Breaking: Noted gay-marriage supporter finally drops cynical charade

posted at 3:38 pm on May 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, 16 years after going on the record in support of gay marriage, The One finally decides it’s safe to reclaim his old position. (AmSpec’s James Antle tweets, “Obama may be the only person in America who supported gay marriage in 1996 but opposed it in 2011.”) His base will swoon over this, needless to say — expect the mother of all leg tingles on “Hardball” tonight — but even as someone who agrees with him, I can’t get past the pure opportunism of it. In fact, fellow gay-marriage supporter Andy Levy flags this NYT tweet in naked disgust:

Some Obama advisers were divided on decision to support same-sex marriage, but concluded his brand has been damaged enough by hedging.

That’s what it was all about: The brand, plus the political awkwardness created by Biden’s candor on “Meet the Press” this past Sunday. I used to ask whether anyone seriously believes O opposes gay marriage. Now I have to start asking whether anyone seriously believes O would have stopped feigning opposition if it was still a clear political winner for him to keep it up. His “courage” here, as in all things, is about his own reelection chances. If there’s anything for gay rights supporters to celebrate today, it’s the fact that popular opinion has shifted enough that even an opportunist as transparent as The One thinks it’s safe enough to take this position before a national election.

Note the fine print, though:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

I don’t believe that for a moment either but that’s going to be his new compromise. Instead of “I support gay rights but oppose gay marriage” it’s now “I support gay marriage but oppose federal intervention.” Even so, if/when the Supreme Court finds a right to same-sex marriage in the Equal Protection Clause, rest assured that the statement from the White House that day will be nothing but celebratory. This position too is a charade.

As for the politics, Karl notes in the Greenroom that Team Hopenchange may now be shifting from a campaign aimed at winning back disaffected working-class swing voters to a campaign aimed mainly at maximizing turnout among their base:

What yesterday’s elections may have told Team Obama is that the bitter clingers out there are bitter enough to give 41% of the Democrat vote in West Virginia to a convicted felon and to ease a ban on same-sex marriage into the North Carolina constitution. They may have concluded that their energies are better spent targeting more socially liberal white college graduates in the suburbs of northern Virginia, Philadeplphia, Denver, etc. than wasting time on trying to persuade Rust Belt Jacksonians to pull the lever for Barack Obama again while (as Allahpundit suggests) considering discontent among socially conservative African-Americans an acceptable risk now. The establishment’s mockery of Obama’s unevolved position may have suggested to Team Obama that painting Mitt Romney as a right-wing extremist is made more difficult when the president shares Romney’s position on SSM.

For an extended list of pros versus cons, read Chris Cillizza. Romney reiterated today that there’ll be no “evolving” on his end so the contrast is there if Obama wants to draw it. Which, I think, he almost surely doesn’t: There’s too much uncertainty on both sides about how swing voters will react if it becomes a major issue in the campaign. Will they follow North Carolina’s and other states’ lead by voting against gay marriage and its proponent-in-chief? Or will they tune Romney out because he’s not talking about jobs and his economic program? Outside of LGBT fundraisers, I doubt you’ll hear O talk at length again about this issue before November. Exit quotation from GOProud’s Chris Barron: “It is time the left came to terms with the fact that this president will only be for same-sex marriage when he believes it is a political winner for him.”

Update: Some buzz on Twitter for this blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment in O’s remarks: “when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf…” His behalf?


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 5 6 7

Mariage has a function and purpose, and until you can explain to me your understanding of what that is, I will not allow you to tear it down.

You are a deformer, not a reformer. You are an agitator, not a champion. You have no grounds to wrap yourself in the flag of civil rights.

BKennedy on May 9, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Very well put!

joe_doufu on May 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Wrong. They are both based on equal treatment in a free society. Gays, by definition, have no attraction to those of the opposite sex. Therefore they should have the right to marry a person of the same sex. It’s not complicated.

chumpThreads
on May 9, 2012 at 11:21 PM

.
The civil benefits of marriage are not a right at all. In fact there’s no right to marriage to begin with. That is what is not complicated. Right to free association does not mean the right to receive civil benefits for that association. By definition there cannot be an individual right to marriage because marriage is an association of two individuals and the state.

Which means marriage is not an individual right, it is an association defined by society. This is not complicated.

It is you who want to complicate the issue by defining marriage down to a prize the government gives to any two people who show up at the City Clerk’s office. Mariage has a function and purpose, and until you can explain to me your understanding of what that is, I will not allow you to tear it down.

