President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
Any claim that the President “clarified” his stance with his comments to Robin Roberts about gay marriage is negligent analysis. His thoughts on the legality of gay marriage remain as much a mystery now as ever.
Words mean things, and after 274 words the President finally got to this exact sentence:
“I think same sex couples should be able to get married."
Should be able to? While that expresses a personal preference about gay marriage, it portends absolutely nothing when trying to predict the former constitutional law professor’s position on whether the government has the power to prohibit it.
The President may simply be bringing his personal views in line with his church. In 2004 the President said the following in a debate with Alan Keyes:
"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
His “religious beliefs” became at odds with his church. Trinity Church in Chicago, where the President was a congregant, is part of the United Church of Christ. The following year that church famously came out in support of gay marriage.
Offering him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the President is simply coming to terms with the teaching of his church. Yet that tells us nothing of his legal understanding of government being allowed to prohibit gay marriage.
His recent comments do not make clear which of the following four groups he belongs to:
-There are people who have concordance in their religious/personal beliefs and legal views that gay marriage is prohibited.
-There are people who have concordance in their religious/personal beliefs and legal views that gay marriage is allowed.
-There are people who hold a religious belief or personal wish that gays should be allowed to marry while conceding that American law is structured so that government can prohibit it.
-There are people who hold a religious belief or personal wish that gays should not be allowed to marry while conceding that American law is structured so that government cannot prohibit it.
While the President stated his religious belief/personal wish, he did not clarify his legal position.
Even when examining his “evolution” on gay marriage in the courtroom it is not clear that his position has actually changed. In the beginning of his Presidency he defended the Defense of Marriage Act. Importantly, his legal briefs used the “rational relationship test,” the lowest possible standard for equal protection and the easiest test for the government to pass when limiting an act such as gay marriage.
In 2011 the administration decided to stop defending two lawsuits challenging DOMA. Note well - there were no briefs filed asserting a different legal standard that would elevate the importance of gay marriage as a civil right nor raise the legal standard government action would have to meet to prohibit gay marriage. Instead the government simply defaulted – didn’t show for the fight. That’s how one loses a case without committing to a change in legal position.
As the President said in 2004 his religious beliefs will not “dominate or determine” his political ones. While the President’s religious view or personal choice is interesting reading, it isn’t important at all versus his indistinct view of government power. That still remains a mystery.
He is seemingly a “state’s rights” adherent on gay marriage, having said also in 2004 that DOMA was unnecessary as the Constitution “does not prevent a state from refusing to recognize a marriage that is contrary to its own marriage laws." That might even explain his decision to stop defending DOMA.
However many people question his stated commitment to gay marriage being a state’s rights issue, as the President has expressed displeasure when the people of various states or their legislatures vote to ban gay marriage. That criticism might not be fair in one sense – to disagree with the outcome of a vote is not the same has disagreeing with the right of the people to hold a vote. On the other hand, the criticism of the President may be fair, as his obfuscation of his own views naturally invites suspicion of his sporadic and imprecise pronouncements on gay marriage.
Adding to that suspicion today is the reason the President gave to Robin Roberts for his evolution-ending conversion: A reward to his supporters. He did not say he came to this pro-gay marriage conclusion due to a religious conversion or a re-examination of constitutional limits. Instead, he framed it as reward for his gay staff and those in the military – a heartwarming offering I suppose but awfully insufficient as a legal premise.
Rather than Judge the President through my words you should judge him on his own, which follow. Observe while reading his avoidance of anything legal, supplanted perhaps by the use of the words “I” “me” and “my” which nearly double the frequency of all other words, making clear this is a statement of personal choice and not legal analysis:
"I have to tell you, as I said I've been going through an evolution of this issue. I've always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally.
And that's why in addition to everything we've done in this administration, rolling back 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', so that outstanding Americans can serve our country whether it's not longer defending the Defense Against Marriage Act which tried to federalize what is historically been state law. I've stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community and I had hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient ... that it would give people hospital visitation rights and other elements we take for granted. And I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word 'marriage' was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religions beliefs and so forth.
But I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
I suspect that Obama has been studying the polling data. This time around, he knows that he cannot bamboozle white Christians again, and he hopes that this shift will stir up and inspire his base. His shift is of a piece with the HHS mandate and his decision to play the race card against George Zimmerman. In 2008, he was the great uniter. That scam will not work again. So, today, he is the great divider.
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
True - and when a Democrat divides the media will label him courageous.
Apr '11
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
Yep. Perhaps he's trying to play by Bush's reelection playbook. If I recall, it was around this time in the 2004 cycle that Bush started talking about gay marriage to solidify the conservative base. But, as usual, Obama doesn't get it. Gay activists, and liberals in general, are perfectly happy to accept deceit from their leaders, because lying is just part of the game. They know what their hero really stands for, so who cares if he dupes a bunch of stupid rednecks into helping them win?
