Obama's Wishy-washy Take On Gay Marriage
If it's just a matter of empathy, the way he recently put it, then states can decided for themselves. The other argument -- "Argument B" below -- is "more uncompromising," writes Krauthammer in the Washington Post (and it's the argument that happens to be my argument, that being allowed to marry the consenting adult of your choice is a matter of equal rights):
Argument B has extremely powerful implications. First, if same-sex marriage is a right, then there is no possible justification for letting states decide for themselves. How can you countenance even one state outlawing a fundamental right? Indeed, half a century ago, states' rights was the cry of those committed to continued segregation and discrimination.Second, if marriage equality is a civil right, then denying it on the basis of (innately felt) sexual orientation is, like discrimination on the basis of skin color, simple bigotry. California's Proposition 8 was overturned by a 9th Circuit panel on the grounds that the referendum, reaffirming marriage as between a man and woman, was nothing but an expression of bias -- "serves no purpose . . . other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians."
Pretty strong stuff. Which is why it was so surprising that Obama, after first advancing Argument A, went on five days later to adopt Argument B, calling gay marriage a great example of "expand[ing] rights" and today's successor to civil rights, voting rights, women's rights and workers' rights.
Problem is: It's a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right.
As for Obama's "evolving" views on gay marriage:
He was pro when running for the Illinois Legislature from ultra-liberal Hyde Park. He became anti when running eight years later for the U.S. Senate and had to appeal to a decidedly more conservative statewide constituency. And now he's pro again.
I'm glad he's "pro," but I'm disgusted at the contortions.
> I'm glad he's "pro,"
He is?
> but I'm disgusted at the contortions.
Does it matter? I mean, the important thing is not to leave it up to the voters, right?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 19, 2012 12:17 AM
Marriage is a civil right in the sense of the right of association is.
Marriage started as a sacrament of the Christian church, as a follow on to the Torah. It then found itself in common and high law used as the cement to join kingdoms. In common law it was used for inheritance and such. Many European countries had the church as part of the government.
Then we get to the U.S. The government is a secular form, "immune" to the religious biases. So marriage is not mentioned in the federal Constitution. But the states can still have it per the tenth.
Of course the the states consider it a predefined contract, not a church sacrament. Because they use the christian term we are now stuck with the non-secular standard word, but marriage as far as the state is concerned is really civil union or a contract.
This is the same as going to a hospital and getting a pre-done medical power of attorney from a hospital.
The problem is that the church is heavily vested in marriage. The public needs to realize that marriage as defined by the state is, and has always been, a civil union contract. It is redefining the terms and definitions on the civil side that has to be fixed. The church, technically, has no stake in it.
Jim P. at May 19, 2012 9:46 AM
The question is not how govt should exercise power over us, but rather why should govt have that power at all? I propose this amendment: "govt should make no law respecting the establishment of personal choice, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
anon at May 19, 2012 10:49 AM
> The question is not how govt should exercise
> power over us, but rather why should govt
> have that power at all?
Ok! Good Question! We can work with that!
The answer is that government should have power of us because by virtue of being married, we will make demands of other people both directly and through government itself.
Wo-kay! We're making progress here!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 19, 2012 11:15 AM
Regardless of "rights", same sex marriage isn't a states issue as long as Social Security, Medicaid, and the IRS refuse to accept it.
This is why Obama is such a chickenshit and why I'm amazed gays and lesbians applaud him. He really said, "I support gay marriage and fuck you if you want any federal benefits." I'm not saying his proposals would pass, but if he really believed his words, he'd send a simple proposal to Congress.
(My proposal is to allow only single filing for taxes, strip most secondary benefits from Social Security [meaning, turn it back into a retirement only thing] and to grant anyone with a legal marriage or civil union, the spousal retirement benefit, which could still be tightened up--once you dip, you can't go back [for those not in the know, there's a way you can game social security if one spouse makes significantly more than the other.])
Joe at May 19, 2012 12:11 PM
Leave a comment