BKennedy
on May 9, 2012 at 11:32 PM

.
Thank you, BKennedy. Well stated.

I believe the whole issue still comes down to “recognition of God” versus “defiance of recognition of God”.

listens2glenn on May 9, 2012 at 11:43 PM

…and all of a sudden, there is almost no discussion of the fact that Obama’s electoral opponent in West Virginia won 40% of the vote in the D-Presidential primary. Oh, and that opponent is a prison inmate. And, oh, Obama’s support is a mere flapping of the gums, with absolutely zero meaning. Zero. 0bama.

Sheerq on May 9, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Obama ate a dog.

BocaJuniors on May 10, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Obama ate a dog.

BocaJuniors on May 10, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Perfect thread closer.

Let’s throw the absurdity right back at Soetoro.

He can flap his gums all he wants, but when all’s said and done, you are what you eat.

cane_loader on May 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM

BKennedy on May 9, 2012 at 11:32 PM

What part of any marriage vow of any religion states “to reproduce or else”

When you find that, come back and regurgitate more nonsense.

So in your world – the offspring of any woman – regardless of a father present – poverty level, ability to actually pay taxes and not receive taxes – is the “apex of society and its intent,norms and mores”… due to said net +1 “future tax paying citizen”

Any mention of any religion within gay marriage rights renders it moot. Any silly line of argument – that omits the glaring reality – a national/state recognized marriage, for $29.99 in Vegas between the opposite sex is in fact “the purpose of the sanctity of marriage via a hopeful future tax paying citizen’ is pure stupidity.

To the Dem dopes and their ilk – black and latino christians are the thrust behind anti gay marriage amendments. Ironically – NYS passed a same sex law due to Republican NYS Legislative members

That is how you debase both silly Reps and silly Dems within a single post.

Gay marriage should be recognized and allowed Federally. It isn’t a States rights (love the dopey line of “con cred” being attempted, even by the sitting Liberal President for political cover)issue, for it is recognized, benefits and all across state lines – and not even questioned in the slightest sense. Anyone ever move to a new state while working and get family or spouse insurance???? Ever been asked to prove your marriage???

Didnt think so.

Allow this issue to sink like every other “gotcha social issue” that has failed miserably in the past 6 months of hyper-BS panic – and focus on things to vote out the biggest mistake in American Presidential History.

Odie1941 on May 10, 2012 at 12:27 AM

African-Americans should be especially ashamed of their opposition to SSM, having been the subject of marriage discrimination just a few decades ago.

History is on the side of equality and fairness. Let the bigots howl.

chumpThreads on May 9, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Yeah, Boss. We sure do appreciate you telling us how we should “feel” and stuff.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 10, 2012 at 1:15 AM

chumpThreads on May 9, 2012 at 11:21 PM

you poor faggot

tom daschle concerned on May 10, 2012 at 1:43 AM

Heh.

joe_doufu on May 10, 2012 at 2:10 AM

California The age of consent is eighteen. With parental consent, there are no age limits regarding the minimum age for a couple to marry. (Other statutory laws apply.) California offers some spousal rights for registered same-sex domestic partners.

So in California, if Obama has his wish and gay marriage is legalized, with parental consent, a 50 year old man could marry an 8 year old boy and it would be legal. I don’t see any potential problems, do you?

talkingpoints on May 10, 2012 at 2:36 AM

My man Gary Johnson is also for gay marriage, but better.

Tzetzes on May 9, 2012 at 5:15 PM

In fact I believe it was Johnson that forced 0bama into taking a stand on the issue as it was reported he supported gay marriage before this sudden announcement:

Gary Johnson: I’m The Best Candidate On Gay Marriage

Says he “crushes” Romney and Obama on civil liberties. Hard to disagree on that one.

posted May 8, 2012 9:09am EDT

Gotta love anyone that puts the 0bama Regime on defense.

DannoJyd on May 10, 2012 at 3:36 AM

The homo marriage flip-flop also puts to rest any claim by Obama that he’s a Christian also.

tommyboy on May 10, 2012 at 4:01 AM

Odie, your error is in suggesting that the feds have any role in this at all. They don’t. That is a strict constitutional fact. This is a state issue and as much as I might want or not want gay marriage, whether Obama or Romney want it is immaterial.

Marriage is not a right properly understood. It is a societal construct that pre-dates out republpic as well as the states that make it up. States licensing and “legalizing” of marriage was merely to put state procedures and population control on what already existed as a social construct. The state obviously has an interest in the birth and nurturing of future generations because without them the state will cease to exist. Gays cannot by definition help or hinder that interest – well I guess hinder it because technically if gays were a majority the state would slowly whither and die absent some new breeding protocols.

