Obama on Gay Marriage

Barack Obama's decision to come out against efforts to amend the California constitution to overturn the marriage equality ruling there has naturally raised questions as to how Obama squares this with his claim to be opposed to gay marriage. I think both Julian Sanchez and Josh Patashnik show that you can reconcile Obama's various views on the matter and there's not a logical inconsistency here.

That said, I just don't find those accounts especially persuasive. I can't peer into Obama's mind and see what he's thinking, but this looks like a political strategy rather than a logically coherent set of statements. Contra Andrew, I don't think chalking this up to "cowardice" is the most reasonable interpretation. If you want to see the cause of marriage equality advanced, you need sympathetic politicians to win elections. If the sympathetic politicians all say things that are politically toxic, they'll just lose and nothing will be accomplished. But of the sympathetic politicians hew to the more politically tenable line that special anti-gay constitutional amendments are wrong and discriminatory, and also appoint the sort of progressive jurists who are likely to look sympathetically on gay rights causes, then you'll get to equality.

To make an analogy, anti-miscegenation laws were a horrible injustice but it wasn't "cowardice" of the politicians who favored civil rights to avoid running around the country losing elections left and right over the issue throughout the 1950s and 60s. You want to ask a politicians to take some risks on behalf of a controversial cause, but not so many risks that they lose. Backing the California referendum would have been pure cowardice -- surrendering any opportunity to advance the cause of gay equality in the name of political expedience. What Obama's doing is clever, hard-nosed practical politics.

Comments

Seems an odd stance to take when Obama's busy shifting to the center on his "patriotism tour" and everything.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 2, 2008 12:49 PM

And the Governator is doing the same thing

Posted by Andrew Fly | July 2, 2008 12:59 PM

Thanks for pointing that out, matt.

Funny how the press reports every minor contradiction as a move to the center but such an obvious contradiction (for the record, of course Obama is sympathetic to gay marriage but isn't saying it for political reasons. Let's not be fools here) that shows him moving to the LEFT goes completely ignored.
Granted, it is a good thing electorally. But it shows the stupidity of narratives.

Posted by benjamin | July 2, 2008 1:02 PM

Obama may think that a word like "marriage" sits at once, miraculously, in two separate rooms, one marked "civil society" and one marked "religion." He could be against gay "marriage" because he's against, ultimately, using the word "marriage" as having a concrete civil meaning; that is, he would prefer to limit it, for both gay Americans and others, to religious contexts. At which point being against "gay marriage" might be a stop-gap position against all civil "marriage," or might reflect a belief that he would not want his church to consecrate gay marriages, happy though he might be if others did.

Is he politicking? Of course. Who cares?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 2, 2008 1:04 PM

Gee, actually trying to accomplish something. What a novel idea in American politics.

If anybody wants to recall a fairly recent example of the damage that reaching too far, too fast can cause, just think about the state of healthcare in this country and how Hillary's overheated push in the 1990's set it back for a generation.

Posted by LFC | July 2, 2008 1:05 PM

Or this may all turn out to have been a convenient "staff error," and Obama ends up hewing to the "let the states decide" tack after all.

Posted by K | July 2, 2008 1:07 PM

I don't think the California amendment does this, but general opposition to this sort of amendment, especially the one proposed at the federal level, can be based on its also prohibiting marriage-equivalent civil unions.

Posted by Dabney Braggart | July 2, 2008 1:23 PM

I don't think it does either.

What might be interesting is to get Obama's response to a Hawaii-like constitutional amendment that simply reserved the issue for the legislature, so that any marriage ban could be later overturned by legislation and without a constitutional amendment. But that isn't what California has either.

Posted by phil | July 2, 2008 1:32 PM

This is so obvious it hardly merits a post. Anybody who doesn't understand where Obama's coming from on this is being deliberately stupid, or just plain stupid.

Posted by chris | July 2, 2008 1:54 PM

I think it's a good move, no matter if it's political or how he really feels. With the left up in arms over FISA and faith based initiatives, he had to send a signal like this.

Posted by CJ | July 2, 2008 2:43 PM

Part of the problem is that Ponnuru is oversimplifying when he claims Obama "opposes" gay marriage. Rather, Obama has always maintained that the issue of gay marriage with respect to state laws should be left to the states, and at the federal level he supports equal rights for gay couples.

All that doesn't really tell you what Obama should think about an amendment to the California constitution either way. I suppose one could make the case for Obama remaining neutral, but I also think as a former constitutional law scholar he likely understands that amending the California constitution for this specific purpose is different than simply not extending marriage to gay couples when it is not constitutionally required in the first place.

Posted by DTM | July 2, 2008 3:01 PM

can be based on its also prohibiting marriage-equivalent civil unions.

