Obama and gay marriage

later12

I dont typically have much of an interest in US politics, but one of the more entertaining and perplexing stories to re-appear on this side of the Atlantic is Obama and his position on gay marriage

video
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obamas-position-on-gay-marriage-still-evolving/2011/03/03/AGJOvIdH_blog.html

article
http://www.france24.com/en/20110628-new-york-gay-marriage-decision-puts-obama-hot-seat

Personally, like most civil rights issues, I see the gay marriage debate as being a relatively clear cut issue. I would, to be blunt, be as exasperated with someone who took eight months to give me a clear answer on whether they think gays should be given equal rights of marriage as whether they think women should be given the vote.

For an administration which waxes so lyrically on civil rights issues, and for one leading a country with (arguably) such an hypocritical track record on civil rights, is this not one political domain in which Obama really needs to get pro-active?

Like many people, I fully expect that Obama will row in behind gay marriage after his re-election in 2012. And as much as I can appreciate the electoral necessity of keeping schtum for now, I find the heel dragging (I am tempted to say knuckle dragging) on this issue to be slightly bewildering.

Can it really be seen as accetpable, in an enlightened democracy, to maintain silence on the issue of homosexual marriage, any more than maintaining silence on the rights surrounding inter-racial marriages?

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

matthew8

eVeNtInE wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How sure are you? If you are fully sure you wouldn't have a problem taking a 10 euro bet with odds of 100 to 1 because I would take those odds. It's the same old "all republicans are John McCain, George Bush, Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell" argument and I'm sick of it.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

matthew8

eVeNtInE wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, both want the government to get out of the marriage issue and stop discriminating against gays. Ron Paul has an outside chance while Johnson has been sidelined by the media (Orwell would say they made him into an uncandidate) and has little chance but can hopefully get a decent percentage to vote for him.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

matthew8

eVeNtInE wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I must admit Pawlenty (generally seen as a guy who will go up due to his sanity), Bachmann (favourite in Iowa) and Santorum (Doing very well in South Carolina) would worsen the situation but I think that gays would do fine under Romney.

mgmt

later12

eVeNtInE wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Inflammatory? I am not so sure. I would have some sympathy with the NY Times editorial on this

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/opinion/27mon2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=obama%20gay%20shadows&st=Search

Public opinion has swung toward acceptance of gay marriage since 2008; five more states and the District of Columbia have lifted marriage bans. Thousands of gay men and lesbians now possess marriage certificates and many former skeptics have come to realize that the moral foundation of the country has been strengthened. It is long past time for the president to catch up. He often criticizes discrimination with the memorable phrase, “that’s not who we are.” Favoring this discrimination should not be who he is.

and also from the NY Times, on the NY gay marriage bill:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/cuomos-presidential-moment-forms-contrast-with-obama/

Six senators who had voted against the bill in 2009 voted for it on Friday night, including three Republicans. Black and Hispanic members of the Senate, whose constituents sometimes have more tepid feelings toward gay rights, voted for the bill by a 13-1 margin despite the vocal opposition of Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx. The Republican majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, decided to bring the bill to the floor, something he did not have to do.

I really question the integrity of politicians who lead from behind on the issue of civil rights issues. What Mr Obama is doing here is - rather cynically - waiting for the day when it becomes socially acceptable to favour gay marriage before he will put his shoulder behind it. Are Presidents supposed to be trend followers or trend setters? Leading bandwagons or jumping on board when everybody else does?

History is unkind to those who vacillate in the face of inevitable change, and for a man who champions change, Obama still has to prove his worth. As The Economist wrote recently [Obamas] style as president has been marked by cool calculation and risk-aversion. What about the courage and change of his stylized stencilled posters? Maybe they should have read Caution. Or, perhaps they should have added, on the back, the cavat Change, yes, but only in the second term, when change is politically affordable.

gargleblaster

No president of this country has ever led from the front on any civil rights issue. So expectations that this one would be the one to break that trend are unrealistic IMO.

He's always said he's not interested in forcing issues, he prefers to try to bring both sides to a compromise.

As for a republican president who would lead on this civil rights issue, I find the idea laughable. Any candidate who supports gay marriage would never make it through the primaries. Republican voters will not have it.

