|
||
Obama's Marriage Defense Shouldn't Surprise or Anger Anyone
"I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage... I believe in civil unions but it should not be called marriage."
Then Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said that during a campaign stop in Nelsonville, Ohio a day before the Super II Tuesday primary in March 2008. The great puzzle then is why so many are so hot at President Obama for backing the Defense of Marriage Act. He has not backed a step away from his Ohio campaign stump words.
His unshakeable personal, political and legal belief is that the only marriage that can be called marriage is between a man and a woman. This has absolutely nothing to do with his solid, and at times outspoken, tout of anti-discrimination, civility, and just plain human respect for gay rights. He has backed that in speeches and legislation 18 times before he grabbed the White House.
This still doesn't change his firm belief that marriage is marriage only when it's between a man and a woman. Gay groups, the mayors of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and some congresspersons, can scream at him to withdraw the Justice Department's brief filed seeking the dismissal of the legal challenge to the DOMA in a federal court in California. They can bash him as a flip flop and a betrayer of his campaign promises on gay rights. This still ignores the bitter truth that candidate Obama and now President Obama has been the paragon of consistency, even honesty, in opposing same sex marriage. This has nothing to do with politics, but his personal belief layered over with a tinge of religious interpretation, since he's cited conflicted passages from the Bible, to square his support of gay rights with his opposition to legalizing same sex marriage.
Obama's rock solid belief in traditional marriage was plainly evident at the opening gun of his presidential campaign in South Carolina in January 2008. He ignored loud protests and shouts for him to dump gay-challenged gospel singer Donnie McClurkin from his three date barnstorm tour through the state. The show complete with McClurkin went on. Critics naively chalked the McClurkin-Obama link up to his frantic need to grab the black vote away from rival Hillary Clinton. Politics no doubt was at play big in the McClurkin decision. But McClurkin was also a wildly popular and compelling singer and preacher who stirred the passions of hard nosed evangelical blacks in South Carolina and other must win states. McClurkin also stirred Obama's religious passions as well. Though McClurkin pleaded that he was not anti-gay, it did not change one whit his view and that of all other black evangelicals that same sex marriage is a Biblical abomination.
Bush masterfully tapped that homophobic sentiment among fundamentalist religious blacks in 2000 in part with McClurkin and even more masterfully in 2004 again with McClurkin and the top gun mega black preachers in Ohio and Florida. He tapped it so masterfully that Bush's naked pander to gay bashing with the GOP spawned anti-gay marriage initiative in Ohio did much to win over a big chunk of black evangelical leaning voters to him. A Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies poll in 2004 found that blacks by a far larger margin than the overall population opposed gay marriage. This raised a few eyebrows among some political pundits, but there were much earlier signs of blacks' relentless hostility to gays and gay rights.
In Florida and Wisconsin, Republicans aggressively courted and wooed key black religious leaders. They dumped big bucks from Bush's Faith-Based Initiative program into church-run education and youth programs. Black church leaders not only endorsed Bush but in some cases they actively worked for his re-election, and encouraged members of their congregations to do the same.
Polls show that more Americans than ever say that they support civil rights for gays, and a torrent of gay themed TV shows present non-stereotypical depictions of gays. However, this increased tolerance has not dissipated the hostility that far too many blacks, especially hard core Bible thumping blacks, feel toward gay marriage. California Proposition 8 backers quickly wised up to this and corraled a pack of fundamentalist black religious leaders in Los Angeles and other areas to stir up their flock against legalizing gay marriage. Then they got ticked at Obama for the White House's stone silence when the state supreme court backed the measure. The White House silence was no surprise.
The other big knock against Obama is that he didn't have to do anything on the DOMA; that he could have easily kept the White House's nose out of it by letting the legal challenge to it run its course. Other presidents have done that when they thought a law was unconstitutional or unjust.
This argument is tone deaf to what Obama has said and feels about traditional marriage too. Given that conviction his defense of the DOMA should not surprise or anger anyone.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard weekly in Los Angeles Fridays on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and live streamed nationally on ktym.com
Loading comments…
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
"His unshakeable (sic) personal, political and legal belief is that the only marriage that can be called marriage is between a man and a woman"? Rubbish. Unmitigated rubbish. Give us a break! "Legal belief"? What rubbish.
When will these smarmy pundits stop insulting our intelligence? "Legal belief"? Barack Obama has never once, not even once, provided even one LEGAL argument to support his denial of equality. This man holds himself out as a 'civil rights lawyer." Please! Can we ask this so-called 'civil rights lawyer' to give us at least ONE legal reason for denial of equality. YES WE CAN! But why is no one getting to the real issue? Why is everyone doing a tap dance? I agree that this could be fully expected but not for the reason you proffer.
