Some of us have raised objections for the last two years on President Obama’s conflicting positions on gay rights. Now, White House Spokesman Jay Carney was able to nail down concretely the President’s position on gay marriage: he is still “grappling” with it.
The President’s position on gay rights have been so conflicted as to be incomprehensible. For two years, his Administration opposed challenges to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy by adopting extreme arguments that denied arguments of constitutional protections based on sexual orientation and insisting that the military had the right to discharge people solely because they are known to be gay or lesbian. Notably, the Administration has always opposed claims that sexual orientation should be afforded the same type of protection as gender.
This week, Obama switched his position on DOMA and decided that, after two years of defending the law, his Administration would no longer argue for its constitutionality. Critics noted that this decision seemed driven more by politics than principle since the Administration waited until after the mid-term elections to take the position on the constitutional issue.
Holder’s explanation for switching sides was forced and unconvincing. He notably, however, did not endorse arguments for added constitutional protections akin to gender. Instead, he focused entirely on the lowest rational basis test.
In his statement, Carney would only say that Obama viewed the Defense of Marriage Act as “unnecessary and unfair.” However, the White House refused to say that this was a recognition of the right to same-sex marriage. It is just “unnecessary and unfair.” That puts same-sex marriage in the same category of other “unnecessary” acts like some redundant farm subsidy or denial of ERISA benefits.
The message may seem confusing and jumbled but it is not. The Administration does not accept that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marriage. It is only if you reject the constitutional claim that you are left like Hamlet on the Potomac — “grappling” with whether to recognize same-sex marriage as a matter of fairness . . . or politics.
Source: Yahoo
Jonathan Turley
Gyges,
I’ll still be pretty scarce for the next week or so, but thanks.
Slart,
I know you’ve been back for a little bit, but welcome back.
Mike Spindell,
Your thoughts are always insightful and clearly stated but me thinks you must have drunk your OVALTINE this morning as you are producing a slew of melodic chords!
When you allow bigotry to seem “reasonable” then you empower it and nurture it. (Mike Spindell)
Exactly! Thank you for stating that truth so clearly.
Fear of confronting bigotry is simple cowardliness donning the disguise of reasonableness or good manners.
To quote the Anglican Archbishop of Perth, Roger Herft, “without strong leadership and determined resistance, the virus of bigotry will spread and many of us will find ourselves mouthing the vicious slogans normally reserved for extremists”.
http://www.thechangeagency.org/_dbase_upl/Anti-Racism%20Training.pdf
I highly recommend the link I just posted.
Mike S.,
I have a right to ask people not to abuse me on this site. This has and continues to be done. If people will not engage in a real discussion with me, then I have every right to point this out. I did not see S.M. say to JT, “I thought of you (JT) when I saw a nobama sign sign in a car window even though his post is just as critical of Obama as anything I wrote. That statement adds nothing to the conversation and implies somehow that is is wrong not to support Obama. Then there was a another nasty post about me which you must have missed. I don’t deserve either the covert or over nasty posts. I don’t have any problem with S.M.’s second post about how I won’t give Obama a break. That is a straight up opinion which I can respond to straight up. It isn’t playing a victim to point out when one is being treated unfairly. That is my right as a human being.
I was correct about Obama, but this doesn’t make me feel happy. I hoped to be very wrong. We needed the president people believed they were voting for, we needed him desperately and I wish Obama would have been that man. As he was not, there is nothing wrong with criticizing what I consider to be both immoral and dangerously illegal actions on his part. I did this with Bush, I will do it with Obama. It’s not a game for me, it’s for real. Our nation is in serious trouble. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t even bother coming to this blog and posting any comments.
C.Yee,
Wow, that’s a pretty condescending way to phrase that.
I’m just going to ask you two questions: is a more equitable society a better society?
If your answer is yes, how can you justify not thinking allow same sex marriage is better for society?
A couple of things I would like to note:
1. President Obama has done more for gay rights than all of his predecessors combined (my opinion, but I can’t think of any other president that has a gay rights legacy like President Obama will have – okay, President Clinton, but not in a good way).
2. You (this is not directed at anyone specifically – I didn’t read the comments before posting this… ) might see it as indecision or pandering, but I welcome sings of deliberation and a demonstrated ability for one’s opinion to change and evolve over time – it wasn’t so long ago that those qualities were sorely lacking in our president…
3. I don’t think it’s a bad thing for the president to take a moderate position on a very divisive issue on which many Americans have strong feelings about, do you? President Obama is a consensus-building moderate – do you really expect him to be anything else?
