Does Obama Support Gay Marriage?

National Review Online: The Senator's Response To Calif. Supreme Court Decision Is Telling

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Rich Lowry.

---

Barack Obama might be the first major candidate for president to support same-sex marriage.

He won’t say as much. His definition of a “new politics” is capacious enough to allow for pose and slipperiness (as long as he’s the one engaged in them). But his stance on a California supreme-court decision that ripped away any middle ground on the issue makes him operationally pro-gay marriage.

In California, a domestic-partnership law gives gay couples, in the words of the decision, “virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law.” But that’s not enough. Marriage must be redefined to include same-sex relationships. Any arrangement short of this is comparable to segregation: famously progressive California as Bull Connor’s Alabama.

In a carefully hedged statement, Obama said he “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court.” He respects a decision that disregarded the will of the people in California, as expressed by a 2000 referendum that defined marriage as between a man and a woman; he respects a decision that excoriated his own position of support for civil unions and (theoretical) opposition to same-sex marriage; he respects a decision that rejects the sort of political compromise he extols. It’s like a professed abolitionist in 1857 saying he “respects” the Dred Scott ruling.

Obama’s tone noticeably differed from John Kerry’s in 2004. Kerry criticized the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage and said he’d support a constitutional amendment banning it. In contrast, Obama patted the California court on the head and said nothing about a proposed referendum in the fall to amend the California constitution to overrule the court. Obama makes Kerry look like a staunch cultural conservative.

If the California decision goes into effect in 30 days - as is usually the practice - thousands of gay couples will get married no matter what the public decides. California doesn’t have a statute like the one in Massachusetts that prevents people from coming there from out of state for same-sex marriages. Many of the newlyweds will be from elsewhere. They will return home, the seedbed for lawsuits to have their marriages recognized by their states.

What’s to stand in its way? Obama opposes a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He opposes the federal Defense of Marriage Act that prevents states from having to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. And he supports activist judges of the sort who find the California court’s reasoning congenial.

Obama is a soft-toned cultural warrior, wrapped in the blandishments of change and bipartisanship. Roe v. Wade was a crucial catalyst for America’s ongoing kulturkampf; it imposed a policy of abortion-on-demand on the nation, stoking a ferocious backlash. The Supreme Court and its liberal cheerleaders who thought it could force their preferred social change faster than the democratic process were the cultural aggressors.

So it is now. States around the country are giving legal standing to same-sex unions, but the California court insists the change is not fast or far-reaching enough. The court argued again and again that withholding the word “marriage” from gay unions denies them “equal dignity and respect.” The court thus demands moral approval for these unions, and does what open-minded people everywhere are supposed to abhor: impose its morality on people who disagree.

If opposition to same-sex marriage is equivalent to bigotry, religious groups that oppose it are purveyors of discrimination and deserve to be treated as such under the law. Down this road is a significant challenge to religious freedom. Roe eventually discredited blatant judicial activism, but the California decision serves to revive it. If it stands, it will again legitimize judges governing by fiat.

That will bail out evasive liberal politicians who fear being forthright about their views and hope merely to step out of the way while judges impose them. For the cause of self-government, it’s a disaster.

[JeSsIcAlOvEsHiM]

ok, I do not understand why people care so much about gay people getting married.
Also i don't understand how the goverment can contorl who gets married and who doesn't. Seeing as how marriage is done under GOD to prove your love for another.
Hence why A wedding is done in a church.
UNTILL the goverment came in and marries people in court.
Most say well god doesn't accept gays,
but if a gay couple will go before god and show there love then i dont see why the goverment wont allow it.

[messiahx4eve]

Marriage bestows upon the two people involved certain legal rights and privileges. These are things related to inheritance, life insurance benefits, home/property ownership rights, tax benefits, employer benefits etc etc. These benefits are only available to people who are "legally married".
d33pthroat1


Again I ask why this should concern me? If you are married, logically this should be the progression followed. If a married couple pay into this system, they should reap the benefits of it if either one dies. There are MUCH bigger issues out there than Gay marriage I can think of fighting. Diversionary journalism is great *** is it or should it be MY concern? What two people want is THEIR business, not mine, if its money you are worried about, why bother? Its not yours anyway.

[d33pthroat1]

Why do we even care who sleeps or has s*e*x with whom? What is the big deal? I am not gay or lesbian, but I feel that IF someone wants to be gay or lesbian, why should it bother me?