Despite polls to the contrary – I still haven’t seen gay marraige win at the polls and the NY legislative action was very strange. I think we would both agree with that. Let’s just say that if the state budget had been passed that way it probably wouldn’t have passed legal challenge. Eventually, if we just let the states do their thing and keep the judges and feds out of it – society will figure out how it feels about gay marriage and will legislate appropriately. Some states will accept it and some will not. That is as it should be.

But beware – the argument for gay marriage as a constitutional right goes in very weird directions – which groups promoting things much more bizzare are waiting for. There was a thread posting above about a 50 yr old guy and an 8 year old boy. Yes, there are groups waiting to make that claim. Odie, that is the fallacy in your argument.

Zomcon JEM on May 10, 2012 at 4:24 AM

To be be frank, Obama often comes across as effeminate. Take his dainty dancing. Or his gait… sometimes anyway. They call him a modern day metrosexual. Or asexual, bisexual, whatever it is.

So this is not surprising. For anti-Obama campaigners, weave this into a larger narrative, about degeneracy, about a new morality that infringes upon what many hold dear, and about the scary radicals that constitute the O administration.

anotherJoe on May 10, 2012 at 5:00 AM

So in California, if Obama has his wish and gay marriage is legalized, with parental consent, a 50 year old man could marry an 8 year old boy and it would be legal. I don’t see any potential problems, do you?

talkingpoints on May 10

As opposed to now where a 50 year old man can marry an 8 year old girl with parental consent being peachy keen. Right?

BKennedy on May 9, 2012 at 11:32 PM

The civil benefits of marriage are not a right at all. In fact there’s no right to marriage to begin with. That is what is not complicated. Right to free association does not mean the right to receive civil benefits for that association.

It does if you believe in equality and justice.

By definition there cannot be an individual right to marriage because marriage is an association of two individuals and the state.

And as such the State is obligated to treat all those who wish to enter into a marriage equally.

Which means marriage is not an individual right, it is an association defined by society.

No. Marriage is an individual right. How your society defines marriage is your society’s business. Your society using the power of the State to enforce its definition on to everyone else is flat out wrong.

This is not complicated.

No its not either you believe freedom, justice, and equality before the law for everybody or you don’t.

It is you who want to complicate the issue by defining marriage down to a prize the government gives to any two people who show up at the City Clerk’s office.

As far as the State is concerned it pretty much is.

sandbagger on May 10, 2012 at 6:30 AM

And as such the State is obligated to treat all those who wish to enter into a marriage equally
sandbagger on May 10, 2012 at 6:30 AM

The State already treats all those who wish to enter marriage equally. Everyone has the exact same rights.

tommyboy on May 10, 2012 at 6:36 AM

And as such the State is obligated to treat all those who wish to enter into a marriage equally
sandbagger on May 10, 2012 at 6:30 AM

The State already treats all those who wish to enter marriage equally.

No it does not.

Everyone has the exact same rights.

tommyboy on May 10, 2012 at 6:36 AM

No some people are prevented from exercising their rights. Resulting in what’s called an injustice.

And as such the State is obligated to treat all those who wish to enter into a marriage equally
sandbagger on May 10, 2012 at 6:30 AM

Does this mean you favor True Marriage Equality, or do you only favor Partial Marriage Equality?

blink on May 10, 2012 at 7:04 AM

I don’t understand the question.

sandbagger on May 10, 2012 at 7:28 AM

No some people are prevented from exercising their rights. Resulting in what’s called an injustice.

Everybody has the exact same rights and it’s perfectly just.

tommyboy on May 10, 2012 at 8:12 AM

ITS A LIFE STYLE CHOICE. Nothing else.

riddick on May 9, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Thank you … but that narrative won’t get state and federal bennie …

conservative tarheel on May 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Do you support all people having the right to marry the true object of their sexual desires, or do you only support giving that right to people that you like?

blink on May 10, 2012 at 8:20 AM

I support giving it only to people properly suited to raising the children that result from acting on those sexual desires.

Marriage, in the end, is about children.

I will save you the trouble of bringing up infertile couples: marriage really doesn’t exist for them, either. But an infertile traditional married couple at least can provide the unique benefits that only a mother and father can provide, including modeling adult male and female behavior and interaction for their children. A single parent or gay couple can never provide that.

