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
rc,
Well said. You’ve been on fire lately. Good show.
Sorry, Barney, but the all the polling data shows that at least half of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriages and that the trend has been moving toward approval since the question has been asked by various polling organizations. But don’t let facts get in the way of your homophobic theocratic agenda. That being said, as important as this question is as a matter of civil and human rights, it is still being played for an election year distraction from the critical issues like the usurpation of democracy by special interest and corporate spending on campaigns, the blatantly fascist interests of groups like ALEC in not only writing law but actively seeking state level exemptions for being a lobby group (which is exactly what they are), the dismal economy and why the Wall Street bankers responsible aren’t in jail and why domestic war criminals are still allowed to walk free and unpunished despite admitting – nay, even bragging – about violating Federal law and international treaties on torture.
Yep.
It’s a sad day when even a victory for justice and equity as this is acts merely a propaganda sideshow no matter if it is addressing an important issue or not.
I’m glad for the LGBT community that this minor victory has taken place. Truly, I am a long time supporter for equal rights. It is a travesty that modern allegedly civilized people think discriminating against others because of their sexual orientation is even remotely fair or appropriate.
However, it is a minor victory and it is being played in such a way as to distract from other critical issues.
The lack of empathy displayed in this thread by a handful of commenters is shameful. The fact they feel free to openly display a mix of homophobia and ignorance without shame is an embarrassment.
There is an old saying about it being better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Any member of the LBGT community that doesn’t support Obama is suicidal. As for anyone else read Barney Collier above and ruminate what happens when his guy is in the White House.
Actually, Barney, in virtually every independent survey the vast majority of Americans either favor marriage equality (think equality under our secular laws/the Constitution) or they don’t care one way or the other. Today I heard Newark Mayor Booker frame it properly that this isn’t a gay issue or a marriage issue, it’s an equality issue. Just as, he went on to say, the Civil Right movement was not about civil rights nor was women’s sufferage about voting. These are all examples of having all Americans participating in their Constutionally guaranteed equal access to the legal functions of our society. Since the majority favors this position, at worst this will have no affect on the election. You might want to consider doing as Shepard Smith of Fox News described what the President has done and join the 21st century.
Hopefully this will be another nail in the coffin for obama. With the majority of Americans against homosexual “marriage” and in support of protecting traditional marriage, this SHOULD hurt his re-election chances. I say it SHOULD because we can’t forget he was elected in the first place, even though he is WAY to liberal to be president, he got an election with ZERO experience, and made so many promises like he was going to pay mortgages and power bills. Enough people drank the poisoned purple koolaid and voted him in so you really can’t say for sure that it will hurt his changes to get another election. Hopefully his catering to the militant leftwing special interest groups like homosexuals will be damaging.
It is so refreshing to have a candidate express his support for a position that he previously did not hold before an election campaign. Only a cynic would call this pandering and political posturing. And I’m so glad that both candidates Obama and Romney are addressing such vital issues as same-sex marriages, rather than discussing the dismal economy, the lack of a U.S. energy policy, terrorism, or other such banal matters. Perhaps the candidates will also voice their opinions on such critical other issues related to same-sex marriages as bisexual marriages and cross-species marriages. It is only a matter of time, I suppose.
A question from a legal layperson; for either the states that allow gay marriage or the states (like North Carolina) that have Constitutional amendments against gay marriage, where does the full faith and credit clause enter into any of this?
Yes, I did Ms Blouise. I think it is exciting. You should see the local news around here. A gay female UCC minister is debating a Baptist minister.
“… in spite of [President Obama’s] base being “f**king retards”, they still come in handy at election times.” — Brooklyn Bridge
President Obama and the pathetically intimidated Democratic Party of today remind me so much of President John F. Kennedy and the pathetically intimidated Democratic Party of 1961:
“All of the major responses of the Kennedy administration in the first year were based on two major premises: first, that the Communists were indeed a harsh and formidable enemy … and that a relaxation of tensions could only come once the administration had proven its toughness, and second, that Kennedy’s political problems at home were primarily from the right and the center, that the left could be handled, indeed that it had nowhere else to go, and that it must accept the Administration’s private statements of good will and bide its time for the good liberal things which might one day come. The latter attitude, the belief in the essential political weakness of the liberal-left, encouraged the Administration in some of its harder-line activities…” — David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest
It seems to me that, as usual at election time, the browbeaten and oft-betrayed “liberal-left” will swallow another right-wing Democratic administration’s vague hints about “the good liberal things that might one day come” (like equal civil rights for everyone) while voting for more of what right-wing Democratic and Republican administrations have shoved down their throats for decades — because, as right-wing Democrats and Republicans tell them: “they have nowhere else to go.”
Endless bipartisan war and endless bipartisan electioneering. But I repeat myself.
SwM,
BTW … did you get your email from Barack? I got mine.
SwM,
Yep … I think you were right about the identity question. 😉
Lumpy B. Hayes,
Carney’s job was to hold the line and he did his job well. Helped with the suspense too.
If Obama has really turned over a new leaf, if he suddenly wants to recognize those courageous minorities that take enormous grief for what what is fair and right, he will no doubt soon be coming out publicly and forcefully against the amazing wave of police and local government brutality towards the OWS protesters over the last year.
He will probably get to that right after he frees Bradley Manning and presents him with a medal of honor for outstanding bravery in whistle blowing egregious behavior by our military in the face of a rigidly authoritarian government, US. It only stands to reason, since protecting whistle blowers was the kind of hope and change he actually promised us during his campaign.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-gets-testy-after-questions-on-gay-marriage
He did something no other President has done before.
That must be a reference to Obama’s assertion that he can kill anyone, including American citizens, any time anywhere with no judicial review. Now that was truly a first..
It couldn’t be about gay rights since President Cheney already took that position back in 2004.
I wish Mitt Romney would publicly state that he supports gay marriage, so we can move past this foolishness and vote on issues that matter to the whole country.
Mike Appleton,
I’m not critizising you (if that is your concern — I’m not sure). I’m saying skepticism may be warranted. Obama has done a lot of things in the last three and a half years, most of them bad unless you happen to be a behemoth corporation or a high level member of the CIA or a financial or political elite protected from spying and the rule of law.
Obama’s
owners, I mean handlers, the big corporations, are perfectly aware that with Obama’s help, such as his cat food comission, they can screw anyone they want, regardless of sexual orientation. So Obama can play on what ever side of that issue he wants as far as they are concerned. Therfore, I am skeptical that his motives are less about what is fair and right and more about the realization that in spite of his base being “f**king retards”, they still come in handy at election times.Don S, You might be right about that but he has a huge following in the community much more so than Greenwald, for instance.
What benefit does the state get out of gay marriage? Why do we need it for the benefit of society? I can see no rational reason for gay marriage since we get nothing out of it. I will be in favor of gay marriage when gay sex results in children.