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
Ivan,
Fortunately I haven’t faced the discrimination that homosexuals have, but I understood what you meant perfectly. However, the irony of your own selfishness in bemoaning selfishness in those who simply want the same rights as everyone else didn’t escape me like it apparently escapes you.
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/obama_gay_marriage_support_seen_as_world_precedent_2/ Obama’s announcement boosted the hopes of gay rights groups around the world.
Adisen Dilmen, are you like that all over or just in spots?
Ignorance does not amuse me…but common sense goes a long way…come into certain territories and receive reward for spreading disease and confusion…I have a relative who is homosexual, and have befriended and worked with several in the past…cried for three days when one I’ve known for years died far to young. Don’t pretend to understand why something so unnatural is widely accepted these days..we live in a society that follows a path of least resistance, but it only serves to make us “weaker” not stronger. Just because ideas, beliefs and theories are constantly changing does not validate the outcome.
“I have a relative who is homosexual, and have befriended and worked with several in the past…cried for three days when one I’ve known for years died far to young.”
Translation: some of my best friends are gay, but I wouldn’t let my son or my daughter marry one.
“BEST” friends is more of a play on words…none for me are ever “best” friends..my reaction on friends who are “straight” is even worse..I care deeply about people in general…but limited in acceptance because of “morals.”…yet some are surprised that my use of the word “nauseating” means just that…if I am in the presence or company of one or many (gay), I get sick to my stomach and have no control over that.
AD,
If you have such a physical reaction to gay people, guess what, you’re gay
An “update” to Greenwald’s posting:
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/singleton/
Excerpt:
UPDATE II: A commenter eloquently explains several key points:
I’m generally no fan of Obama, and many of the reasons why are reported regularly in Glenn’s blog. . . .
On this issue, Obama’s statement today will be remembered 20 years from now, while his motives, and the North Carolina vote yesterday, and Biden’s carefully calibrated statement last week, and Obama’s previous dithering on this issue, will be long forgotten. A sitting President of the United States is willing, for the first time, to personally back basic civil rights for people who love others of the same sex. That is an action. It’s mostly symbolic, sure, but it will mean a whole lot to a whole lot of people.
I’m old enough to remember eight years of Ronald Reagan not once mentioning the AIDS pandemic while it raged. Any queer or queer ally who lived through that era will instantly recognize today’s significance. That was less than 25 years ago. To get from there to this is remarkable.
No, today’s statement doesn’t get any legislation passed (at least, not directly), and the states’ rights hedge is a copout. But the important takeaway is that marriage equality opponents, and homophobes in general, can no longer dismiss gay civil rights as a fringe concern, and the notion that we can be separated from the fabric of American life and be shunned, buried, and forgotten is officially dead.
Eventually, marriage equality and all those other civil and social rights straight people take for granted will become the law of the land and the norm for everyone. Today helps get us there. That’s worth celebrating no matter how many odious other things Obama’s done.
In Salon yesterday, Edmund White similarly wrote:
As a man in his 70s, I grew up in an era when homosexuality was still an offense in some states punishable by death. The stigma of being gay drove my age-mates and me toward drink, suicide and years on the psychoanalytic couch in an effort to go straight. We were wracked with self-hatred, which blighted so many lives of our friends.
Same-sex marriage is a balm to the soul whether it’s an option that an individual embraces or not. The idea that our relationships could be normalized is such a happy sign for those of us who grew up feeling alienated from society and like second-class citizens. The battle is not yet won, but the president’s stand points the way toward success.
There’s no denying that this is a significant event that moves the nation closer to equality for millions of people who have long been denied it in countless damaging ways. That’s an important, and positive, step no matter what else is true about Obama and no matter what else he has done. (end of excerpt)
Barney Collier will be a lot happier with when he finally comes out. No adult male comfortable with who he is makes such childish statements.
“To clarify my point, it seems to me that our society has become so selfish and self-centered, that we’ve lost our way as a country, to the point that we’re even debating changing the definition of the word “marriage” and what marriage really means. In that point, Mr. Erb and I seem to agree.”
This is the typical meme believed by people who have been afraid of change since the beginning of humanity. It usually begins with something like” Ya know things were better in the old days……..” Change happens…deal with it and you might find some things do improve.
“Completely nauseating…morals, dignity and freedom from filth and disease gone to Hell”
Adisen Dilmen,
Only a guess, but I would think you’re the type that should be avoided in Men’s bathrooms.
Thanks for the clarification and link Swarthmore Mom.
My conclusions are two fold:
1) If you cut off all four legs of a frog and say, “jump frog”, the frog becomes deaf.
2) Upcoming elections temporarily increase Obama’s intelligence to the point where he can say the right things with his mouth.
Amazing.
The election past, however, he moves very far to the right with his pen.
The first mainline denomination in the USA to ordain openly gay clergy was the United Church of Christ–UCC in 1972. From wiki, junctionshamus.
Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to have any core principles. With the exception of being willing to cynically do or say whatever his advisers tell him gives him the best chance of being elected or reelected.