Compare the collective shrug on the left over Obama's gay marriage flip flop with the conservative obsession over Romney 's flip flops. The difference is conservatives actually care about character and integrity.
Still, this was a miscalculation. By next week the lefties will forget he ever opposed gay marriage and they'll find something new to complain about. Meanwhile, he'll have pissed off anyone who actually believed his previous, "un-evolved" position.
I'm curious if the Obama team would have calculated differently had the lopsided NC vote come earlier.
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
I read reports that some big potential donors to Obama's SuperPAC were withholding funds. The base that he needs to play to is the base with money. Unless I am mistaken, there are places in North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania where this will lose him votes that he might have had a chance to get -- the votes of working stiffs whom he might have been able to bamboozle by playing up Romney's offshore bank accounts and the like. It is as if Obama wants this race to be a referendum on the sexual revolution.
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
Here is a link to the story concerning the campaign donors: http://freebeacon.com/gay-for-pay/
Mar '11
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
Who are these neighbors?
Oct '11
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
I saw a headline, I think at Hotair, that the Obama campaign took in over $1,000,000 in donations in the 90 minutes following Obama's interview yesterday.
I actually still think that Obama's true position is that he is against gay marriage. But who knows? Pretty much everyone, no matter their position on gay marriage (I'm fine with it), thinks the president is either lying now (me) or has been lying for the past eight years.
Nov '10
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
Tommy, your analysis is compelling but I think you are missing one critical point. Whereas you are I might try to reconcile our personal views on an issue such as this against our view of limited government and personal liberty, the President is under no such obligation, in his own mind. His personal view very much is his view legally. The left don't have any view toward the limiting power of the constitution and how that affects what governments can and cannot do. Government can do whatever seems best, in their minds. This is why it's ok for a Democrat to flip-flop, I mean change his mind, on issues without there being any sense of dishonesty or playing politics.
Sep '10
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
sound ... no fury ... signifying nothing.
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
You might be right about that. There is that smug factor.
May '11
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
Cutlass and Ken both inadvertently reveal a media bias that permeates this conversation. The President "evolves" but Romney "flip-flops." Might we not want to allow Romney to "evolve", too. As a conservative, I find myself expressing ideas in a more rigid, less tolerant fashion. Romney is a flip-flopper. Gingrich is a bomb-thrower. Etc.
These memes are implanted by the media. We need to fight them and promote clearer less rigid means of expression.
Apr '11
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
Well, my brother and his liberal ilk are beside themselves with glee the President came out as he did, even though it was well after the NC vote, and after donor pressure to come out as he did. So there's plenty out there for whom this sort of ploy works.
On a side note, am I the only one disturbed when he says,
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
C. U. Douglas: Well, my brother and his liberal ilk are beside themselves with glee the President came out as he did, even though it was well after the NC vote, and after donor pressure to come out as he did. So there's plenty out there for whom this sort of ploy works.
On a side note, am I the only one disturbed when he says,
39 minutes ago
I did wince at that.
Apr '12
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
We know his legal view as well, because he has ended dadt and the enforcement of doma. So it looks like he has evolved his personal view to mesh with his legal view.
Mar '11
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
The reason his position is "unclear" is that he flip flops more than Mitt Romney.
For prior elections he was pro-gay marriage as this helped him get elected.
Running for President he was against gay marriage because it helped him get elected.
Now he is pro-gay marriage because it helps him get re-elected. This man has no moral core.
Right minded people can disagree on this issue. It is even possible for people's opinion to change over time. But this is ridiculous.
May '11
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
My only comment - President Obama is not, nor was he ever, a law professor. I know there are idiot law professors out there, so the position itself may not be all that lofty. However, Chicago law is a very prestigious school, and to claim "former law professor at Chicago," is misleading at best, but is patently untrue.
Professor Epstein (an actual Law Professor and former Dean of Chicago) has also pointed that out on "Law Talk."
It is one title I wish Conservatives would stop bestowing on Obama. I think the argument is often something like "maybe he would make a good SC justice, but not president." The former would arguably be more disastrous than the latter. I think conservatives often do that so that they can be saying something seemingly respectful while rightly pointing out the man's obvious faults - but I see little point in that, especially when it simply isn't accurate.
Just a little pet peeve.
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
I didn't know about that issue. Here is the school's statement on it:
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Edited on May 11, 2012 at 4:41amMar '11
Re: President Obama’s Unclear Position About Gay Marriage
C. U. Douglas:
On a side note, am I the only one disturbed when he says,
5 hours ago
How dare you begrudge Caesar his Praetorian Guard!