See "Obama, DOMA, Treachery, Betrayal and Invidious Gay Jim Crow Laws" at http://open.salon.com/blog/john_mortimer_esq/2009/06/19/obama_doma_treachery_betrayal_and_invidious_gay_jim_crow
And see "Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo" at http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73
I just don't get the tone of this article. Is it "You all should have known better"? That's what seems to be the case. Obama campaigned on very specific items towards the LGBT community and now he's shredding his word. Aren't people entitled to be upset about that?
So when do people get to challenge "fundamentalist black religious leaders" about their intolerance? Is it really OK to allow the people who've benefited from the civil rights movement the most to join in on the oppression of another minority?
Civil rights are basic to all people, and should not have to pass any religious litmus test to be accepted, especially among other minorities.
As a useful corrective to the author's perverse championing of an anti-gay-rights position:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/the-gay-guide-to-obamas-r_b_216683.html
comparing my marriage to my husband with that of incest and child abuse is hardly what he said he'd do when running for office. People are not complaining that he had to defend DOMA in Court, it is the hateful and mean way in which it was done. At no point in the electoral process did we EVER expect candidate Obama to morph into the President Obama who would so callously compare our relationships to pedophiles and incestuous heterosexuals.
You are so far off the mark on what we are upset about. I guess you would have thought differently a mere 30 years ago, when your rights were still be impugned by LAW. We do not expect the issues of unfairness to end once the laws change, we have seen in the past in the struggle for civil equality by African Americans, that the problems do not stop just because the law get's changed, but these laws are wrong, and a Constitutional Scholar as we have in the White House should know that. Or maybe he agrees with Bush and thinks that equality and freedom mean only what he says they mean.
It only took a few days and a few people are saying that Obama compared gay relationships to pedophilia and incest. This is simply not the case. Here’s a well written article explaining who actually wrote the DOJ memo in question, what it says and what it actually means, for those interested.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogarth/obamas-doma-defense-unacc_b_215718.html
Here's a snip from Paul Hogarths piece:
"Most lawyers at the Justice Department who write these briefs are civil servants who cannot be replaced by a new President, and one of the authors was in fact a right-wing holdover from the Bush years. But Tony West, an Obama appointee and the brother-in-law of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, allowed it to be filed in court - and his name appears on the front page."
You should read the articles you link to before you tell people they are wrong in their reading of the brief. And since Obama is THE President, anything written by or for the Justice Department or ANY Department he controls, is in fact HIS. And if you don't believe that, then you need to tell everyone to stop blaming Bush for what HIS Justice Department did. You naysayers cannot have it both ways. If you keep up this line of reasoning, you will NEVER be able to challenge any President on anything their administration does, because it is always someone else doing the writing and the brief filings, it is never the President, even when he instructs them to do something.
From the link YOU provide:
The Administration argued that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not bar states from denying out-of-state gay marriages, and they cited prior cases of out-of-state marriages that were between (a) an uncle and niece, (b) a 16-year-old and adult and (c) first cousins. Comparing same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia is what one would expect from a Republican Administration, and for a court to agree with such reasoning is unhelpful..
Well, it seems that the LGBT community is rightly angered at what the DOJ brief said as their defense of DOMA. The DOJ compared same sex marriage to pedophilia among other things. Now, your point that Pres Obama didn't flip flop on the marriage vs. civil union terminology is correct; but he definitely did an about face on the anti-discrimination, civility and "...just plain human respect..." promises.
Do you believe the government should interfere in the private lives of American citizens, so if Adam and Steve want to get married should the government interfere in their right to do so?
If you answer yes to the question, then you leave yourself open to the possibility that you must agree if the government should decide to interfere in your private life on an issue that is important to you. If you believe the government should interfere in the private lives of it's citizens then you have to recognize the danger that belief places all of us in, and open your eyes to the way it could affect you personally.
If you answer no to that question, then you must find a way to support the LGBT community in attaining the same rights and responsibilities as the heterosexual community, including the use of the common law word "marriage".
Rick Lord
Bravo sir!!!! Even Earl would have a hard time arguing against that airtight logic.
We're not necessarily surprised that the Obama administration defended the DOMA, even though they didn't have to. But the legal brief they filed was incredibly insulting, filled with stereotypes and may as well have been written by the Bush clowns.
And the Afrcian-American religious leaders need to face up to their sin of PRIDE. Lots and lots of PRIDE. They wear the CIVIL RIGHTS mantle as if it was theirs exclusively, when it's not. And lets face it, there's still a stigma of somehow being associated with the gays, even when there are obvious parallels in the struggle for CIVIL RIGHTS. As if gays wanting CIVIL RIGHTS somehow waters down or lessens the value of the black struggle.
What do they tell a lesbian parishoner? "You should be proud of the struggle for racial equality and gender equality. But the gay thing? Eh, not a real issue."
Earl, what you're describing is just another example of the pathology of our electorate.
It's what happens when voters are (a) immature and (b) intellectually a few Tiki lamps short of a luau.
