Obama's Contradictory Marriage Views by John Corvino

[WillParkinson]

Obama's Contradictory Marriage Views

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?

http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino/corvino.htm

[jpcrecom]

1. sites blocked at work

(isn't that interesting? Regardless)

I'm really baffled by this whole gay marriage thing. I've yet to hear a single lucent argument against allowing gays their civil rights. The standard is "it's always been man and woman". Well, first. No it hasn't. And second, even if it were, so what? "it always had been" that blacks were owned by whites, women couldn't vote, and interracial marriage was illegal.

Why can't even Obama come out and say definitively "I support equal rights"? Is this country that rabidly anti-gay that if he said it, he wouldn't win? It's really depressing.

[racaulk]

3. Not to split hairs, but...

Obama has come out and said that he supports equal rights for GLBT Americans. He said that he supports GLBT citizens having the same rights and federal protections that come with marriage, but just that the term "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals.

So, in other words, he supports equal rights, just not full equality (a small distinction, but an important one). Which, IMHO, is an infuriating middle-of-the-road approach, but at least it's better than what we would get with a McCain presidency. It's frustrating that progress is slow and that battles have to be won one at a time, isn't it?

Welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

[jpcrecom]

4. Agreed, not enough

But if he's "supporting equal rights", has he explained how? What legislation has he supported that would guarantee GLBT these equal FEDERAL rights even if it isn't called "marriage"?

And yes, I am new, but I also realize some of these "well, but explain to me..." posts are often misconstrued as passive-aggressive attacks rather than genuine questions. This is a genuine question. I'm curious what (if anything), he's outlined as to how he will achieve these equal rights.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Thus, my comments about "Jim Crow"

Obama apparently wants to revive the concept of "separate but equal," which Chief Justice Earl Warren declared in Brown v. Board of Education to be inherently UNequal.

I do not believe your distinction between equal rights and full equality is correct. If one does not support full equality, then one does not support equal rights. Obama has made it very clear that he does not support full equality for GLBT people. I would say that proves that the claim he supports equal rights is a lie.

[sandnsea]

2. No. It's divisive and discriminatory

We should be moving forward to extending rights, not discriminating in Constitutions. Makes perfect sense. But thanks again for more attacks on our candidate. Worked so well in 2000 and 2004.

[WillParkinson]

5. I did not "attack" the candidate...

I posted something I found on a Gay website.

And how is it "attacking" the candidate to post things that discuss statements he's made?

[sandnsea]

7. Not you, the news source

It's not discussing, it's distorting because it's trendy to be cynical.

[WillParkinson]

8. And, again...

The author is taking a critical look. Mr. Obama made the comments, it is not wrong to discuss them, pick them apart, agree with or disagree with them. To say that we shouldn't do that because it "emboldens the enemy" is Republican talking points. I thought we were supposed to be the party of free speech?

[sandnsea]

9. It's not journalism to distort someone's words

And that's all that article is. Just as bad as when the right does it.

[FreeState]

10. Which words are distorted? Care to post a link? n/t

[WillParkinson]

11. I'm curious about that, too...

Please do provide a counterpoint.

[sandnsea]

12. There's nothing contradictory

It's to be intentionally obtuse to write that there is.

[FreeState]

13. Your the one accusing the author of distorting words -

and then you come back with that? Im confused now - what exactly is the author distorting?

sandnsea : It's not journalism to distort someone's words
And that's all that article is. Just as bad as when the right does it.

[LostinVA]

15. Ah -- so that's who the "Ignored" is

She's never been a fan of the "gays."

[FreeState]

16. Crickets? n/t

[Creideiki]

18. I will grant that Obama is (marginally) better than McCain.

But Obama has also said that we should have a "basic set of rights" for our established long term relationships. I'd like to know what's in that basic set of rights, and why someone who so obviously flaunts his sexual orientation in the picture in your signature, would exclude other rights.

This isn't intentionally obtuse. This is rationality. His Christian faith (btw, his Christian denomination--until Rev. Wright blew up in his face--recognizes that gay people should be married in their own churches) says that marriage is between a man and a woman, and gay people should be okay with different nomenclature and a subset of rights. How he plans to deal with the complications that arise from lack of portability and that many companies will have to waste time and money on arranging for that subset of rights are questions left unanswered.

[Zuiderelle]

25. "flaunts his sexual orientation"

good fucking point there. :thumbsup:

[MNBrewer]

14. "our" candidate attacks us, so.....

[Creideiki]

17. Here's a video from Corvino on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPzso1OOTPM

[SacredCow]

19. It's a semantic loophole to some....

"marriage" is for a man and woman, but use another term for 2 people of the same sex...

Personally, I don't have a problem with that. Having been married, and knowing full well all that "marriage" entails and symbolizes, I would much prefer to see the gay community come up with something entirely different and better. I just don't really understand why some are tied up with the insistence that it HAS to be called "marriage."

But before anyone gets out the flame throwers, I do see the point that it may connote a "separate but equal" kind of situation, which is, of course, a problem. But trust me- "marriage" isn't some magic word that makes everything all perfect and wonderful- it's just a word.

