My thoughts? Why wouldn't we put UAFA first? Tens of thousands of binational couples are being forced to either live in exile or live in separate countries because of the cruel status quo.

For the record, what candidate Obama did say, re: federal recognition of same-sex relationships is:

"I have not said that I was a supporter of gay marriage, but I am a strong supporter of civil unions, and I would, as president, make absolutely certain that all federal laws pertaining to married couples—benefits pertaining to married couples are conferred to people who—same sex couples who have civil unions as well."

reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/page/5/

And THAT is why I voted for him, campaigned for him, and contributed as much money as I could possibly afford (and then some) to get him elected.

And now, it's time for him to live up to his own words. Period.

Yes, being president keeps one busy.

How can a president be expected to handle more than one crisis at a time? For example, the Civil Rights movement of the early 1960s had the audacity to come to the fore during an escalating Vietnam War, a dangerous and intractable Cold War, and a nuclear crisis that could well have ended civilization as we know it.

Good thing they all shut up and went home instead of campaigning for civil rights anyway. (*sarcasm* -- which I'm not very good at)

Really? We have options?

Last time I checked, of the 1400 or so legal rights and benefits associated with marriage, only about 300 of them resided at the state level. The remaining 1,138 are all federal rights.

Anyone who thinks state-only marriage is "marriage" is burying their head in the sand. It's less than 25% of "marriage." For folks like me, affected by unequal immigration laws, state-only marriage means nothing. Immigration is entirely a federal responsibility.