For people in the know: why does the President oppose same sex marriage?

[VMI Dem]

Is it based on religion? Political reality?

[Kdillard]

1. I believe he feels it is a state issue and not a federal one. He does not oppose

Gay marriage. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

[Captain Hilts]

3. That's what he says, but that's a dodge. nt

[Honeycombe8]

41. Geez, I wish I had ESP so I could read other people's minds and hearts, too!

What a gift!

Me...I have to go by what people say and do, coupled with patterns of behavior and speaking. See, going by that...Obama thinks it's a state issue. But going by past behavior and speaking pattern, he is also politically savvy, and no one who wants to be President, as he did, could be in favor of same sex marriage and win. (altho being against it is not required politically, any longer.)

[Clio the Leo]

19. Yep ...... and that was the problem with DOMA.....

.... it gave the federal government more authority than it ever had. The federal government never sanctioned marriage, that was always done on the state and local level. There is also the added problem that laws prohibiting gay marriage are in clear violation of the 10th and 14th amendments. To have the Federal government then reinforce that violation is absurd.

The Respect of Marriage Act would RETURN the authority back to the states allowing gay couples the same rights and privileges straight couples have as provided by the Federal government. The only requirement being that their union took place in a state that recognized gay marriage regardless of if they moved later.

The only way you can legally argue that DOMA should be repealed is if you come at it from the standpoint that marriage is something that is decided on the state level, not the federal one.

Ultimately, what needs to happen is that a case needs to make it to the Supreme Court and once that's decided, just as with Brown v Board NO state would be able to violate that ruling. Until then, all Congress can do is pass a bill that the other guys could repeal later once they were back in the majority.

Hopefully, by the time a case makes it there, the President will have loaded the Court up with enough "good libs" that they'll do the right thing.

[Truth2Tell]

36. ...

[MarlaM]

45. Politifact.com: "Obama opposes gay marriage"

12-21-2008: "For his part, Obama opposes gay marriage, though he supports extending "full and equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law." And Obama opposed Proposition 8, calling it "divisive and discriminatory."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/13/barney-frank/warren-gay-marriage-and-incest/

[Captain Hilts]

2. Political reality, despite how much it has changed for the good in 20 yrs. The numbers

still aren't there.

[Auggie]

9. Yep

[ruggerson]

4. Because, out of political calculation, he has decided that he couldn't get elected if he did

He supported it before he became a national figure.

He's not alone in making this (mistaken, in my belief) cost/benefit political decisioon. Unfortunately, lots of Democrats still do.

[DrToast]

5. I agree that it's about politics, but why do you think he's mistaken?

Same sex marriage can't even win in California or Maine yet.

[joeybee12]

7. Probably not mistaken, but not a sign of leadership, certainly...n/t

[DrToast]

12. I think he's weighing the cost/benefits of supporting it

If coming out for gay marriage would harm his agenda of passing health care reform, climate change legislation, etc. then I think he's right to not support gay marriage. I don't know if it would hurt his agenda, but I suspect that's the way he's looking at the issue.

[tblue]

13. That's my #1 problem with our dear president. It's politics instead of leadership.

Don't know if it even matters what's in his heart. We assume he feels the way we do about things, but where's the proof? I think we have to judge him by his deeds and not by what we presume he feels inside, because we'll never know.

[DrToast]

17. Politics and leadership are not mutually exclusive. (nt)

[boppers]

21. If you don't do politics, you don't get to be the leader. eom

[Honeycombe8]

42. He could be a leader in front of his bedroom mirror, and speak strongly in favor

of same sex marriage all day long!

Or.....he could say it's a state issue, that he's against a Constitutional Amendment forbidding it....and then he can be a leader on a podium that says "President of the United States."

He chose the latter.

Things have changed a lot in the last decade. But most people still are not in favor of same sex marriage. When the last of the old folks (I mean REALLY old folks) pass on....the younger generation will wonder what the big deal was about, and this will no longer be an issue. Not too much longer to wait.

[ruggerson]

16. Because Republicans got elected for years on anti-choice platform

despite the fact that 2/3rds of the country disagreed with them.