Here's what the party platform states.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm#6

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

I added some emphasis to highlight just how unrealistic the idea is. Not only is the idea of gay marriage not popular with the party, the idea of having a constitutional amendment solely to prohibit it is so popular with the party that it is on the national platform.


As for the Economist's take, they seem to have missed that his campaign wasn't made up solely of posters and the mantra of change. He openly stated he was going to be a president for the entire country and not just half. He campaigned on compromise. It astounds me that so many still act so surprised about this.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

later12

gargleblaster wrote: »

No president of this country has ever led from the front on any civil rights issue.

Eisenhower and the 1957 Civil Rights Act is one example, whatever Eisenhowers intentions were, it is an example of leading from the front. In fact you could say the same of Johnson in 1964, in his appeals to the southern states. I wouldnt include Kennedy in this because I think there was an example of selective support for civil rights when it was electorally helpful to support civil rights - much like Obama.

autonomy

matthew8 wrote: »

Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, both want the government to get out of the marriage issue and stop discriminating against gays. Ron Paul has an outside chance while Johnson has been sidelined by the media (Orwell would say they made him into an uncandidate) and has little chance but can hopefully get a decent percentage to vote for him.

This might be a good thing though, because the vote for the real change won't be diluted with too many candidates

later12

eVeNtInE wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then so be it. What you are suggesting is that Obama goes in the front door and then sneaks civil rights in through the back door.

The US is democracy - if people dont want gay marriage, or do not understand what a basic civil right is being denied - OK, that is how democracy works. Try again next time, but be open about it.

Civil rights has to walk in the front door - i.e. it has to be something that the public know is on the table and agree to it or not. Anything less is a hollow victory that says nothing about the American voter, because it was enacted despite the voter, and not because of him.

alex73

No president gets re-elected in the USA if unemployment is above 8%. Is Obama stands a slim chance. So if you are unemployed or a Republican you probably won't vote Obama. His was elected on a wave and not done much of the economy (a problem he did not create).

So the next president probably will be republican and for sure will not support Gay Marriage. I don't know why Gays want to get married..Recognised Civil partnerships are the same thing under a different name.

later12

alex73 wrote: »

I don't know why Gays want to get married..Recognised Civil partnerships are the same thing under a different name.

I dont know why black people and white people want to marry each other either. I think marriage is an outdated custom. Nevertheless, it is wrong to enforce such racial or gender based discrimination pertaining to marriage - evn if it is an outdated and bizarre custom from a logical point of view.

My preference would be to scrap marriage and replace all such couplings with civil unions, but if marriage is something that we are running with, then we have to run with it for adults of all backgrounds.

gargleblaster

later10 wrote: »

Eisenhower and the 1957 Civil Rights Act is one example, whatever Eisenhowers intentions were, it is an example of leading from the front. In fact you could say the same of Johnson in 1964, in his appeals to the southern states. I wouldnt include Kennedy in this because I think there was an example of selective support for civil rights when it was electorally helpful to support civil rights - much like Obama.

Except it wasn't. It was a response to events in Little Rock. He had shown little to no support for civil rights issues before that year, because he (like just about every other politician) thought that a change of heart among the populace is required before you can legislate such things and that enforcement of such laws would make things worse. He was after the extra votes that he expected. Politics is politics - always has been.

LBJ was no different. If not for King's actions, public opinion would not have changed enough for he or Kennedy to do anything. From my view of history, no significant progressive change ever originates with those at the top. It seems always to be demanded by those at the bottom first.

Memnoch

later10 wrote: »

I dont know why black people and white people want to marry each other either. I think marriage is an outdated custom. Nevertheless, it is wrong to enforce such racial or gender based discrimination pertaining to marriage - evn if it is an outdated and bizarre custom from a logical point of view.

My preference would be to scrap marriage and replace all such couplings with civil unions, but if marriage is something that we are running with, then we have to run with it for adults of all backgrounds.

You might as well allow people to marry sheeps and dogs while you're at it!!11!!?1!

Manic Moran

I don't know why Gays want to get married..Recognised Civil partnerships are the same thing under a different name.

Free country, and all that. One should need to be able to give a good reason as to why someone shouldn't be able to do what they want, not have to give a good reason as to why they should be able to do it.

