No wonder President Obama is so supportive of evolution, he finds it essential to explain both scientific and political developments. Faced with Vice President Joe Biden’s moment of honesty in a weekend interview that he is “comfortable” with same-sex marriage, White House Spokesman Jay Carney appeared to have a brain aneurysm in trying to respond to questions about the President’s position on one of the most fundamental civil rights issues of our generation. Since Biden had clearly “evolved” into supporting same-sex marriage, the reporters wanted to know the status of the President’s long evolution. It appears that Australopithecus evolved faster that President Obama on this civil rights question because Carney kept repeating he is still “evolving” over and over again.
Dana Milbank had a great line that Biden had “the classic Washington gaffe of accidentally speaking the truth.” Obama’s position is now so completely dishonest and conflicted that reporters appeared to openly mock Carney.
Reporters asked why the president would not “stop dancing around the issue” and correctly called the president’s treatment of issue as “cynical.” NBC’s Chuck Todd noted, “So help me out here. He opposes bans on gay marriage, but he doesn’t yet support gay marriage?”
Carney was left mumbling nonsense and repeating that “He, as you know, said that his views on this were evolving” and “It is as it was.”
This farce culminated with Carney insisting “His views are crystal clear.”
I have long been critical of the lack of principles of Obama on civil liberties as well as some civil rights questions like same-sex marriage. Throughout his presidency, Obama has refused to fight on principle in these areas when it would cost him politically. Same-sex marriage represents one of the most contemptible examples. this is like remaining uncommitted on inter-racial marriage before the ruling in Loving v. Virginia. Obama has gone through the state legislature, the United States Senate, and virtually all of his first term without “evolving” to support gay and lesbian citizens on this basic right.
Source: Washington Post
Back in 1999, my wife and I got married at the Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse, San Bernardino County, California. My elderly mother served as our witness. She walked with us into a room full of city workers at their desks, looked around casually, took a drag on her cigarette, and announced to everyone present: “They just need someone to say the words.”
A bright young lady looked up from her desk and happily exclaimed: “I can do that. You can be my first.” So we went outside onto a balcony, said some words, signed some papers, and went out to celebrate at a Mexican restaurant.
I see no reason why other citizens — of whatever type and number of sexual appendages — cannot do the same. Say some words. Sign some papers. And if they wind up getting a divorce later, they have that right, too, just like other married citizens who have said some words and signed papers. Certainly the lawyers won’t mind the additional career opportunities. As I grew up understanding the word, “equal” meant “the same for everybody.” Yet here again we have a fundamental concept that President Obama seems not to have grasped — like Habeas Corpus, etc.– in those constitutional law classes he obviously slept through.
“Evolution,” by the way, occurs in genetic populations over many generations, not within a single person in a single lifetime. From his remarks, it sounds like President Obama didn’t learn any more in biology classes than he did in those fabled constitutional law classes where other students learned of habeas corpus, etc.
Obama is hesitant to speak his mind on the gay marriage issue because he doesn’t believe in it. If he goes public, as Swarthmore Mom suggested, he will lose some of the black church voters. I agree that he needs to finish the evolution and get on board the bus.
I also agree that his hesitation to come out in favor has given Romney some points in the media, even though they are not reporting his principled stand against Gay marriage.
Matt, ROFL
bettykath,
Some religions/cultures allow the woman to put his “stuff” outside the door, divorce complete. I like the latter. Kind of like shackin’ up at my place until I get tired of you.
======================
Nuff said. Don’t expect $50.00 to be left on the nightstand.
Mike Sallese (@pesky9), Civil rights for minorities rarely (never?) come from a majority reaching consensus. The minority groups have to make it too uncomfortable for the legislators or the courts have to recognize the unconstitutionality of laws that prevent some from having equal protection under the law.
======================
Quark, Marriage IS a civil contract. That’s why the courts get involved when one or the other (or both) decide to break the contract by divorce. It’s just that all the clauses are written in various state laws, the IRS, etc, and the individuals don’t have much power to cross out or rewrite those that they don’t like. Prenup agreements can be used for some changes but not all.
