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.

[darrren12000]

This is a dumb post. All the major candidates have stated an opposition to same-*** marriage. Why would you even give this madness legitimacy?

[paris1969]

The GOP Governor of California ... the wonderful Arnold .. supports the State Supreme Court decision ... as does most rational people who are not blinded by religious ignorance.

[paris1969]

Also, interracial marriage would be illegal in this country if left to the popular vote ... at some point everyone needs to realize that not one of us has the right to vote on who anyone gets married to.

[agog2]

Does Obama Support Gay Marriage? I guess you would have to ask Larry Sinclair about that. Look up Larry Sinclair on Google search!!!

[hypnotoad72]

"marriage" is a religious institution. "civil unions" are a government institution. Get the religious to change their minds on g@ys and then they can get married. Let the politicians decide who can have a union.

The way many people whine, marriage is pointless in the first place. :-S

[hypnotoad72]

This is a dumb post. All the major candidates have stated an opposition to same-*** marriage. Why would you even give this madness legitimacy?

Posted by darrren12000
--------------------------

Viewership and ratings would be my main guess. When not parading mostly naked in public (or flashing their parts), they say it''s nobody''s business and want to be left alone. Conflicting viewpoints indeed... can''t wait for June to end.

[mcvet]

It''s wild and quite funny watching these Nazi''s attempt to get a wedge issue going. Sieg Heil Bush

[agog2]

Look up Larry Sinclair
http://www.youtube.com/user/larrysinclair0926

[gkc99]

The precious Rick Lowry must be frustrated because nobody is listening to his tighty Whitey righty boolsheeyit any more.

[noloyalisti]

Yeah, we would not want to join the rest of civilized society like in Scandanavia and most of the rest of the Europe. If you don''t like gay marriage, don''t have one.

[daenku32]

Interesting how he compares the decision to Scott, instead the one that this resembled more: Loving vs Virginia.

[ubrew12]

Lowry: "The [CA] 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 you don''t like gay marriage, don''t have one. Do you honestly think you have to ''morally approve'' of gay marriage because of the CA court?

If they said *** had ''moral approval'' NOT to jump off a cliff, would you believe they were telling YOU to jump off a cliff?

Cuz, you know, I might be able to get them to say that..

[mketaggart]

Idiot Republicnazis like this bozo have no understanding of the Constitution. He says that the court overturned the will of the people. Duh. That''s what the Bill of Rights REQUIRES them to do (along with the equal protection clause of the California constitution on which the California court relied) The rights estabished in the Constitution were designed specifically to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority (ie. the people''s will). These morons have absolutely no clue how that works. Thank God the founding fathers were smarter than them.

[irliberal]

The author of this article, Rich Lowry, is worried. This article isn''t really about *** or the definition of marriage. This is an attempt by a partisan republican to spread misinformation, innuendo and encourage bigotry, it''s as simple as that.

It worked in 2000. It worked in 2004. Who''s to say it won''t work again?

You.

[mike74576]

The author of this article contends that Obama''s stance on gay marriage is opposed to the will of the people of California. He fails to mention that the popularly elected state legislature of California passed bills in 2005 and 2007 that would have legalized gay marriage (both were vetoed). Few critics of the California court ruling mention this fact when they attack the judges for overturning the will of the people.

[mike74576]

The author of this article contends that Obama''s stance on gay marriage is opposed to the will of the people of California. He fails to mention that the popularly elected state legislature of California passed bills in 2005 and 2007 that would have legalized gay marriage (both were vetoed). Few critics of the California court ruling mention this fact when they attack the judges for overturning the will of the people.

[mike74576]

The author of this article contends that Obama''s stance on gay marriage is opposed to the will of the people of California. He fails to mention that the popularly elected state legislature of California passed bills in 2005 and 2007 that would have legalized gay marriage (both were vetoed). Few critics of the California court ruling mention this fact when they attack the judges for overturning the will of the people.

[cgallaway]

sdf

[cgallaway]

fg

[cgallaway]

sorry about the last two posts...checking to see if the registration worked.

First off, heterosexual couples that get hitched by a judge with the power vested in him/her by whichever state, are considered "Married" Atheists can get married. Satanists can get married. "Marriage" is not just a religious sanction. It is also a title held by those that are wanting the same legal rights as those that are religious. That said, the churches should not be forced to marry homosexual couples, as that would be against their religious beliefs. That is something else that no one is pointing out. The ruling is not stating that churches must wed homosexual couples, only that the government (who can wed couples as well) must give equal rights to homosexual couples.