-Posted by messiahx4eve at 06:40 AM : May 28, 2008

-------------------------------

The issue is not about who is having s*e*x with whom. The issue is about a legally recognized relationship called "marriage".

Marriage bestows upon the two people involved certain legal rights and privileges. These are things related to inheritance, life insurance benefits, home/property ownership rights, tax benefits, employer benefits etc etc. These benefits are only available to people who are "legally married".

Gay and lesbian couples are fighting for legitimization of their relationships through marriage so that they can enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.

[messiahx4eve]

Why do we even care who sleeps or has s*e*x with whom? What is the big deal? I am not gay or lesbian, but I feel that IF someone wants to be gay or lesbian, why should it bother me? Is this the best that people can lower themselves to fight about? You all that worry about this or fret about it to the point of it being a mental disorder, need to either get therapy or stuff your collective heads up your coleective religious behinds and breathe deeply and get a life, GAY marriage is a PERSONAL choice, not a political, religious, legal or community choice. Bible thumpers beware, bibles CAN strike back.

[guysdigdirt]

conservatives are hypocrits

Posted by joyous88 at 09:13 AM


Liberals calling conservatives hypocrites, that is the true definition of a hypocrite, isn''t it.

[guysdigdirt]

It''''s hard to see where Obama stands on any issue.

He''''s never sponsored any kind of legislation of his own.

Never "solved" the problems of poor folks in his old south-side of Chicago district.

Voted "present" more times than he took a position on an issue.

Who is this guy, Obama?

Is he like a lot of people think, a "product" of the most corrupt institution in America, our mostly liberal MSM wolfpack press?

.............Looks like it more and more everyday..........sad.
Posted by perceptions5

The only thing he has ever gone on record to vote for is to take away constitutional rights.

[eroosevelt08]

Oh Great. Obama''s New Politics allow for pose and slipperiness. That doesn''t sound like change to me. That sounds just like George W. Bush to me.

[perceptions5]

It''s hard to see where Obama stands on any issue.

He''s never sponsored any kind of legislation of his own.

Never "solved" the problems of poor folks in his old south-side of Chicago district.

Voted "present" more times than he took a position on an issue.

Who is this guy, Obama?

Is he like a lot of people think, a "product" of the most corrupt institution in America, our mostly liberal MSM wolfpack press?

.............Looks like it more and more everyday..........sad.

[irliberal]

Happy Larry Craig Day,

conservatives are hypocrits

Posted by joyous88 at 09:13 AM

Lol... funny. 8-)

[jjp735i]

Why is it that the Republican Right calls judges who determine a case "activist" when the ruling does not go their way? Judges are supposed to determine just what the law or the Constitution means. These were Republican appointed judges who viewed the Ca Constitution the way it was supposed to be. Now they are activist? If the Republican Right is to have its way, why have judges at all?

[huangagain]

What Mr. Lowry fails to mention in his article is that legalization of gay marriage was passed (through a democratic process) in both the house and senate in California and that one man, the governor, decided for the state by vetoing it not once, but twice. Hence the court overruled the one man who stood in the way of what the majority wanted...gay marriage. Regardless of that fact, the court is in place specifically to NOT let the majority walk all over the minority. It''s not activism, it''s doing the job it was intended to do.

[huangagain]

What Mr. Lowry fails to mention in his article is that legalization of gay marriage was passed (through a democratic process) in both the house and senate in California and that one man, the governor, decided for the state by vetoing it not once, but twice. Hence the court overruled the one man who stood in the way of what the majority wanted...gay marriage. Regardless of that fact, the court is in place specifically to NOT let the majority walk all over the minority. It''s not activism, it''s doing the job it was intended to do.

[gaye5]

See references for the below articles
References:

