Obama’s State Of The Union To Mention Same-Sex Marriage?
Will President Obama’s third State of the Union address mention gay rights, including the right of same-sex couples to marry? Few think so, given the downright hostile environment fomented by the anti-gay GOP, Obama’s recent win on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, and his earlier-kept promise of signing into law the Hate Crimes bill. Others think he has a moral obligation to do so. Regardless, the focus by some on the marriage issue has reached a new high.
In “High hopes for State of the Union speech,” Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade last week wrote, “Whether the president will even address LGBT issues during his speech remains in question.”
“During a news conference [last] Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he didn’t know whether the president would address marriage or repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act during his speech.”
But things have gotten more heated. Johnson today writes, “White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs nearly shut down a news conference on Monday following inquiries about President Obama’s position on same-sex marriage.”
“Gibbs was responding to questions from the Washington Blade on whether Obama had “backtracked†from a statement of support for same-sex marriage in a 1996 questionnaire during his campaign for an Illinois state Senate seat.
“I think there’s a whole host of issues that I would direct you to the campaign on — on different questionnaires and I would again reiterate what the president has said recently on that issue,†Gibbs said.
“The marriage questions prompted Gibbs to attempt to end the news conference.”
What we do know is through judicious leaks, the “Organizing for America” video preview, and the media-machine plying the White House has done in recent days that the State of the Union address tomorrow night (9 PM ET) will include a focus on job-creation, education and infrastructure investment.
Politico’s Glenn Thrush writes, “Obama – recognizing that Democrats have surrendered their historic edge to the GOP on the economy – will be also be focusing much of the speech on his efforts to recover some of the six million jobs lost since the start of the recession.”
“My No. 1 focus,†he said, “is going to be making sure that we are competitive, and we are creating jobs not just now but well into the future,†he said, emphasizing his goal of improving the economy for the “entire American family.â€
The question is, will the “entire American family” Obama mentions include families of same-sex couples, to whom Obama sent a gentle nod in his speech at the Tucson Memorial earlier this month when he mentioned “life partners?” Not many caught it, but it was good to hear.
The moment Obama signed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal bill into law he began talking about repealing DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which makes it illegal for the federal government to legally-recognize same-sex marriages or partnerships, like civil unions, and thus, excludes literally millions of same-sex couples and families from accessing the 1138+ benefits that are available to married heterosexual couples by virtue of their birth.
Even before that, President Obama said he was “wrestling” with the concept of gay marriage.
The President also mentioned he would like to find ways to broaden the scope of benefits for same-sex couples, acknowledging that control of the House was moving to the GOP.
Will Obama mention repealing DOMA at the State of the Union? Most think not, but many, like columnist and “It Gets Better” creator Dan Savage think he must.
In a New York Times op-ed titled, “A Gay Agenda for Everyone,” Savage writes, “I’m not an idiot: Now that the Republicans hold the House, only wishful thinkers and the deeply delusional expect to see any movement on the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender legislative agenda this year or next. Nevertheless, President Obama should address gay rights in his State of the Union speech this week, and he should tackle the biggest, most meaningful right of them all: the right to marry.”
“Gay Americans are eventually going to win on marriage just like we won on military service, the president should tell Congress, so why not save everyone on both sides of the debate a lot of time, trouble and money by approving the entire gay rights agenda? Send the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Student Non-Discrimination Act, the Uniting American Families Act and the repeal of the odious Defense of Marriage Act to his desk for his signature.”
Could the spotlight-seating — next to the First Lady — of Daniel Hernandez, the gay intern who helped save Gabby Giffords’ life when she was shot just three weeks ago, be tipping Obama’s hand? Or it it merely an appropriate gesture. Or neither?
Obama likes to think of himself as someone who works behind the scenes to create an environment that makes things possible. He and top-administration sources, like Secretary of Defense Gates, said as much when the Senate passed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal bill.
Perhaps Hernandez is just one more way Obama is trying to show America that gay and lesbian Americans are people, too.
UPDATE: Read Chris Geidner’s piece at MetroWeekly, “HRC’s Sainz Lowers Expectations for LGBT Americans at SOTU.”
