Obama flips again: gay marriage
posted at 8:51 am on July 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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:
- He’s a liar who says what each audience wants to hear.
- The election debate has changed his perspective on every issue.
- 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?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 »
Worst. Campaign. Ever.
rockmom on July 1, 2008 at 8:54 AM
I wonder if there’s any Dramamine on that bus…
MB007 on July 1, 2008 at 8:54 AM
I would say #3 is the cause, and #1 is the effect.
JeffC_95 on July 1, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Barack Obama has reversed himself yet again, but this time he has done a double backflip with a half-twist to the Left.
I’ll give him a 4.8 for degree of difficulty; I’ll wait for Rasmussan to see whether the voters see it as another belly flop onto the grill of the proverbial bus.
Shivas Irons on July 1, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Have you noticed that we never see Kerry and Obama at the very same time.
I wonder…………………
Shy Guy on July 1, 2008 at 8:59 AM
That is not the initiative I knew??
Shivas Irons on July 1, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Is there someone keeping tabs on all of these policy reversals? I lost count. I ran out of fingers & toes.
jgapinoy on July 1, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Shouldn’t the tag line be “This morning in Bus and Driver” because it seems likes this happens about three times a day.
uniclone on July 1, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Won’t someone please think of Michalle’s children!!
Geronimo on July 1, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Michelle, damn.
Geronimo on July 1, 2008 at 9:01 AM
This type of thing is a true flip-flop. No circumstances have really changed which would lead to a legitimate change of position.
But the MSM will likely insist on equating it to McCain’s switch on drilling - if it gets coverage at all.
forest on July 1, 2008 at 9:02 AM
The Obama Bus…
Flip flops?….No problem!
Limerick on July 1, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Then you want 50, or perhaps dozens, of different definitions of marriage in this country?
jgapinoy on July 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Nice link, Limerick. I’m sure that bus has the blue “Presidential Seal” on it by now.
jgapinoy on July 1, 2008 at 9:06 AM
This is the guy who worked his ass off to beat the Clintons, and now he’s acting JUST LIKE THEM. Heh
fiatboomer on July 1, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Sigh…and the Republicans trot out John McAmnesty to take on this dufus…sigh! That is why I have left the party to become an independent! I refuse to be a country club Republican! Obama may crappie flop all the way to the White House but John McAmnesty will Clueless his way to defeat!
sabbott on July 1, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Actually this was a pretty smart flip-flop. He can go out and say that he agrees with Ahnold while McCain doesn’t. This will be his sole instance of bipartisanship and he will use it to try to paint McCain into the right-wing corner in the other battleground states. If Ahnold goes out campaigning for McCain, Obama’s pals in the media will be sure to hound him about McCain’s support for the proposition everywhere he goes. It helps to neutralize one of McCain’s most powerful allies in appealing to independents and blue-collar Democrats.
Once again, though, a totally tactical move by Obama. That’s all we’ve seen so far from his campaign. I’m sure they have seen some polls that show the proposition losing. No way he would actually take a courageous stand on an issue this controversial.
rockmom on July 1, 2008 at 9:07 AM
I doubt he truly gives a damn one way or the other, on this, and on a lot of things. He’s got a goal in sight. Everything else is secondary.
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Good Lord, does this guy ever take a stance and stick with it? My goodness, man, pick a fricking side and be done with it. He’s worse than my cousin whose ideals change everytime the wind blows.
Seriously, someone needs to make a list of all the stuff Obama’s “changed his mind about” in a newspaper. I’m sure Obama would change his mind about newspapers then.
P.S. I don’t agree with forcing legalization of gay marriage, but if a politician agrees with it, just have the ba*(s to stick with the stated agreement.
mjk on July 1, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Won’t this help McCain?
bridgetown on July 1, 2008 at 9:09 AM
he will be applauded for being able to ‘grow’ and change and circumstances change…
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Sigh…we’ll have to trash the only real alternative to BO, & we’ll splinter into 13 different conservative parties, & we’ll be perenial losers as our country becomes West Europe within four years.
jgapinoy on July 1, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Why not?
