President Obama Says He Supports Abolishing CA's Proposition 8

[oldembed src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rPMM5_h7NIg" width="420" height="255" resize="1" fid="21"]

(President Obama's pro-gay marriage words during Friday's presser starts around the 26 minute mark.)

In 2010, I met President Obama in the White House just after the mid term elections with four other bloggers. We had about 45 minutes so we couldn't cover everything, but we did get responses on a few things, including the Dream Act, immigration reform and on gay marriage. Republicans were blocking the Dream Act and other forms of immigration reform and as two years have passed, we are at a very different point in that debate since the GOP got trashed in the general election. Back in 2010, the president was still not with us on the correct side of marriage for all people in America, but I do believe that we pushed him in the right direction. It has taken some time, but gay equality is finally soaring. He gave a presser Friday morning on the sequester nightmare, but also was asked about his support for gay marriage and the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8.

Q Mr. President, your administration weighed in yesterday on the Proposition 8 case. A few months ago it looked like you might be averse to doing that, and I just wondered if you could talk a little bit about your deliberations and how your thinking evolved on that. Were there conversations that were important to you? Were there things that you read that influenced your thinking?

THE PRESIDENT: As everybody here knows, last year, upon a long period of reflection, I concluded that we cannot discriminate against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage; that the basic principle that America is founded on -- the idea that we're all created equal -- applies to everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, as well as race or gender or religion or ethnicity.

And I think that the same evolution that I've gone through is an evolution that the country as a whole has gone through. And I think it is a profoundly positive thing. So that when the Supreme Court essentially called the question by taking this case about California's law, I didn’t feel like that was something that this administration could avoid. I felt it was important for us to articulate what I believe and what this administration stands for.

And although I do think that we're seeing, on a state-by-state basis, progress being made -- more and more states recognizing same-sex couples and giving them the opportunity to marry and maintain all the benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples do -- when the Supreme Court asks, do you think that the California law, which doesn't provide any rationale for discriminating against same-sex couples other than just the notion that, well, they're same-sex couples, if the Supreme Court asks me or my Attorney General or Solicitor General, do we think that meets constitutional muster, I felt it was important for us to answer that question honestly -- and the answer is no.

Q And given the fact that you do hold that position about gay marriage, I wonder if you thought about just -- once you made the decision to weigh in, why not just argue that marriage is a right that should be available to all people of this country?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's an argument that I’ve made personally. The Solicitor General in his institutional role going before the Supreme Court is obliged to answer the specific question before them. And the specific question presented before the Court right now is whether Prop 8 and the California law is unconstitutional.

And what we’ve done is we’ve put forward a basic principle, which is -- which applies to all equal protection cases. Whenever a particular group is being discriminated against, the Court asks the question, what’s the rationale for this -- and it better be a good reason. And if you don't have a good reason, we’re going to strike it down.

And what we’ve said is, is that same-sex couples are a group, a class that deserves heightened scrutiny, that the Supreme Court needs to ask the state why it’s doing it. And if the state doesn't have a good reason, it should be struck down. That's the core principle as applied to this case.

Now, the Court may decide that if it doesn't apply in this case, it probably can't apply in any case. There’s no good reason for it. If I were on the Court, that would probably be the view that I’d put forward. But I’m not a judge, I’m the President. So the basic principle, though, is let’s treat everybody fairly and let’s treat everybody equally. And I think that the brief that's been presented accurately reflects our views.

Digby adds this:

I think there should be an explicit federal right to gay marriage and I'm fairly certain we'll get there someday. But I'm also fairly sure it's going to take national leaders who are at least willing to say that human rights should not be subject to the whims of local prejudice and "state sovereignty." As we've seen in just the last few years, it's quite possible for states to roll back long established rights when they're in the grips of conservative political power. We certainly know they're willing to give it the old college try. The president took a step in the right direction by saying clearly that he doesn't actually believe that states have a right to discriminate today. Good for him.

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.