Constitutional Law, Politics, Religion, Society, Supreme Court

Evolutionary Progress: Obama Embraces Same-Sex Marriage After “Evolving” Away From His Prior Opposition

After years of “evolution,” President Obama today switched his past opposition to same-sex marriage and says that he now supports the right. Obama stated that he only came to this realization after speaking with his family and gay and lesbian associates, but he now personally supports same-sex marriage. He continues to maintain however that the question of same-sex marriage must remain a state issue, which would indicate that he does not view this as a right protected under the Bill of Rights. Obama however has now distinguished himself as the only major candidate in the general election who will not oppose same-sex marriage as a personal matter.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, Obama stated:

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

That statement falls short of stating that this is a constitutional right as opposed to personal view. In past cases, the Obama Administration has opposed arguments that sexual orientation should be given the same protection as race — even after changing its position on “don’t ask don’t tell” and the “Defense Of Marriage Act.” However, this remains an important, if belated, recognition of the unfairness and inequity facing gay and lesbian couples.

The support of state authority on the question will help Obama control the political backlash in states like Virginia and North Carolina. However, it creates an interesting contrast to the position of the Administration in court in cases ranging from medical marijuana to health care to immigration where it has rejected claims of state authority.

At the moment, it remains dangerously undefined for the Administration: is same-sex marriage a constitutional right or a personal choice in the President’s view? If it is a constitutional right, can gays and lesbians claim heightened scrutiny of review associated with race or at least gender? That does not appear to be the thrust of Obama’s comments. The fact that the Administration continues to crackdown on state medical marijuana laws as a federal question, same-sex marriage would appear to rank below the question of the use of marijuana for terminally ill patients as a legal question.

It is hard to know how to react to the news. Civil libertarians are obviously less than enthused with the long opposition of the President or the view that the President had finally reached a point where even the normally favorable White House press corp was openly mocking his position. Even Democratic stalwarts this week were denouncing Obama and telling him to “man up” and take a stand on principle. It should not take a conversation with your daughters to recognize a fundamental right after years as a state legislator, U.S. Senator, and U.S. President. Yet, he has at least finally dropped his opposition and that puts him in a better position than Romney on the question.

The President should now offer a better idea of the constitutional footing of this right. His description of his thought process notably does not reference notions of equal protection as much as basic fairness:

“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.”

The Golden Rule basis for this right leaves if on the same level as other personal choices and social disagreements — as opposed to a matter of equal protection or privacy. Yet, in a process of evolution, we are now at least in the same rough genus of rights. He also can rightfully claim to be the first president to support same-sex marriage.

Source: Yahoo

205 thoughts on “Evolutionary Progress: Obama Embraces Same-Sex Marriage After “Evolving” Away From His Prior Opposition”

  1. For a bit of the political context in which Glenn Greenwald gives due credit to President Obama for changing his personal opinion about same-sex marriage, we have his recent approving review of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria (of all people) castigating Americans as “scared, fearful losers.” Among the real gems:

    “So here we have one of America’s most conventional pundits correctly warning of America’s soon-to-be-irreversible transformation into a limitless domestic Surveillance State, and none of that will even be acknowledged, let alone debated, in our election. Zakaria is absolutely correct that this is the behavior of a nation of ”scared, fearful, losers,” but those feelings will be rectified by six more months of ritualistic, chest-beating dances over the body of Osama bin Laden and the constant hailing by Democrats of the stalwart, pulsating courage of our Commander-in-Chief for having safely sat in the White House, surrounded by layers of security greater than that enjoyed by any of history’s emperors, and ordering that bullets be pummeled into the skull of an unarmed man and his corpse thereafter dumped into the ocean. That — along with throbbing celebrations over the pile of other corpses he has produced — will make the sensations of weakness and helplessness highlighted by Zakaria blissfully disappear”

    But yes, let us not overlook the fact that President Obama has changed his personal opinion of what the states may do if they feel like restricting the civil rights of same-sex couples. How wonderful to see President Obama in the cheering section for the Left-hand team — for once.

    You can read Mr Greenwald’s succinct summation of The American Character here.

  2. SM, IMO, FWIW . . .

    Andrew Sullivan is as full of shit as a Christmas turkey. Methinks the dude doth psychobabble too much.

  3. I read Glenn Greenwald’s opinion on this matter today and agreed with it to a considerable extent. Not to give more credit than due, but to give credit for at least a little progress along the right path. Still a long way to go, but perhaps not quite as far after this announcement. Former Vice President Dick Cheney made a similar statement years ago, and as in most things, President Obama seems intent on not letting too much daylight appear between himself and the sort of policies Dick Cheney would approve.

    As Mr Greenwald observed: ultimately, actions count despite the rhetoric surrounding them, and positive actions count regardless of motive. We should always criticize public figures for doing things we don’t like, but we should likewise give them due credit when they occasionally do something to the benefit of the citizenry. Probably not too much benefit to same-sex couples right now, but perhaps some will come later, after yet more “evolution.”

    Hope springs eternal within the human beast.

  5. “Today Obama did more than make a logical step. He let go of fear. He is clearly prepared to let the political chips fall as they may. That’s why we elected him. That’s the change we believed in. The contrast with a candidate who wants to abolish all rights for gay couples by amending the federal constitution, and who has donated to organizations that seek to “cure” gays, who bowed to pressure from bigots who demanded the head of a spokesman on foreign policy solely because he was gay: how much starker can it get?”

    “My view politically is that this will help Obama. He will be looking to the future generations as his opponent panders to the past. The clearer the choice this year the likelier his victory. And after the darkness of last night, this feels like a widening dawn.” Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Beast.

  7. Brooklin Bridge:
    Why do you think so many of us were unhappy with the compromises made by the administration?

  8. Glen Greenwald, BTW, has a positive article on Obama today. His argument is that if Obama does something good, he should be praised; if he does something bad, he should be criticized.

    Curiously in line with the facts, today is the first time Greenwald has praised Obama in well over a year.

  9. And while we are on the subject of elections, here’s a little snippet about Obama’s famous health care fiasco and how no one will be controlling costs,

    n the Affordable Care Act the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was given the power to review health insurance premium increases, but it wasn’t given the power to actually do anything about unreasonable increases. HHS can only say an increase is “unreasonable,” but it has zero regulatory power to force the companies to change their premiums. Not surprisingly this totally toothless provision is now proving to be mostly worthless.

  10. “All in all, perfectly orchestrated and very smooooth.”

    Tell that to Jay Carney.

  15. (I thought I had written this earlier so if this is a repeat, please forgive)

    Biden did the previews, the media provided suspense, the play opened to a select audience. All in all, perfectly orchestrated and very smooooth.

  16. No reason to believe him until he does something about it; Obama will say anything to get elected. Remember? He was gonna filibuster the immunity of the telecoms, and close Guantanamo, and restore the rule of law, tone down the war on drugs, and he won’t sign a healthcare bill without a Public Option. Oh and of COURSE it is a State issue now, so he can’t do anything personally, but morally he just wants us to know he’s rooting for the gays, and Romney isn’t.

  19. I see that Log Cabin Republicans’ R. Clarke Cooper made a statement to the effect of trying to discredit Obama’s statement on marriage equality. Cooper did not make any statement discrediting Mitt Romney’s position of opposition to marriage equality.

    The cognitive dissonance of being an LGBT Republican and actually making public statements such as this is staggering in its hypocrisy.

Comments are closed.