Obama: could not avoid weighing in on gay marriage court case

WASHINGTON Fri Mar 1, 2013 5:18pm EST

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Business Council in Washington February 27, 2013. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Business Council in Washington February 27, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he felt compelled to weigh in on a California same-sex marriage case before the Supreme Court because of his and society's "profoundly positive" evolution on gay rights.

Obama's administration on Thursday filed a brief urging the court to allow same-sex marriages to resume in California, which banned them in a 2008 voter-approved measure known as Proposition 8.

Obama did not have to submit an opinion on the case and the court's nine justices are under no obligation to give it weight. But the president said he wanted his position to be known.

"Last year upon a long period of reflection, I concluded that we cannot discriminate against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage," Obama told reporters, referring to his announcement during the 2012 election campaign.

"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," he said.

Obama has made gay rights a priority during his time in office, helping end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prevented gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

His position on marriage took his support for gay rights to a new level, however, and activists were encouraged when he noted the issue prominently in his second Inaugural Address, hoping that was a sign of more action to come.

The Obama administration is involved in another gay rights case before the court, challenging the constitutionality of a central part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage under federal law as being between a man and a woman.

Obama said he thought his administration could not avoid weighing in on the California case as well. He said the measure did not provide any rationale for discriminating against same-sex couples.

"I felt it was important for us to articulate what I believe and what this administration stands for," he said.

"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."

(Editing by Xavier Briand)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
maddogzs wrote:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Mar 02, 2013 5:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
Labrador1 wrote:
Neither can I avoid weighing in on this matter. While I recognize that there is a portion of our population that is GLBT, this portion is most likely 6% or less and possibly even 3% or less. How did they get so much power and influence? Should they have so much power and influence? While I have a genuine sympathy for their feelings, goals, and desires, I do not feel that they should have this much power in my world.
Furthermore, the idea that governments can decide what a marriage is is a usurpation of power that no government should be allowed- and yet we have allowed it with very little real debate on this subject. (I believe that it started with the idea that the government could decide when life began).
We do all of this- this “re-definition” of marriage and the murder of the unborn at our own peril and then wonder why Islamists hate our western ways.
No, I’ve chosen to evolve- not devolve- towards a more realistic goal for our government, our society, our liberties, and our view of life.
I don’t know what the president is doing…

Mar 02, 2013 8:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
MarkMM wrote:
The writer claims the GLTB community is only 3% of the population. This number significantly underestimates the GLTB population. The most recent Census estimates are 6%, and that number is also considered an underestimate because it was based on people who self reported as living in same sex households. But even if the writer were correct, at 3% the number of GLBT citizens would be 9,000,000. Two times that, the current estimate that is considered a more accurate number, is 18,000,000. Do 18,000,000 US citizens have equal rights under the law of the land or not?

Mar 02, 2013 12:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Pictures