Via the New York Times:
Several gay friends and wealthy gay donors to Senator Barack Obama have asked him over the years why, as a matter of logic and fairness, he opposes same-sex marriage even though he has condemned old miscegenation laws that would have barred his black father from marrying his white mother.
The difference, Mr. Obama has told them, is religion.
As a Christian - he is a member of the United Church of Christ - Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman exclusively.
Comments "Instapundit" Glenn Reynolds: "My guess is that the reason he's not getting more flak on this is that lots of people who'd be upset by it just don't believe him. What will they say if it turns out he's telling the truth?"
More. Or just a socialist?
Furthermore. Apparently, only the anti-gay marriage side in California is willing to run an ad featuring a (supposed) gay couple at home with their child, in What Is Marriage For? Given his clear public statements that only man-woman marriage is a sacred union, how could Obama possibly disagree with this message?
18 Comments for “A Christianist Theocrat?”
posted by BobN on
It’s outrageous that the NYT article does not truthfully present the effects of the Arizona state constitutional amendment that John McCain has endorsed.
posted by Carl on
I would guess that the reason he doesn’t get more flak for this is because most gay Democrats realize no major Democrat is going to openly support same-sex marriage. Obama has a murkier history with gay rights (thanks to McClurkin). Many gays supported Hillary (in spite of her own murky record on the subject). She lost. So we can either go with McCain/Palin (they both oppose most gay rights laws, she wants to ban gay marriage in the Constitution; they will support Scalia-like judges), or with someone who will presumably at least be moderate on gay issues.
There’s nowhere to go. And Stephen, your decision to focus far more on Obama than on McCain seems to suggest that there is no viable option to Obama.
posted by Carl on
“It’s outrageous that the NYT article does not truthfully present the effects of the Arizona state constitutional amendment that John McCain has endorsed.”
That’s nothing new. The “liberal” media rarely bothered to report the full effects of the Federal Marriage Amendment when it was first bandied about in 2003 and 2004. The focus was on banning marriage, when it likely would have banned any contracts for gay couples.
posted by Jorge on
I believe him. He’s a little younger than Hillary Clinton, but he’s more of a faith person than she is, too. I think the religion gap will be a little more enduring than the age gap.
I don’t think we should confuse having a black president with having a gay president.
posted by LCRW on
I don’t think that its because they don’t believe him its just that they don’t care. The only thing they care about is that he is not a Republican. In 2012, DADT and DOMA will still be on the books and ENDA will still be some Irish new-age singer to many people.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The reason I think Obama’s religious rationale for opposing SSM is phony is that he is a Constitutional law expert and knows perfectly well that his personal faith is no legitimate basis for denying equal protection of the law to others. I suspect that he deemed it politically infeasible to go beyond supporting civil unions at present, which still (among other gay-related issues) puts him ahead of McCain and Palin. He is not perfect, nor did I ever imagine that he was. But he is the best available choice on gay issues, and has other qualities that I admire. He is far more likely than McCain to appoint justices to SCOTUS who would be inclined to apply the Equal Protection clause to gay people.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
LCRW wrote, “I don’t think that its because they don’t believe him its just that they don’t care.”
Oh, not true (at least not in the generalized way that you state with your “they”). A lot of Democrats care a great deal about marriage equality. But that is not all that they care about, and most recognize that the political groundwork has not nearly been laid yet for us to achieve it at the national level. LCR obviously does not apply an all-or-nothing standard to Republican candidates, so I wonder why you would pretend that Democrats aren’t serious about marriage equality unless they cast into the outer darkness any candidate who is less than perfect on the issue. Democrats in general are far better on a range of gay-rights issues than Republicans. If other, non-gay, issues are more important to you, fine–but then you shouldn’t be throwing stones.
posted by Craig2 on
Er, wait a minute.
Doesn’t Obama’s denomination- the United Church of Christ- *support* same-sex marriage…?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LCR obviously does not apply an all-or-nothing standard to Republican candidates, so I wonder why you would pretend that Democrats aren’t serious about marriage equality unless they cast into the outer darkness any candidate who is less than perfect on the issue.
