Barack Obama believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Yet he opposes the California ballot initiative that would write that view into the state constitution, calling it "divisive and discriminatory." What gives?
Obama's not alone in this apparent contradiction: Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state's Republican governor, holds a similar juxtaposition of beliefs: that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that the state's supreme court did the right thing by declaring California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (Thanks to the court's decision, California began marrying same-sex couples on June 16-an activity the ballot initiative aims to stop.)
Meanwhile, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain disapproves of the court's decision and supports the initiative to overturn it. Yet McCain, Schwarzenegger and Obama all agree that decisions about marriage should be left to the states.
Confused yet?
For simplicity's sake, let's focus on Obama, and let's start with the last issue first: marriage should be left to the states. There's no contradiction in holding that states (as opposed to the federal government) should set marriage policy, while also holding an opinion about which policy they ought to favor.
But that still leaves the question: according to Obama, which policy should they favor? Heterosexual-only marriage, or marriage equality?
The answer depends upon what Obama means by "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." Does he mean it as a matter of personal preference, as when I say, "I personally believe that martinis should be made with gin (but by all means, have a vodka martini if you want one)"? Or does he mean it as a matter of public policy?
At first glance, Obama seems to be skating the line between the two. His endorsement of robust federal civil unions-but not marriage-for same-sex couples suggests a public-policy stance against full marriage equality. (By "full marriage equality," I mean extending marriage to gays, not creating a "separate but equal" institution under a different name.) By contrast, his remarks on California suggest a mere personal preference that he doesn't feel compelled to write into law.
There's a third option as well. Perhaps Obama's belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman" is stronger than personal preference (as in my gin martini example) but still not something he wants to codify legally. Perhaps he holds a religious or moral objection to same-sex marriage-not merely in the sense of "I don't want this for myself" but in the sense of "No one ought morally to choose this." Would he then be inconsistent for supporting the California decision?
Not necessarily. In a pluralistic free society, not every moral conviction can be-or should be-enshrined in law.
That's not just because doing so would be unwieldy and impractical. And it's not just because some laws have unintended and undesirable consequences. As important as those reasons are, they miss the key point.
That point is that securing our freedom sometimes requires giving others the freedom to behave in ways of which we disapprove. As former New York Governor Mario Cuomo once put it, discussing the relationship between his Catholic faith and his policy positions:
"The Catholic public official lives the political truth … that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful…. We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us."
I'm not suggesting that Obama thinks same-sex marriage is sinful-I frankly doubt that he does. I am suggesting that there's a way to believe, consistently, that marriage should be heterosexual and that it would be a mistake to stand in the way of those who hold otherwise.
Obama might also-quite reasonably-worry that the amendment would do more than stop same-sex marriage. It could also strip away domestic partnership benefits, including health care, as amendments in other states have done. That might help explain his "divisive and discriminatory" charge.
Of course, to say that these reasons would render Obama's positions consistent is not to say that they're motivating him. More likely, his positions are motivated by political reality. He can't afford to alienate gay-supportive Democrats by opposing same-sex marriage, and he can't afford to alienate mainstream voters by endorsing it. So he does both, and neither.
Obama isn't unique in trying to have it both ways. It's not about logic-it's about politics.
17 Comments for “Obama?s California Contortion”
posted by David Skidmore on
“Obama isn?t unique in trying to have it both ways. It?s not about logic?it?s about politics”. And Corvino says that McCain is not exactly onside with same-sex marriage. So, don’t vote for either of them. There are other parties and candidates. And if you don’t like them, get off your arse and go into politics. Don’t let the Democrats or Republicans run your life. But it is so easy to carp and whinge about what the current Presidential candidates are saying without putting up or shutting up isn’t it?
posted by Pat on
Of course, the solution would be to ask Obama exactly what the rationale are for his stances. Some of the possible rationales offered by John seem consistent to me, even if I don’t agree with it. We simply don’t know what the rationale really is, and we should hear it from Obama.
Unfortunately, that probably wouldn’t solve the problem since, one of the following will happen:
1. Obama will not clearly answer the question leaving ambiguity in his position.
2. Obama will give a clear answer that will depend on the audience, the winds of the polls, etc., and will change under different circumstances. (Obama likes change, right?)
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Yes, Obama’s position on this is incoherent, and yes, it’s about politics. But there is plenty of evidence that Obama is more reliable on gay issues than McCain. A lot of us are being pragmatic about this: he can’t do us any good if he doesn’t get elected. Not that I think for a moment that once he gets elected, all our problems will be solved. I think that gays vested too many hopes in Bill Clinton. A politician should not be expected to go much further than we have laid the political groundwork for him to do. We need to do our own work, rather than sitting around waiting for a knight in shining armor to come save us. I think Obama is better than most politicians, and I do want some leadership, but for him to embrace SSM before it is politically ripe would come across as tilting at windmills. We have more work to do yet.
posted by DUMP on
Why no comments about McCain’s repulsive remarks about gay adoption?
posted by David Skidmore on
I’ll tell you why, DUMP. When you suck up to the Republican elite, inconvenient facts get ignored.
