17 comments on “Obama and Gay Marriage: My Quick Thoughts

  1. Whether not this was a smart politically doesn’t matter cause this is just election year politics. Even if Obama wins re-election, he won’t have enough votes in Congress to legalize same sex marriage or anything else.

  2. I applaud Obama’s effort, but I think he could have come out broad on this issue (if at all), and stronger on many other national issues.

  3. I support freedom of individual adults entering into contracts with one another without government interference – gay, straight and/or practicing polygamy, it’s none of the governments business. As far as President Obama’$ concerned, this was a clear political decision. He supported gay marriage/union in 1996, then changed his mind in ’08, then slightly came out in private support.

    Progressives and conservatives love big government when they agree with it, but hate it when they don’t.

  4. An Average Joe :
    As far as President Obama’$ concerned, this was a clear political decision. He supported gay marriage/union in 1996, then changed his mind in ’08, then slightly came out in private support.

    If you could make a case that his coming out for SSM was an aberration, I might agree with you. But it was entirely consistent with his other actions as president, including pushing for the repeal of DADT and ending the legal defense of DOMA.

    • I can see your point. But even Obama said that it is a personal decision and not one in which he would try and enforce by fighting the states.

  5. Obama needs money. Washington and Wall Street are spending money on Romney hand over fist, so Obama had to push (and push hard) for money. Him coming out for gay marriage (no pun intended) was solely based on money.

    • Hey Todd,
      Obama needs money? What are you reading? This is by his own filings in the F.E.C. (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php) Or, you could even go to the F.E.C. site itself if your good at wading through the links (http://www.fec.gov/) I’m amazed at how the left is getting away with the lie that Obama is at a fiscal disadvantage. They only quote the numbers by the superpacs and ignore everything else. He actually has twice as much money as Romney.

      • Obama basically opined that marriage rights should be extended to the LGBT community.

        As he “evolves” further, he may think brothers and sisters should marry or, more practically, something like 1st or 2nd cousins. A constitutional right to marry the partner(s) of choice. So what?

        We all already knew Obama was in favor of whatever is the orthodox left wing position on this–or any–social issue.

        He opened the military to gays and refused to enforce the bi-partisan DOMA; so we knew that when the gay lobby (which wants public school textbooks and curriculum, TV ads, bias law, and tax policy amended to force a more gay-friendly view in society) asked him to get off the fence, he’d say yes. He nees their money. Left-of-center gay activist are a key constituency (like Democratic Jews, they punch above their weight).

        He had been mum on the marriage issue, because he wants to win Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Iowa. Gay Democrat leaders had privately assured him he was fine.

        Biden forced him off his rhetorical fence.

        But still, so what? Is this really momentous? All he said was he’s personally in favor of gay marriage; and that states should define “marriage” as they see fit. Sounds like Ron Paul or Dick Cheney to me.

        Most states *40 or more?) will define marriage as one-man-to-one-woman, if put to a vote. The Supreme Court will sort out full-faith-and-credit issues, and thorny interstate custody and property disputes.

        If it took Obama this long to reach and state this “evolutionary” opinion, he should certainly also state emphatically that people who differ are not (for that reason alone) “bigots.” Canards of “he’s not a patriot” or “he wouldn’t have killed Bin Laden” or “wanting marriage to remain tinged by sacrament is bigotry” are not helping us debate freely.

        By the way, what a gift to Mitt! It’s the only issue the good Mormon has never “evolved” himself! He is clear on this: no, never, not.

        (It’s odd for Obama to call it an evolution. He was “pro-gay marraige” in 1996. Did he devolve, then evolve? On what basis?)

        Conservatives energized, Mitt breathes easier.

        Personally, I’ve always favored vigorous civil unions (for all non-religious) with all the benefits of marriage but no pretense to the term “marriage” (more of a sacrament or covenant) so the religiously faithful can feel welcome and free in our land.

        Secular laws, but free religion!

  6. Devil’s advocate here for people who think laws against same-sex marriage represent a denial of the civil rights of gay people (especially pertinent since we have a Mormon running for President): are the laws that prohibit marriage between more than two people a denial of the civil rights for polygamists? And if so, are you prepared to fight for their “civil rights” and to have the definition of marriage expanded to accomodate marriages of more than two people of any gender as well?

  7. Doesn’t the Constitution basically ensure all people of basic rights? In that case, wouldn’t the Constitution implicitly state that marriage is a “basic right” The reason I ask is because I’m ashamed at how Obama, a man who claims to be well-versed in the constitution, can throw in his lot with the “states’ rights” crowd and claim that there is no constitutional basis for the right to marry the partner of one’s choice.

    • I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I don’t think the Constitution compels us to recognize same-sex marriage. Basically, it all comes down to how one defines a fundamental right. Conservatives define liberty in narrow terms. For example, the conservative members of the SCOTUS would argue that even though marriage is a fundamental right, this right has always been defined in opposite-sex terms. A liberal, on the other hand, would argue that no good reason exists to limit that tradition to heterosexuals. In other words, the same factors that warrant recognizing marriage as a fundamental right exist regardless of sex.

    • Hey Tomcat,
      What part of the Constitution are you siting as implicitly stating that marriage is a “basic right”? The 9th amendment’s “Enumeration Clause” would be your only hope and that’s assuming that rights not enumerated include marriage, which has never been established to the best of my knowledge. Just because you think something should be a “right”, doesn’t mean it is.

      • The Bill of Rights allows us all inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage can implicitly fall under the final right.

      • Hey Tomcat,
        I’m not following your logic. Are you saying that anything that makes me happy is a right? If it makes me happy to rape someone and your laws deny me the right to pursue that happiness, I’m having my rights violated? Also, an inalienable right is a right not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Such as freedom. We are born with it, it is the function of government to restrict or deny it, not give it to us. We’re not born married. Clearly, the government regulated and sanctioned definition of marriage doesn’t fall under that critera.

  8. Nicely done, Andre. The apathy at the end isn’t likely to get many nods from people. But you made a pretty nice argument in this video.

  9. great video…. you make a good point about it potentially hurting him.

    But I think it will all come down to people priorities, right…. places like VA have become swing states because less traditionally conservative people have moved in there (well moved to Northern Virginia anyway)… if that’s the case, then they may not care about this issue, as you do not, or

    in the case of some people who I know that were on the fence about Obama for not taking a strong stance on a number of other issues (in their opinion), this gay marriage announcement made them feel like there is a “real progressive” underneath it all, despite some of his actions during the first term. Bottom line, I think he’s securing a lot more than just the gay vote with this announcement.

    As far as attacking Obama on this front, I think Romney might also be scared as being painted a homophobe (especially if the source of his beliefs could be connected to his Church), he’s already got flack for bullying gay people in high school, so may not want to touch this….

    Then again, maybe he is attacking him as we speak… and I’m just too out of the loop to know about it.

  10. Pingback: The Case for Legalizing Weed « The Unmitigated Word

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s