Mainly because gay Democrats apply an “all-or-nothing standard” to Republican candidates and to LCR of saying that they don’t “care about marriage equality” if they do not “cast into the outer darkness any candidate who is less than perfect on the issue”, and viciously describe gay Republicans who dare speak out in favor of such candidates as “Jewish Nazis” and “kapos”.
Which is, of course, made even more ironic by the fact that these same gay Democrats openly endorse and support Democrat candidates who oppose gay marriage and support state and Federal constitutional amendments against it, calling them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
posted by Bobby on
Interesting, when a republican decides to honor the wishes of his constituents and support traditional marriage, he’s a homophobe.
But when a black liberal uses religion, hey, at least he’s not a republican.
But I guess Barrack “The Messiah” Obama can do no wrong. His social policies will demand huge tax raises, but just like Bill Clinton, he will do NOTHING for gays. Meaning you’re paying more taxes for a government that does nothing to you.
Oh, and as America’s first black president, Obama is gonna get every break in the book. He’s even gonna try to impose the “fairness doctrine” in his attempt to destroy rightwing radio. People will be afraid of criticizing him, lest they be called racist for doing so. Just wait and see.
posted by Jorge on
Er, wait a minute.
Doesn’t Obama’s denomination- the United Church of Christ- *support* same-sex marriage…?
Oh, well what do you know, looks like it does:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161508,00.html
But his former pastor, not so much:
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/03/trumpet_article_8_05.pdf
posted by Pat on
Interesting, when a republican decides to honor the wishes of his constituents and support traditional marriage, he’s a homophobe.
Bobby, while I agree that there are blind partisans, it’s not always as cut and dry. First of all, most people recognize that on the issue of same sex marriage (and nothing else, such as benefits, civil unions), Obama and McCain agree. Same sex marriage proponents don’t like it, but that’s the reality right now. So the question is how the candidates are beyond this one specific issue? Obama has come in favor of civil unions giving the same federal benefits and responsibilities as married couples (of course, one can question if he would actually push for it as president). McCain has not, and in fact, Palin has now said she favors an FMA. Yes, I know an FMA would most likely never happen, but that doesn’t make her pro-gay and more than it makes a person who opposes abortion pro-choice because it’s most likely Roe v. Wade won’t be overturned.
I personally used to think that a person who opposed same sex marriage was a homophobe. I’ve changed my position on that since many gay persons also oppose same sex marriage. So, on that basis alone, Obama, McCain, and even Palin are not homophobes. But what about beyond this one issue? I think personally, Obama, McCain, and Biden are not homophobes. Palin, I’m not so sure about. However, publicly, McCain has shown some disdain for homosexuals. This includes his support for the Arizona amendment, and his response regarding adoption by gay couples.
As for those in the gay community blindly supporting Democrats, again, there is much of that. However, most of the time it is a question of supporting the lesser of two evils when it comes to gay rights. I’m sure there are examples, but I cannot think of an example where the gay community supported a Democrat who had a worse record on gay rights than the Republican opponent. And as far as I know, there is no love fest for the Democratic candidate for senator in Mississippi who is more homophobic than Palin. Heck, I would vote for Palin against Musgrove if they ran against each other.
But when a black liberal uses religion, hey, at least he’s not a republican.
I suppose it depends on how one uses religion. Maybe it’s my own bias, but in general, Republicans use of religion disturbs me more than Democrats. For example, I am still floored that three of the Republican candidates during the primaries admitted that they don’t believe in evolution. Thankfully, McCain wasn’t one of those. His use of religion does not disturb me. But Palin, not so sure about. And Obama doesn’t bother me. Granted, if he’s elected, I may change my tune. We’ll see.
But I guess Barrack “The Messiah” Obama can do no wrong…People will be afraid of criticizing him
If warranted, I won’t be one of them. Heck, I’m not a big fan of Obama as it is. I never thought of Obama as a messiah. Far from it.
In 2012, DADT and DOMA will still be on the books and ENDA will still be some Irish new-age singer to many people.
