Is Obama Telling the Truth About His Opposition to Same Sex Marriage?

[mondo joe]

Barack Obama has said he supports civil unions, but not marriage for same sex couples, for religious reasons.

Do you think he is:

[sandnsea]

1. It doesn't matter

because states write marriage laws and what matters is that the legal rights are codified at the federal level.

[dflprincess]

3. Loving v Virginia did set a precedent that the Federal courts may overturn state laws regarding

marriage if it finds those laws to be discriminatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In Lovivn v Virginia the court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The correct court could make a similar decision regarding same sex marriage.

[sandnsea]

5. Obama isn't in charge of the court n/t

[Solon]

12. No, but he can appoint judges. n/t

[sandnsea]

13. I'm sure they will be pro civil rights n/t

[dflprincess]

21. You mentioned that states write marriage laws and I was pointing out that there is precedent for

the Federal Courts to overrule those laws.

[bluedawg12]

19. Obama also primised to repeal DOMA as a priority - opening for States

that pass same sex marriage equality laws to have their citizens gain Federal benefits.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. The President is not just the Chief Executive, he's also the leader of the nation

And as such he has a lot of informal power in the form of persuasion. If Obama were to fully support gay marriage it would be a huge boost to the movement. Unfortunately, it is often smart for Presidents to remain ambiguous about controversial issues like this one.

[sandnsea]

24. Or, as with health care

under Clinton, Obama taking a stand out of the mainstream could make gay marriage *the* lightening rod of his Presidency, which wouldn't be helpful in making any gains for any rights.

[ecstatic]

2. I think he's giving the politically expedient answer

but we'll see soon enough!

[Solon]

4. Hmm, doesn't really matter, but I really hate that he inserted his religion into the discussion....

Nothing is core in Christian beliefs that require him to believe that 1 man/1 woman marriage is the only type of marriage there is.

[JohnnieGordon]

7. Especially since his own church is pro gay-marriage..nt

[Solon]

8. Not to mention that if he really wanted to follow the examples set in the Bible...

He'd have more than one wife, a few servants and concubines.

[MADem]

10. Not his church, anymore. He left that church and, apparently that denomination.

He's church shopping. Don't look for him to show up at a UCC branch in Metro DC--it ain't gonna happen.


Interesting article:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/episode-no-1215/cover-obama-church-shopping/1623/#hide

[mondo joe]

17. Which shows he's not a stranger to political expediency. NT

[MADem]

26. Either that, or he slept through the bit where the tenets of the church

were explained!

There's no getting around that his stated relgious views (sanctified union between a man and a woman) are at odds with the philosophy that was espoused by Rev. Wright and others at TUCC.

Obama felt the need to get more CONSERVATIIVE in his views than his former church was. What I found surprising is that not one single reporter, or debate interviewer, bothered to FOLLOW up on that question. When Obama said "sanctified union between a man and a woman" no one said "Hold on, podner--you spent twenty YEARS at a church that didn't feel that way...."

But no, that would be using the old noodle and digging for the truth. Can't have that, now, can we?

[IndianaJones]

6. then how much of his book is a lie? nt.

[MADem]

9. If he's lying about his religious views, then he's pissing off the gays AND the fundies.

I don't think he's lying, though. I think he has a problem with gay marriage.

[Solon]

11. They aren't religious views, we really need to stop that framing, right here, right now...

Its a PERSONAL belief, unrelated to anything in the Bible. Its outside their religious beliefs because there is nothing in either Christianity, Judaism, or Islam that supports beliefs like the one illustrated in the OP.

[MADem]

29. He uses a religious frame to espouse them. Really.

This article is chock-a-block FULL of religious elements. He quotes the Bible to justify his view (which doesn't afford FEDERAL protections to gay unions, near as I can tell, and allows states to discriminate).

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=71081

Check out THIS "money quote:"

Continued Obama, "But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."


In other words, if a state decides that the "best way to pursue equality" is to NOT HAVE ANY AT ALL, well, the Feds aren't going to interfere. The problem, though, is that MOST of the key issues of equality that are sought by gay couples occur at the FEDERAL level. Anything else--from inheritance to power of attorney in order to provide for hospital visitation--can be handled with legal contracts. The thing that does not, and cannot, accrue to a gay couple is FEDERAL BENEFITS--retirement pay, social security, fiance visas if one wants to marry, that kind of thing.