You mean like florida's upcoming one which also eliminates common-law marriages?

And, of course it'll pass. Our ballot might as well say

Amendment 1

0 TICKY BOX!!!!
0 No Ice cream for you :(

Amendment 2

0 TICKY BOX!!!!
0 Skin babies alive with sharpened pennies

Amendment 3

0 TICKY BOX!!!!
0 Replace all your food with semen-covered glow maggots

Really. This state is full of stupid.

As it is. I'm troubled by Obama's lack of support for gay marriage, but only a little. I'm cool with thinking that he's being savvy. I'm especially cool with it if he's against preventing gay marriage, which he's been all along.

Posted by brenna | July 2, 2008 10:25 PM

While I favor gay marriage and vigorously oppose the proposed California amendment, I also do not want gay marriage to be an issue in this Presidential campaign.

We need to end these culture wars and solve our real problems. I think Obama is on the right track. Let the right have their guns and the death penalty (it's going to wither away for other reasons). Let the left have gay rights and abortion.

As far as faith based initiatives, as someone born Jewish who hates government involvement in religion of any sort, I don't think all faith based initiatives are bad or even unconstitutional. Up until the 1840's (the last state church was disestablished in the 1830's), faith based initiatives were and church supported schools were the national safety net. As someone who is deeply familiar with the black church, I think Obama sees that, used in the right way, churches can be a highly effective delivery vehicle for certain social services. I don't object to government giving those funds so long as the government doesn't give those organizations preference and so long as organizations that receive funding cannot discriminate.

Then let's move on and deal at the federal level with things the federal government can solve like getting us out of Iraq, a national energy policy, and a national health care system.

As much as I ardently support gay rights I don't want Obama to derail the serious discussion on national issues by falling into the gay rights trap.

Posted by sherry | July 3, 2008 11:47 AM

Matt, please stop insulting chris's intelligence by posting things he already knows. You should know better than to make an observation that has already occurred to one of your commenters. Tsk tsk.

Posted by jaltcoh.blogspot.com | July 3, 2008 12:34 PM

As usual, the Democratic candidat3 fails to lead, but rather, shows how he is no different than others. I find your suggestions, Matt, or what you clearly consider hardboiled analysis to be insulting, wrong, & beneath contempt. I'll vote for Obama, but I will give no money to him or the Democratic Party. What other course am I left? I'll give my money to Wellstone & WWOZ. At least those to organization stand for America.

Posted by coldH2Owi | July 3, 2008 5:10 PM

As usual, the Democratic candidat3 fails to lead, but rather, shows how he is no different than others. I find your suggestions, Matt, or what you clearly consider hard boiled analysis to be insulting, wrong, & beneath contempt. I'll vote for Obama, but I will give no money to him or the Democratic Party. What other course am I left? I'll give my money to Wellstone & WWOZ. At least those to organization stand for America.

Posted by coldH2Owi | July 3, 2008 5:13 PM

Letter from Barack Obama to Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

-----------------------------------------------

Rainfish comments:

Wow! There it is in writing. Obama supports Same-sex Marriage Equality, and NO mention of the odious apartheid-like "Civil Union" crap from Obama in the letter. He congratulates the same-sex couples in California on their MARRIAGES.

Hmmmm...well, it's going to be hard for him to wiggle out of this one. He crossed the Rubicon. There is no going back. He should be more worried about getting elected without the tens of millions of GLBT votes. He wont be Prez if he pulls a "Slick Willie" Clinton on us. We've learned to wait; we're good at it -- if that's what it takes to prevent another backstabber from getting in the White House.

PS - All of this "Don't Rock the Boat" crap from the so-called "liberal" Straights and the Gay Uncle Toms isn't going to intimidate us this time. Thank you very much.

~ Rainfish
http://rainfish2000.blogspot.com

Posted by Rainfish | July 14, 2008 2:18 AM

Letter from Barack Obama to Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

-----------------------------------------------

Rainfish comments:

Wow! There it is in writing. Obama supports Same-sex Marriage Equality, and NO mention of the odious apartheid-like "Civil Union" crap from Obama in the letter. He congratulates the same-sex couples in California on their MARRIAGES.

Hmmmm...well, it's going to be hard for him to wiggle out of this one. He crossed the Rubicon. There is no going back. He should be more worried about getting elected without the tens of millions of GLBT votes. He wont be Prez if he pulls a "Slick Willie" Clinton on us. We've learned to wait; we're good at it -- if that's what it takes to prevent another backstabber from getting in the White House.

PS - All of this "Don't Rock the Boat" crap from the so-called "liberal" Straights and the Gay Uncle Toms isn't going to intimidate us this time. Thank you very much.

~ Rainfish
http://rainfish2000.blogspot.com

Posted by Rainfish | July 14, 2008 2:20 AM