LCRW, I’m not holding my breath on that one either. Heck, it’s 2008, and these things haven’t changed? But why’s that? Sure, shame on the Democrats for not moving on these issues. But when these issues did come up for a vote, how did they come up when you break the vote by parties? In other words, it’s bad enough that Democrats keep these issues tabled, but it’s the Republicans that, in general, oppose these changes. In fact, if the makeup of Congress and the state legislatures consisted entirely of persons with similar ideology with the current Republicans, FMA would have overwhelmingly passed.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Pat, Pallin has done nothing against gays as governor of Alaska. She didn’t even support a constitutional amendment in her own state.
” McCain has shown some disdain for homosexuals. This includes his support for the Arizona amendment, and his response regarding adoption by gay couples.”
—McCain may not like gay adoption, but he’s a believer in state’s rights, which means he won’t force his views on the states.
” I am still floored that three of the Republican candidates during the primaries admitted that they don’t believe in evolution”
—-Well, there is an America that doesn’t believe in evolution. While I believe in it, I don’t mind other theories being taught. Scientific fundamentalism has to be controlled. In England, there’s a doctor that wants to remove fat children from their homes until they lose weight. He wants to equate obesity with malnutrition and children that are being starved. Democrats in particular have no problem imposing science over the individual.
And if I could ignore all that, I would still vote for McCain. Before I’m gay, I’m an individual with a mortgage to pay and credit card debt. I don’t need any social programs that will benefit my neighbors while raising my taxes. In fact, Obama is discriminating against single people. He says that a single making $200,000 will have to pay more taxes, but for married couples, they’ll only have to pay more taxes if they make $250,000. And that is discrimination. The republican idea of giving everyone a tax cut is a the way to go.
McCain also has a record of opposing pork throughout his career. Even his enemies accuse him of cutting funding for education and a bunch of other social welfare programs. The reason America has a trillion dollar debt is because we’re always spending our money like it belongs to someone else. Spending $50 million on school lunches, $30 million on the victims of a tsunami, $10 million on X, $100 million on y, it all ads up. So after 8 years of pork, I think we need a porkphobe, not a pork lover like Obama.
posted by BobN on
“Hey Pat, Pallin has done nothing against gays as governor of Alaska. She didn’t even support a constitutional amendment in her own state.”
I’m not sure if you think you’re being clever and dodging the issue with sentence construction (“as governor”) or if you’re just willfully blind to the truth.
In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, the Alaska governor said she had voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning same sex marriage and hoped to see a federal ban on such unions.
“I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that’s where we would go. I don’t support gay marriage,” Palin said. She said she believed traditional marriage is the foundation for strong families.
Feel free to google it to find a website that you trust…
posted by Mark F. on
In fairness to Senator Obama, he has come out against Prop 8.
I have also noted that the “No on 8” campaign is afraid to use to words “gay” or “lesbian” or feature any same-sex couples in their TV advertising. We’ll see if this works.
posted by Pat on
Hey Pat, Pallin has done nothing against gays as governor of Alaska. She didn’t even support a constitutional amendment in her own state.
Bobby, as governor of Alaska, she did veto an anti-gay bill. But only after conferring with the state’s Attorney General that such a bill was unconstitutional. She instead tried to find another way to deny benefits to gay couples. And now she has come out in support for the FMA. Sure, Palin has a gay “friend” and she “tolerates” gay persons. But with friends like that…
—McCain may not like gay adoption, but he’s a believer in state’s rights, which means he won’t force his views on the states.
Being a believer in state’s rights does not necessarily make one pro or anti-gay. However, believing in state’s rights does not preclude one to be honest and to promote one’s experience and knowledge, i.e., be a leader. Personally, I don’t think McCain is an idiot or ignorant. I am confident that he personally is supportive of gay persons, and doesn’t buy the religious right crap about homosexuality. He could use the bully pulpit as president to tell the truth, but instead, he has indicated that he would rather pander to the right. Obama/Biden at least have went beyond tolerance and hospital visitations regarding gay persons. For what it’s worth, I don’t think Obama is going to be a great leader either, and will continue to dance around the issue of homosexuality as well.
