First published in the Bay Area Reporter on July 17, 2008
In a recent statement, Barack Obama said that he rejects "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution" and similar efforts in other states. At the same time, Obama has repeatedly said that he opposes gay marriage. While his views are perplexing as a matter of logic, this episode reminds us that Obama is, after all, a politician who's trying to get elected. It also says a lot about the progress the Democratic Party is making toward full support for gay marriage.
Obama opposes the proposed amendment because, he says, it is "discriminatory." But how is it any more discriminatory than his own position? He believes that marriage is between a man and woman; the proposed amendment says that marriage is "between a man and a woman."
Is there any way to reconcile his opposition to gay marriage with his opposition to the California amendment? I can think of three ways possibilities.
First, one could oppose writing the traditional definition of marriage into the state constitution - as opposed to state statutes. This would leave the state legislature and governor with the power to decide whether to recognize gay marriages at a later time.
The problem with that is that the state supreme court effectively wrote the new definition into the state constitution, removing this very power from the state legislature and the governor. If you oppose gay marriage on policy grounds, there is now no way to implement your view except to constitutionalize it by amendment. The state supreme court has left you no choice. And in California, because it's so easy to amend the state constitution, you're free to support a repeal at a later date if you change your mind on this issue. You don't have to worry that you are erecting a supermajority barrier.
Next, since gay marriages are a fait accompli for the next few months, even if you oppose them you might not want to undo the interim marriages (which is a possible effect of passing the amendment) or, more abstractly, "take away rights."
This would be an incredibly generous reason for a real opponent of gay marriage to oppose the California amendment. The number of interim marriages will be small in absolute terms, the marriages exist only by mandate of four judges, they are entered with notice that they may be nullified in a short time, and the cost of losing on the ban will be many more such marriages into the indefinite future. But if Obama is such an extraordinary anti-gay-marriage altruist, he does not give this as a reason for opposing the amendment.
Finally, a gay-marriage opponent who supports civil unions (like Obama) could vote against the California amendment on the ground that it might also be interpreted to eliminate the state's domestic-partnership system, which, like civil unions, grants all of the state-conferred legal rights of marriage to gay couples. This risk might be intolerable if you weakly oppose gay marriage but strongly support domestic partnerships or civil unions. I think it is unlikely that the amendment will be interpreted by the California courts to eliminate the state's domestic-partnership system, but the risk is above zero. However, once again, Obama does not offer this as his reason for opposing the amendment.
So what's really going on? There are probably two things happening. First, I don't think Obama really opposes gay marriage deep down and I suspect he does see the exclusion of gay couples as a kind of discrimination. He has never been able to explain his reasons for opposing gay marriage - which is very revealing for a man who's otherwise unusually thoughtful for a politician. He just says, basically, I oppose gay marriage "because I say so." So calling the amendment "discriminatory and divisive" may be a ray of candor cutting through the fog of a political campaign.
Second, and probably more importantly, this is an instance where politics necessitates cognitive dissonance. Gays and those who support gay equality are a critical constituency in the Democratic Party. Obama can't keep the gay-friendly base happy and support the amendment, which is rightly seen by them as involving huge stakes for the gay-marriage movement. But at the same time he figures that he can't openly support gay marriage because that might mean losing the election. He is winking and nodding to both sides.
Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for Obama's opposition to the amendment. It might actually help sway some of his socially conservative black and Latino supporters, who will vote in large numbers in California in November. But then, I support gay marriage. If I opposed it, I'd probably be either mystified or angered by Obama's words.
Obama's explanation for why he opposes gay marriage and opposes the proposed California amendment banning it can't be squared as a matter of logic. It's a matter of politics, which reminds us that for all the hype about hope Obama is still a calculating politician.
It also says something about how much things have changed in a short time. We've gone from the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004 opposing a federal amendment banning gay marriage, but also opposing gay marriage itself on policy grounds and supporting state constitutional amendments to ban it, as John Kerry did (and as John McCain now does); to a Democratic nominee in 2008 who says he opposes gay marriage, but who's uncharacteristically unable to explain why, and who opposes the only way to prevent it from becoming a permanent reality in a state of forty million people; to, I predict, a nominee in 2012 or 2016 who will say he or she personally favors gay marriage but adds that the president has no role in the decision because this is an issue that should be left to the states.