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after claiming that a sharp decline in port traffic—and a significant drop in goods entering the U.S.—is actually a positive development. When warned that the slowdown could cost truckers and dock workers their paychecks or even their jobs, Trump praised the downturn, arguing it means the country isn’t “losing money.”
“That means we lose less money, you know?” President Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “When I see that, that means we lose less money. Look, China was making over a trillion, $1.1 trillion, in my opinion. You know, different numbers from $500 billion to a trillion or a trillion, I think it was 1.1 trillion. And frankly, if we didn’t do business, we would have been better off.”
“Okay, you understand that?” Trump continued. “So when you say it’s slowed down, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.”
The President’s remarks were quickly criticized.
READ MORE: ‘Downright Incompetent’: FBI Chief Blasted for ‘No Timeline and No Clue’
U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) commented, “It’s not a good thing. Dock workers & truck drivers don’t think it’s a good thing. Businesses don’t think it’s a good thing.”
U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) wrote, “I represent the second largest container port in the U.S, I promise you it’s a bad thing.”
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins quoted Trump’s “good thing, not a bad thing” comment, then posted video of Seattle’s port commissioner saying, “We currently do not have any container ships at port right now.”
MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle, who spent 14 years at top financial services companies before starting her journalism career, wrote that she had just sent the President’s comments “to every wall st source I have that supported our President.”
“Every response I got was some sort of embarrassed emoji.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
Trump on port traffic: When you are saying it slowed down, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing pic.twitter.com/MXjo8l9159
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 8, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections
Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) delivered a one-two punch to FBI Director Kash Patel, who appeared at a budget hearing without bringing a budget.
“It was due last week, by law,” Senator Murray explained during Thursday’s hearing.
“I understand,” Director Patel replied.
“And your answer is I should just understand you’re not gonna follow the law?” Murray asked.
READ MORE: ‘Concept of a Plan’: Trump Hypes ‘Major Trade Deal’ With UK—Experts Say It’s Not
“My answer is that I am following the law, and I’m working with my interagency partners to do this and get you the budget that you are required to have,” Patel responded.
“And you have no timeline?” Murray asked.
“No,” Patel replied.
“Hmm,” said Murray. “Well, we also need a full budget request, not a single paragraph full of wild talking points that we saw with the skinny budget proposal. We’re now having a budget hearing, without a budget request. So, Director Patel, where is the FY2026 budget request for the FBI?”
“It’s, uh, being worked on, ma’am,” was Patel’s response.
“Have you reviewed it? Have you approved it?” Murray asked.
The back and forth continued, with Patel ultimately declaring, “I’m doing the best I can. I can’t make up answers, I’m gonna commit to you to work on getting you the information you need.”
READ MORE: ‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections
“Well, that, that is insufficient and deeply disturbing,” Murray responded.
But the six-term Democratic Senator did not stop there.
Taking to social media, Murray blasted Patel again.
“Kash Patel, the conspiracy theorist that Republicans made FBI Director, came to a Senate hearing on the budget—with NO budget, NO timeline, and NO clue,” Senator Murray wrote atop video of her exchange with the FBI Director. “It’s downright incompetent, and it’s making America less safe. We need serious leadership at the FBI.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
MURRAY: It was due last week. By law.
PATEL: I understand.
MURRAY: You’re not gonna follow the law? … And you have no timeline?
PATEL: No
MURRAY: Hmm. We’re not having a budget hearing without a budget request. So where is it? pic.twitter.com/wS0lxG09EG
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 8, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Most Corrupt Presidency’: State Dept. Acting as Musk’s Starlink ‘Sales Force’ Critics Say
Economic and political experts are panning President Donald Trump’s tariff “deal” with the UK, saying it doesn’t live up to his hype.
The President teased out the announcement Wednesday, at first not mentioning the alleged deal was with the UK.
“Big News Conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M., The Oval Office, concerning a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY. THE FIRST OF MANY!!!”
At 5:42 AM, building up the excitement, he dropped this post: “This should be a very big and exciting day for the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Press Conference at The Oval Office, 10A.M. Thank you!”
READ MORE: ‘Most Corrupt Presidency’: State Dept. Acting as Musk’s Starlink ‘Sales Force’ Critics Say
Except the United Kingdom did not appear to agree.
