Eighteen months ago in Miami I watched the locomotive known as Barack Obama come grinding to a halt on the subject of same-sex marriage.
It was mid-November 2006 and the Illinois senator was days away from declaring his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. He had just published "The Audacity of Hope'' and given the charisma emanating from him, a run for the White House seemed as inevitable.
Speaking in an old movie house before a packed, appreciative audience heavily weighted with blacks and Latinos, he tendered his vision of America.
"To be hopeful is not to be ignorant, it is rather to say we can look squarely at our challenges and face them," Obama said. Referring to the war in Iraq, education, health care and the environment, he insisted that none of them should be seen as partisan issues.
"The arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice," he concluded, quoting Martin Luther King Jr.
The cheering continued as he fielded questions from the audience. Then a man asked the senator if he extended the same commitment toward gay marriage that he had shown regarding civil rights and women's rights. That's when the train came screeching to a halt.
Obama spoke about the importance of granting full rights to same-sex couples. Then he took a deep breath and briefly paused. Choosing his words carefully, he said, "But I struggle with the issue of gay marriage." This, he admitted, might seem uncharacteristically indecisive for someone whose black father was from Kenya and whose white mother was from Kansas.
When his own parents married, many states would have had them arrested under anti-miscegenation laws. And yet, he said, had you asked them at the time which was more important, getting rid of the anti-miscegenation laws or passing the Voting Rights Act, they would unhesitatingly have said the latter.
"So what I would say is, start with those things we agree on," Obama told his questioner in Miami.
Last week, when the California Supreme Court overturned a 1977 law banning same-sex marriages, Obama showed that, at least on this subject, political efficacy trumps the audacity of hope. That should be no surprise to anyone over the age of 14. But Obama himself set the bar higher, basing his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination on the promise that his convictions would take precedence over political expediency.
"It was not smart for me to oppose the war at the start of this war," he has said often enough, "but I did so because it was the right thing to do."
Yet when the California Supreme Court handed down its eloquent, 121-page ruling on May 15, Obama was not to be heard from. His campaign released a statement reiterating his position, which is that he "has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions."
That position no longer cuts it, at least in California (six of whose seven Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican governors). They reaffirmed the radically democratic idea that, under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, "separate-but-equal'' is not equal. They were taking their cue from Thurgood Marshall, the first black member of the U.S. Supreme Court, who as a lawyer successfully argued the case that led to the Court's 1954 decision in Brown vs. Board of Education ending school segregation. The California justices took special pains to assert that tradition and popular sentiment had no bearing on the matter, just as it had no bearing on expanding the franchise to include citizens who weren't white and male.
"This decision will give Americans the lived experience that ending exclusion from marriage helps families and harms no one,'' Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, told the New York Times, noting that same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain.
We can be certain that Republicans, having given us a ruinous war and a ruined economy, will make same-sex marriage a key issue in the presidential campaign; the California ruling all but guarantees it. At some point, a voter will approach the microphone and ask Obama why, if it was right to oppose the invasion of Iraq regardless of the political consequences, the same principle doesn't obtain when it comes to the civil right to establish a family without regard to sex, race or age.
Obama will probably offer the same answer he did in Miami 18 months ago. Anything more would be political suicide. Which might also have been the case had he been a U.S. Senator when he declared his opposition to invading Iraq, and not an obscure but ambitious Illinois state senator. That was also before he wrote that hope is an audacious thing, and that it's more important to do what's right than what's expedient.
Since then, of course, Obama has grown up, which in politics means toning down the audacity while pumping up the pragmatism. It means asking certain couples to wait a little longer before being treated like everyone else, and just shutting up about it. We have a few more important things to take care of. First we have to get rid of the gangsters who have taken over the White House. But we'll get to it, promise.
Or not.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If you want a President who will treat gays with equality and respect, write in a vote for Jesus. If you want a Democratic President next term, vote for Obama.
Those that chose to engage in Same Sex Unions (SSU) or better said, Same Sex Family Units (SSFU) have rights that deserve to be recognized, defined and protected under the law. That said, assuming that Barack's position on this issue is driven by political expediency is a mistake, I believe; just as I believe insisting that an SSFU be considered THE SAME as a HSFU - the Hetero-Sexual Family Units termed "Marriages" by most, is also a mistake - and I am not running for public office (at least for now).
This is why: The biological foundations of an HSFU stems from the evolutionary principle that gave rise to all of us - so why knock it? SSFUs may represent the legitimate choice of consenting adults but lack that potential, and I'm neither condemning nor forbidding such unions.
