White House Eliminated Pledge To Repeal Defense Of Marriage Act From Website
White House Eliminated Pledge To Repeal Defense Of Marriage Act From Website
After ThinkProgress and other outlets noted last week’s changes to the Civil Rights page on whitehouse.gov, watering down language on the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Tips-Q noted that the website also has completely eliminated the portion objecting to the Defense of Marriage Act. As late as April 28, the website highlighted President Obama’s commitment to “repealing” DOMA, as a cached image shows:
Today, the website states only that Obama supports full “federal rights for LGBT couples”:
He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
According to ProPublica’s Change Tracker, the changes to the DOMA language were made on April 30. During his campaign, Obama repeatedly pledged to seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, telling The Advocate, “I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA.” During the primary campaign, he touted his longtime opposition to DOMA, in a strongly-worded “open letter” to the LGBT community:
Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -– a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.
Last week, after bloggers pointed out Obama’s seeming hypocrisy on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the White House quickly revised the language to once again pledge to “repeal” the policy, rather than just change it. Will the White House similarly fix this mistake, and reinstate Obama’s campaign promise to grant gay couples their full federal rights?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This is interesting activity for Obama. There was a great deal that was re-worded on this page, not all same-sex related legislation. I’m wondering what the first impetus was for the revising? Especially when it seems so obvious for a web-savvy public to see it very quickly. Is this all some strange temperature-taking strategy by the White House, so see if people are paying attention?
May 4th, 2009 at 6:41 pmsome yuppies probably got to his ear …
May 4th, 2009 at 6:42 pmI guess we should have known, with Rick (I hate those same sex lovers) Warren at the inauguration! Who really cares anymore? I guess if you get elected with their support, it doesn’t matter from then on?
May 4th, 2009 at 6:43 pmyou libs got screwed, shoulda reelected jimmy carter. he did deregulate finance.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:45 pmBullwinkle: “Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat….”
Rocky: “But that trick never works!”
Bullwinkle: “Then watch me erase it from the website…Presto!”
May 4th, 2009 at 6:50 pmwell, this is discouraging… and not about the change of wording…
but that whoever changed it thought it would not be noticed…
c’mon obamatechs…
i don’t doubt the pledge to repeal it, but it had to get put to the end of the honey-do list, that’s for sure…
May 4th, 2009 at 6:53 pmI honestly think this won’t be addressed right now with any political capital the President has at the moment, given other circumstances in the country. It’s unfortunate, but this can more be explained by political strategy, than by any ideology or hypocrisy on his part. Given the issue is now situated in the public’s mind on the state level, I don’t think it’ll be too pressing of any issue this year. I think it can be revisited this term, but I wouldn’t hold my breath right now.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:53 pmJimmy Carter also raised the paychecks of all military personal, and initated many of the defense programs that ronald reagan took credit for.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:58 pmbarack o’ iraq: the demlibs george bush
May 4th, 2009 at 7:18 pmHeterosexual couples who support same-sex marriages should demand the right to have civil unions and “boycott” marriage. If they’re going to make it a religious issue or something equally divisive, I say screw them. Demand civil unions and ALL the same rights as homosexuals. Then they will HAVE to repeal the Defense of Marriage act because it says that civil unions can’t have the same federal benefits as marriage.
If it’s all about the families, then let’s make that the priority and demand equal treatment but also demand not be forced to take part in what is so obviously a religious construction.
The scots had the right idea with their clan structure. Then the English took it away in order to control them. Let’s bring it back.
May 4th, 2009 at 7:26 pmShouldn’t this be filed under “Incompetent Establishment?”
May 4th, 2009 at 7:50 pmI hope this is an attempt to “test” what people think about these changes and not the Obama Administration sidestepping away from what was promised during the campaign.
May 4th, 2009 at 7:56 pmThis is not surprising. Obama said whatever it took to get elected. Now he will two-face every issue to get re-elected. Change? Same song, different singer.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:30 pmrf7777,
I couldn’t agree more. There’s apparently no shortage of rose-colored glasses on this blog! Hahahahahahaha
May 4th, 2009 at 9:21 pmThis is not surprising. Obama said whatever it took to get elected. Now he will two-face every issue to get re-elected. Change? Same song, different singer.
rf7777,
I couldn’t agree more. There’s apparently no shortage of rose-colored glasses on this blog! Hahahahahahaha
Not just on this blog. He DID get elected. That was an awful lot of people believing that he was going to be honest despite all the evidence pointing to the fact that he is, in fact, a politician.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:25 pmYet more political side stepping from Obambi bin Lyin’, LOL
RT
May 4th, 2009 at 9:51 pmOnline Privacy when it COunts
Isn’t “He supports… federal rights for LGBT couples,” the same effect as repealing DOMA? Maybe just a less obvious way of saying it?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:15 pm@Kate – its similar but a much less strong way of saying it.
Sadly LGBT people have a long history with the Democratic party of being promised things that they cannot summon the capital/courage to deliver on.
But at only 3% of the vote, and with the total non-option of voting Republican now (Log Cabin and Megan McCain notwithstanding) at a high water mark of unpalatable, its a voting bloc that can be set aside far to easily.
This will be a state-by-state battle for at least the next 8-10 years, at which point there will be about a dozen marriage equality states, the current youth demographic will be core voters, and Obama will be a former president wishing he had taken a courageous moral stand.
His loss. The arc of the universe is longer than his sights appear to be on this issue. But it will continue to bend towards justice.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:19 amWell Timmeh there certainly is no shortage of STUPID on this site once YOU show up. You bring a TSUNAMI of stupid. Yeah we all know you dont like Obama. Loved George W Gump the stupidest most pathetic president in history. I guess what you liked about him is how much he was like YOU. Now Obama comes along. Smart, competent, well liked. Kind of like the ANTI-Timmeh. You are ignorant, jealous, and a punkass troll. Isnt it time for Rush to tell you what you think today?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:28 amI THANK
May 5th, 2009 at 7:02 amSesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat
sesli ve görüntülü chat
sesli ve görüntülü sohbet
Chat
sohbet MaviSakaL
ConservativeForProgress Says:
I dont expect morons like YOU to make sense that is certain what I do expect, and you never disappoint is for you to come in here and spew what Rush told you to think. What a pathetic brainwashed moron you are.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:28 amHe supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples…
It’s certainly worded for wiggle room. Do I read this as “supports full civil unions and full federal rights,” or is it meant to imply, “supports full civil unions and some federal rights?”
And “supports full civil unions” makes it sound like he’s stopping short of recognizing same-sex marriage now.
None of this makes much sense, it’s all too confusing. I don’t have a clue what he’s really “for” anymore, what this means as a practicality?
May 5th, 2009 at 11:18 am