Proponents of gay marriage will celebrate today’s statement by President Obama in which he put himself on the side of changing the traditional definition of marriage as a courageous stand that marks a turning point in the nation’s attitudes on the issue. But as with the case of his positions on human rights crises in Libya and Syria, the president was “leading from behind” as he is just the latest major figure in his party to jump on the gay marriage bandwagon. There is no question that support for greater acceptance of gays and even a willingness to contemplate some form of civil unions or gay marriage is widespread and not limited to the political left. Changing attitudes on the part of large sectors of the public who have more of a libertarian than a traditional approach have rendered Obama’s position more a function of the center than the margins.
The decision also reflects a belief among Democratic strategists that even the most divisive social issues work in their favor, because any debate on abortion, contraception or gay rights allows them to paint the entire GOP as intolerant. Just as they were able to turn a discussion about the way ObamaCare attacked the religious freedom of the Catholic Church into one about a bogus war on women, they may now think a gay marriage initiative will work the same way in convincing the people who voted for Obama in 2008 they must turn out to fend off the GOP this year. In making this statement in the middle of his re-election bid after years of dithering on the issue, the president is sending a signal he believes this is the sort of thing he needs to do to fire up his otherwise unenthusiastic base. Rather than a “profile in courage” moment, Obama’s gay marriage stand seems more like an attempt to rekindle the flagging passion of the “hope” and “change” fan base.
Acceptance of gays is now commonplace in much of American culture, especially in popular entertainment where the depiction of gay couples is not thoroughly uncontroversial. To the extent that this reflects the gradual dying out of prejudice against homosexuals, this is to be applauded. But the problem here is the consequent desire of some in government to impose their values on all Americans. Tolerance and acceptance of gays has often been translated into discrimination against religious institutions that differ on the legitimacy of same-sex marriage if not on the rights of gay individuals. That is why Catholic and some Orthodox Jewish agencies have been chased out of adoption services much to the detriment of children in need.
Once we strip away the political cynicism from the president’s statement what we find is an unbalanced approach that will, in the hands of all-powerful government agencies that Obama and the Democrats seek to make even more unaccountable, launch a new wave of discrimination against those who cannot for religious reasons accept gay marriage on these terms. It is on this point that many Americans who might otherwise be inclined to accept the president’s decision must demur.
As has been made apparent on many recent occasions when voters in states as diverse as North Carolina and California have been asked whether they wish to change the definition of marriage, the answer of the majority is no. Some may consider this a civil rights question in which the majority cannot be allowed to rule. But until this issue becomes one which cannot be employed to wage a kulturkampf against traditional religious believers, one suspects that many, if not most Americans will not be comfortable in throwing out existing laws. As Nate Silver notes in a blog post in the New York Times that supported Obama’s decision and considered it politically advantageous, though attitudes have shifted, as many Americans are strongly opposed to the measure as those who enthusiastically support it.
In this light, while it is possible the president’s statement will help with his base, a reasoned if low-key defense of traditional values will not hurt his opponent.
Equal rights under the law and freedom to associate with who ever you choose for however long you choose and in the relationship you choose is not a radical idea in America. The natural end of marriage is children, be hate our children in this country. We exploit our children on every level in this country. They are nothing more than a profit center for business. We don't want to educate them, but we do want them to take out high interest student loans. Gay peple are doing us a favor by not having children while still willing to adopt and raise our throw aways. The rights and responsibilities that attend marriage are voluntarily accepted by 100% of married couples then rejected by 50% of the married population within a couple of years , but we as a nation deny marriage to gays because they are not treating it as a Holy Sacrament and would defile this sacred institution by their participation. People who oppose gay marriage need to rethink their values and start living in this world at this time.
The "profile in courage" remark is a little precious. A political campaign is not about losing votes in order to be "courageous". n nI think Obama personally doesn't support gay marriage. The problem is, that while opposing it as president won't win him votes from the right, it will certainly lose him votes on the left. A campaign is about politics. It was a political decision, and, in Obama's position, it was the only one to make.
Obama favoured gay marriage when he ran for state office in Illinois. Talk of the evolution in his views on the subject is nonsense, as is all his high falutin moral justification, as Peter Wehner notes. I'm amazed that his sheer hypocrisy here is not more remarked, particularly when in Obama's terms the issue is framed as one of civil rights no different in principle from denying black Americans their equal rights under law. What an issue for Obama to politik. n n
Does Commentary actually oppose gay marriage, or do you just not have the guts to support it?