The_Jacobite on May 10, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Do you support all people having the right to marry the true object of their sexual desires, or do you only support giving that right to people that you like?

blink on May 10, 2012 at 8:20 AM

The general morality on the left is, “do whatever you want, as long as you don’t hurt anyone”. A shallow, simple-minded, vapid morality, yet one they believe unthinkingly and fiercely, and CAN’T IMAGINE that anyone else could have any other additional or more sophisticated morality.

So by this logic, they’d be against a pedophile marrying a child, since it would harm the child. But if we’re going by the “do no harm” standard, what about the health effects of gay male anal sex? Let’s talk about the cause of 99% of the AIDS/HIV cases in the U.S., and the health effects and human cost and pain that caused. How does that comport with “do whatever you want, as long as you don’t hurt anyone?”. Not very well.

Paul-Cincy on May 10, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Why is anyone surprised? This kind of explains Michelle, doesn’t it? I mean, she does, in some ways, look like a dude. Am I wrong?

lonestarleeroy on May 10, 2012 at 12:02 PM

No some people are prevented from exercising their rights. Resulting in what’s called an injustice.

No they aren’t. Gay people get married all the time under the regulations of marriage- see Jim Mcgreevy. In order for there to be an violation of rights; there must be an exclusion. Even in the case of interracial marriage there was an exclusion. Other races could intermarry while whites could not. NO ONE can marry the same sex regardless of sexuality, race etc. There is no exclusion and marriage laws are already designed that you can’t always marry someone you loooove i.e., see incestous couples for example.

melle1228 on May 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM

It just seems like an easy issue for Obama to posture on, while trampling the Constitution into the dirt.

When it comes to civil liberties, Obama has always talked a good game, and then acted more authoritarian than Bush. He talked about an end to the abuses of the Bush years and an open and transparent government, yet extended the Fourth-Amendment-shredding Patriot Act, empowered the TSA to produce naked body scans and engage in humiliatingly sexual pat-downs, signed indefinite detention of American citizens into law, claimed and exercised the power to assassinate American citizens without trial, and aggressively prosecuted whistleblowers. Under his watch the U.S. army even produced a document planning for the reeducation of political activists in internment camps. Reeducation camps? In America? And some on the left are still crowing that talking about being in favour of gay marriage makes him “pro civil liberties”? Is this a joke?
[...]
Meanwhile India, Iran, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Japan have all ditched the dollar for other currencies in new bilateral trade agreements — which lest us forget is America’s biggest export, and the product that keeps goods and oil flowing into America. This is an extremely dangerous time. While we cannot lump Obama with the blame for the entire U.S. economic system — the system we have was accumulated via Bush, and Cheney, and Paulson, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Carter, and Brzezinski, and Nixon, and Kissinger, and Johnson, and Roosevelt and Wilson and Lincoln and probably most significantly of all the father of central banking Alexander Hamilton — Obama certainly has not improved matters.

And it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that Romney — who claims he would support the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act, that he wants to attack Iran, and has hired many ex-Bush staffers, as well as winning the endorsement of both Jeb and George H.W. Bush, and bizarrely claiming to want to start a trade war with China — is cut from the exact same cloth as Bush and Obama.

Obamney 2012!

Rae on May 10, 2012 at 12:10 PM

If you actually gave a shit about equality, you’d be calling for the end of state-marriage licenses, and for every couple to only have access to a civil union contract.

budfox, that would actually be precisely my solution. Let all “marriages” in the eyes of the law be civil unions (between consenting adults, so we arent dealing with the kids/animals/inanimate objects arguments). Let only the churches perform the rights of the sacrament of marriage, and leave it to the individual denominations as to whether they honor same-sex marriages or not.

By that method, in the eyes of the law, all unions between two people would be equal (avoids the “separate but equal” problem). All laws would only address benefits for civil unions. And under our federalist system, the states could decide individual via their voters as to whether they will recognize same-sex civil unions. Take the federal government out of it completely. Individual gay couples could decide then whether the issue is important enough to them to move to a state that allows civil unions for them.

Meanwhile, for church purposes (and I primarily am thinking of church run adoption agencies and the like) they could easily define their rules as allowing only “married” couples to adopt, which would qualify only those couples the church has recognized as married. If those institutions were sued, those cases should be thrown out. Private organizations that don’t receive state funds can, as far as I recall the law, set their own rules for participation in their organization.

It seems to me, that allows gay couples the same legal benefits as straight couples, and it allows the word “marriage” to remain defined as a man and woman (or howsoever the church in question chooses to practice it).

gravityman on May 10, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Obama is wrong about it being left to the states. Hence “a little” leadership. It would be nice if Obama evolved more on the issue, but I’m hopeful that the electorate will evolve first.