Why insist on equating two thing that are in fact different? Is calling an SSFU a "marriage" more important than securing the rights of those that engage in these relationships?
If I can tolerate these differences, can those that differ in practice from me respect my honest opinion?
(I presented this perspective to a gay friend living in Bangkok some years back who insisted -at the time- that NO distinction be made, what-so-ever. Several years later I learned that he had changed his point of view).
Today's post was made with an interest in providing one man's opinion for comparison's sake, and perhaps provoking a constructive response.
I appreciate that O thinks it's a more complex issue..
I wonder sometimes if G&L think that changing the law-will somehow make the religious crowd suddenly come around..
I think this is a little unfair-the very definition of marraige is a union between a man & a woman..It's how religions views marriage-that IS the definition in Websters.To change the definition of marriage-would be like to change the definition of icecream to mean a green plant..
It can't be done..you can't just starting adding words to Websters that change meanings..
But for equal rights afforded in the Constitution "all men are created equal"--same-sex can have all the legal rights and have the right to form unions-I just don't believe it can be called Marriage. So for legal
purposes civil unions and marriage should be interchangable.
A Pres. could not even then tell churches to marry gays in matrimony--since I think his role will have gone as far as it could at that point--w/o violating church/state separation..
He could HOWEVER offer incentives to do so..
So Sen Obama cannot be asked to violate separation of church & state-by saying the word "marraige" suddenly has become for same-sex also..
It's out of his jurisdiction-and his being a political scholar and Prof--I respect that.
I know Americans are not too dense to grasp this issue, even as you try to muddy the water.
Can you please rephrase your argument without discussing church? Because church has NOTHING to do with this debate. We are discussing equality for all Americans not just religious ones.
The California Supreme Court decision will do nothing for gays. It will galvanize the right wing to pass a constitutional amendment in California to ban gay marriages and perhaps civil unions. It will bring more far right religious zealots to the polls. It will make it more difficult for Obama to win swing states. America is not ready for this yet. For me, I think the state should get out of the business of marriage and make all all marriages into civil unions and leave marriage to religious institutions. However, civil unions should have all the protections, rights, and responsibilities of marriage. However, this won't happen either.
All the Supreme Court did was hand an issue to the far right wing.
I wish that I was wrong about this. I think gays should be able to marry. The far right have this ridiculous notion that gays getting married is a threat to the family, which has no foundation in fact. Divorce, on the other hand, which the religious do almost as often as the non-religious, is the greatest threat to family. However, that is just my view.
Steve makes a very good point. Marriage is a contract relationship. While clergy are granted power by the state to perform marriages, it's still sanctioning a contract. In France, people marry twice, once in a civil setting and then in a religious venue, and the marriage is not valid unless it's performed in a civil setting. I would be perfectly happy to have civil unions for those consenting adults who want them and leave marriage to the clergy. My longstanding heterosexual marriage is in no way threatened by gay marriages. In fact, Massachusetts allows gay marriage for its residents and I've not heard that they sky has fallen because of it.
I agree wih you. I happen to be a gay man who doesn't want to get married but would like the equality to the tax codes for married couples. If they were in a domestic partnership or civil union than that would be fine take away the word marriage and I think alot of Americans would also change their minds.
GLBT 's just want an equal setting with the rest of the country. If you call it marriage or not domestic partnerships/civil unions if they contain the equal rights (not special rights).
Obama has said he is for domestic partnerships/civil unions since he started this campaign. Which I agree with also.
Your wish is my command. Poof. You are wrong about this.
Having a special interest means, or can mean, pursuing that interest blindly. Like a pit bull, one grabs on to the issue and can"t be pulled off. There are various kinds of inertia in such an approach, and one is that, within the constituency of one"s special interest, one distinguishes oneself by being the most forceful, the least willing to compromise, the most outstanding, the most militant, the most progressive.
I remember in the first few years of Clinton"s presidency an article in Mother Jones magazine complaining how Al Gore, the "supposed" environmentalist, had sold out by not using his Vice Presidential authority to block the construction of a toxic waste incinerator. The article, and the constituency it represented, was bitter, and reproachful.
Never mind that, after studying the issue, it appeared that the siting of this toxic waste incinerator (I"m a big opponent of incineration, but toxic waste is one of the significant exceptions) seemed justifiable. Many gains in environmental policy were lost those two seasons by a left which couldn"t switch from advocacy to activism, from problems to issues. And a constituency which might have gotten the V out of the V.P. failed, partly because it was not led correctly, but also because it couldn"t quite follow.
