For years, we have followed the painful display of Barack Obama trying to deal with same-sex marriage by finding the best political position for himself. Principle has never been part of the equation, of course. The decision whether to stop discrimination against homosexuals is clearly based on what would be the most useful to the President. The result has been rather ugly with Jay Carney prompting laughs with the recent position that the President has been clear that his position is unclear. Now the President has adopted another position tailored for the election.
The President has decided not to reach any conclusion on the right to marry but instead will leave it to the states. Here is Carney with the latest Obama position: “His belief, our belief [is] that this is a matter that states should decide.” There are a couple of problems with the statement. First, people have asked the President whether he personally supports same-sex marriage. The issue of whether state or federal governments have the principal voice is secondary to that question. Second, that threshold issue could have great importance to the secondary issue: if he believe that the ban is a form of discrimination, it may not be simply a state issue. Would Obama leave race or gender discrimination to the states?
As someone who strongly supports states rights, I generally like leaving things to the state but Obama’s position remains a rather transparent effort to avoid answering a question of principle.
There are profiles of courage in politics and this is not one of them.
Source: ABC
Cop-out.
Gyges –
The problem with “marriage” is all the biblical and cultural baggage it carries along. The idea with civil unions is that they should take over the “contractual” part, since the state and the body of law deal with contracts. Leave the “morality” part to churches, synagogues, temples, etc.
Hmmmm. Leaving a human rights issue to the individual states sounds familiar. How well did it work the last time?
Jay,
That’s what we have already. Marriages are a contract, you submit your license to the state you live in, not the person who performed the ceremony.
After a lot of internal debate, I’ve become persuaded that the only rational position (and the one with the least social heartburn) is that governments should get out of the marriage business entirely, and only do Civil Unions – for everyone. I’ve read that this idea has caught on a lot in Europe. Then if you want to be “married,” just visit the church, synagogue, temple, mosque or whatever of your choice. Rewrite all the tax and other considerations that include marriage, and refer them instead to civil unions. Case closed, move on….
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/poll-perry-trails-obama-in-texas.php?ref=fpa Perry loses to Obama in Texas but Bachmann and Romney both win Texas.
Elaine,
That was a great clip from Maher. If it is on TV, it must be ok! Maybe Obama should learn to watch the Bill Maher show.
President Obama is once again revealing himself to be the moderate Republican he has been all along. He sorta kinda promised more, but not much…
That sure opens the door here in Ohio for our Repubs. They are pushing through a bill that will ban abortions, allow concealed firearms everywhere, and tried to destroy worker’s rights. They will probably try to ban marriage except between republicans. Good news though. The worker’s rights thing, SB5, is going to referendum. The petition gathered 5 times as many signatures as required. If only we had a recall law.
mespo has it right. Pres. Obama has proven to be a man of half-measures. Were he in negotiations with Republicans over money for a Mars landing, I am convinced he would compromise for just enough to get us half-way there. And the next time a qualified black candidate comes down the pike, the Obama presidency will be used as an excuse for bigotry by every half-wit racist in the country. Gee, is my disappointment showing?
The Daily Show did a story on this- did you know that when Barack Obama was born two states still had laws making his mother’s marriage to a black man a crime?
States rights indeed Mr. President.
You don’t say….
Our President can make decisions to send a SEAL team into Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden and to have the US bomb Libya–but he is afraid to state his position on gay marriage? Not exactly a fearless leader, is he?
He’s not a coward, he’s a typical Chicago Pol.
This man has never showed himself to be a person of character or principle. It does not surprise me that he would avoid taking a stand on this issue, like he has avoided other “hot button” issues. (ie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOTfnz11kBk)
He has been and always will be a politician, and all a politician cares about is getting elected.
I like how he waited until after the 1250 dollar a plate fundraiser given by the gay community to make that announcement …..what a coward this president is……
Which part is this, hope or change?
A classic case of a politican who knows what is both right and legal but is bound up by his and his constituents’ religiousity. Of all the world’s commodities none is more precious or scarce than political courage. Sadly, we’re short here once again.
Cowards!