MarkTheGreat on July 1, 2008 at 9:12 AM
This is not the Gay Marriage that I knew…
Dale in Atlanta on July 1, 2008 at 9:16 AM
He can go out and say that he agrees with Ahnold while McCain doesn’t.
Arnold flip-flopped on issue as well. And the Arnold love in CA hard to find without a microscope these days.
$19 billion dollar budget deficit, anyone??
And, although I agree with Ed that “gay marriage” is personally a “who cares”, if it trips up ‘bambi I’m cool with it.
Life is So Grand!!©
Shivas Irons on July 1, 2008 at 9:18 AM
I doubt he truly gives a damn one way or the other, on this, and on a lot of things. He’s got a goal in sight. Everything else is secondary.
Read pages 55 and 56 of Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”.
Be sure your legs are crossed.
Shivas Irons on July 1, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Or the most brilliant.
He knows his constituents, knows they will not abandon him so he can “venture” into new territories, change his mind, switch positions with impunity.
They will give him a pass because they know he won’t “abandon” his basic very liberal principles.
*
When the pigs are at the trough, they don’t care that the chickens are being butchered.
right2bright on July 1, 2008 at 9:20 AM
1) marriage, the building block of civilization, will mean nothing
2) dozens of sociological studies have unanimously proved that children do far better with a father & mother than with any other parental set-up
3) Public schools & a variety of other institutions will be forced to portray homosexual marriage as good
4) with millions of new eligible dependents, already stressed health-care & Social Security programs will be devastated
5) religious freedom, including the right to call sin sin, will be jeapordized
6) there will be no reason not to allow polygamy
jgapinoy on July 1, 2008 at 9:20 AM
His supporters don’t care what he says, what he flips on, what he flops on, they only want to hear HOW he says it.
His oratory sweeps them off their feet.
While we may argue the merits his supporters swoon. The power of his speaking should never be underestimated. Talk to Hillary–she knows all about it.
Repubs need to continue showing before and after speeches by Obama using his own persuasive speeches against him, high lighting his lack of core values. It’s McCain’s only hope.
patrick neid on July 1, 2008 at 9:20 AM
I think he’s going for the Triple Lindy.
Geronimo on July 1, 2008 at 9:21 AM
He’s the prince of the left… he has to support the homos.
D2Boston on July 1, 2008 at 9:21 AM
When there is no mass, an object can spin with almost no effort.
.
Stupid … Empty … Suit
Right_of_Attila on July 1, 2008 at 9:22 AM
The “Constitutional Professor” opposes the Constitutional process?
Do tell.
drjohn on July 1, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Will do. The book’s on my shelf. Time to read it.
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Great comment! And you know, I never get tired of that movie. Hard to believe it over 20 years old. Makes me laugh just thinking about it.
BigD on July 1, 2008 at 9:28 AM
The man wants that POTUS job BADLY.
He’s seen how gay voters and gay groups have begun swinging towards McCain. And Obama can’t have that.
JetBoy on July 1, 2008 at 9:30 AM
I think that’s it exactly. Interesting that he will cave on FISA, quit his Black Liberation church, and agree with Heller, but the one issue on which he is too afriad to buck his base is marriage for 1 percent of the population.
rockmom on July 1, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Because the liberals aren’t libertarians. They want to change the prevailing values in the culture to reflect their opinions. Since when have liberals been proponents of free speech?
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 9:32 AM
But he did it fabulously!
JetBoy on July 1, 2008 at 9:32 AM
He’s starting to make John Kerry look consistent. I thought that was impossible until now. Now all we need Obama to do is go wind surfing.
TheBigOldDog on July 1, 2008 at 9:33 AM
1) Welcome to 30 years ago.
2) Gay people can already adopt… welcome to 10 years ago.
3) Where, exactly, is this not already happening?
4) BS. Gay people can already get civil unions.
5) BS. Atheists, Muslims, and Buddhists get married all the time without anyone infringing on your right to tell them they’re sinners.
6) There’s no reason not to allow polygamy right now.
Lehosh on July 1, 2008 at 9:36 AM
LOL.
I have talked to several black christians that LOVE Obama. They like to talk up his opposition to gay marriage in spite of his staunch support for any and all abortion. Delicious.
“What is his position on gay marriage again?”
Heh.
Theworldisnotenough on July 1, 2008 at 9:37 AM
I’m especially intrigued by your #6.
jgapinoy on July 1, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Basically, what your saying is, “It’s bad, so we might as well let it get worse,” right?
jgapinoy on July 1, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Lean to the left,
Lean to the right,
Stand up,
Sit down,
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Go-o-o Flipfloppers!
whitetop on July 1, 2008 at 9:43 AM
I’m not sure where I said any of that was necessarily bad.
Lehosh on July 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM
I was going to make the exact same comment. By what logic can/should it be denied, under the circumstances we now have in CA, MA, and by extension in NY? I might also point out that is already legally tolerated in England, and has existed in many societies outside of the US for millenia. We even have the odd cult or two within the US.
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Christians are being told around the country, and the world, that to criticize homosexuals is a hate crime
and soon christianity will be criminalized in order to accomodate the gay movement…which is what the gay movmement is all about anyway.
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 9:53 AM
its called rationalization…or more honestly their race is more important than their faith.
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 9:54 AM
That’s right. Supposedly free countries in Europe, as well as Canada, are levying fines & imprisonment for “hate crimes” such as “calling sin sin“.
jgapinoy on July 1, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Am I the only one that cares about the AIDS epidemic that the gay lifestyle promotes? We see all these commercials about people talking about AIDS and caring about the ‘cure’ but none of those people ever mention homosexuality. None of those people ever mention publicly announcing the dangers the homosexual lifestyle presents to the health of society and the individual.
We can’t cure viruses. We can’t even cure the flu. But AIDS is preventable.
ThackerAgency on July 1, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Now that Obambi a full-fledged “Patriot” he thinks he can do anything… or was that always the case… ;-)
Since his #1 objective - as for all Dem politicians - is to fool fools he’s got that going for him.
Gunga galunga… gunga, gunga-galunga.
Shivas Irons on July 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Apparently, the 10th Amendment is left out of the St. Barack’s Constitution.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 1, 2008 at 9:58 AM
I’m of the opinion that the Church functions best under persecution.
Lehosh on July 1, 2008 at 9:59 AM
My position is far more simple than most. I’ll accept the will of the people, not the dictates of unelected, unaccountable judges. I am against all forms of dictatorship.
TheBigOldDog on July 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM
thats true, the gay rights movement will find out, as the romans, the soviets, that christianity cannot be stopped or silenced.
but there is a segment of ‘christiantiy’ that will go right along with the gay rights movement….the episcopals, etc.
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 10:04 AM
David Warren put it well:
For now, the mass of people understand intuitively that gay marriage, as currently being pursued, asks the state to assert and enforce a lie, that marriage between a man and a man or a woman and woman is or can be the same as marriage between a man and a woman. Even apart from arguments about what gay marriage means in itself or as the current leading edge of a movement, on general principle it’s a bad idea, and can lead to no good results over time, to have the state aligned with a position that is un-true on its face, and could only be true in some brave new world when family meant nothing, and individuals and their merely transactional interpersonal choices lived, died, and bred solely at sufferance of and without meaningful defense against the state. “Liberal fascism” is very relevant here.
As for the main topic, one of the leading points of resistance Obamian assimilation among former Hillaryites was among the GLBT community. This may, however, hurt him overall. Though Speaker Pelosi is the only top Dem who has spoken up in favor of the California Supreme Court decision, she and Arnold are now on the wrong side of two conservative positions - drilling and defense of marriage - that even in Lesbian-Communist California command strong support in most polls.
If Republicans here still had the ability to organize a fire drill, in combination with the ludicrous budget mess, we would be seeing the the beginning of a conservative resurgence in the biggest state in the union, a resurgence built on the values and needs that motivate citizens in the fastest growing sectors of the state.
CK MacLeod on July 1, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Oh crap, here we go again.
I’ll pick #4.
So what? That’s part of what we proponents of homosexual legal contracts (or “marriage”) are arguing for. The system is set up to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
I’m not trying to redefine marriage, and I really don’t care to have that discussion, but I’m all in favor of giving any two consenting adult homosexuals the same legal advantages of two consenting adult heterosexuals.
Besides, if homosexuals are such the minority many here say they are, they’ll put much less strain on the system than illegal aliens do.
SouthernDem on July 1, 2008 at 10:06 AM
and soon christianity will be criminalized in order to accomodate the gay movement…which is what the gay movmement is all about anyway.
Maybe you should visit a Catholic Seminary some time. My parents were nice enough to take us to a Mass at one as a kid (Claretville Seminary where “Mannix” was filmed, but I digress… ;-)
I’m guessing that those who were “training” there not still in church are hangin’ in the Castro District of SF these days.
FORE!!©
Shivas Irons on July 1, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I completely agree.
That also means no amending the constitution, as far as I’m concerned.
SouthernDem on July 1, 2008 at 10:07 AM
And AllahP criticizes readers who question the source of a study that wishes to show children don’t make you happy.
TheBigOldDog on July 1, 2008 at 10:08 AM
How is amending the Constitution not in accordance with the will of the people?
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM
It’s not the same gay marriage that he knew before.
carbon_footprint on July 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Obama the 8th wonder of the world.Can speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.This guy is the best lier of all times.He makes Bill look stupid.But we all have to be careful what we say after all he is the second coming and we will be called race mongers if we dare speak evil of the chossen one!!
thmcbb on July 1, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Ironically, in CA, MA and in NY, those companies and municipalities where gay couples do get benefits such as health care, they now need to stop offering them. Why? Because the couples can get married and qualify. If they choose not to marry, what makes them any different from a heterosexual couple that lives together, but til now, doesn’t qualify for benefits.
My guess is a lot of people are about to lose their benefits.
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Queue up President Clinton responding to questions from students asking him about gay marriage.
The ZOG needs video.
gabriel sutherland on July 1, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Ding! We have a winner! >:-D
Branch Rickey on July 1, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Does anyone know if B.O.’s previous background includes working for Cirque du Soil? This guy does more flips on issues than your typical acrobat act does during a single performance!
pilamaye on July 1, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I think it’s option 1; what he did in his early days in Chicago shows that he clearly sets his “beliefs” based on the group he’s working with.
exhelodrvr on July 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM
To be clear, I have no problem with states amending their constitutions by referendum. IMO, I don’t think the federal government should have anything to do with it.
SouthernDem on July 1, 2008 at 10:19 AM
So he favors a federal law to get rid of democracy at the state level? Until now there wasn’t a position on gay marriage I viscerally hate. Nice job BHO!
Beagle on July 1, 2008 at 10:20 AM
If BHO wins I”m going to chalk it up to divine intervention. It will be to set up events for Christ’s return and the end of the world as we know it. Other than spiritual darkness I don’t see what BHO brings to the table.
Mojave Mark on July 1, 2008 at 10:20 AM
How the heck does allowing same-sex marriage, in your opinion “anti-Christianity”, have do with a marriage certificate and the benefits that millions of Americans have?
And for the last time, there is no “gay rights movement” as it applies to all gays. The majority of gays don’t subscribe to these groups. Should I label all straight people by a few straight groups? All Christian churches by Westboro Baptist?
You know, McCain didn’t severly wound the GOP. Too many of our GOP so-called “real conservatives” have.
JetBoy on July 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Agreed…but if it’s left to the states, mustn’t a legal marriage in state A (with gay marriage) carry over if a couple moves to state B (no gay marriage)?
I’ve always said personally, civil unions works great for me. But some want marriage, and I can’t think of any reason for them not to be married is they so choose.
The US Constitution isn’t something to be toyed with lightly.
JetBoy on July 1, 2008 at 10:25 AM
JetBoy on July 1, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Agreed. Wish more people were as rational as you.
bridgetown on July 1, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Is that you: Marx or Engels?
Branch Rickey on July 1, 2008 at 10:32 AM
–Mychal Massie, July 1, 2008
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 1, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Doesn’t have to apply to all gay to be effective, and push and help pass an agenda.
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Oops! That was actually Pat Buchanan’s latest column.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 1, 2008 at 10:33 AM
That is neither true nor fair. George W. damaged the GOP through a lack of discipline, principle and leadership in a number of areas. A GOP-led Congress did the same thing. McCain’s stridence on amnesty and energy issues hasn’t helped.