[cgallaway]

For those who believe that marriage is intended for the procreation of children...then why do we allow heterosexual couples to get married regardless of their intention of having children? Also why do we allow those people who have problems creating life on their own to get married? Simple, marriage by the law of the land is not defined by the couple having children or not.

[cgallaway]

Another issue people throw out is that marriage is for the safety of children....yet to many heterosexual marriages are created with people who hurt children. Pedophiles, rapists, murderers, all able to be wed according to the churches and the states, but homosexuals? That''s too dangerous according to the right wing.

I suppose one could argue that a lot of people got married believing that marriage was between a man and a woman. Well, if that is the only reason someone got hitched to a member of the opposite ***, then they did it for the wrong reasons. If Bob and Jerry getting married makes you feel less love towards your spouse, then you have emotional issues that you need to deal with.

[bud28dy]

zgomer -- wow, some really profound comments. Does your Momma know you''re up way past your bedtime playing on the web? One day when you are a big boy you will understand how to discuss and argue matters like grown ups but that''s a long way away, way past grammar school. Now you run along and let us adults talk, OK little buudy?

[cgallaway]

There are also documented cases of homosexuality in nature. The religious right believe it is an abomination unto God....perhaps God created homosexual behavior as a means of population control. These people are out of the gene pool (with the exception of modern medical science which allows creation of a baby without sexual intercourse). I guess I can not see any logical reason that two men or two women can''t marry each other. I mean, the religious right has made homosexuality into almost a leper type "untouchable" status. So much so, that homosexuals have been cast out by their families. More in the next post

[cgallaway]

So, a lot of homosexuals, who have been cast aside from their families have found a meaningful relationship with someone of their own gender....but they don''t have the same rights. They can''t add their partner to their insurance because they aren''t legally married. They can''t make medical decisions for one another because they aren''t married. They can''t inherit their partner''s estate, because they can''t get married. It would be like if you haven''t spoken to your family for 20 years, but have had a wife for that long, and it is up to your parents/siblings to decide whether you live or die, what medical treatments you may take. It would even be up to your estranged family to inherit your stuff, because your wife would not be legally entitled to it. There is a problem. The laws of the land should be giving rights to the people, and not taking them away.

[everythingforme1]

gay people can get married, to the opposite *** haha. I think the reason people do not like the idea of gay marriage is because of children. There are marriage rights or benefits that have to do w/ supporting children, and i know gay people can adopt or have kids from previous marriages, but overall, most don''t plan on having children, and a marriage has benefits that help both the spouses AND the children. I really don''t see much of a problem with gay marriage, except that it will cause a HUGE uproar amongst a lot of ppl. I''d support civil unions....

[bluestardad]

I WOULD FEEL SAFER WITH A PLATOON OF OPENLY GAY MILITARY PEOPLE THAN WITH A BUNCH OF NEOCONS WITH DUEL MIDDLE EAST PASSPORTS WHO HAVE NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY DIRECTING AMERICAN FORIEN POLICY!

GET THE ISRAELI AND SAUDI LOBBIEST OUT OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!

[nearl4511]

It is unfortunate that this issue came to light again during a Presisdential yea- mainly because people are Soooooooooo afraid of g a y s. This was used to affect rerefendums in states like Ohio in 2006 to ensure that the religiousl right would come out and vote to protect the "institution" of marriage. Yeah they also voted for "W" as they were already atthe polls (i.e. save us from terrorists AND the ga ys!)

How refreshing to wath the Libertarian debate this weekend where ALL the candidates said essentially "GET THE GOVT OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS".

[nearl4511]

Obama should elicit the same repsonse that the Libertarians do: Govt. has no business looking up pants legs and skirts to make sure that marriage follows some religious tenet.

[marleneo2]

Richy boy doesn''t listen to everything, otherwise he would have heard in one of the debates that Obama believes in M/F marriages! This is also not something the Federal Government should be involved in, let the states handle it!

[roger_inkart]

And the NRO shamelessly returns to the pig trough of wedge issues in typical fashion.

But this isn''t 2004. People are losing their jobs. They are losing their houses. They are paying over $4 a gallon for gas. They won''t have the luxury to get indignant over this issue the same way they did a few years ago. It won''t work this time.

But keep trying you clueless maggots at the NRO. It''s not like you can tout the record of the politicians you have supported as a case for people to vote your way this fall.

[blackyowe]

Well Obama really might be Gay.