Btw, what’s what’s Rush Limbaugh’s position on same-sex marriage? He’s pro-Republican so it must be better than the other side. FJHC!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP tries to spin the topic of BarryO’s adverse and duplicitous positioning on gay civil rights (re: the CA anti-gay marriage admendment) by pointing away and quickly toward McCain and saying “Wait, wait… look, look here -this is worse!” but fails to finish the sentence properly with “Wait, wait… look, look here because my candidate is doing exactly what Rev Wright accused him of in another inconvenient truth of last month… political posturing for partisan advantage.” Could this be a character trait that runs deeply through the change-agent of politics, BarryO?
DUMP, David… the GOP isn’t running or hiding from anything. At least with them, you know their position fundamentally mirrors BarryO’s… marriage is reserved for 1 man, 1 woman and the states ought to decide the matter… except with McCain, he thinks it ought to be by voters making the decision and BarryO -ever the uber Left elitist Democrat- says the courts can decide it for all.
Yes, for you guys, it IS an inconvenient truth.
posted by DUMP on
What? It is like you don’t even TRY to make sense.
posted by Jim on
Does anyone else get the feeling that this blog is holding Obama to a much higher standard than McCain? Actually, you don’t need to wonder about it. Stephen Miller admitted it in his “Cheap Date” post. Miller justified the double standard on the grounds that gay peple are giving a lot more money to Obama than McCain, which really seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
When can we expect an article harmonizing John McCain’s opposition to a federal marriage amendment with his support for one in his own state? I’m sure we could identify justifications in both logic and politics for that one.
posted by David Skidmore on
“David… the GOP isn’t running or hiding from anything. At least with them, you know their position…”
And there we have it. Republicans tend to win the race to the bottom because, as the saying goes, when you roll with the pig in the mud both of you get dirty – but only the pig enjoys it. Limbaugh is a case in point.
Actually, you don’t always know what the Republicans stand for at all. Robert Baumann is a case in point (you know, family values crusader by day, screaming queen by night – until busted).
No, you don’t always know what the GOP stands for because it is totally inconsistent. But if consistency is what you’re after, Fred Phelps wins hands down. Would you vote for him? (Maybe I shouldn’t even ask that question).
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, it’s the simplicity of it all you continue to miss because those gayDemocrat blinders you’ve been wearing are blocking out reality… to wit, the author was writing about BarryO’s flipflop-have-it-both-ways political posturing on gay marriage ala California and then you come into the discussion with another “OOOh, wait, look over here, McCain is worse on x, y, and z” distraction… this time the distraction is gay adoption.
What’s so hard to understand, DUMP? Lift off the tinfoil hat, put down the gayDemocrat blinders, breath O2 instead of N2O and you might just get it before November… I doubt it, but afterall anything’s possible given the flipflops BarryO has accomplished this week and gayLefties are still worshiping at his altar.
And David Skidmore offers “No, you don’t always know what the GOP stands for because it is totally inconsistent. But if consistency is what you’re after, Fred Phelps wins hands down. Would you vote for him?”
A gentle reminder to you Mr. gayDemocrat… Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat (and probably thinks Rev Wright and Meeks have it exactly right on gays –you know, those two pesky anti-gay Democrats who are/were close advisors to BarryO).
posted by Jim on
Lest there be any remaining doubt about the double standard this site and its authors apply to Obama and McCain, check out Dale Carpenter bending over backwards at the Volokh Conspiracy as he rationalizes and practically congratulates John McCain for flip-flopping on his outrageous and insulting assertion just days ago that gay couples are unfit to raise children. http://volokh.com/posts/1216175175.shtml.
It’s a sad state affairs when gay public intellectuals insist on putting Barack Obama to trial by ordeal for attempting to win the Presidency while voicing his support for full gay equality at the same time as they give John McCain a free pass despite his cynical and opportunistic denigration of gays.
posted by DUMP on
MM: “(and probably thinks Rev Wright and Meeks have it exactly right on gays –you know, those two pesky anti-gay Democrats who are/were close advisors to BarryO).”
Could you please provide a citation for Reverend Wright’s anti-gay statements? I’m not sure what you are referring to. Your continued attacks on Reverend Wright for these supposed “anti-gay” remarks are odd considering that you have no evidence. You know, spreading lies about someone is VERY wrong. You wouldn’t want to be WRONG would you?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, we’ve been through this now three separate times and each time, any proof is insufficient for you. I gave you the dates of Rev Wright’s sermon when he made the worst (from my view) remarks… I gave you the citation for Rev Meeks… one of your own party’s former candidates, HRClinton, called Wright’s remarks anti-gay, the gayLeft media outlet GayWired newservice termed his remarks anti-gay in several of their outlets, I gave you the citation for the Natl Press Club speech.
And even your current candidate of choice, BarryO, tossed the Reverend under the ObamaBus last month for making controversial remarks that were “in part anti-gay” and still you can’t accept the truth because, as I offered, you can’t accept the truth.
