He Had to Wait Until Wednesday?

Well, that news didn’t take long. There was buzz this morning that Obama was taping a Very Special ABC interview at 3pm ET, and ABC’s first tweet was posted at 2:59.

@nojo: I wonder if they could have made this into an After School Special.

It’s about fucking time.

So, how’s the Prop 8 supporter taking it?

At an event at an oil-and-gas production company here Wednesday morning, Mitt Romney refused to answer questions on same-sex marriage, a topic about which President Obama is expected to speak this afternoon, in an interview with Robin Roberts of ABC.

“Not on the rope line,” Mr. Romney said, when pressed by reporters after an energy event to comment on the president and gay marriage.

“Not on the rope line” might be my new coffee cup.

@rptrcub: Apparently they did — I’m at the coffeehouse, but ABC went live with the story at 2:58 pm.

@nojo: I think the Stinqueria needs to gear up to sell “Not On The Rope Line” goods.

@Dodgerblue: You’re right, but I don’t have time. Maybe I should figure out how to make time…

Best part: the Log Cabin crowd’s reaction. They decided that they were TERRIBLY OFFENDED by the timing of this (no word on them being offended by the NC hate amendment), and then probably went off to lynch themselves to show party solidarity.

Not on the rope line? I’m hoping this isn’t an extremely obtuse question, but what does that even mean? And lest you think I didn’t take to .58 seconds to google it first, I did and it was no help and I can’t be bothered to spend another 14 seconds of research time checking Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary!

@flippin eck: Those wishing to see/speak to/shake hands with candidate stand behind a rope set up by authorities; candidate walks the “rope line” to greet them while reporters shout out questions.

@ nojo,

I just e-mailed a photo taken minutes before the interview.

@¡Andrew!: Just got it, but I’m thinking I should save it for when Unicorn does something right without simultaneously undermining it.

@flippin eck: I don’t know that I’ve ever heard the term as such, but Cynica has the correct context.

Re Fox Nation: So it’s okay again to use “war” as a political metaphor? That was fast.

@ nojo,

Well it is historic news… but yeah, didn’t he just rubber stamp his approval on North Carolina’s Super DOMA that’s made even joint checking punishable by death?

Oh, Unicorn. It’s always one step forward and then two steps back.

I should add that I’m impressed he’s addressed this before the election, instead of having a miraculous change of heart in January, 2013.

@¡Andrew!: That’s how Fox should play it:

OBAMA STANDS UP FOR STATES’ RIGHTS

So what if his parents couldn’t get married in a third of the country?

But hey, maybe he’ll sneak it in the back door. He’s not defending DOMA, and then all you have to do is require states to recognize marriages from other states.

@ nojo,

True, but it’s still a big fucking deal.

RELEASE THE BIDEN!

Also, it goes without saying that I wouldn’t brake if I saw North Crackolina crossing the street–I’d stomp on the gas.

@ nojo,

Going through the back door is what’s gotten some of us into this jam.

And where’s Benedick??

And now that Mitt’s off the rope line…

“Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” Romney said during a visit to Fort Lupton. “My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.”

Here’s a thought: Let’s just take the guvmint out of marriage entirely. Then we’re all simply individual citizens under the law. Problem solved!

Hey, what’s the opposite of marriage?

Divorce.

#CallbacksFrom2008

@¡Andrew!: It’s the excruciatingly fine political calibrations of Obama’s positions that wears thin. Even when he takes out Bin Laden, you know there are drones killing kids the next day.

@flippin eck: I think it’s also because he needed his people to feed him a public response. “Not on the rope line” means “I need to press the flesh like Tip O’Neill sed, and I can’t afford another gaffe when I feel one coming.” Kinda like dinosaur farts.

I’m all the way with Nojo on this one. “States rights” is all kinda code for racially discriminatory crap, and he basically uses it himself? Such bullshit!

Obama is a different kind of biracial dude, even if he identifies as black.

There is a huge difference between people of African ancestry that came here as slaves and those whose ancestors came as students, or came from the islands. Don’t get me wrong–people will surely be more than happy to treat you like shit no matter where you come from, but slave mentality does exist.