[darrren12000]

The "madness" I was referring to was this article - not *** and lesbians! Apparently, you stereotype gay people as nude parade participants. Shame on you. I live in NYC, and if I judged white people by the St. Patrick''s Day festivities, I would think that they are a bunch of drunken, vomiting idiots. I could say the same thing about white fraternity parties....or Mardi Gras....But I am not prejudiced.


Viewership and ratings would be my main guess. When not parading mostly naked in public (or flashing their parts), they say it''''s nobody''''s business and want to be left alone. Conflicting viewpoints indeed... can''''t wait for June to end.



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

Posted by hypnotoad72 at 06:03 PM : May 26, 2008

[darrren12000]

Obama wants to get elected. The Dems will throw gay people under the bus to get in the White House. LOL. It''s all funny. They will all say or do what it takes to get elected...If Obambi can hang out with Ayers, then I''m sure something like same-*** marriage doesnt bother him, but he won''t mention this to get into the white house. typical politician.

CBS CENSOR: S#X IS NOT A DIRTY WORD!!!




Obama should elicit the same repsonse that the Libertarians do: Govt. has no business looking up pants legs and skirts to make sure that marriage follows some religious tenet.



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

Posted by Nearl4511 at 10:37 PM : May 26, 2008

[darrren12000]

This is a cop-out. Sorry - but you could say the same thing about abortion, school segregation, and a lot of other issues.....but if equal protection or fundamental rights are being denied by the states, it''s a FEDERAL issue, not a state concern. This is what the south argued to defend a lot of B.S. in the past.



"This is also not something the Federal Government should be involved in, let the states handle it!


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

Posted by marleneo2 at 10:40 PM : May 26, 2008

[aakalan]

Your article is nonsensical, not just in its homophobic implications, but legally.

We NEED activist judges - like we needed the Founding Fathers who created the Bill of Rights, and who understood that some things need to be beyond popular vote - fundamental rights.

The right to have your life and family treated with equal respect is one of those fundamental rights. They should NEVER be voted on. If you did, the bigot majority might wish to send all African-Americans back to Africa, or Jews to the Middle East, or whatever today''s fashion in bigotry is.

Our Founding Fathers and our best judges understand their responsibility to buck the tides of popular thought and ensure the rights of citizens. That''s something you don''t give a *** about, unless it''s your rights. You''d let religionists impose their morality on the rights of others.

God bless those judges for being smarter and having more integrity than you do. And for understanding that you don''t vote on rights.

[kesac4650]

Obama never, ever really says anything.
What happened to the 10th Amendment? We ignore it a lot these days.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

[omnibus66]

OMG, gay couples are going to get married in California!

Surely fire will rain from the sky and we all shall perish.

Another red-herring fear mongering Republican non-issue. When are they going to focus on things that REALLY MATTER to people. I''ll tell you when, NEVER, because have the wrong stance on every issue that does matter.

Why talk about gas prices when you can talk about homos? Don''t talk about veterans benefits, accuse the opposition of being non-patriotic. Never allow the subject of home values or food prices to come up when it''s so easy to get the bogey man of al-Qaeda into any discussion.

They fooled us twice with these politics of fear, we can only hope that enough of us have smartened up this time.

[patriot12436]

I think the politically correct term would be bisexual. But isn''t that a requirement to be a successful politician. Willing to say or do anything, willing to screw anything or anyone.

[patriot12436]

Zulu from star trek announced last week he intends to marry his partner of 21 years. As for being out of the gene pool what if they are bisexual ? I have met a lot of lady boys here in Thailand. I have no wish to be sexually involved with them but ihave learned to respect and accept them. They have great personalities and great sense of humor. They can be a lot of fun t be around. They have definately made me more openminded towards *** and bisexuals. And before i get the rude comments yes i am completely straight and married toa beautiful lady.

[patriot12436]

zgomer
Have you ever met anyone gay ? Have you taken the time to get to know anyone gay ? I used to be antigay, fortunately i opened my mind and have met a lot of interesting people who are gay. They are openly accepted here in Thailand for the way they are. Many go on to have the complete *** changes. Calling names doesn''t get you anywhere on a website, it causes people to lose respect for whatever your opinion might be.

[patriot12436]

mcvet
You have to admit the truth. You have been supporting a bisexual candidate.

[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.

[patriot12436]

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

[hungry1968]

This article was written by the national review online?

Dismissed!!

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

[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

[joyous88]

Happy Larry Craig Day,

conservatives are hypocrits

[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

[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]

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