The audacity is tying Obama into a local issue that will be decided by California voters and to which he has no control. Possibly some influence, but that's about it.
At the moment, it is higly likely that a Constitutional amendment to the California constitution will be on the November ballot. This will enshrine the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman permanently in California. An expected stay by the courts will probably delay any marriages until after the election. Should it pass, it will take precedence over the recent ruling.
As of May 15, a SurveyUSA poll shows that if the election were held today, the Constitutional Amendment would pass 52 to 34%. Any initiative that has a 60% approval or disapproval rating is going to happen, with a few very rare exceptions. This one is borderline, but could very well happen.http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=eab6f754-dda5-4963-99e6-020c08eea25c
The audacity is with the dopes who somehow think that either Obama or McCain need to inject themselves in what is clearly a matter between Californians. Both candidates have stated their positions. If you don't like it, then sit home. But stay the hell out what is going to be a very tumultuous local issue that hasn't been seen out here in a long time.
I will stay home, but I won't stay silent. Sorry.
Thanks for the motivation.
You should exercise both your right to stay home, and your right to vigorously express your feelings on this issue. Hell, I'm straight and I've sat out every election since 1992, and many have sat out every election as the hightest percentage of voters ever is only 53%. The highest participation of voters occurs in economic hard times, and this year certainly qualifies, so we can expect a record turnout. The Democratic primaries have never had voter participation like this year. The economy, health care, and Irag which are literally life and death issues, are going to be what determines this years general election not religious, or cultural issues like gay marriage much to the GOP's chagrin. Neither Obama or Clinton is going to inject a cultural issue into this election with the country in the downward spiral it is in.
I've been reading your posts, and respect your passion on gay marriage which seems to be the only issue which will determine whether you participate or not. Health care is my driving issue, which is why I'll be voting for the first time since 1992. My question is why is so much of your vitriol is aimed at Obama who genuinely supports gay rights, and attends a church that has gay ministers, when it is the GOP who actively denigrates and demonizes gay people? Why would you want McCain to defeat him? What would gay people gain?
Obama's stance on gay marriage shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. No frontrunner for President has yet advocated full rights PLUS legalized marriage called "Marriage" for gay couples. The Audacity of Hope on the campaign trail is still limited by political realities - federally recognized marriages are not immediately available politically, but civil unions can be, with full rights. This is similar to the Health Care crisis - Single Payor HC is idea, but politicially unavailable. We need to take steps to that goal instead of being outraged that we can't make one big leap.
So you admit Obama's message is empty rhetoric. Well, I already knew that. But I have HOPE he can CHANGE.
And no Democrat has won a presidential election since Clinton.
In 1992, Clinton reached out to gay voters and won.
Obama is ignoring them and thinks that is a winning strategy for a democrat. Sorry. Maybe for socially liberal republicans like Arnold or Cheney, but not our democratic candidate. that is unacceptable .
Obama: bad for the LGBT community. It started with the Rev. Donnie McClurkin. Obama invited the homophobic pastor to share his stage during a 'gospel" tour in North Carolina. Obama appeared on the Logo debate and clearly stated that he was against gay marriage and only supported civil unions The gay community has made it very clear that civil unions are separate and unequal to state (and federal) recognized marriage. Obama's silence on the issue of LGBT rights speaks volumes to us. He doesn't care about us. His message of change is not for us. Please join me in voting for Hillary as a write in on the November ballot. Obama and his supporters have made it very clear to us that they don't need and don't want us to be a part of the campaign.
Obama's Equality Iniative
My new video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdo2fYE7UJY
To clarify yet again....a federally recognized gay marriage has NOTHING to do with a religious marriage. All you church goers need to stop feeling threatened by this. Continue to discriminate at your churches. That's not what this debate is about.
The arguement is about the millions of us who are in same sex relationships and don't share the same privleges in: taxes, health insurance, company benefits, hospital visitations, inheritence rights, adoptions, etc.
If we waited for the public to feel comfortable with treating blacks, women, jews, people with AIDS fairly then nothing would have changed. Obama holds no reservation to tackle other controversial issues like immigration and racism, but somehow he doesn' t have the courage to address gay citizens?
The Republican party is currently weak on this issue after all the debacle's they encountered last year. That is why the Dems need to address it confidently and re-frame the language as EQUALITY. Mark my words, if they don't do it soon the GOP will use this as their bait again come November. And if Obama isn't prepared, he will stumble when the Republicans manipulate the public with their "gay agenda" tactic.
The fact is most Obama supporters already support marriage equality. If Obama did too, then he'd likely gain a hell of a lot more support. Hillary has already appealed to blue-collar white men and has publicly announced her support for gay equality. Why should it be any different for Obama?