It just has to be framed properly:

"I believe strongly in equality, therefore I support civil marriage for same sex couples. The 14th amendment to the constitution guarantees equal access under the law, and I think that's a bedrock principle for our nation. I also support any church's right to refuse to marry any couple that they believe violates the tenets of their religion. I know that this is a contentious issue and I know that good Americans will disagree with me, and I think we all need to listen to each other and approach this with a willingness to engage in dialogue."

[Sinti]

6. Yep

I understand the calculation, it doesn't matter what you support if you can't get elected. OTOH, both parties cater far too much to the religious, IMO. It's dangerous, because the more power you give them, the more they will take... C-Street.

[Politicub]

47. Agree - it's a political calculus for him. One I disagree with, though.

I wish this wasn't the case. I think Obama is pro LGBT, but not confident enough to take the risk to unequivocally support same sex marriage.

[mkultra]

8. its probably religious

Many religious folk think that homosexuality is a sin.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. He used to, but he says his heaping Christian faith is why

he is now a pro discrimination bigot. He says 'God is in the mix'. Frankly, I am getting sick of seeing this man and his wife turn their hate toward others using pro Slavery authors. Every writer they quote to knock gay people also favored slavery, and gave specific rules to slaves that they should obey their God given Masters. Clearly, Obama and his wife do not believe that shit. So they cherry pick it out and say, see, God loves us, but he still thinks gays should be punished.
He is a religious bigot, probably lying about it though, because during the campaign he showed his true heart about how bigots 'cling to God and hate those who are different' so. He's either a full tilt religious bigot as he claims, or a full tilt liar about himself. Either a bigot, or a bearer of false witness. Neither thing is in any way decent, moral or good.

[polichick]

25. His responses about this have been lame - and purely political imo...

I think he could be honest about this and not pay a price anyway ~ the bigots already hate him.

[Number23]

34. "Every writer they quote to knock gay people also favored slavery"

Every time you post, I find myself saying "what in the name of all that is holy is this person talking about?"

I find myself doing that now. What "authors" has Obama used to "knock gay people?" What are you talking about?? And what does slavery have to do with Obama's religious beliefs/personal style of governing???

[dsc]

38. I think the poster's point is that Obama has quoted the Bible to oppose gay marriage

and the very same Bible has been quoted to support slavery.

[HamdenRice]

39. The person in question is not trying to make a point

It's just the usual bitter dog whistling about slavery. When some people are angry or disappointed, they lash out blindly at convenient targets.

[Number23]

53. That's sure as HELL what it sounds like to me.

And it's not bitter dog whistling about slavery, Hamden. It's bitter dog whistling about black people.

The same faith and religion that millions of black people in America have embraced, which was a CRITICAL force in the Civil Rights Movement, and which brought about black leaders such as MLK -- you know, the guy that everybody loves to run around quoting ad nauseum -- is suddenly "the religion that brought about slavery" and one that Obama should suddenly reject.

I've certainly had my questions over the years about why black people have wholeheartedly embraced a religion that was forced on us in chains, but my questions and concern were out of love for my community. Not some transparent and really quite pitiful attempt to once again slam our country's first black president.

I take comfort though, every time stuff like this comes up (and good Lord, doesn't it just KEEP coming up??!) I think people become just a little bit hipper to what's really going on here.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. I have no doubt O is for gay marriage --

but he feels it is a political liabity for him.

[tblue]

15. That's worse than not believing in it. It's hypocritical, disengenuous, political cowardice .

And anyway, how do you know?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. He past comments (back in the 90s) --

his association with Rev. Wright, the fact that he is a legal scholor who knows the Contiution does not allow for any such discrimination. :shrug:

Yes, it is hypocritical. It was one of the issues I always disliked him for.

[redqueen]

20. So you'd rather he didn't get elected

than shift to the center?

Really?

[ej510]

14. Political reality. Rev. Wright was pro gay marriage.

[polichick]

22. He's not simpleminded enough to really oppose it - imo it's politics. nt

[krawhitham]

23. He wanted to get elected & he wants to be re-elected

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. Cynical political decision.

And yes, that is actually worse than the ignorant who really believe the nonsense they're preaching. But that's my opinion.

[xchrom]

26. he thinks he wouldn't collect a presidential paycheck if he really came out and supported equality.

[Odin2005]

27. IMO he supports it, but it is political suicude to support is oppenly.

There are a lot of people that, although they are on the left economically, are against same-sex marriage for religious reasons. A liberal evangelical poster on a current events message board I frequent posted some interesting stuff on what she called the "Emergent Church"; basically Evangelicals in their 20s and 30s that are very much on the left on everything except social issues.

[xchrom]

28. not all christians are evangelical -- or even the majority of american christians.

you are beginning to witness the breaking of the two.

in the last twenty years there has been an hesitancy to for christians to break with christians.

that's over.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. I don't think he really opposes same sex marriage; I think it's politically expedient for him to

oppose gay marriage. The president does not strike me as a religious man at all. But until this country changes its attitude on this issue, the Dems will sadly have to continue acting as if they are opposed to gay marriage when they really aren't. It's a sad state of affairs. Now that Al Gore and Bill Clinton are no longer in politics, they are *for* gay marriage. Well, I think they always were.

I think the president's stance on this issue reflects political reality, unfortunately.

[Orsino]

30. Because he is trying to build the largest coalitions possible...

...and hatin' on Teh Gay is perhaps the most popular pastime in America. He can't be seen openly opposing that.

Yes, he is playing chess. I hate the pain his weakness causes, but by giving up on the larger goal he ensures that he can still make incremental change happen.

[salguine]

31. He opposes it because to take a stand for it might alienate someone, and that seems to be

his Kryptonite.

[Unvanguard]

32. He doesn't, but says he does for political reasons.

There are quotes from him in support back when he was a state representative in Illinois.

[vaberella]

33. He's planning on repealing DOMA, so I don't know.

Not to mention he was part of a church that was a fierce advocate for gay marriage. Which most people like to ignore.

[Onlooker]

35. Because he's not that much of a leader.

The civil rights of gays are not an important enough legislative issue for him that he's willing to put his reputation on the line.

[Imajika]

37. I suspect political..

Seriously, Maine of all places just voted to revoke marriage for same sex couples.

The word "Marriage" is a real stumbling block for too many people (aka voters), I guess for religious reasons.

Obama is a mostly a good guy. I honestly think he completely supports same sex marriage, but he is still a politician and knows each time the voters have had the chance they have rejected same sex marriage. I believe we are now 0-31 on this issue, and that isn't lost on he and his political advisors.

I know it is horrible to say, but it is true that in life timing is everything and a crafty politician is always careful to pick their fights at the right time (and sadly, that right time might be never).

[ShadowLiberal]

40. Political calculation, he probably thinks the courts are the way to go for now on this

In another 4 to 8 years with the growth of support for gay marriage though that could change.

[slackmaster]

43. Political reality

A slim majority of voters oppose same-sex marriage.

[Sebastian Doyle]

46. Who gives a fuck what a "slim majority" of misinformed ignorant shitheads think?

Which one of YOUR civil rights should be up for a popular vote?

[slackmaster]

48. It matters because some state constitutions can be amended by a simple majority

As in what happened recently in California and Maine.

Same-sex marriage won't happen until Congress grows a backbone and does something about it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

50. Maine and California are exactly what I'm talking about.

Civil rights should NEVER be a matter of popular vote. What if LBJ had not signed a Civil Rights bill in 1964, and had instead left it up to the states to pass by popular vote? Can you guess which states probably would have passed PropH8-type ballot measures against civil rights based on skin pigmentation?

[slackmaster]

52. Yes, it's a civil rights issue and the federal government can fix that

By making LGBT people a protected class like racial minorities.

[olegramps]

44. There is a simple solution.

In the Netherlands for example the civil and religious aspects are completely separated. No one should be allowed to witness a marriage contract except the state. This is the crux of the matter. Religious ministers should not be allowed to actually perform this function. This would be totally reserved to the state. If a couple, regardless of their sex, then wishes to have a religious ceremony then fine but it should not have any legally binding aspects. Just as the state is totally in control of divorce it should be totally in control of the marriage contract.

[slackmaster]

49. That makes sense to me

:hi:

[Sebastian Doyle]

51. Separation of Church & State

An idea as old as the Constitution itself. What could make more sense? All men (and women) are created equal, and get the same document from the state. And religious houses of worship are allowed to decide who they would or would not do a ceremony for. Some would do same sex weddings, some wouldn't. Odds are that the ones that wouldn't, probably don't have many gay couples in their congregation anyway.