He’s proven this repeatedly when it comes to civil rights issues. And now this little piece of theater. Otherwise, why would the Obama campaign make such an effort to “back off” the Vice President’s statement of last weekend?
The President suddenly “evolved” in 3 days?
https://www2.cathedralofhope.com/new Here is a link to the minister and the church, juntionshamus. It is a United Church of Christ congregation.
@Arthur Randolph Erb, 8:14 pm, 5/9: 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.
Two things. First, just because you can see no rational reason does not mean there is no rational reason. Second, if you only favor marriage where the sex results in children, are you against marriage for senior citizens? How about marriage for people who don’t want children? People who are sterile?
You know what else? Whether you see it or not, we do get something out of treating everyone equally under the law. We get equality, and that sir is in fact something. That’s a BIG something.
Completely nauseating…morals, dignity and freedom from filth and disease gone to Hell ..in one sweep…mind, body and soul…decency erased…delusion sets in…and the majority is NONE THE WISER!! Change…I say CLEAN CHANGE…Obama sent packing in 2013…( excuse me while I politely throw up!!)
@Barney Collier, 11:14 pm on 5/9: 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.
Traditional marriage you say? Do you mean by that marriage in the Biblical Christian tradition? Before you answer, let America’s Best Christian explain what that means.
Gene H. 1, May 10, 2012 at 1:22 am
“Yeah, Ivan, because over population, unwanted children and scarce resources aren’t real issues but somebody getting to see their loved ones when ill or get them covered by their insurance is detrimental to you and your kids because the couple in question happens to be of the same sex.”
Gene, perhaps you misunderstood me. I don’t quite follow your logic, either, as it seems somewhat non-linear and, as an aside, somewhat spiteful.
To clarify my point, it seems to me that our society has become so selfish and self-centered, that we’ve lost our way as a country, to the point that we’re even debating changing the definition of the word “marriage” and what marriage really means. In that point, Mr. Erb and I seem to agree.
I’m sorry if you’ve been denied visitation or insurance due to not being legally married to your loved one, but these are issues that can and should be remedied via means other than changing how society defines the word “marriage”.
I could expand upon each of the other issues you brought up, but I have the feeling you’ve decided you know what I think already.
Total lack of leadership is evident here. Leading from behind. You know when a basketball player takes a shot and misses everything? The opposing fans chant “Air ball, Air ball, Air ball”. With this slippery display of on again off again on/off on/off, the people should chant “Flip Flop, Flip, Flop” ad infinitum. What? He consulted his daughters on this? Really? if so is that Hilary lady going to “come out” now with a statement equivalent to that comment she made about Mrs. Romney? “Agh she never worked a day in her life!”. With this it might be “Agh, the Obama kids … what do THEY know!” The 44th Newtonian Law of pandering to anyone who could vote for you. “For every instance of pandering to a voting block there is an equal and opposite instance of pandering to the opposing charged voting block so as to be more inclusive as it concerns fairness.”.
What a mouse!
“The 44th Newtonian Law of pandering to anyone who could vote for you. “For every instance of pandering to a voting block there is an equal and opposite instance of pandering to the opposing charged voting block so as to be more inclusive as it concerns fairness.”. What a mouse!”
geeba geeba,
Sounds a lot more like Mitt Romney to me.
I am a little late to the discussion, but rcampbell and Mike A. hit the nail on the head awhile back. Equality is needed to protect a minority. Let me think when was one of the last time the bible was used to argue to continue a long standing discriminatory policy(ies) against a minority…I remember now. It was slavery. Equal means equal. The bible is not the law of the land.
Barney and Brooklin, it is time to jump on the rainbow bus!
One correction: “desegration” should be “desegregation”
Also to Gene H.: I’ve read about those studies. I think it helps to explain why conservative opposition to the first black president is so often punctuated with references to guns and Second Amendment rights, not to mention demonization through the use of fear-response trigger terms, such as “communist,” “socialist” and “Muslim.”
Brooklin Bridge: I didn’t take your earlier comment as personal criticism. My intent was to express my own unhappiness with the way the health care bill came out. But that is only one of many irritations with the Obama adminstration. Having said that, I agree with Mike S. that even contemplating a vote for Mr. Romney is ludicrous.
Barney: I don’t have the scientific expertise of OS, but I can tell you with certainty that I have served as a guardian ad litem for many abused and neglected kids over the past 25 years. In each and every instance of sexual abuse, the perpetrator has been a heterosexual male spouse or boyfriend. In every instance in which the victim was in the care of foster parents, both foster parents were heterosexual. Finally, I will note that I have not encountered a single instance of sexual abuse of a minor by a gay custodial couple. My experience, of course, is anecdotal, but it is true.
I will also add that I find it peculiar that the most vociferous opponents of equal rights for homosexuals routinely make reference to what they call the “homosexual agenda.” I have never actually seen such an agenda and I’m curious about what’s on that list. Could you send me a copy of yours? Then again, I remember when J. Edgar Hoover was investigating the NAACP for “pushing” that communist desegration agenda, and I never saw that list either. Never mind.