The definition of “slave mentality” has changed, but when you’re raised hearing over 100 years of family stories of crap that has happened simply because we’re black, I think you have a different way of seeing the United States. It is not a country of opportunity, unless your opportunity is to have your family’s collective ass kicked for generations.

Last week, I spent about five hours researching why the segregated cemetery in MD where many of my dad’s folks are buried and where many still are waiting to be buried was chained off to the public. Thank Google and NASA for those fucking satellite pics, because that was the only way I could calm down 94-yr-old hysterical cousin that there was no evidence of people being dug up.

Then I wrote all these folks (thank MD for having a dept for cemetery complaints and investigations), because we couldn’t get in touch with the caretakers. And thank MD for deciding this black cemetery is a historic landmark, so I wrote those folks, too. That lit a fire under the cemetery’s ass, and my cousin now knows she will be buried next to her husband.

Today, my cousins and I went to two segregated cemeteries. In NJ. (They stuck some Jews in there, too. Good company, I say.) Anyway, I cleaned off some of the headstones at one after trampling the weeds (perpetual care, anyone?), and at the other, we realized that they didn’t put sod on or even clear stones off of my uncle and aunt’s grave. They reopened it last May when my uncle died. So, the new headstone is gorgeous. The grave looks like it’s ready for a monster truck rally.

Those other headstones I cleaned? My great grandmother (I’m named after her), my grandfather (almost lynched in NY; died of consumption–the polio didn’t help) who is buried next to his father, two aunts and one uncle.

Anyway, I guess when you’re walking through dirt because the roads aren’t paved, and half of the headstones are crooked (not tilted–crooked), and one cemetery is behind the gorgeous white cemetery and the other is next to the gorgeous white cemetery, that kind of stuff fucks you up.

My kid was supposed to go with us. I’m kind of glad he didn’t. Maybe he doesn’t need to know the stories. They damage us in some indescribable way.

Now. Africa, Haiti, etc. — living there can be a fucking tough gig, too. I’m not playing the My Oppression Is Worse than Your Oppression Game. But choosing to come here, no matter your skin color, is a lot different from living here like some coal miner getting screwed by the company store. Fatalism, self-esteem issues, living like you’re dead and being inexplicably pissed off–yeah, I got it, and I see that shit EVERY FUCKING DAY.

And THAT, My Friends, is why I’m passing for white.

@I’m passing for white: Bravo. Excellent.

Here’s how I would have done it:

(Draft speech)

There are two kinds of marriage – the union of two people recognized by a state and the union of man and wife as recognized by a church.

I favor state recognition of marriage between two people, with all rights attendant to such a union. I would not purport to tell a church what to recognize as a marriage. That is for the church itself to decide. What I favor is based upon the principle of equal protection of the laws of a state. If a state permits marriage, it should permit marriage between any two people – man and woman, people of different races, people of the same gender. We are all equal before the law. Whether we are all equal before the eyes of God is for each denomination to determine for itself.

Under this approach, churches will not be forced to perform marriages between people of the same gender. Churches will continue to be exempt from provisions of employment law that essentially permit discrimination on religious grounds. But the law of the land shall be that married persons shall have all rights afforded to such status. It is unconscionable that a celebrity can enter into what is essentially a sham marriage for 72 hours while two people who have built a life together, who are committed to each other for life, are denied the basic protections of the state civil laws as regards marriage,

I believe the majority of the American people believe in equality, and that they believe in justice. My approach call for no major changes in federal law, nor does it compel a church to act in contradiction to its core beliefs. Society changes. Laws change, but love is eternal.

@redmanlaw: Very good. I would, however, tweak the first sentence to reflect that some churches do bless same-sex marriages.

@redmanlaw: Legal question: Under what other circumstances can a state arbitrarily prevent, dissolve, or refuse to recognize a marriage?

Examples:

1. Are Vegas marriages legally binding nationwide?

2. Are green-card marriages accepted without question?

3. If a state has age-restrictions on marriage, must it recognize marriages from other states with more lenient restrictions?

4. If cousins marry in NC, is that marriage binding where consanguinity is more stringent?

5. Are foreign marriages legally binding for immigrants? If Wills and Kate abdicated, could they move here without trouble?

And so on. In other words: How free is the freedom to marry for opposite marriage?