Typically, Vice President Joe Biden speaking his mind isn't breaking news, unless he's letting an f-bomb slip over a live microphone. Yesterday was another exception.
Shortly before went on the air, he told David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Press that personally, he is "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex marriage. While news wires and Twitter blew up with that news, Melissa was having an on-air discussion (above) about it, considering its potential impact on the President's evolving personal position on same-sex marriage.
As declarative as Biden appeared to be in his MTP appearance, it is notable that the Vice President didn't actually endorse same-sex marriage being legal in every state; just that he's cool with it. It was more of a message of tolerance, not policy (which doesn't mean it wasn't political).
But as politics tend to get after someone makes such a statement, the message got a lot more muddled after the show (much to the dismay of gay-rights advocates). As NBC's Chuck Todd reported, the Vice President was only speaking for himself, not the administration. Biden's people released this statement to Talking Points Memo:
“The Vice President was saying what the President has said previously - that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights. That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it. Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country.”
Indeed, the President has said, and done, pretty much that -- but also stands by his now-infamous "evolving" quote from December 2010. So why not just go all the way (in an election year, no less), and endorse legal same-sex marriage? Now that Vice President Biden said what he said, along with Education Secretary Arne Duncan and HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan endorsing marriage equality, the President may no longer have a choice.
I agree with one of Melissa's guests, Yahoo! business and finance columnist Daniel Gross, when he asked yesterday what I think is the essential question about the President's position:
I find it astonishing that he can't be declarative on this. Is there anyone that doesn't believe that 10 years from now, gay marriage will be legal in every state?
I have a feeling that President Obama and the White House may hear that question asked, in one form or another, quite often in the coming days.
Leave a Comment:
It is hypocritical and wrong for the LBGT community to pressure someone into endorsing gay marriage. It's no different than someone demanding that they give up their gayness and be straight.
President Obama is the most evolved president in history to support LGBT community. No president has ever cared or paid as much attention to gay rights than he has and in spite of what he believes in, Obama has not done, nor does he intend to do anything to stop gays from marrying. He believes that everyone should have the right to marry anyone they choose.
I think Obama shoudn't have to endorse gay marriage it if he doesn't want to. LGBTs don't want anyone pressuring them to stop being gay.
I'm sure it would make some feel good if Obama expressed support for same-sex marriage. And it seems like some would fell good to think they "made" him express that support. So Obama gives a full throated endorsement of same-sex marriage. And, what? What exactly is expected to follow? It's just beginning to seem that there's a desire to score some sort of victory over Obama on this. And just like with the repeal of DADT, it's of earthshaking importance as long as it's a stick that can be used to poke at him. As soon as he does endorse same-sex marriage, you know it'll be like, "Meh, whatever."
Hi. Unlike Chris Hayes and Maddow you don't seem to have *any email contact (harrumph), so ...
Foot Soldier suggestion (This might also interest -- it's had almost zero US MSM attention > United Nations Investigating Native Americans' Plight)
Minnesota Called to Apologize to Native Americans (Video)
Students at the University of Minnesota are backing a revived call for a state apology for past treatment of Native Americans.
In March 2010, Minnesota Representative Dean Urdahl introduced “a house concurrent resolution expressing regret for conflicts between Native Americans and European settlers.” It attracted three supporters but then went nowhere.
The students produced a film, which you can watch below, examining the Dakota Conflict of 1862, the treaty violations preceding it, and the cultural genocide and stolen land that followed.
The students point out in their film that an apology is just the beginning.
“The fight for indigenous rights fits into a larger struggle for social justice. Social justice is the upholding of the natural law that all persons irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc. are to be treated with equity and without prejudice,” they say in the video.
“The path to justice for American Indians in Minnesota starts with recognizing the implications that these historical events have on relations between Native and non-Native communities. Things like the Dakota War and the dispossession of White Earth are part of a colonialist system that damages Native sovereignty and identity.”
The concept of apologizing to indigenous peoples as a part of reconciliation has been taken up in Australia, where in 2008, then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, moved a motion of Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, which was unanimously supported in Australia’s Parliament. Also in 2008, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered a long-anticipated apology to tens of thousands of indigenous people who as children were ripped from their families and sent to boarding schools, where many were abused as part of official government policy to “kill the Indian in the child.”
Both occasions were seen as historic turning points and watched by large numbers of people live on television.
Both the Australian and Canadian apologies were tied to compensation and other financial commitments. Australia made a commitment to close the massive gap in health and there was a $2 billion compensation package for Canadian aboriginal peoples who were forced to attend residential schools. Canada also established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address the consequences of these institutions.
In 2010, an ‘apology to Native Peoples of the United States’ was included in the Senate defense appropriations bill. The statement says that the U.S. government is committed “to move toward a brighter future where all the people of this land live reconciled as brothers and sisters, and harmoniously steward and protect this land together.” However, it also says that it isn’t intended to support any lawsuit against the government (of which there are many) and received far less attention than the Canadian or Australian apologies: there was no public statement by the President or even White House press release.
Said Indian Country Today:
“Is an apology that’s not said out loud really an apology? What if the person expressing the apology doesn’t draw attention to it?”
“Those are questions that some tribal citizens are asking upon learning that President Barack Obama signed off on the Native American Apology Resolution.”
Paul Udstrand writes about the students’ call:
“We’re talking about our history, and who we are. History defines us and points us in certain directions. A history that suppresses the Dakota conflict and the conquest of Indians creates a very different history than one that acknowledges those events. Such a history also points us towards a different future. Indians have not disappeared from the landscape, they are real people, fellow human beings, and fellow Minnesotans. We do not live in a museum. An apology acknowledges our history, and points us towards a future where we treat each other with dignity and respect.”
Said MinnPost of the students’ efforts:
“Mighty oaks from little acorns grow … maybe it will spark some kind of official, mighty-oak apology from the state of Minnesota.”
The first part gives an overview of Dakota and Ojibwe history in the state, a timeline of events and touches on treaties, boarding schools, the Dakota War of 1862, important Indian legislation, and Indians in Minnesota today, including Anton Treuer.
Page 2: Watch the rest of the series, showing Dakota ways of life, their history and what can be done to help >>
Links have disappeared -- here's the link
try again ... www.care2.com/causes/minnesota-called-to-apologize-to-native-americans-video.html?page=2