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Despite the fact that I am generally on the same side of this particular issue as you (maybe the only issue we’d have in common), your statement above is 100% wrong.

Obama is actually right about it being a state issue. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to define marriage. And the 10th Amendment assures us that if the Constitution does not give the federal government that power, then that power falls to the states or the people, therefore it is a matter left entirely to the states. The most obvious way to demonstrate that is to point out that there is no such thing as a “Federal Marriage License”, instead only states issue marriage licenses.

In fact, I don’t think the federal government should even be setting tax benefits based on marriage status, since they aren’t supposed to define marriage in the first place. Marriage should have no place at all in the federal government dialogue. Only the states should engage in any discussion of marriage (and even then I would prefer it all be civil unions at the legal level, and let only the churches define and engage in the sacrament of marriage).

gravityman on May 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM

…yet one they believe unthinkingly and fiercely, and CAN’T IMAGINE that anyone else could have any other additional or more sophisticated morality.

Paul-Cincy on May 10, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Seems to me that argument cuts both ways. You appear to believe in a Biblical morality, unthinkingly and fiercely, and you can’t imagine that anyone else could have any other additional or more sophisticated morality.

That is not an attempt to denegrate Biblical morality, only to point out that it is a morality amongst humanity, not the only morality amongst humanity. You believe in it as fervently as other’s believe in their morality. If it’s right for you to believe fervently in a particular morality which differs from others, why is it not right for someone else to believe as fervently in their morality. Most of those moralities share the same basic principles against things like murder and theft, a basis around which we can set societal laws easily enough. The problem comes in when we discuss more dogmatic aspects of our various moral compasses, and more heated when we attempt to discuss legislating those more dogmatic structures of those moral codes.

gravityman on May 10, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Seems to me that argument cuts both ways. You appear to believe in a Biblical morality, unthinkingly and fiercely, and you can’t imagine that anyone else could have any other additional or more sophisticated morality.

gravityman on May 10, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I never said any such thing, or represented myself in any such way.

Paul-Cincy on May 10, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I never said any such thing, or represented myself in any such way.

Paul-Cincy on May 10, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Hence why I said, “You appear to believe…”, which was based on the nature of your objections, not a direct statement you made. You have presented numerous arguments which appear to be based on biblical morality. I have no problem accepting that my impression of the basis of your arguments may be incorrect, but that is the impression given.

gravityman on May 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

EVERY SINGLE BENEFIT or “right” given to married, heterosexual couples by the state is easily provided to civil unions, or even covered under contract law.

Want to inherit upon death? Contract

Want to have health insurance from one partner cover the other? Work someplace with insurance that does that. Frankly, enough demand in the market will create this. Covering a spouse often costs the working spouse a lot of money these days, but if gays
want that too, more power to them.

The ONLY reason for the state to call it marriage, since EVERY OTHER BENEFIT (taxes, state handling of child support after divorce, etc) can be given to same sex couples through civil unions or contract law without calling it marriage, is to force it into the curriculum of all state institutions. No longer can you just have books about heterosexual couples, but you would have to mix in same-sex couples. Health classes would have to address both lifestyles equally. It goes on and on.

Every place a state sponsored institution refers to marriage would require “equal treatment.” Witness the outrage over one artist portraying a man growing up to marry a woman at a high school. She was expressing one path, one taken (or desired) by 97% of males, yet she was lambasted and threatened with removal of her art for not being fair to the other 3%.

Frankly, somewhat tongue in cheek here, marriage took away many of my rights. As a pastor I used to say I’d performed 6 funerals, but some people called three of them weddings.

What rights did I get out of marriage? Lower taxes on our combined incomes. Hospital visitation rights. Automatic inheritance.

I also became responsible for debts incurred during the marriage. The state got a say in what happened to our kids in the divorce. I have to pay alimony.

Both those rights and child protections can be obtained through law without calling it marriage. If your freaky deaky liberal church wants to call it marriage, more power to them. If your friends want to consider you married, congratulations. But I do not want the state ORDERING me to call it marriage, because it isn’t.

PastorJon on May 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM

By that method, in the eyes of the law, all unions between two people would be equal (avoids the “separate but equal” problem).

gravityman on May 10, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Why “two”, and why “people”?

blink on May 10, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Basic biology. Mating is performed using sexual organs that are clearly designed on a one-to-one usage pattern, therefore marriage should be for two people.

Oh, wait. That’s an even stronger argument against same-sex marriage, isn’t it, since two men would be lacking the female sexual organ for effective mating.