To one point, I can agree with the idea that if it's something Obama's in favour of, then go ahead and propose it. Not as if he'd be gaining Republican votes by not doing so. However, the question is as to if he would lose any support. The perfect example is California. His running for President drew large numbers of black and latino voters to the polls in California, who, while they were there, also took the opportunity to vote on Prop 8, the anti-gay marriage referendum, and their culture generally is against it. Obama got elected, and Prop 8 passed. How likely are those voters going to be to not vote in Obama's favour simply because of a positive stance on gay marriage?

But even if he did propose legislation to revoke DOMA, it would still have to get past the Republican House, which I believe unlikely. If he's not going to be able to achieve it, then what's the benefit to him for taking the risk anyway? Are Democrats really not going to vote for him in the Presidential because he didn't? Just how many single-issue voters are out there, really. I'd wager, not enough to matter.

NTM

later12

gargleblaster wrote: »

Except it wasn't. It was a response to events in Little Rock. He had shown little to no support for civil rights issues before that year,

Eisenhower hadpreviously come to national prominence for his role in desegregation of the US Army - his views on which are well known and I presume we do not need to go over.

And the 1957 act was not a response to Little Rock. If anything it was a response to Brown vs The Board of Education. The point, however, is that it certainly was not a response to a public outcry in favour of civil rights. Certainly, the civil rights issue was always switched on in the background as it had been for Truman and as it would be for Kennedy. Similar to how the gay marriage issue is a civil rights matter that is switched on in the background of the Obama campaign, but about which all Obama can tell us (having previously announced contradicting positions) is that his position is undergoing a slow evolution.

Eisenhower faced up to the civil rights issue (for various reasons) despite widespread and vehement public opposition to it. I am not convinced that the same level of opposition - or opposition as passionate - exists to gay marriage.

Why does Obama not just do the American voter a favour and outline his views?

gargleblaster

Jesus are you joking?

He did that because he needed more troops. That's it.

Quite the noble impetus, there.


It is politics, not rocket science. There are no saints in politics. Everything is calculated, and done for a good political reason. What the other person said there about wasting political capital on a useless effort is spot on.

later12

gargleblaster wrote: »

Jesus are you joking?

He did that because he needed more troops. That's it.

Quite the noble impetus, there.

Im not sure if I can type any more slowly. You can have your theories on Eisenhower and his incentives for desegregation both at military and administrative levels - the point is that desegregation or the 1957 act were neither of them incentivised by a public crying out for equality. Eisenhower, in 1957 in particular, very much led the charge. You may say he had previously supported desegregation in order to increase the black Republican vote (which he did - he doubled it) and that 1957 was in large part a product of Brown vs The Board of Education - the point is that Eisenhower led from the front, not from behind when it came to popular support for civil rights.

Any insinuation that America was wholesale crying out for racial desegregation and egalitarian ideals in 1957 when the the Act was carried, or that Eisenhower was merely responding to a public plea, deserves its ridicule, to be honest.

gargleblaster

You need to do a lot more research, truly.

He didn't stick his neck out unless it was politically expedient (just like every other politician, ever). I'm not saying he was a racist, far from it. He made cautious judicial appointments (to SCOTUS - Warren, and to the federal bench in the South), and he followed their lead when it was safe to do so. As for desegregating the military it was president Truman who issued the executive order, and it was the Battle of the Bulge that made it politically safe for Eisenhower to actually implement it.

He was not substantially different than any other progressive American president, who had to carefully navigate around public opinion and political pressures in order to do accomplish what he wanted. This man was widely criticized by civil rights activists at the time for being weak and for his hesitance to support the civil rights movement. (Gee, that theme seems very familiar, doesn't it?)

Your first sentence in this thread is apt. You don't seem to grok American politics much at all. You expect heroes (like most Americans, sadly) there are none. There are people who work hard to get things done, and unfortunately not many people have much interest in how sausage is actually made.

later12

gargleblaster wrote: »

He didn't stick his neck out unless it was politically expedient (just like every other politician, ever). I'm not saying he was a racist, far from it. He made cautious judicial appointments (to SCOTUS - Warren, and to the federal bench in the South), and he followed their lead when it was safe to do so.