This issue is important. Frankly, I think everyone ought to be able to transfer their federal benefits to another person, not just MARRIED people. Why can't a single person, upon death, designate the transfer his benefits to his sister or sick auntie? That's the NEXT step, I think. Will it happen in my lifetime? Unlikely.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

14. No idea.

I suspect he, Clinton, and other Democrats are against it for political reasons, but I can't be sure.

[TheKentuckian]

15. I don't know

I don't like to call people liars but it is easily possibly that Obama and others have to hedge to be viable or he may feel that properly written civil union laws are where it is at and can provide equal protection.

[bluedawg12]

16. As a candidate Obama has spoken out strongly in favor of gay civil rights

he was ahead of the curve then, I suspect he will end up neing ahead, given time in office.

I do believe he has a strong innate sense of fairness and he is well versed in law.

[MADem]

27. Dogwhistling the gay haters is a funny way to show it, though, you have to admit.

The McClurkin-Caldwell business was bad enough, but this Warren business--inviting the homophobic fundy nut to "invoke" the blessing of the Invisible Friend upon the festivities--is affording a very high honor to someone who wishes ill on a big slice of our society.

I think we're past "believing" when it comes to this issue. He has to start showing our gay brothers and sisters the money. Until federal benefits are accrued to all, there is no "civil rights" even if you toss them little bones and scraps at the state level.

Perhaps his attitude, and the attitude of the entire party is "Ha! Where ya gonna go, Queers? We're the best deal you're EVER gonna get!" I hope that's not the case, because if it is, stranger things have happened. The Party of Lincoln might just become the Party of Lincoln, at the end of the day. After all, they're in SERIOUS rebuilding mode, and one should never say never.

The Democratic Party, once upon a time, used to be the party of black-hating, racist pigs. Trent Lott started out as a Democrat. So did Strom Thurmond and a host of others. LBJ flipped that shit on its head with his Great Society.

[mondo joe]

18. I'm voting OTHER to my own poll, for "I dunno." It's hard for me to believe a

constitutional scholar could think religious beliefs should support a Separate But Equal policy.

At the same time, I don't get a vibe from him that says he's *perfectly* comfortable with it. (That's not scientific, but this is all speculation anyway.)

[bluedawg12]

20. What politicians say to get elected and what they do after

often don't match.

Based on what he has said about civil rights, I have hope that he will change pro same sex marriage rights, in the new climate post ****

[Shiver]

22. I think his thought on the matter are a bit more nuanced than others

I think his lack of support is a personal matter, possibly having to do with religion. But I don't think his non-support equals opposition - his voting record and opposition to Prop 8 is what has led to this theory. I think that while he, personally, doesn't support it, he also doesn't believe he should have the right to impose that view on others.

Like your thoughts, all speculation.

[TheKentuckian]

25. This is entirely feasible

I'd guess.

Some people compartmentalize on another level. Some of us are perfectly capable of believing one thing for ourselves but have a fairly different "policy hat".
Like at least at some (I believe it is scientifically knowable, if not known now) point I believe that abortion is killing a human being but that doesn't mean that I'm prepared to tell people who and what they must host in their bodies. Will that change when I have firm data to support when human life begins? Possibly, but for now I'm pretty comfortable with leaving it to mom, from a legal standpoint.

[Jennicut]

32. I totally agree with your view on this

He is against it maybe personally but not against the law eventually coming to pass in all states.

[last_texas_dem]

28. Dishonest for political purposes

I believe that most liberal politicians claiming to be against gay marriage on personal grounds are being dishonest, as such opposition is largely inconsistent with the bulk of their political views.

[mondo joe]

31. It's one of the few instances in which I'd rather hope a politcian was lying. NT

[polmaven]

30. I think he is being sincere

in his beliefs, but will likely not introduce any legislation one way of another on the subject. I also don't think he will "take sides", if you will, if anything is introduced in Congress.

That being said, I have a question that I have not asked before for fear of sounding really dumb. I'm not really sure anyone here can answer it either, 'cause we may ALL be really dumb on the subject.

I really am at a complete loss to know...How does gay marriage THREATEN "traditional" marriage?

Maybe my fellow MA Duers can help me out here. I have never been married, so I have no experience from which to draw, so for married, straight DUers in MA....How come straight marriages are still together, and still being performed here? How could this POSSIBLY happen, with gays being allowed to interfere in them, and all? :shrug: