Obama flips again: gay marriage

posted at 8:51 am on July 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama has reversed himself yet again, but this time he has done a double backflip with a half-twist to the Left.  After previously saying he opposed gay marriage and that he respected the rights of states to set conditions for marriage, Obama has now said that he opposes California’s initiative to ban gay marriage — and that he would use federal law to end such efforts:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group’s annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.”

“And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” Obama wrote.

Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.

His letter to the Alice B. Toklas GLBT Democratic Club will effectively toss traditional marriage under the same bus as his opposition to FISA reform and his pledge for public financing.  However, his allies on the Left will enjoy the reversal on this position much more than they did with his other flip-flops, even if they have to wonder how long this new position will last.

Once again, voters have to ask themselves what Obama is thinking.  I’m no big fan of the gay-marriage ban, but we’re getting past the point of the issues themselves and what all of these reversals mean about the candidate.  There are only three possibilities for why Barack Obama has had to change his mind on almost every policy he has mentioned in this campaign:

  1. He’s a liar who says what each audience wants to hear.
  2. The election debate has changed his perspective on every issue.
  3. He has no clue on any of the issues.

Only the second reflects any positive quality, that of open-mindedness, but it also carries with it the underlying unreadiness of a man who has only three years of national political experience for the Presidency.  Assuming the best of intentions, Obama has no firm stands on any principle or policy.  That doesn’t even recommend Obama as a Senator, let alone a President.  If option 2 is the case, he needs to set out this election while he makes up his mind.

The most disturbing aspect of this new reversal is Obama’s sudden abandonment of federalism.   What happened to letting California decide on the public recognition of marriage?  This twist reveals a little more of what we can expect from a President Obama — a further aggrandizing of power in Washington DC and a reduction of the scope of authority for state and local communities.

Rumor has Team Obama bolstering its outreach to evangelicals.  How long before this reversal gets reversed?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Isn’t that what I am saying? I don’t see how you can see promiscuity of any kind being accepted by Jesus just because he didn’t specifically mention any particular type. The teachings on homosexuality in the Old Testament were clear. Paul confirmed those teachings in the New Testament. The fact that Jesus did not specifically discuss it doesn’t assume He was ok with it. If anything the teachings in the New Testament are more severe. An example would be that only one wife was allowed whereas David was allowed many. It does not stand to reason that Jesus would have condoned homosexuality.

Rose on July 2, 2008 at 11:26 PM

That’s fine, but the schools are saying that these children should only be taught one point of view and that is that homosexuality is ok. That is not the job of the school. They need to stay out of it.

Rose on July 2, 2008 at 11:28 PM

That’s fine, but the schools are saying that these children should only be taught one point of view and that is that homosexuality is ok. That is not the job of the school. They need to stay out of it.

Rose on July 2, 2008 at 11:28 PM

I agree.

dedalus on July 2, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Isn’t that what I am saying? I don’t see how you can see promiscuity of any kind being accepted by Jesus just because he didn’t specifically mention any particular type.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 11:26 PM

OK. I’m not making a case that the NT permits homosexuality. I’m making a case that it forbids 2nd marriages, following divorce. Jesus not only answered the Pharisees but emphasized the point later to his apostles.

dedalus on July 2, 2008 at 11:43 PM

He does make the allowance for divorce in the case of sexual infidelity. Paul gave a further allowance in the situation where an unbelieving spouse chooses to leave a believing one. He said that the believing spouse if called to peace in such a situation and so is not bound to the unbelieving spouse. However if the unbelieving spouse chooses to stay divorce is not allowed.

Rose on July 2, 2008 at 11:51 PM

I mean “is called to peace.”

Rose on July 2, 2008 at 11:52 PM

He does make the allowance for divorce in the case of sexual infidelity. Paul gave a further allowance in the situation where an unbelieving spouse chooses to leave a believing one. He said that the believing spouse if called to peace in such a situation and so is not bound to the unbelieving spouse. However if the unbelieving spouse chooses to stay divorce is not allowed.

Rose on July 2, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Paul and Jesus are strongly opposed to remarriage. I think Paul instructs men not to divorce their wives, though wives might leave their husbands (1 Corinthians). In that letter he also instructs believers to stay with non-believers if the non-believer chooses not to leave.

Seems clear that the marriage laws in the U.S. are substantially out of line with the spoken words of Jesus and the written words of Saint Paul.

dedalus on July 3, 2008 at 11:54 AM

I don’t really see what your point is. I must have missed something in the discussion. I haven’t disagreed with you on any of your points. You repeated what I said. You must have been discussing this with someone else. I have not said that the laws should be based on the Bible, however the laws that are made should not infringe on our first amendment right to freedom of religion. Forcing people to accept behavior they find inappropriate is wrong, as in the case of adoption agencies being forced to place children with gay couples and photographers being forced to take pictures at gay weddings. Behavior is not the same as race or nationality. We should be allowed to choose what behavior we consider appropriate.

Rose on July 3, 2008 at 12:38 PM

I think a further illustration would be someone who does not like to be around people who are drinking refusing to take pictures at a wedding where they know there will be alcohol. There should be no problem with that. I’m sure there are enough photographers around that everyone can be happy instead of crying discrimination.

Rose on July 3, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Rose on July 3, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Rose on July 3, 2008 at 12:44 PM

agreed–though we don’t know what causes sexual orientation.
agreed.

dedalus on July 3, 2008 at 1:08 PM

agreed–though we don’t know what causes sexual orientation.

dedalus on July 3, 2008 at 1:08 PM

It doesn’t matter what causes it. What matters is behavior. We cannot be forced to accept relationships.

platypus on July 3, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4