I dont know how I can keep repeating this and you cannot seem to grasp it.

The point is not that Eisenhower himself had a great moral urge to promote civil rights - the point was that for the incentives he did have to do so, a great public call for civil rights was not one of them. That Eisenhower acted despite the public at large, that he led them from the front, is, frankly, beyond serious contradiction.


In case you have forgotten, this is the specific quote to which I am responding.

gargleblaster wrote: »

No president of this country has ever led from the front on any civil rights issue.

Eisenhower acted, in many ways, against public opinion. Like I said, I am sure that public opinion is far less impassioned in relation to gay marriage than it was in the 1950s in relation to segregation and civil rights. It would be far less difficult for Obama to simply be honest about his feelings on gay marriage - a pretty basic civil right - and face his public, than it was on President Eisenhower to overcome the public opposition to his civil rights initiatives.

As for desegregating the military it was president Truman who issued the executive order, and it was the Battle of the Bulge that made it politically safe for Eisenhower to actually implement it.

OK this is getting ridiculous. You are inserting random, irrelevant points for no obvious reason.

In mentioning the military, I am simply contradicting your notion that Eisenhower had no form prior to 1957. He very much had, and one of the aspects I was referring to was his appointment in advising Defense how to desegregate the army during the period when Eisenhower was at Columbia. I said he came to national prominance, not that he was the father and mother of Civil Rights.

gargleblaster

You are simply mistaken. In no way did he "lead from the front' as president, which is your dramatic complaint about Obama. How can I make it any more clear? The courts had decided already. The rancor and local refusal to obey these.laws gave him a reason to declare it an issue of national security and call in the national guard.

Obviously my attempting to explain the history is wasted time. You can choose to go do some reading or believe whatever you want. I don't care anymore.

later12

gargleblaster wrote: »

You are simply mistaken. In no way did he "lead from the front' as president, which is your dramatic complaint about Obama. How can I make it any more clear? The courts had decided already. The rancor and local refusal to obey these.laws gave him a reason to declare it an issue of national security and call in the national guard.

I keep on repeating myself and you just keep ignoring it.

I am not saying that Eisenhower had, at all times, noble personal incentives in the advancement of civil rights. He did not. I keep telling you that the point is that he used various events, or responded to them also, to lead from the front on the issue of civil rights, despite the public support for segregation.

The Warren appointment is one example whereby Eisenhower took a pro-active approach before the Brown ruling, as was the amicus curiæ filed by his justice department, overseen by Eisenhower, which opposed school segregation over 6 months prior to the Brown vs The Board of Education ruling. Compare that with the recent Obama amicus curiæ which defended DOMA and the institution of marriage as a relationship that must only be between a man and a woman. The Attorney General later had to do an about-turn and admit the unconstitutionality within DOMA, yet Barack Obama still maintains complete silence on the issue.

So going back to Eisenhower, it is quite clear, given his amicus curiæ and given some private correspondance that has come to light in the past 5 years, as well as some extensive treatment of the subject by Fred Greenstein, that such court judgements favouring civil rights were preaching to the choir, when it came to Eisenhower. However it was, the point is that Eisenhower faced up to the civil rights problem with his 1957 act, and it was not a response to public outcry.

The same cannot be said in any way, shape nor form of Barack Obama. Apart from saying - on the eve of the election - that as a Christian, he believes marriage has to be between a man and a woman he has decided to maintain silence on the issue. Even since admitting the unconstitutionality within DOMA - the perfect excuse for getting the tide to turn with respect to same sex marriages - the President has still maintained silence.

Ruling on DOMA -
http://es.scribd.com/doc/57864680/Do-Ma

Mark200

Obama has probably done more for gay rights than any other president. It's a bit misleading to imply that marriage is/was the only area of inequality. Obama has extended many rights to gay people and gay couples since taking office.

Also it is worth noting that he said before that the main reason why he may not support gay marriage is simply because he believes that marriage implies a religious ceremony, but he does support granting all Government benefits to gay couples that straight couples can avail of.

And to the poster above: Obama has spoken at many lgbt events declaring his support for full rights for the gay community. Including referencing to unconstitutional DOMA