Hey, let’s allow two men to get married as long as one of them has gender reassignment surgery to make them “compatible.”

Yeah, that would work. Right?

tom on May 10, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Who gives a flying f@rt what Obama thinks. The more this topic’s covered, the more credence the subject is given. Obama is a virtual non-entity aka POTUSINO (President Of The United States In Name Only)

DevilsPrinciple on May 10, 2012 at 7:57 PM

budfox, that would actually be precisely my solution. Let all “marriages” in the eyes of the law be civil unions (between consenting adults, so we arent dealing with the kids/animals/inanimate objects arguments). Let only the churches perform the rights of the sacrament of marriage, and leave it to the individual denominations as to whether they honor same-sex marriages or not.

By that method, in the eyes of the law, all unions between two people would be equal (avoids the “separate but equal” problem). All laws would only address benefits for civil unions.

gravityman on May 10, 2012 at 12:13 PM

You still have to come up with a reason for why you want to create “civil unions”. If your answer is, because some people want it the state has a duty to indulge them, then you have no logical reason to oppose “gay marriage”.

Try this out for size: the conservative position should be that the government leaves well enough alone unless there is a compelling reason for it to intervene. Marriage has worked fine for millenia. The gays want the government to intervene and pervert the meaning of marriage to include sodomy. The libertarian response seems to be that the government should intervene to abolish marriage and strip it of any meaning whatever. Both of these positions are wrong. Granting “civil unions” with benefits is not a libertarian position. Conservatives should not want the government to deconstruct and re-invent marriage in either direction.

joe_doufu on May 10, 2012 at 11:56 PM

If your answer is, because some people want it the state has a duty to indulge them, then you have no logical reason to oppose “gay marriage”.

joe_doufu on May 10, 2012 at 11:56 PM

The “federal state” has no such duty as you project. This statement speaks NOT ONLY to contextual ignorance but also to who and how this would be constructed, if at all. Additionally, Obama’s proclamation of his agreement to same sex unions is merely electioneering. As I have said before, the states reserve the right to decide on same sex unions. This is obviated by the fact that four states plus the DOC have passed laws regarding this issue. IOW, Obama is FOS.

The other salient point is that this perverts the notion of a Constitutional Republic of which YOU have little or no understanding because your statement demonstrates you believe the U.S. to be a Democracy.

Your argument is therefore moot and thereby worthless because individual states have taken up this issue.

DevilsPrinciple on May 11, 2012 at 7:24 AM

DevilsPrinciple on May 11, 2012 at 7:24 AM

I don’t know who you think you’re replying to, because your reply makes no sense with my comment.

joe_doufu on May 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Why “two”, and why “people”?

blink on May 10, 2012 at 5:20 PM

blink, you and I have been around on the “true marriage equality” thing already, and I did acknowledge your point at that time a few weeks ago.

“People” is a very simple question to answer. I am essentially proposing all unions in the eyes of the law be handled as civil unions under contract law, not marriages (leave that to the church by each church’s rules). Marriages in the eyes of the law are basically a form of contract law now. That would require consenting adults in order to enter into a civil union contract. So, a building or an animal, being incapable of consent, could not enter into a civil union. Neither could children, nor in this case could they be given parental consent to do so, as that would fall under child abuse laws (a parent cannot consent to putting their children in harm’s way).

I will grant that “two” is a more difficult area to justify, but from a legal perspective it would simply require that the law state that a civil union is mutually exclusive for the parties. So one cannot enter into a second civil union contract if already in a civil union.

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM

This question cuts both ways.

blink on May 10, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Yes, it does. That is exactly what I was pointing out to the commenter who originally said it.

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 10:49 AM

EVERY SINGLE BENEFIT or “right” given to married, heterosexual couples by the state is easily provided to civil unions, or even covered under contract law.

PastorJon on May 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM

So, then why have “marriage” as a government recognized institution as separate from civil unions? If we assume that all of the same benefits are available to a civil union that are available to a marriage, then why do we need two separate institutions? Why not have the government simply recognize both as civil unions, and let the various churches keep the institution of marriage as a religious sacrament (under which they would be free to set their own rules as to who can be married or not)?

That way we do not change the sacrament of marriage nor the meaning of the word. It remains a religious institution with the specific meaning of one man and one woman.

As far as government institutions like schools are concerned, I’m still wondering in what capacity they even mention marriage or civil unions at all. I don’t recall any class I ever had in either Catholic school or public school in which we ever discussed marriage at all. It seems to me that should be an area of learning best left to the family.