S. D. Wexner, J. W. Milsom, T. H. Dailey, Dis Colon *** 30, 942 (Dec, 1987).
M. Frisch et al., N Engl J Med 337, 1350 (Nov 6, 1997).
M. Frisch, E. Smith, A. Grulich, C. Johansen, Am J Epidemiol 157, 966 (Jun 1, 2003).
J. P. Cobb, W. P. Schecter, T. Russell, Dis Colon *** 33, 135 (Feb, 1990).
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 41, 155 (1992).
S. M. Cotter et al., J Infect Dis 187, 1235 (Apr 15, 2003).
D. H. Osmond et al., J Infect Dis 167, 66 (Jan, 1993).
L. A. Kingsley et al., Jama 264, 230 (Jul 11, 1990).
S. W. Dooley et al., Jama 267, 2632 (May 20, 1992).
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 50, 117 (2001).
L. A. Williams et al., Am J Public Health 89, 1093 (Jul, 1999).
AIDS Patient Care STDS 17, 669 (Dec, 2003).
A. M. Halsos, K. Edgardh, Int J STD AIDS 13, 370 (Jun, 2002).
J. S. Fennema, I. Cairo, J. Spaargaren, N. H. Dukers, R. A. Coutinho, Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 146, 633 (Mar 30, 2002).
A. McMillan, H. Young, A. Moyes, Int J STD AIDS 11, 284 (May, 2000).
W. M. Janda, M. Bohnoff, J. A. Morello, S. A. Lerner, Jama 244, 2060 (Nov 7, 1980).
T. Berglund, H. Fredlund, J. Giesecke, *** Transm Dis 28, 111 (Feb, 2001).
J. D. Johansen, E. Smith, Acta Derm Venereol 82, 365 (2002).
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 53, 335 (Apr 30, 2004).
A. Torre, D. Kershenobich, Ann Hepatol 1, 45 (Jan-Mar, 2002).
C. Gaudreau, S. Michaud, Clin Infect Dis 37, 131 (Jul 1, 2003).
and many more

[gaye5]

Until recently, the hepatitis-C virus has been mainly transmitted via sharing needles for intravenous drug use and blood or plasma transfusions. (24) However, male homosexuals have started to make a significant contribution to the spread of the hepatitis-C virus via risky sexual behaviours.
During the 1990s, syphilis levels were fairly low, but by 1996 68% of syphilis patients were MSM, among whom 66% were also HIV-positive.
It hardly needs mentioning who gets rectal gonorrhoea. Homosexuals also get gonorrhoea in the *** (urethral gonorrhoea) and mouth (pharyngeal gonorrhoea).
During the period 1994-1999, in Denmark, the incidence of gonorrhoea among MSM was 30 times that among heterosexual men. Parasitic intestinal infections are common among homosexuals; they result from the consumption of faecal material via rimming and other sexual practices (see here). Rimming is a practice where they use the tongue around the ***.
A 2003 U.S. report mentioned the emergence of a multi-drug-resistant bacterial skin infection among homosexual men .

[gaye5]

It appears that there is an increasing number of new viruses and diseases appearing. .. There is a pattern here that we ignore at our peril, Throughout history, the major civilizations condemned homosexuality, and it would appear that it is not just religion which is the reason for condemning homosexuality but the life of the law being logic and centuries of experience...


Infectious Diseases are a plight of homosexuals.
At least 8 new sexually transmitted germs were identified between 1980 and 1997. Dr. Max Essex, chair of the Harvard AIDS Institute, warned Congress in 1992 that "AIDS has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics. .
The typical sexual practices of homosexuals are a medical horror story - imagine exchanging saliva, feces, *** and/or blood with dozens of different men each year. Imagine drinking urine, ingesting feces and experiencing rectal trauma on a regular basis.
In the mid-20th century, male homosexuals constituted about 8% of men afflicted with anal cancer; by the mid-1980s, this figure had risen to 72%.
During 1982-1989, MSM constituted less than 10% of individuals with hepatitis-A. But between Nov 1998 and May 1999, 66% of the men had hepatitis-A in Columbus, Ohio, in New York City, 50% in San Francisco, 56% etc, but in San Francisco, 4.6% had hepatitis-C and 81% had hepatitis-B infection. (7) Hepatitis-B appears to be transmitted 8.6-fold more efficiently than HIV-1 among homosexual men, according to a study

[joyous88]

Happy Larry Craig Day,

conservatives are hypocrits

[joyous88]

we can always depend on this propaganda rag to bring

up the right wingnut talking points,

conservatives are evil , just a new form of NAZI

[hungry1968]

This article was written by the national review online?

Dismissed!!

Nothing to see here - move along.....

[patriot12436]

CBS will not let us use the word S-E-X, but i can rtpe balls and they allow it.

[patriot12436]

I thik the opinion on marriage differs from person to person. For most women that piece of paper means security, while fro most men it is just a piece of paper he signs to make the woman happy. If you ask a man i think most will tell you when they give their word to someone that means more to them tha a piece of paper.