|

Obama’s weasely stance on gay marriage is wearing thin

When Vice President Joe Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan expressed support for gay marriage in separate TV interviews the other day, one would have expected that President Obama, at long last, would soon follow suit.

But one would be wrong about that. No matter that most polls show majority public support for same-sex marriage — even among rank-and file Catholics, despite the Vatican’s opposition — Obama declines to commit himself.

What makes the president’s stance especially galling is that it seems to be based entirely on electoral calculations. Hispanics are said to be far less supportive of gay marriage than the general populace. And heaven forbid that Obama risk his standing among Hispanic voters merely on a matter of human rights.

Even if it turns out that Obama’s current position on this issue does him less harm at the ballot box than would a commitment to what is right, he still will not have done himself proud.

I think it’s time for gay-rights advocates to throw down the gauntlet and deny Obama their active support until he relents in this matter.

There’s more on this issue HERE and HERE.

 

Share:

6 Comments

  1. More reason why I wished government got out of the marriage business. Let it be a religious thing, simplify the laws to share the marriage benefits without getting religious. If you want to marry a dog, take it up with your creator. I don’t care, just don’t ask me to take care of the dog when you are gone.

    You want to marry another guy, fine. He should be treated as a spouse. You want 5 guy husbands fine. I bet you will need a family health insurance plan, as a spouse plan will only cover 1 spouse.

    I doubt my creator wants it, but I will not stop anyone from getting married. I may try to change their beliefs, but that is a religious thing and not a governmental thing.

  2. Jared

    Time for gay-rights advocates to throw down the gauntlet and deny Obama their/our active support until he relents in this matter?? Who else are they/we going to support?

  3. Tim May: Who the hell are you to say that I and other liberals “don’t care whether gay people can wed, or if there is a real war on women”?

    How would you like it if I said you don’t really mind that your side of the political spectrum includes more than a few vehement racists? Your side does, in fact, include such people, but you probably don’t want to be lumped with them, right? You probably want to be seen as sincere and non-racist in your criticisms of Obama, right?

    But here you are claiming, in effect, that I have no sincere objections to homophobia and misogyny.

    You’re an ignorant little twerp.

  4. Neftali

    Tim May – I’m strongly considering voting for Gary Johnson. There’s a lot of libertarian philosophy I don’t agree with, but that stuff is so extreme that it wouldn’t get passed into law anyway. On the other hand, Johnson would do a far better job than Obama or Romney as far as balancing the budget and reducing the budget deficit.

    As far as gay marriage goes, its a shame that the movement has been so embraced by radical left and rejected by the extreme right. The leftist radical freaks form groups like FCKH8 which does absolutely nothing to help advance their cause, in fact, it probably turns people away. In reality Carol is correct, government should stay out of the marriage business.

    And the extreme right message against gay marriage is just as bad with their “defend the sanctity of marriage B.S.” Two drunk people (male/female) can go to Vegas, get hitched, then divorced 2 months later, and that’s okay. Some other people get married 7 or more times, and yet that’s also “okay.” But two gay people in a committed relationship for several years can’t get married? That’s ridiculous. The “sanctity of marriage” argument holds no weight.

    Its hard to gauge how Obama actually feels on the subject. Perhaps he really is conflicted with the idea. If so, he’s more shallow than I previously thought. But I think he’s just listening to his advisers too much. If he comes out in favor of gay marriage, he’s not going to lose many votes. I doubt there are many Hispanics that list gay marriage as a high priority in what they want or don’t want in a President. I think he really is in favor of it and he should come out and state it. Its the correct thing to do.

  5. Luke Fredrickson

    Pat opines, “What makes the president’s stance especially galling is that it seems to be based entirely on electoral calculations.”

    What is the basis for this assumption? Obama has governed as a relative centrist, and has fallen short of the egalitarian liberal ideal on many human rights issues – closing Guantanamo, confronting Chinese oppresion, assassinating treasonous Americans, etc.

    While his equivocations on marriage equality disappoint me, I cannot presume they are solely based on alienating potential voters. Obama is, after all, a religious man and may hold some doctrinal objections to joining this battle.

    Have Axelrod, Plouffe et. al. spoken on this topic? Is there evidence that his political advisors are reining him in on this or other civil rights issues? I haven’t seen any.

    Obama has regularly disappointed his various liberal constituencies over the last 3+ years. In his victory speech in Grant Park he in fact told us he would. I see no tangible reason to doubt he is simply more of a moderate than I hoped for when I voted in 2008.

    You hope for a militant, usurping Socialist and you end up with a new Democrat milquetoast. Maybe next term…

  6. Carl is correct, marriage is a religious ceremony, and should remain such, however, homosexuals were forced into insisting on marriage equality because states never gave civil unions the same weight in law as marriage. This is a states rights issue. Had civil union laws been drafted without loopholes and equal to marriage in the eyes of law, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Now, the gay community, correctly, views marriage as the only way to secure their 14th amendment protections. The grand compromise was to continue to recognize marriage as between a man and a woman while enabling homosexuals to enter into consenting contractual relations and giving that relationship the same weight in law as marriage. The law is the only issue here, because we do not know God’s will or intention. However, civil union laws were weak and discriminatory and did not secure equal protection. In my opinion, it’s the pursuit of happiness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>