But let’s not let you get too far off the truth of this thread… the author was speaking about BarryO’s crass political posturing in order to woo gay voters, but in the end, on the most important issue to the gayLeft -gay marriage- there’s no difference between McCain and BarryO… both believe it’s a 1 man/1 woman proposition and the states ought to decide the issue.
With that said by the author, you try to distract by saying… “ooooh, lookie over here… McCain is anti-gay adoption”.
Nice try to deflect from the thread’s import… but it remains: your boi BarryO is doing flip flops to try to find a political center… a political center that he’s never, ever approached in his short and highly inexperienced political life.
In the end, the political flip flopping will get him like it did his predecessor JohnFKerry and that’s not all bad, right?
posted by DUMP on
MM: “…any proof is insufficient for you. I gave you the dates of Rev Wright’s sermon when he made the worst (from my view) remarks… I gave you the citation for Rev Meeks…”
The fact that Reverend Meeks is a homophobe was never in question. You say you have provided proof of Reverend Wright’s anti-gay comments but you have provided NOTHING OF THE SORT! You say your proof is insufficient for me, that is a LIE. YOU HAVE NEVER PRODUCED A SINGLE SOURCE FOR REVEREND WRIGHT’S ANTI-GAY STATEMENTS.
Far from me derailing this thread, YOU are the one who brought up Reverend Wright. YOU are the one who said he has made anti-gay statements. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS LYING.
PLEASE PROVIDE CITATIONS FOR REVEREND WRIGHT’S ANTI-GAY STATEMENTS. WHY ARE YOU UNABLE TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION? I THINK THE ANSWER IS THAT THERE ARE NO QUOTES. WHY ARE YOU UNABLE TO PROVIDE A CITATION FOR REVEREND WRIGHT’S COMMENTS?
posted by Elboe on
In the UK we have full civil partnerships. It is identical in every respect to marriage save for it’s title. It is a genuine, secular civil partnership and it is available for same-sex couples only.
Most gay people in the UK consider this to be equal to marriage. It is not a marriage insofar as marriage is seen as a religious institution. Also, the word marriage or “husband” and/or “wife” is seen as limiting, heterosexual and implies a slight inequality between the parties.
The terms “civil partnership” and “civil partner” imply equality within the relationship and liberal secularity. The common law interprets the words “husband” and/or “wife” to include “civil partner”. Similarly with “marriage” and “civil partnership”.
Perhaps it is time to consider both marriage and civil partnerships as co-equal, parallel streams available to all those who reside of each side of its respective river-bank.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, I’m glad you can finally acknowledge that BarryO’s campaign advisor and long time political ally in Chicago, Rev Meeks, is a homophobe.
Of course, just like with Rev Wright, that doesn’t make any difference to you because your charge is to keep the GayVote in the Democrat column for your Party Masta’.
As for Rev Wright being a racist and a bigot and a homophobe, I’ve provided you links to 1)headlines on stories written by liberal, gay editors at GayWired in which they identify Rev Wright’s need to address his anti-gay remarks… 2) exact sermon dates when Rev Wright went off -way off- the reservation of reality and made his last set of anti-gay remarks… 3) links to his ancillary comments defending some of his earlier comments at the Natl Pres Club and NAACP dinner in Detroit… and 4)links to HRClinton’s statements that she thought his remarks were anti-gay, bigoted and outside the box.
Of course that last one you dismissed as irrelevant because it came from Hillary when she was on FoxNews and no gay can “believe anything said on Bill OReilly’s show” at Fox.
But all that doesn’t matter to you because your single job is to keep the GayVote locked safely away for the gayDemocrat Masters to whom you have willingly sold your gaybrethern into political bondage.
At least when the gayLeft prances out the nonsense that Rev Wright was pro-gay because Trinity had an AIDS/HIV ministry, they think twice now because that ministry as directed toward non-gay populations of black prostitutes, black drug addicts, black heterosexual men exposed through sex with the former two groups, etc. Not to mention that such an important ministry has a webpage last updated in 1998… nawh, “It’s proof, I tell ya. It’s proof he’s pro-gay”.
Now, you were saying that Rev Meeks and BarryO’s embrace by making Meeks a political campaign advisor and long time political advisor is proof that BarryO is suspect on his claim to support gay civil rights?
Didn’t think so. Your sloppy unthinking allegiance to BarryO and homophbic Rev Wright is getting in the way of your ability to protect the image that BarryO will be the next perfect “gay”President.
I would think that at some point, DUMP, you would stop defending the indefensible BarryO on the matter of his past political and spiritual advisors being bigots, racists and homophobes.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, one final bit of advice: the late great flaming Chas Wilson got bounced from IGF for calling people liars and worse… you might want to rethink your current approach to “enlightened debate” here… the liar tag is easily reversed.
Like here: you claim you didn’t try to distract the thread’s focus on BarryO by tossing out some gayLeft red meat on the McCain adoption non-story… but you did exactly that right here by offering
“Why no comments about McCain’s repulsive remarks about gay adoption?”
Exactly what I claimed you did, you say you didn’t but rather I did what you did, blah blah blah.
So, BarryO defender, does that put you in the liar camp with the other demagogues?