Even when Obama was "not in support of gay marriage", he condemned Prop. 8 and similar moves to enshrine prohibition of same-sex marriage in Constitutions -- whereas Brendan Eich donated money to the Prop. 8 campaign.
> So you would vote for the President of the United States when he was not in support of gay marriage, and that's OK, but if the new CEO of Mozilla holds the same stance you will?
I've seen Obama, at a minimum, change his mind very publicly, has never once advocate any change in law or policy hostile to same-sex marriage, and has used the power of his office to direct that the government first stop defending existing statutes hostile to same sex marriage, and then take other substantive steps in support of it.
Meanwhile, Eich said that his donation doesn't prove that is a bigot, but hasn't done anything to indicate that his hostile position has changed.
> What's the difference again?
The fact that their positions in 2008 weren't the same to start with, and that one of them has very publicly moved to a very much more pro same-sex marriage position since then.
IOW, there's pretty much nothing similar at all.
But that's just how I view it.
2008 was a presidential year
2008 prop 8 was on the ballot
He is on record -- in california -- supporting a definition of marriage
that excluded same-sex couples
While speaking to "special interest groups" who supported prop8
=== That is "action" with intent...it is cut and dry.
> 2008 was a presidential year
True
> 2008 prop 8 was on the ballot
True, and Obama is on record in California in 2008 specifically opposing Prop 8 and all similar attempts (Prop 8 wasn't unique) attempts to write a similar defense of marriage into state and federal (there was an active move to do that, too, then) constitutions.
> === That is "action" with intent...it is cut and dry.
Sure, action against the position Eich was for.
The very specific language he used was:
> I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.
So:
* he was not personally in favour of gay marriage at the time[0]
* but he was most definitely and unambiguously against constitutionally forbidding it (and enshrining his personal beliefs in constitution), and did call then discriminatory
* as opposed to Eich who was most definitely and unambiguously for constitutionally forbidding it
Not only that, but even at the time Obama was
> “open to the possibility” that his views may be “misguided“
> So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue.
That's pretty much the only correct thing in your comment.
[0] and has since reversed his position
This is a correlation/causation fallacy.
But from a cultural perspective, these things do not line up nicely. Do you really believe 7/10 black people are incorrigible bigots? Or is it more likely that they are dis-proportionately orthodox in their view on "word X"? Interestingly, some work Nate Silver did in 2008/2009 on opinions in this area is enlightening. Somthing like 70-80 percent of CA citizens supported the "human rights" element of the argument. But there were something like 10+/-15 percent of people who supported the "other side" because of the parsing of words. Its unlikely, as a result, anyone can conclude much about the personal views and tolerance from votes on these types of laws.
Governor Swartzeneger actually vetoed CA legislation because he felt it was in conflict with the Constitution of CA. {etc}. So this stuff can go on and on, from both sides.
In September 2005, the California legislature passed a bill, A.B. 849, eliminating the gender requirements for marriage now found in Family Code section 300. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. In his veto message,[14] Schwarzenegger argued that passing a law that would implicitly repeal Section 308.5 required the assent of the electorate (and separately made note of pending court challenges).
There is also a nate silver piece illustrating that Obama's campaign did increase the size of the Prop 8 support in CA. Although while the black support was critical to securing the majority, its not clear Obama's marginal increase in black voter turn-out was 100% of the pivotal votes. But surely this still makes him more culpable on the issue than Eich.
NOt withsatnding that any of this matters, anyways. The laws exist as they do today so this is all an absurd discussion. And better reason to use discretion and tolerance in looking back on these matters rather than preaching intolerance and black and white moral clarity and etc.
________________
[1] And by this I means explicitly supporting "exclusionary" definitions of marriage.
I am not arguing that he was neutral, I am arguing -- as is manifestly and unquestionably the case -- that he was on the opposite side of Eich. He specifically condemned Prop 8 and similar measures.
The fact that that opposition was in spite of the fact that he very publicly stated that he shared some of the moral beliefs that others claimed made support of Prop 8 necessary, if anything, underlines his opposition, rather than mitigates it, as his position was that Prop 8 (and similar measures to enshrine a man-woman definition of marriage in Constitutions) were wrong in the then-current environment even given the moral belief that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.
Well then your whole case would fall down if you'd ever had one (rather than a gish gallop) since Obama had anti-equality words (retracted since) and pro-equality actions.
I don't know if he formally apologised, but he talked about his own change of heart and he did things and directed his administration towards gay marriage[0]. And even before his final shift, Obama definitely presented supportive stances towards LGBT groups.
And AFAIK he never went and gave money to actively remove LGBT civil rights.
> What's the difference again?
Er… one changed his mind and stance, the other not?
[0] his case is significantly complicated by his support for gay marriage during his original 1996 Illinois Senate run, moving to indecision in 1998, support for civil unions in 2004 (senate) and 2008 (presidential) before snapping back rapidly to support — as early as 2008 he called for the repeal of DOMA, voted against the federal marriage amendment and publicly opposed Prop 8, giving support to "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."
70% of blacks people voted for prop 8
This is why it is illegal to litmus test political beliefs under california employment law.
So, somebody has to pick their poison on this.
Its not an easy issue...
Don't think I've seen Obama apologizing for his past stances on gay marriage. What's the difference again?