Well, there is an America that doesn’t believe in evolution. While I believe in it, I don’t mind other theories being taught. Scientific fundamentalism has to be controlled. In England, there’s a doctor that wants to remove fat children from their homes until they lose weight. He wants to equate obesity with malnutrition and children that are being starved. Democrats in particular have no problem imposing science over the individual.
True, Bobby. In fact, I was floored to learn that as much as 60% of Americans do not believe it. It’s as if the poll was taken in 1908 instead of 2008. Unfrickinbelievable. However, apparent ignorance by many does not excuse ignorance or idiocy by those who were apparently well-educated and should (and probably do) know better. I tend to believe that the three candidates who said that they do not believe were simply doing what politicians do best…lie. And I also believe that the 60% figure is much lower, because some people are afraid that if they openly admit they know the truth, they will go to hell when they die, as if the God they believe in couldn’t figure out what’s in their heart. Go figure. But regardless, there still apparently is a significant percentage of people that do not believe in evolution.
I’m not sure what you mean by your not minding that other theories being taught. You’re not suggesting that Biblical or other mythological “theories” alternative to evolution be taught? Just as I’m sure you wouldn’t want the “theory” that the Sun and other planets orbit around the Earth, as it is a fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Just as evolution is a fact. By the way, I’m not talking about the origin of life, as there are only theories (such as primordial soup) and whatnot. I don’t oppose alternate theories to the current theory being taught. But these things should NOT include the Creation myth or that it is the result of God’s work. It is not science’s purview to state that anything that we do not have an answer for currently is because of God or Intelligent Design. Heck, one can argue that everything happens because of God’s handiwork. In fact, I do believe that the creation of the universe (although not as described in the Bible or any other source in which a culture made up a story on how Creation happened) and the physical laws were the result of God’s handiwork. I somewhat believe that God set the motion of evolution as well. But these beliefs do not belong in a science class, and seem more appropriate in a theology or philosophy class.
As for the doctor, I’m not qualified to determine how bad obesity is in relation to malnutrition, although I think that deliberately trying to make one’s children obese is not a good thing either. I am not a subscriber of this doctor’s belief. And I am not trying to infringe on one’s nonbelief in evolution or one’s nonbelief in the heliocentric theory of the solar system. I just don’t want this ignorance spilled into our public schools. I believe this is scientific responsibility, not fundamentalism. Leave it to philosophy and theology classes if persons want to explore already debunked theories and other mythological explanations.
I agree with you regarding pork. If McCain does become president, we’ll see how serious he is on cutting pork. I’m not convinced that he would be any better than Obama in reducing pork or reducing the national debt.
posted by Jorge on
The problem with your reasoning Pat is that those conservatives who should know better but don’t believe in evolution actually know what they’re talking about. There are a fair number of scientific reasons why evolution does not make sense. I’m not sure how much the case for intelligent design is empirical as opposed to rational, though. However I think to the extent that the scientific and educational institutions are corrupt and biased, there is nothing wrong with going against their orthodoxy and reducing the amount of power they hold in society.
Some very basic questions about the supernatural have never even been tested because it is so strongly seen as something cooky. The assumption against anything operating outside of modern physics is so strong that anyone seriously testing its boundaries is likely to be ostacised.
If anything I would think there is more pressure on people to believe in evolution than there is pressure to disbelieve in it.
posted by Pat on
The problem with your reasoning Pat is that those conservatives who should know better but don’t believe in evolution actually know what they’re talking about.
Jorge, I seriously doubt it, especially with respect to the three candidates. Sure, I’ll listen to their reasons, but I doubt they would be rational. Their basis against evolution appears to be their religious beliefs.
I’m not arguing that scientific institutions are corrupt or biased. I’m talking about facts, such as evolution. I’m saying that in this day and age, states should not be telling schools to teach Creation or Intelligent Design in a science class. And they should not be teaching that evolution is only an (unproved) theory.
If anything I would think there is more pressure on people to believe in evolution than there is pressure to disbelieve in it.
I hope that is finally the case. Just as there is more pressure on people to believe that 2+2=4 than there is pressure to believe 2+2=5.