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM

You still have to come up with a reason for why you want to create “civil unions”. If your answer is, because some people want it the state has a duty to indulge them, then you have no logical reason to oppose “gay marriage”.

Try this out for size: the conservative position should be that the government leaves well enough alone unless there is a compelling reason for it to intervene. Marriage has worked fine for millenia. The gays want the government to intervene and pervert the meaning of marriage to include sodomy. The libertarian response seems to be that the government should intervene to abolish marriage and strip it of any meaning whatever. Both of these positions are wrong. Granting “civil unions” with benefits is not a libertarian position. Conservatives should not want the government to deconstruct and re-invent marriage in either direction.

joe_doufu on May 10, 2012 at 11:56 PM

First of all, I don’t oppose “gay marriage”, in a sense. As I said, I’m in favor of the government recognizing only civil unions regardless of the genders of the participants. Leave the sacrament of marriage to the church.

As to your second point, in regards to a libertarian position. As a libertarian, I would rather the government was out of the entire marriage/civil union business entirely. I don’t think there should be tax breaks or other benefits for married couples or civil unions at all. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given any power over marriage, therefore at least at the federal level there should no such tax breaks or federal benefits. At most they should be a state level incentive per the Tenth Amendment. Then again, the Tenth Amendment also says “States or The People”, and in a truly libertarian position, my ultimate preference would be that even the states do not offer benefits based on married or single status. It should be a matter of “The People”, and as such should be an institution of the church and only the church. If the state offers no distinct benefits, then it has no need to recognize the institution at all and gays would not need state recognition of the institution (and some churches will marry gays, so they can engage in the sacrament if they so wish in those churches). But that isn’t a very realistic position. The government does give tax breaks and other benefits to married couples, and that is unlikely to change, therefore one must deal in the reality of what is before us. So in that reality, at least the states must have a set of criteria by which they decide who is and is not entitled to marriage benefits. Therfore, civil unions/marriage already exist in the government realm, so there is no expansion of government, since as is oft argued here civil unions offer all the same benefits as marriage. In fact, I believe it is quite in keeping with a libertarian position to say that the government has no need to recognize two separate institutions, since the benefits of each institution are assumed to be equal in the eyes of the law (afterall, is not one argument that gays have full access to all government benefits through civil unions and therefore do not need marriage). If government is going to recognize it, why not only recognize one equal institution for all couples? Let the churches deal in what is and isn’t marriage on their own terms.

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM

So in that reality, at least the states must have a set of criteria by which they decide who is and is not entitled to marriage benefits. Therfore, civil unions/marriage already exist in the government realm, so there is no expansion of government, since as is oft argued here civil unions offer all the same benefits as marriage. In fact, I believe it is quite in keeping with a libertarian position to say that the government has no need to recognize two separate institutions, since the benefits of each institution are assumed to be equal in the eyes of the law (afterall, is not one argument that gays have full access to all government benefits through civil unions and therefore do not need marriage). If government is going to recognize it, why not only recognize one equal institution for all couples? Let the churches deal in what is and isn’t marriage on their own terms.

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM

You’re really stretching. “Marriage” has been understood and worked for millenia as a union of man and woman. You are abstracting it to say it applies to “couples”, therefore should apply to all “couples”, a position that makes no sense from a libertarian position unless driven by one of these two motivations:

1. You deliberately want to invent man-man and woman-woman pseudo-marriages, or…
2. (more likely I think) you are seeing the perverts on parade and trying to come up with a “theory” of “civil unions” that accomodates their desire for validation.

The latter is kind of an instinct of the college libertarian. You see two sides of a debate, assume both sides have equal merit, and try to come up with a logical streeeeeetch that allows both to be right. The assumption that both sides have equal merit in any debate is an error. There is no reason any of us should be going through mental contortions to promote goverment scrapping and redefinition of marriage.

joe_doufu on May 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM

tax breaks or federal benefits

The “tax break” that we’re really talking about is joint property ownership which gives immunity to the inheritance tax. (Other types of taxes seem to actually penalize marriage.) A woman who spent her life running the home shouldn’t be forced to hand the home over to the government when her breadwinner husband dies.

A couple of gay dudes are presumably both capable of taking care of themselves. There isn’t the same division of labor and mutual dependence as there is in a real marriage.

I think we can all agree a good solution would be to repeal the death tax, phase out social security, and flatten the income tax! (But would that silence the gay marriage activists? Not likely.)

joe_doufu on May 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM

You’re really stretching. “Marriage” has been understood and worked for millenia as a union of man and woman. You are abstracting it to say it applies to “couples”, therefore should apply to all “couples”, a position that makes no sense from a libertarian position unless driven by one of these two motivations:

1. You deliberately want to invent man-man and woman-woman pseudo-marriages, or…
2. (more likely I think) you are seeing the perverts on parade and trying to come up with a “theory” of “civil unions” that accomodates their desire for validation.

