Home Featured Barack Obama Becomes First Sitting President to Back Gay Marriage

Barack Obama Becomes First Sitting President to Back Gay Marriage


In a historic moment that will be aired tomorrow morning on ABC’s Good Morning America, President Barack Obama has come out in support of gay marriage. In doing so, he becomes the first sitting US President to back same-sex marriages, shifting markedly from the contrary or purposely silent stances his presidential predecessors have taken.

As states like Florida, Ohio, Virgina and most recently, North Carolina pass laws banning same-sex marriage, this evolution of President Obama’s public stance on the issue represents to many, a sure paradigm shift, one that could have a lasting impact on public opinion and perception around the issue.

Speaking with Robin Roberts, the President said the following:


I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married …

I for one fully support the President’s stance and think it’s about damn time.

See Also:  Blacklisted: Why Are There No African Americans In The US Senate?

But what say you good folks of SBM? Do you all support same-sex marriage? What do you think of Obama coming out in support of it? Do you think it will have an impact on public opinion and potentially serve to slow down some of these states attempting to pass legislation banning gay marriage? Let’s open the floodgates and share our opinions in the comments section.

Email: [email protected]|Twitter: @MrSpradley



  1. I'm thoroughly lazy and completely copying and pasting what I wrote on facebook, but my thoughts:

    "I'm glad that President Obama has openly stated the position on gay marriage that he's clearly always had, but the fact that the federal government is allowing human rights to be a matter that is evaluated on a state by state basis is unconscionable to me. That said, him publicly stating his position is a huge step forward, and I think he'll get more of a groundswell for it to offshoot the backlash that will undoubtedly be levied (or at least attempted) on his campaign."
    My recent post inomallday: Nothing conservative about opposing gay marriage. True conservatism is limited govt involvement in ppl's lives-including sexual preferences.

  2. As president, in an election year no less, that's brave of him. I guess, that's all I have to say about that.

  3. I share President Obama's stance and I have for a long time. I'ma try not to think about any negative repercussions of him standing firm and keeping it 100 in an election year. Hopefully, he will make some people think about this who haven't really though too deeply about it. I hope there will be more positive consequences than negative. Everyone doesn't have to approve of same sex marriages, but I think that they should be like that NC minister that's been in the press and recognize that government legislation should not remove or suppress human rights.

  4. Yes, I do support same-sex marriage. I don't care what two consenting adults decide to do with themselves. When it comes to divorce it may be a little tricky though… You can't give both women everything and you can't screw over both men, lol.

    I think Obama is trying to garner the vote of the LGBT community (The ones who are not involved in the political scene). He already made his tour of several different colleges (pulling the generally lazy and apathetic students who may not come out and vote in 2012). As a senator, he initially supported it (This is definitely his actual stance), then moved to being on the fence about it, to not supporting it, to an "evolving" position before the statement you posted (I don't blame him for that. He's just doing what politicians do).


    1. This may cause an issue with him when it comes to independent voters though. Wedge issues are usually what decide the outcome of elections as opposed to more important matters like the economy. There may be independent voters that are against same-sex marriage that were leaning towards President Obama at first, but may not because of his position on it. I wonder how that will play out for him in battleground states.

      I think his statement will have some effects on certain places in the country, but for those that champion states' rights (which I agree with until it includes discrimination like this), I think they may just double down on their position.

  5. It's brave of him yet somewhat foolish. Folks will call him on hypocrisy and they will be justified in doing so.
    I have much respect for the POTUS, however, with him being a "Christian" this goes against what his beliefs should be as a Christian. But hey Biden ran his mouth and backed it so he didn't have much of a choice. He would look even more foolish if he went against his VP.
    Personally I believe gay people should have all the same marital rights as straight people, for all intents and purposes. I don't agree with homosexuality, but if 2 same sex people choose to be together and want to legally marry, it's only fair that they have the exact same marital rights as heterosexual people.

    1. Christians are not here to judge, we are here to love. That's our only job. The hypocrisy is in us flawed people judging (which is also a sin) while condemning someone else for their sin.

      If only perfect people could go to heaven, who will Idris and I have over for parties?

      iKeed, iJoke

  6. It was smart. He's energizing his liberal, youth and gay supporters. He wouldn't have done it if he thought it would seriously affect his reelection, which is also comforting in and of itself because it means that American attitudes are legitimately shifting about gay rights.

