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.
 |
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