Can you all try and not be so patronizing? Just try it for a day.
I prefer reality to delusion.
It's painful in the short term sometimes, but in the long run it's the best way to run one's life, business, country.
Now you can pull up all these tired quotes of his equivocations on gay rights (even though he supported same sex marriage before he didn't), but he did promise to repeal DOMA and DADT, not defend them in the courts. IF he wants to by all means he can, but Bill Maher is right. Maybe he should have a little more audacity on the things his base actually wants (ie, healthcare, environment, banks), than on the religious-based discriminatory stuff. But every politician has to learn not to bite the hand that feeds him. And if he keeps pushing his largely young, educated, liberal base this way, in 3 years he will be hard pressed to find as many small donations or volunteers as he has this time around.
Great points, Lynwood!
Obama, courted the LGBT vote during the campaign only to back away from his promises after the inauguration. Doing so, he had broadened the centrist and right--of--centrist base.
He reminds me of someone who continues to date a person he really really does not care for . . . Until someone better comes along.
When his actions as President match his words as a candidate, I will think better of him. And so will my check book.
What exactly is your point? If Obama says something, we are to just sit down and shut up? Our battle for equal rights does not include protesting, shouting down, and denouncing actions by Obama because we knew what those actions might be before he was elected? That is silly. No one was saying this when Bush was president. I am starting to think all the things I was very angry at bush for doing, most of my fellow "liberals" were more-so just playing politics;I am starting to think the anger and indignation was false.
If we took your view, then Gay rights battles wouldnt' have been fought at all this decade. We would have shut up and said "Ok, we have a president who thinks gay sex should be a criminal act, maybe we should be quiet", but no, we went to the courts and the legislature and the streets and demanded rights. And guess what, it worked.. It worked so well that now we have the luxury to argue over federal benefits when in 2003 we were arguing about Sodomy laws.
Lyndon Johnson didn't give one flying duck about passing civil rights legislation, but he was pushed into doing it by the nobility of the cause and the sheer number and loudness of the voices in protest. Gays will accomplish the same.
All wonderful points. Thanks!!
"Though McClurkin pleaded that he was not anti-gay, it did not change one whit his view and that of all other black evangelicals that same sex marriage is a Biblical abomination."
And their public stance on shellfish......also listed as an "abomination" and the rest of Leviticus Chapter 11
Proverbs: Lying lips are abomination to the LORD:but they that deal truly are his delight.
Deuteronomy: The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)
And the list goes on and on.....but in your case selectively.
Who said we are surprised? Angry, of course. Surprised? Not so much.
Thank God we have Obama because most of these black people u speak of would have probably voted republican again. How nice of them! They know what its like to be considered a second class citizen and fight for their rights, and yet they're quick to deny those same rights to others because they are different and their bibles don't agree with gay marriage. Didn't marriage start as a form of indentured servitude anyway?
And it was that same Bible that was used to justify slavery and keeping the races separate. Some people just don't understand their own history and it's is hurting all of us. that's why so many had hope for Obama because he is a great communicator. Now we see that is about all he is good at.
Well said Mr. Hutchinson, Your brand of common sense and reasoning are a welcome respite from all the fuming generalities and false echoes we’ve been seeing.
To reinforce what your post points out, the last chapter of his second book, The Audacity of Hope is 28 pages on the subject of the family and, although my copy didn’t come carved in stone, he makes his understanding of all sides of the subject, along with his personal opinions abundantly clear. That he considers more than one solitary facet of any given issue has been a large part of his success, at least from what I’m seeing so far. It’s also been an ability he’s drawn considerable criticism for.
If anyone really cares to see where Obama stands, on pretty much any issue, they may find it helpful to read what he wrote as opposed to relying on neatly parsed sound bites and media inspired distortions.
"It's wrong to have millions of Americans living as SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS in this nation. And I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS ELECTION so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.
I WILL NEVER COMPROMISE ON MY COMMITMENT TO EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL LGBT AMERICANS. As your President, I WILL USE THE BULLY PULPIT to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.
I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. Americans are YEARNING FOR LEADERSHIP that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible.
I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, WE NEED LEADERSHIP that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. JOIN WITH ME, AND I WILL PROVIDE THAT LEADERSHIP. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike." -- Barack Obama (February 2008)
Did I miss something here?
Nope, as I just mentioned, you parsed it up to say all the things you needed it to say. You missed only what you wanted to miss.
I'm really not sure the point of Earl's piece. What, are gays and lesbians supposed to wait around for equal rights until all the "bible thumpers" are comfortable with the idea? Look, just because folks hold fast to their beliefs, and just because politicians are sometimes brilliant at swaying them to their side is irrelevant to the fact that citizens of our country are clearly being denied equal rights. That must change, and it is changing. If Obama doesn't even want to be a bit-player in that effort so be it. But that's not stopping it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
