the Rick Warrens of this country to help gay marriage become a reality, if he can get the support of Jim Wallis types and Cardinal Joseph Bernandin or even Cardinal Francis George types.

I agree/disagree with your part of your post Ta. Obama should attempt to speak to a greater segment of the population than just the 13% AA segment of it, particularly on the issue of civil rights for gays and lesbians. In fact I think Obama may be adding to the stereotype that AA are more bigoted (or the most bigoted, if you read right wing talking points) people in American society. The idea that AA need a talking to about civil rights for gays and Lesbians more so than others lends credence to the idea that we are the most in opposition to it. Which I think is false. I happen to believe that there is nothing wrong with talking to AA audiences about gay rights, as talking to any audience about gay rights is something that should be done regardless of the make-up of those recieving the message. And lets face it, Obama is the president, if he says something it will ricochet throughought the country. In other words, his message will not be lost on those who happen to have lesser melonin in their skin.

My issue with your post (and its not so much with you as much as it is a constant theme I hear from many) is the concept that Obama has to in particular go out and spread any sort of message on behalf of some group. I know saying this will get me into a lot of trouble here. Every constituency on the left seems to want something from this guy. Yes I know we (err you perhaps, I didn't vote, I'm a marxist) got him elected. But it bothers the hell out me that everyone seems to wholeheartedly believe in what I will call the great man theory in history, politics, whathaveyou. Obama is all of sudden supposed to do this and that for everyone. It should be remembered that througout history, people, the masses have brought about change. Great men have taken credit or been given credit for that change but more often than not it has been everyday folks that have made that change possible. Obama is our servant, we have to make him serve us

It seems to me that the same groups who got the man elected would be best to 1) hold his feet to the fire on the issues he campaigned on, 2) continue spreading whatever your groups message is to other elected officials, 3)take your message into traditionally hostile areas and change hearts and minds, 4) be the change you believe in. I don't know, I just get sick and tired of hearing people whine about what Obama is not doing. The next four to eight years is a excellent window of oppurtunity for the left to push through everything that we care deeply about. We know Obama has a sympathetic ear for our concerns. I would argue that our issues are too important to be left up whit and whimsy of one man. We must do it ourselves even if he takes credit.

Check this Pew Poll out and make of it what you will...

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/868/gay-marriage

Scroll down to "opposition declines in many groups" and "views on civil unions"

Maybe there's something wrong with the polling data - I'm no expert and I'd love see a couple of others or some "Nate Silver" shit to sort this out. In the larger scheme of things, this is a generational issue more than anything else and the opposition is doomed.

I would love to have put what I think in those words. This is the heart of the issue, people.

Just my two cents.

I think the truth is that Obama needs to be pushed and embarrassed into following what I truly suspect is his conscience in the matter, and producing and pushing the appropriate policy. Right now, we are looking a Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, a scattered and bewildered Republican party, a populace that is more concerned about economics and security than about traditional definitions of matrimony: for the love of Pete, when would their possibly be a better opportunity to actually create this change? I think he's so caught up in the goal of avoiding culture wars (an laudable goal, I think) that he's lost some backbone.

The problem was neither Democrats nor Republicans would settle for it. We offered the solution; keep your sacred word and give us civil rights. Very few politicians on either side were willing to push for that compromise. There were plenty who said they backed the idea. How many bills were introduced? How many Congressmen and Senators co-sponsored? How many survived committee?

The answer, simply, is not enough. Lots of lip service, very little action. That generation's battles were somewhat more pressing; the gay community had to deal with the HIV/AIDS crisis, had to deal with basic discrimination laws. It's not surprising that while due process was important to them, their energy was not so all-pervasive as to push them forcefully into that arena.

Now there's a new generation of politically active people who grew up watching these crises. They asked for equality and got DADT. They asked again and got DOMA. Now we're asking and we're not taking excuses anymore. We just want equal rights; it's the fundamentalist (and pseudo-fundamentalist) politicians who force the issue as gay marriage. If they want to fight on that battlefield so be it. We'll win eventually, and all of them will be remembered as the segregationists of our time.

Just remember, there was a time when all we wanted was "almost". Now almost is no longer good enough.

You may not be impressed by Obama's words, but was among the very first to say them, YEARS AGO, to an audience which needs to hear them.