“Until as recently as this week, British officials remained skeptical that a deal would be signed off imminently, and some were taken by surprise by Trump’s announcement,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “Some trade observers expected more of an outline than a fully hashed-out deal.”
Critics were quick to dismiss the President’s deal as lacking in substance.
“Trump’s so called ‘trade deal’ with UK is just like his ‘great’ healthcare plan: It’s the CONCEPT of a plan,” declared SiriusXM host Dean Obeidallah. “LITERALLY. Per reporting if you read past the headlines There is no deal – just a framework to start talks. But Trump knows the sheep of corporate media will cover this as a deal. It’s not.”
The Journal also noted that “U.K. officials said the pact won’t be a comprehensive trade agreement and will instead focus on reducing tariffs in specific sectors. They said some details remain yet to be finalized, which could mean further talks in the future.”
READ MORE: ‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections
Bloomberg UK’s political editor Alex Wickham framed it this way: “UK providing a polite reality check to Trump’s posts about a ‘full and comprehensive’ deal UK-US deal will set out general terms of agreement: UK official Will set framework for further negotiations: UK official Focused on specific sectors, not traditional FTA: UK official.”
And doubling down, WSJ added that the “expected pact will be a far cry from the comprehensive trade deal Downing Street previously sought to negotiate with the U.S. after Britain quit the European Union a few years ago.”
Calling it “a photo op, with little macroeconomic significance,” Professor of Economics and Public Policy Justin Wolfers offered this explanation:
“Trump’s “big” trade deal is with the UK:
– It’s a framework not a deal
– They’re our 11th largest trading partner
– They’re only 3% of US trade (97% to go)
– They *already* charge average tariffs of only 1% (limited upside)”
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden commented, “About 2 percent of our imports come from Great Britain. So put me down as kind of skeptical that there is much there, there.”
Hedge fund founder and chief investment officer Spencer Hakimian observed: “So after 4 weeks of negotiating with our closest ally, whom we run a *trade surplus* with, all we were able to accomplish was a continuation of the 10% tariff rate with them? How are we going to possibly negotiate anything substantive with China, Europe, Mexico, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc.? The gimmick president doing gimmicky things. And meanwhile our economy will pay the price for his desire to see himself on TV.”
Brendan Duke, a self-described “Tax/budget nerd” for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) noted: “The Liberation Day reciprocal tariff on UK imports was 10% and it’s now going to be 10%. Art of the Deal folks.”
READ MORE: ‘Pushed Up to the Edge of the Cliff’: GOP Proposals Would Kick Millions Off Health Care
Image via Reuters
‘Embarrassed Emoji’: Trump Torched for Calling Major Drop in Port Traffic ‘Good’
‘Downright Incompetent’: FBI Chief Blasted for ‘No Timeline and No Clue’
‘Concept of a Plan’: Trump Hypes ‘Major Trade Deal’ With UK—Experts Say It’s Not
‘Embarrassed Emoji’: Trump Torched for Calling Major Drop in Port Traffic ‘Good’
‘Downright Incompetent’: FBI Chief Blasted for ‘No Timeline and No Clue’
‘Concept of a Plan’: Trump Hypes ‘Major Trade Deal’ With UK—Experts Say It’s Not
‘Most Corrupt Presidency’: State Dept. Acting as Musk’s Starlink ‘Sales Force’ Critics Say
Trump Hampers China Talks With One Word
News2 days ago‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections
News4 days ago‘Don’t Gaslight Families’: Backlash as GOP Defends ‘Shared Sacrifice’ of Christmas Shortages
News3 days agoMarjorie Taylor Greene’s Senate Run Just Became Much More Likely
News3 days ago‘Where Is Duffy?’: Aviation System in Crisis, Transportation Secretary Blames Biden
OPINION4 days ago‘Maoist’ ‘Soviet’ ‘Communist’: As Trumpism 2.0 Takes Shape, Experts Endeavor to Define It
News2 days ago‘Backward, Bigoted and Bad’: SCOTUS Slammed Over Trump’s Trans Troop Ban Ruling
News1 day ago‘Most Corrupt Presidency’: State Dept. Acting as Musk’s Starlink ‘Sales Force’ Critics Say
News2 days agoDuring Aviation Crisis Trump Is Shopping for Used Luxury Jet to Replace Air Force One