Obama and Gay Marriage

Some thoughts about Obama's announcement.

It was a courageous thing to do at this point, before what will probably be a very difficult election.  Whatever his motivation, even if he was pressured by circumstances beyond his control, it was still a courageous decision.

Heitor said that he assumed Obama and his campaign staff were savvy enough to have not made a decision which will hurt him in November.  My fear is that he saw this as the best of a bad situation, where the only other option, of continuing to "evolve" in his thinking, would have been seen as wishy-washy.  After his Vice President and cabinet member(s) started giving their opinions, the question of where he stood on the issue was not going to go away, and coming out in favor, despite the risk, was the better choice.

I deplore single-issue politics in all of its manifestations, and if we end up with a Romney presidency because Obama came out in favor of my right to marry, I will not be feeling very satisfied.  Much as gay rights groups have been critical of him for not doing more, on the assumption, which I share, that he as been in favor of gay marriage rights all along but preferred not to touch the subject, he has still done more than any of his predecessors.  His ending of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and his decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act were both significant steps.  I hate to think that age has made me a moderate, but I do think age gives one a different perspective about the speed of social change and allows one to accept a slower pace.  On the other hand, as someone put it, "There is no wrong time to do the right thing," and progress never happens without committed activists.

What I haven't read yet is exactly what Obama's announcement means in practical terms.  Much as I am convinced that this is a civil rights issue, I still think it is different from black civil rights in that the federal government probably has no jurisdiction over the fifty different state marriage laws.  A federal recognition of same-sex marriage would no doubt permit same-sex married couples to file a joint federal tax return, but beyond that I'm not sure.  Probably it would allow spousal rights in veterans hospitals (and federal prisons?).  Even if the Democrats were to enact gay civil rights legislation at the federal level similar to the civil rights legislation of the '60s, with the intention that it apply to all the states, which I don't think anyone intends, nothing would happen until it went to the Supreme Court and we'd be in the same situation we are in right now, waiting for the Supreme Court to act.

Something that makes me mildly hopeful, although it is still way too early to know how this will play out as far as the election is concerned, is this on line NY Times headline: "While Obama Trumpets Gay Marriage, Foes Seek New Topic."  It would be amazing if the Republicans actually run away from this issue, a real indication that the times have changed dramatically.  Probably they're doing polling to see how much emphasis they want to give this.

I don't know who said it, but it has been pointed out that Obama has finally caught up with Dick Cheney on the subject of gay marriage.  It would be supremely and delightfully ironic, if the Republicans want to make this an issue, to see some Democratic-sponsored ads featuring the speeches of Dick Cheney in support of gay marriage.

What  I really expect is that the Democratic message of  the campaign, overall, is going to be one of fairness vs. unfairness, whether the subject be the economy or gay marriage.  In that sense, this fits right in.

I just went to Romney's website because I was pretty sure I had heard or read that Romney is not only opposed to same-sex marriage but civil unions as well.  My first impression is that the website is devoted solely to refuting charges that Romney is a flip flopper.  The format of the site, on whatever the topic might be, seems to be "They say Romney said this...., but what he really said was...."

They claim Romney flipped on gay marriage. The fact is, Romney has consistently opposed gay marriage. 

 They say Romney changed his position on civil unions. In truth, Romney said he opposed civil unions but "would look to protect already established rights and extend basic civil rights to domestic partnerships". Critics who fail to distinguish legally between a "domestic partnership" and a "civil union" have falsely characterized Romney's statement as a support of civil unions while neglecting his answer about civil unions in that same questionnaire.

The only instance in which Romney considered civil unions was as a possible downgrade from same-sex marriage as imposed by the state high court. At the time, Romney stated he would prefer to not have either one but felt it was a necessary compromise in order to prohibit gay marriage, which redefines family. In Romney's exact words, "If the question is: "Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?" I'd say neither; if they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage."

Maybe, if the polls support it, Romney will decide that his views are "evolving." And, by the way, what is the difference between domestic partnerships and civil unions?  As long as neither of them is called marriage and confers the accompanying rights, then isn't the definition whatever the lawmakers choose to make it?