The latter is kind of an instinct of the college libertarian. You see two sides of a debate, assume both sides have equal merit, and try to come up with a logical streeeeeetch that allows both to be right. The assumption that both sides have equal merit in any debate is an error. There is no reason any of us should be going through mental contortions to promote goverment scrapping and redefinition of marriage.

joe_doufu on May 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I’m not abstracting it at all. First of all, “marriage” hasnt always been exactly the institution we know it as, it’s been altered at times to fit the societies and cultures. Until the last 100 years or so it was an institution for which “love” meant very little, and was an arranged situation for financial and/or aristocratic lineage purposes. That definition has gone by the wayside in modern western cultures. It was also often a polygamist institution in many cultures, including the early Judeo-Christian one (Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor and had multiple wives), which has also gone by the wayside in the past few hundred years. Both of those practices are still engaged in as normal in other societies and cultures to this day. The institution changes based on society, if you are going to view it over “millenia” and in the context of the entirety of humanity.

I reject your assumption of my motivations. It serves no point to the debate. I especially do so when you consistently reference “perversions” and “sodomy”, as if sex is the only reason to engage in any relationship. My marriage (to a woman) is not about just sex, and I would assume yours is not either (assuming you are married). Mine isn’t just about kids either, since we currently don’t plan on having kids. There are other purposes to a relationship.

I disagree with you on the position of debate as well. One should enter a debate without a preconceived view that one side has merit and the other does not. Otherwise, there is no point to debating, since there is already a bias to the outcome. One should hear all sides equally, and only then should one decide which side of the debate has merit and which does not.

The “tax break” that we’re really talking about is joint property ownership which gives immunity to the inheritance tax. (Other types of taxes seem to actually penalize marriage.) A woman who spent her life running the home shouldn’t be forced to hand the home over to the government when her breadwinner husband dies.

A couple of gay dudes are presumably both capable of taking care of themselves. There isn’t the same division of labor and mutual dependence as there is in a real marriage.

I think we can all agree a good solution would be to repeal the death tax, phase out social security, and flatten the income tax! (But would that silence the gay marriage activists? Not likely.)

joe_doufu on May 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM

On your last point, I agree. I believe that was my primary point about the libertarian ideal. Those should be phased out, then marriage (or civil unions) for the purposes of government discussion would be a moot point. Then it would go back to the realm od debate where it belongs… a church sacrament only. In that respect, I have no issue with what any church wishes to set as their rules for who can be married in the eyes of the church. And in that respect, we would not be arguing about changing the definition of “marriage”. The church alone would define it, and could define it as they see fit.

As for the first part, that seems an awfully sexist argument. A woman in this day and age can’t take care of herself without a man? And it is only the man’s job to be the “breadwinner” and the woman’s to “take care of the home”?

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM

As for the first part, that seems an awfully sexist argument. A woman in this day and age can’t take care of herself without a man? And it is only the man’s job to be the “breadwinner” and the woman’s to “take care of the home”?

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Marriage is a partnership where people make themselves dependent upon each other (and hence vulnerable to one another) for the mutual benefit that comes from the division of responsibilities. It’s not sexist to point that out.

A woman can certainly support herself as a single, and a man can cook his own food (sort of), but they are stronger and can do a lot more (like raise good kids) as partners.

If we aren’t talking about that kind of partnership, then why would “civil unions” make sense?

joe_doufu on May 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Until the last 100 years or so it was an institution for which “love” meant very little
gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM

The last 100 years or so has been an anomaly in every part of civilization. Art has been redefined as ugliness. Marriage has been redefined as a temporary arrangement for temporary sexual attraction. Civilization has been redefined as political correctness. Justice has been redefined as appeasement and cowardice. Truth and science have been redefined as majority opinion.

Your argument is sort of saying we can ignore the entire history of civilization and philosophy because other people in the recent past also ignored it.

joe_doufu on May 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM

blink on May 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM

We went around on that argument a few weeks ago… or more to the point, you went around with someone else on that argument while I watched, blink. In fact, I generally even agreed with you to a certain extent. But evetually the only conclusion that can be reached at it’s farthest extent is that nothing has any meaning at all… afterall, everything can be changed. And if it can’t be changed, then we must live currently in the ultimate human utopia.

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7