4. ‘Politician considers politics before acting’ isn’t news – it’s ‘dog bites man’.
I guess my point to other liberals is this – we worked so hard to get a Democratic President so why didn’t we (or don’t we still) use him to get every bit of progressive good available instead of tearing down our own political capital? It’s okay to point out someone’s warts, but to do it in such a hyperbolic way that there is no possible way to compromise is exactly what the Republicans have been doing since President Obama was elected and I don’t think that the strategy is any less toxic and unAmerican when used by the left than it is when used by the right.
“I wonder why you will never take on my arguments and tell me where I am wrong? Instead, your response is some kind of personal attack.”
Jill,
Perhaps it’s because when disagreed with you always play victim. SM didn’t attack you. She made a comment about you which we all know is true. You have always disliked Obama and your distrust proved accurate. Where’s the beef. You’re a smart adult, don’t you think its’ time to stop playing poor me?
Yeah Swathmoremom,
Don’t be that way…… I am going fishing…..and don’t patronize anyone while I am gone….
S.M.,
I will be happy to give Obama a break when he does justice. Until then I will treat him the same way I treated Bush, no justice, no break!
Your statement seemed gratuitous and had nothing to do with the topic to me. I’m just noting what it seems like to me.
Swartzmore Mom,
Are you actually going to respond to her? You are going to get pulled into a debate where you are wrong…. But hey…..what do I know….
Jill, I have to leave but I don’t think I attacked you. You really can’t seem to give Obama a break even if he does do something right. On the other hand, I do hear your arguments and I agree with many of them so why debate them.
SWM,
So true and if there was not money in OIL they’d still figure out a way to scam you…….. and the people were happy and lived ever after…….
SWM,
Since you have been called out by someone of here…. Tell her where she is wrong or ignore her. Then again, you can only plug so many nails in a tire before its time to get another nail…..
S.M. and others,
I wonder why you will never take on my arguments and tell me where I am wrong? Instead, your response is some kind of personal attack. I believe this is because you cannot respond to my arguments with actual reasoned debate. It may even be because you do not have the facts on your side. So, keep them up if you like, but people who understand what a real argument or reasoned debate looks like will understand that you are not engaging in that. This is a shame because these are issues of extreme importance that every citizen should be thinking and debating about–not necessarily agreeing about, but giving serious consideration to.
Many don’t like him, AY, but the majority do. Just mention the fact that we should not have invaded Iraq to them and watch their faces. Buddha, Obama is a waffler.
SWM,
Speaks not for every Texan…… I read a bumper sticker that is so true. American by Birth, but I got to Texas as quick as I could…… That says it all…..
Homophobic Messenger says,
Jill is back. She is a quack. She makes me sick and causes me a heart attack. Oh why can’t we have our beloved Bryon back. She is a hack who better watch her words when she attacks.
I see you have another fool by the name of Brian. He is no brain, his you know were splattered by a train. Just to read the dribble that he posts is a waste of time. I think I’ll call Hazmat and have them make a visit to his place. He is such a fool, it would be funny to just sit and watch him drool.
There are just so many people here that I take offense at. Right now I have to get back to my patients. Take care.
If I had known there was going to be waffles for lunch, I’d have skipped breakfast this morning.
Jill I thought of you the other day when I saw a “Nobama” bumper sticker.
The issue he grapples with is this: that gay and lesbian people should have full equality in the United States. Many people grapple with this issue, just as they do with the idea of full equality for black women and men and women of all colors. This is another prejudice like all others–prejudices we are taught to believe and are often difficult to throw off. So if he is truly grappling with this on a personal level, good for him.
The problem is that as president he should uphold our laws. On this account Obama has been a dismal failure. He in no way consistently upholds the laws of our nation. In fact, what he most consistently acts on is the destruction of the rule of law. He upholds those laws which benefit him and his paymasters, while ignoring those whose failure to enforce, also benefit him and his paymasters.
It is bizarre to think of a president who while finally deciding to end one injustice allows egregious injustice to continue in his name. Bradley Manning is without justice. The people we tortured and killed in our wars of empire are without justice. The people of the world brought to penury by financial malfeasance do not have justice. We lack a govt. that is committed to the rule of law. Bestowing favors on some groups while utterly ruing others is not a sign of good character or a good president. It is a sign of a corrupt man and an equally corrupt government.