The emotional problem does seem to be that the civil authorities and the churches use the same term to describe two different things. One is the civil contract that gives rights and obligations to the parties; the other is vows before a God (that get submitted to the state for the civil contract). Breaking the civil contract means getting a court to agree to the terms of breaking the contract and then giving the ok. Breaking the religious vows depends on the religion. Some religions/cultures require the man to agree to the divorce. If he doesn’t agree, no divorce. Some religions/cultures allow the woman to put his “stuff” outside the door, divorce complete. I like the latter. Kind of like shackin’ up at my place until I get tired of you.
======================
Matt, Having the right doesn’t mean you have to do it. : )
I’m a big supporter of the President, but on this issue, he deserves every bit of criticisim thrown his way. Rather than just speak his mind, he’s made a calculated political decision to “evolve” on this issue. What’s truly sad is watching people like Jonathan Capehart, the Human Rights Campaign, and many others, turn into contortionists and make excuse after excuse for this ridiculous position. I will remain a supporter of the President (as the alternative is frightening), but he wants it both ways on this issue. Mr. President, stop trying to hand people a bucket of a crap and convince them that it is a chocoloate cake.
Since when should anyone want to have a position on gay marriage? Do the gays want to have to go to divorce court too? Maybe they should leave it alone. We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it. Get used to the fact that nobody else wants to hear it.
For whatever reason, the term “marriage” seems to throw many on both sides of this argument into a tizzy. One side starts throwing Bibles (or at least verses from it) all about. The other side contends that even though civil contracts offer the same rights, such contracts are not seen as “equal” by society. I would suggest that we get the state out of religion. Let the state license “domestic contracts” for all and sundry. These domestic contracts recognize the consenting adults involved as a functioning family unit, and define each party’s rights and responsabilities. Now, if people want a religious rite/sacrament/ecclesiastical recognition, let them go to the church of their choice. That church may certainly choose which party’s it will allow or disallow. It might, or might not be willing to permit gay partners to be married in that church. It might, or might not, insist that the persons have a licensed domestic contract. That would be up to the Church in question.
I’ll start taking Jonathan seriously on his pro-homosexual marriage stance when he also comes out in favor of incestual marriage. Then at least he’ll be consistent.
His only principle, it seems, is that of gaining more power and getting re-elected (and elected in the first place, of course).
A cynical politician who will do and say whatever it takes. Granted there aren’t many politicians who aren’t, but he was supposed to represent great “hope” for something different, right?
May 8, 2012
Obama’s Gay Scandal
http://www.stewwebb.com/obama_gay_scandal.htm
I don’t think this is a lack of principle by the president and I am surprised Mr Turley does. Could I ask what you have done in your state to make gay marriage legal? Here in Massachusetts, although I did nothing, there is little else to do. My feeling is a state wide consensus should be reached. Imagine the resistance in some states or look at backlash from health care. Or consider 78% of the population wants a tax increase on the very rich and nothing can be done. Choose your battle.
Waffles are good for breakfast, but they aren’t good at every meal for a year and a half.
“Forty-one states have same-sex marriage bans on the books or in their state constitutions, and voters in those states would have to vote to overturn them, or successfully beat them down in court. Some advocates believe the best route is for the Supreme Court to weigh in — possibly by taking up the case of California’s Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage that was subsequently struck down by a federal court and an appellate court.”
“In any case, the success or failure of any of the current marriage equality initiatives has very little to do with Obama publicly stating his personal views, marriage advocates and political observers agree.” from TPM
I’d bet a dollar (but no more) that Obama will come out in favor of gay marriage after the election. Maybe.
I think Obama really supports it, but he is wary to do so publicly because of the North Carolina and Virginia vote. He needs the black church to turn out, and they are divided on this issue… just my opinion.
Jonathan Turley needs to put his Romney button on his lapel in the photo at the top of the blog.
Seriously, Obama needs to come out in support of gay marriage but why no mention of Romney’s contributions to Prop 8 in california.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/mitt-romney-gay-marriage_n_1391867.html
At least he believes in evolution.
May “revolving” is the catch-all word on this one.