Change we can believe in? Where? All I see is false hope. A policy of 'Seperate but Equal' didn't work for Blacks in the 1960s, it was a failed and shameful policy. Why should gays accept the same failed and discriminatory policies now? Where is the "change" Obama keeps promising? Where is his leadership? It's all just a bunch of hype, political BS. And all of you bought into it, hook, line, and sinker!
Obama is hard to understand. As an African-American himself, how can he be so insensitive, so blind? How can he fail to see the similarity between a group whose relationships are consummated in the rectum and his own people who were once held as chattel property and subjected to forced labor?
Read Rev. Mel White's biography "Stranger at the Gate" and you will see where I derive my Christian values.
Don't play the Christian card with me, because I'm well prepared for that debate too. Obama clearly isn't even interested in hearing the debate. Sad. It will be his undoing.
Such hope. Wasted.
Dear political cartoonists reading this:
Could you please create a cartoon of Obama, behind a podium, giving a speech to thousands of cheering supporters about the 'audacity of hope' and 'change we can believe in,' while, directly behind him, Air America radio host Lionel is desperately trying to keep a 'closet' door closed as to not let out the gays and lesbians who are looking for equal protection under the law? I would do it myself, but I have no talent for drawing. I give my idea to you. Pay what you think is fair.
I believe Obama supports equal protection under the law for gays. It will be implemented by "civil unions".
I think the problem many have with redefining the word marriage is that marriage implies sex between two individuals. What you do in private with another consenting adult is nobody's business but yours, but many people do not approve of or condone sex between two people of the same sex.
They feel that using the word marriage to describe your relationship implies that they condone the actions you participate in, which they do not. So calling it a civil union with all the rights of married couples gives you the protection under the law, while recognizing that what you do is your right, but others don't have to agree with it or condone it.
I think you have the problem wrong. It is simply about equality. In America we believe in equality and we don't vote for politicians that don't stand up for it.
I am a Christian Democrat who would like to beg a little patience from the GLBC. Please believe that I love you as my neighbors, colleagues, friends, etc. I have been taught most of my life that your lifestyle is an abomination and of course, my faith is very important to me. Many of us are in the middle of our struggle on how to love you and respect you without abandoning the foundation we have built our lives on. Do you remember in Fiddler on the Roof when Tevye bends for his daughters to marry without a matchmaker, but he cannot bend for the one daughter to marry a Christian because he will break? There are many of us who feel that we can bend for civil unions, but if we bend for gay marriage we will break. At the end of the play, Tevye's love for his daughter does conquer tradition and religiosity, as I pray it will for all of us. As many of us try to understand your struggle, please try to understand ours. My neighbors would never vote for a candidate who supported gay marriage. I would love to see us all kind of hold hands and take this step toward civil unions together instead of bickering because we aren't jumping off a cliff toward gay marriage. I wish this weren't true, but I know it would cost him the election.
If you understood the message of Fiddler on the Roof, what more do you need to convince you it is the right thing to do to support equality for all? Do we need to produce a new musical for you and your neighbors?
I'll do it.
So you are asking an entire segment of society to forego fighting for their civil rights (which they should not have to fight for anyway) so that you and your christian friends can feel more comfortable with yourselves? You're kidding, right?
I can understand, having been raised the way you were, that something like gay marriage must bewilder you. And I'm sorry it's turning your world upside down. But get used to the view, because this struggle will never end until all Americans enjoy full equality under the law. In the end, gay marriage will be the law of the land. Just as in the civil rights movement of the 1960's, it will take time and courage to tear down the walls of fear and prejudice that are currently standing against gay rights, but with the efforts of millions of people, it will happen.
The onus is not on the gay community to adjust their needs and goals to suit your wishes for finding a way for you to "love" them. The onus is on you to find that way yourself. That will also take time and courage - on your part. Might as well get started.
That's not what we are asking. We are asking you to calm yourselves. Be brave and be mature. This change stuff doesn't happen over-night. If gays and lesbians continue pushing the issue at this juncture, it will create more distraction from the real issues at hand (like human survival), and could drive more people to either switch camps or not vote at all. Let's get through Novemeber. For christ sakes, can you imagine the odds of gaining civil rights in a McCain administration. Honestly.
We have the millions of supporters. WHAT WE NEED IS A LEADER!!
Do you hear me OBAMA!
No one is asking you to BE gay, just support equal protection under the law. is that so hard to grasp?
Posted May 20, 2008 | 07:51 AM (EST)