  7. if that's how he feels…so be it.

    personally i believe marriage is defined as between 1 man and 1 woman. personally, i also don't believe the government (local/state/federal) should be defining what marriage is (whether i agree or not)… and that the government should recognize all domestic partnerships, as 'civil unions' (and marriage would be one type of civil union) and the government (local/state/federal) should grant all benefits and privileges under that …but *shrugs*

  8. Even tho his hand was forced by Biden, I'm glad he stepped up to the plate and admitted something we already knew.

  9. That was a ballsy move; but nonetheless shows that he has some spine. It's 2012: The republicans really need to get with the program and stop hatin' because AINT NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT! *Sweet Brown voice*

  10. I think this is a move that will backfire if he's doing it for votes. Forget what you heard in a poll, 30 states have bans against same-sex marriage. Older people, who are the ones far more likely to actually go out and vote, aren't too keen on gay marriage.

    If that's how he actually feels on the subject, cool, but if he's pandering for votes, I think that was a bad move.

    1. Same thing I was thinking. although most conservatives don’t like Mitt, they’ll still back him as opposed to not voting. I think things will play out like 2010 when the GOP got all of those seats in the house and senate.

  11. All I'll say is that I agree with folks God-given free will. I do what I believe is right/best for me and give others the respect/grace to do the same. I don't expect folks to like or agree with everything I do and I don't demonize them because they don't agree with what I've chosen for myself…but I do expect their respect and for them not to stand in my way. I extend that as well…

  12. Quite frankly I'm cringing. Maybe drop this announcement last year or after election but not during. The vote was there anyway. What energy do you need really to combat slick mitt. Per the issue itself, I'm growing tired of it. I have publicly stated civil unions and observance of pension, benefits, and any other entities should be accepted. What is wrong with that? The point in striving for the marriage title is what exactly? The striving to go and over turn what has been clearly define as marriage (1 man 1 woman) is straight up saying, " Damn all that we want everyone to do it". Call me a bible thumper , I care not. We know what marriage is , but because our friends can't do it we say its immoral. Kidding me joe. It is better to be a states issue anyway. But Biden runs off at chops and the 2nd bid could be jeopardy. In any case this too shall pass and good luck to POTUS.

    1. I used to think like you, that if same-sex couples can already have something similar to a marriage, that should be enough, without having to call it marriage right? I mean, what's the big deal about a word anyway?

      Until one of my friends explained to me that it's not about marriage, it's about being treated different. All anyone wants is to be considered equal to everyone else, despite race, gender, or sexual preference. Right now gays and lesbians are still being told "it's ok for you to play house, but don't think you're on the same level as us heterosexuals, no sir, you need different titles and different systems, otherwise it would just be ungodly". At the same time, people exclaim how they're "ok with what someone does in their home, but it shouldn't be called a marriage". Why? Because it demeans the institution? Because you don't think they're worthy of it, because YOUR bible says so? It would be different if they were asking to be wed in a church, then I'd understand the religious point of view. But that's not the case.

      It's about being treated as equals. I'm glad Obama recognises that.

      1. Vee: "All anyone wants is to be considered equal to everyone else, despite race, gender, or sexual preference…It would be different if they were asking to be wed in a church, then I'd understand the religious point of view."

        That's exactly why the government shouldn't have the power to marry someone anyway. All the government can do is say what is legal, not what is moral, so the only power they should have is to provide civil unions for legal purposes.

        Back in the day, marriage wasn't through the state, but done at a church before witnesses and recorded in a family bible. The gubmint had nothing to do with it. The main reason for marriage laws was to prevent miscegenation. Racist folks didn't want whites marrying anyone that was 1/8th black or greater, so they made marriage a legal issue.

        1. if that is your solution for putting the genie back in the bottle, so be it. But you can't get mad when the gays start their own church. Those marriages would be just as valid as yours.

          And we would have to take away every liberty that came with marriage. Tax breaks, name changes Marriage is a practical harmony between church and state…. no need to end it just because it lets another church do something your church doesn't like .

          The anti gay marriage argument is falling apart. Rainbow Power.
          My recent post Disney keeps getting Richer! Avengers breaking records!

        2. CHeeKZ: "But you can't get mad when the gays start their own church."

          I don't. Several churches do it now. People and churches can do what they want, I personally could care less. But I'm not God so they shouldn't be worried about what I think.

          "And we would have to take away every liberty that came with marriage."

          Yes. Those heterosexual marriages would be converted to civil unions if they want to keep their legal benefits.

          "Marriage is a practical harmony between church and state"

          Wait, I thought there was a separation between church and state. So now there's a harmony?

          We don't disagree in theory. If you have a gay partner and decided to give your life to this person, you should have all the legal benefits heterosexual couples do. But the government has no right to marry you because it's a religion institution. Everyone, gay or straight, gets a civil union for legal benefits.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get SBM Delivered

Get SBM Delivered

Single Black Male provides dating and relationship
advice for today's single looking for love

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This