Very amusing, they must oppose EVERYTHING that our president proposes. Their true enemy is not Iran and the mullas, it's president Obama. They will do anything to defeat him, even if it means starting a world war.
absolutely. Obama has brought disaster to these United States and is the most cynical and manipulative President in recent memeory. Yes, we must oppose whatevber he does because he does not have the welfare of the citizens at heart, but only his own position.
The concept of “gay marriage,” is offensive to many religious adherents, and millions of conservative voters as witnessed by recent resolutions in a number of States. What Obama does not seem to understand, is this is a State issue, not a Federal one. It derives from the Constitution (which he also fails to recognize) based on the “we” of “We the People.” Perhaps if his arrogance was tempered by respect for the will of the people, is approval ratings would not be as dismally low.
Gay marriage is an anomaly. For Christians, marriage is a holy vow before God in the presence of family and friends. The bride and groom (man and woman) give themselves to one another until death and become one before God. It is no small occasion. From this marriage, the babies that are born are also holy before God. A joyous celebration follows the ceremony. n nIf roosters were gay, we would have no eggs for breakfast.
Obama's shameless move to support gay marriage does the homosexual community more harm than good. Clearly a ploy to sway many disillusioned on the left and independents who would not now vote for him, will feel obligated to do so when the "righteous" start circling their wagons with loaded mouths filled with hate and minds filled with fear, wagging their fingers, thumping their bibles and stomping like an army of Rumpelstiltskin(s). n nThe gay community through their own vigorous efforts worked hard to turn the lights on in the minds of a populace that is still feverishly fighting to maintain its pre-enlightenment, values will now be associated with a person that has even failed his Faustian contract, mainly because he has no soul to give. Unfortunately, gays will just continue suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Even a prostitute doesn't screw on a promise. Obama has "evolved" because the polls have forced him to. nPlainly we don't have a choice, one party two heads. Let's try the other liar.
soldjerassi says:
May 9, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Does Commentary actually oppose gay marriage, or do you just not have the guts to support it?
It really does not take guts to support a fad which is politically correct at a point in time in which it is perceived as popular. Conformity rules in 2012 USA. In today’s world any “gay” can accuse anyone they do not like of being anti-gay, thus making them intolerant and worthy of discrimination at best or termination by popular vote of their co-workers.
This is a huge disaster. I feel sorry for straight people trying to keep their jobs, their spouses and their children, you will see…this is only the beginning of legitimizing insanity.
I have the right to my opinion as I put my life on the line everyday for these degenerates and their virulently contagious diseases.
Wait until he October Surprises an end to Drug Prohibition. n nThe Rs will lose the Ron Paul supporters – who they never wanted anyway. Clever way to win an election.
I gave up my opposition to "gay marriage" when it became clear to me that there's no point in denying people the right to engage in the empty symbolism of modern marriage. Why shouldn't gays be permitted to marry at this moment in time, when the institution of marriage has been trivialized to the point that iss merely one "lifestyle choice" among many?
Marriage is and always has been about children. To say that heterosexuals have done so much to debase the institution of marriage that we might as well throw it overboard is like saying your foot is so diseased you shouldn't try to save it. There are circumstances where you might have to do that, no doubt. But there are enough sold marriages to try to save the institution. Opposite sex relationships are fundamentally biologically different from same sex relationships. You can blame nature, God or random chance for that fact, but it is true. Marriage has been, in every culture, a societal construct that provides for the care and raising of children and the eventual inheritance of their parent's property. That is the fallacy in the whole equal rights argument about gay marriage. These are two fundamentally different kinds of relationships. We ignore those differences at our peril. The unseen party at any traditional marriage (although not always unseen) are the future children of that couple. The hugh Hefner's of the world have done far more damage to the idea of marriage as a solemn vow but we should not compound that damage by buying in to a definition of marriage as two people who love each other. It is two people who love each other and are bound to create a family. n nYes, gay people can adopt, but that is really not the same relationship. And still, the children they adopt are the product of an opposite sex relationship because that is the only way people are made.