In terms of family values issues, a few candidates may have been harmed by their position on the Schiavo case. But to sweepingly blame the problems of today’s GOP on family values conservative voters is just plain ridiculous. You might want to think a little before you start typing.
BigD on July 1, 2008 at 10:34 AM
you need to get a clue.
really? ok go ahead and tell me the gay groups that oppose gay marriage.
see how you do without my vote.
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Now that he’s out of earshot (so he thinks) of the bitter God-clingers in flyover country, he speaks his true mind to the Left Coast.
Barack Obama has proved to be the most amazing liar ever, on both sides of every issue, the greatest shyster from Chi-town, and nobody dares to question him about it. Thou shalt not criticize Saint Barack, because, did I mention, he’s black?
McCain needs to get back to the States, and come out clearly against gay marriage (he wasn’t afraid to defend traditional marriage on the Ellen DeGeneres show, not exactly the friendliest place for that position), and force Obama to take a stand, one way or the other. If he does, this could put California in play…
Steve Z on July 1, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Yep. Article IV, Section I of the Constitution:
MB007 on July 1, 2008 at 10:38 AM
not much difference between McMAHDI
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM
again ,really? where are your stats?
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 10:40 AM
MB007 on July 1, 2008 at 10:38 AM
And what I forgot to add is that this throws it into the realm of Congress, and then we go back to potential amendments, and the cycle starts over again.
MB007 on July 1, 2008 at 10:41 AM
You’re forgetting the Defense of Marriage Act. States don’t have to recognize gay marriages made in other states. NY chooses to do so. Others, not.
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 10:42 AM
signed into law by one Bill Clinton.
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 10:42 AM
This guy’s giving me whiplash worse than Waffles Kerry ever did.
aero on July 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM
BTW - here is the entire title and text that the stalwart defender of traditional marriage, Barack Obama, finds “divisive and discriminatory”:
That’s it.
You can see how a steadfast and committed supporter of the traditional view of marriage like Barack Obama would find such an excessive and cruel indictment of gays and the gay lifestyle a bridge too far!
Never underestimate the cynicism of the candidate who campaigns against cynicism.
CK MacLeod on July 1, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Of course, 5 justices could find that act unconstitutional. There’s a big penumbra there–surely gay marriage can be found to reside under it.
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Whoever votes for this man, and claims to be an evangelical, is not an evangelical, but a liberal Christian hoping no one will notice.
The man cannot be trusted, and part of the importance of the Christian faith is truth — this man does not exemplify truth, only pandering, hyper-partisan politics.
Richard Romano on July 1, 2008 at 10:49 AM
You’re really stretching to call this a flip-flop. Obama is thinking through his position in a slightly different context.
I have to say something harsh here, but it is necessary at times. I don’t respect it when people don’t appreciate nuance. It’s certainly not the case that every inconsistency you parse according to your own value system is actually an inconsistency. Not that we are dealing in nuance here to not see a flip-flop.
thuja on July 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Wow! I left to run errands and come back to find I’ve missed several Obama’s flipflops! what the he**?
Its getting so I dont want to leave the house for fear of missing a Barackflip!
becki51758 on July 1, 2008 at 11:00 AM
“I’m for federalism, yes I am, until I’m not, depending which voters I’m talking to. I’m offended when my former reverand, Mr. Wright says that I say and do anything to win.” ~ ~ B. Obama
Entelechy on July 1, 2008 at 11:02 AM
They’re social darwinists. They will find out. They just need technology to keep up with their demands or else their existence will end.
Study the “Pink Mafia” in the United Kingdom for an example of how this social darwinism is executed.
gabriel sutherland on July 1, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Sorry, but that’s inane. In what universe does “respecting” the California court decision legalizing gay marriage and opposing an initiative that simply defines marriage as between a man and a woman equate with Obama’s previously stated support for the traditional view? Short of divorcing Michelle and marrying Axelrod, what more would Obama have to do to stand now as a supporter of re-defining marriage?
CK MacLeod on July 1, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 »