[WillParkinson]

20. To you, maybe...

To me? It's an opportunity to have what my parents had. The lifelong bond that was something other than "just a word".

20 years I've been with Paul. I think we've earned it.

[SacredCow]

21. And that's a wonderful thing....

I'm very happy for you, and yes- you have earned it.

I just don't understand why it couldn't be called something else, all other things being equal. Then you WOULD have what your parents had, just by another name. It wouldn't change the way someone feels about their partner, after all.

When you get down to the meat of things, "marriage" is a civil contract that churches are allowed to perform. If I wanted to get married to my partner tomorrow, there are any number of churches I could go to that would perform the ceremony, even though they wouldn't hold any weight with the government. With that in mind, I just personally feel that the fight for this would be better fought on the civil side of things. Once that is in place, there would likely be a following of churches who opened their doors.

[WillParkinson]

22. Because then it would never "TRULY" be equal...

It would always be "almost" marriage.

[SacredCow]

23. Yeah, I get that response a lot.....

...and don't get me wrong- I totally understand that point of view and I respect and admire your convictions. I just have a couple of stumbling blocks with it.

First, as I've already said, having been (straight) married I don't really hold the institution in all that high of a regard. Admittedly, that's a personal thing- I don't expect others to have the same view. When same-sex marriages are finally offered (I believe it's a matter of time now), I doubt I'll ever exercise that option.

Second, I've heard some (not ALL, and not that many) proponents go as far as to say that they want the government to FORCE all churches to recognize same-sex marriages. I may get flamed by some, but I'll say straight up that I have a BIG problem with this. As much as I'd like to see churches evolve in their thinking, I don't think it's right for a government to force such a change. Put another way- I don't want the fundies religion in my government any less than I want my government in my religion.

Congrats again on your stable, loving relationship- I truly hope that you get the opportunity to sanctify it in the way that you desire very soon!

[MNBrewer]

24. Churches are already able to refuse to perform legal marriages that the believe are immoral.

Anti-Gay churches would be able to do just what they've always done. Refuse to marry gays.

[Zuiderelle]

26. It really is no different than "Whites only" and "Colored only" drinking fountains.

What's so wrong about those anyway? It's the same water, the same exact kind of fountain made from the same materials.

We aren't talking about church marriage. I've never seen anyone on this site say that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples. Churches can marry whomever they want, and many already perform gay weddings.

And I get my hackles up when a straight person tells me that marriage ain't all that, as if that should be enough of an argument for me to say, well, ok then, I guess I'm lucky not to have to deal with it. No, friend, it's not all that to you, but it's all that to me and my partner and my child. We deserve the same protections, rights and benefits as every straight American.

[SacredCow]

27. I never said anyone here made that argument...

Just that I've seen it thrown out there.

And again- I already said that the "separate but equal" aspect to it is problematic. But enough of a problem that I wouldn't compromise to perhaps get the tangible protections, rights, and benefits? Not on your life. A war is a series of battles, after all.

Oh, and BTW- I'm not straight, and I most certainly did not make that argument.

[Zuiderelle]

28. The word doesn't really matter. It's just that the process is already in place.

To define a whole set of identical rights that have to be modified or addressed every time the other set of rights is modified is idiotic. It's not just problematic, it's expensive and time-consuming and a complete waste of money and resources to come up with some separate but equal "set of basic rights" for gay Americans.

Sorry to misunderstand you, since you said you were married once, I assumed you were straight. It still doesn't change that I don't like being told by anyone that I shouldn't care about marriage simply because they don't.

[SacredCow]

29. I see your point re modification...

but perhaps it is worthwhile to come up with something along the lines of "separate but BETTER" than what traditional marriage offers. The laws concerning marriage and divorce/succession/inheritance are sometimes abominations and if there's opportunity to break new ground, I think it's worth exploring.

Heaven help me for bringing her up, but Anna Nicole Smith had to go to court to fight her passed husband's children even though there was a will on top of succession laws (but I'm not sure what those are or were in TX). I've seen too many committed gay couples spend 30+ years of building a life and assets together, then when one passes away- children from a previous (straight) marriage who hadn't condescended to speak to their "queer dad" in decades come crawling out of the woodworks with their hands out. Even in straight relationships, very often in such a situation the children will ultimately win (eg Anna Nicole). A same-sex couple (even if granted full marriage rights) will almost certainly have less of a chance of the deceased's will being followed to the letter. So in that light, I stand by my feelings that something different than "marriage" might be advantageous.

No worries thinking that I am straight- I've been called much worse! But please do understand that I in NO way said you shouldn't care about marriage because I don't (which isn't entirely true, but that's another point). I identified that as my PERSONAL stumbling block- not something that I hold others to.

[MNBrewer]

30. Yes, let's call Obama's attitude toward Gay Marriage for what it is

An endorsement of institutional apartheid, where there's one version for normal people, and another "equal" version (in some misty distant future, when we can get it to be "equal", but for now, let's just go for Domestic Partnership, with SOME of the same rights) for the gays.