Obama takes a stand against gay-marriage ban

July 1, 2008

There’s been plenty of speculation of late about whether Barack Obama is “moving to the middle,” and rejecting some of his progressive persona. Some of the arguments strike me as more persuasive than others.

On FISA, for example, I think Obama’s wrong and making a mistake accepting the so-called “compromise.” He disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling on executing child rapists, but that doesn’t actually strike me as a shift to the middle, since he’d taken the same position in his book, written several years ago. Obama announced his support for a kind of faith-based initiative, but as we talked about earlier, he’s committed to a policy consistent with church-state separation.

That said, the perception of a candidate moving hard to the center is taking root, and if I were advising the campaign, I’d encourage Obama to consider a new liberal position or two, before the base becomes entirely deflated.

This was a start…

It helped launch the last Democratic president and has pushed and prodded every Democratic candidate since Bill Clinton to adopt its centrist positions on issues from budget discipline to welfare.

But when the Democratic Leadership Council met over the weekend in the shadow of Barack Obama’s Chicago headquarters, he didn’t bother to stop by.

…but snubbing the DLC isn’t the same as an actual progressive policy position. This is better.

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.

I’ve seen some conservatives suggest this is a flip-flop. It’s not — Obama said he supports states making their own decisions, and in this case, he’d like to see Californians make the superior decision.

This may seem routine — of course Obama opposes an anti-gay measure like this one — but James Kirchick raises a good point: the Kerry/Edwards ticket wasn’t willing to go this far four years ago.

Barack Obama is a better candidate than his predecessor John Kerry in at least one important sense: he opposes a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, namely, in California. Over the weekend, Obama released a letter saying: “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.”

That’s quite a departure from the position Kerry and his runningmate, John Edwards, took in 2004. Indeed, the two couldn’t find an anti-gay marriage amendment that they didn’t support, swooping into states and urging Democrats to vote against civic equality. Kerry went so far as to endorse the effort in his home state of Massachusetts to reverse a 2003 state supreme court ruling mandating gay marriage, putting him in the unique position of supporting the repeal — and not just denial — of rights for gay couples. With John McCain now supporting the California amendment, he too earns that dubious honor.

In many ways, Barack Obama is just another politician. Here’s an exception.

Good for him.

I’d add, by the way, that John McCain, who is so conservative on gay rights that he’s even opposed civil unions, supports the ballot measure, and wants to see gay marriage banned in California and other states.

Predictable.

This is what makes the campaign so interesting, day to day. Am I going to scream with rage (Clark, FISA), or shout with joy (this).

I’m coming more and more to realize that Obama really is like JFK. Kennedy was a very predictable mainstream politician, whose rhetoric (“Ask not what your country can do for you…” ) actually went far beyond his own beliefs. He had to be dragged into the civil rights struggle in 1961-63, which he wanted to avoid until “the second term.” That said, Kennedy had decent instincts and when pressed, he lived up to them. At least in public.

There’s a lesson there for we Obama supporters: maintain sufficient distance and independence that he has to work to keep us, and then remember the promises he made and the imaginations he inspired, and remind him of that in the years to come. An independent progressive movement is the only way we’re going to be something that isn’t an appendage of the DC Pinstriped Pimp Brigade.

  • Let’s not forget that McCain said “I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don’t have any problem with that…”

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8809.html

    Of course he has flipflopped around on that and a host of other questions, but who knows maybe today he’s for it again.

  • I am glad he has the courage and good sense to reject the anti gay marriage initiative because it is a very mean law, but it is still hard for me to understand his support for the FISA bill. I sent him an email telling him that I would stop sending him my (pathetic) contributions if the FISA bill passes with the help of his vote. It will be interesting and informative the see the outcome of the FISA vote after the 4th recess. Let’s all hope for a change in the projected agenda.

  • Obama had a big group marching in the Chicago pride parade on Sunday, and they got a huge ovation.

    In many ways this was a riskier move than had he spoke out against the FISA bill. This seems more in keeping with the Obama of the primary campaign. I think he’s taken some bad advice on FISA, the Supreme Court decisions and Wesley Clark. I hope we gets back on track.

  • “I’ve seen some conservatives suggest this is a flip-flop. It’s not — Obama said he supports states making their own decisions, and in this case, he’d like to see Californians make the superior decision.”

    This sounds Orwellian to me. My understanding of Obama’s previous position, admittedly based on recitations by cable tv pundits, and not Obama’s words themselves, was that Obama opposed gay marriage, favored civil unions, and thought that states should make the final determinations. The last bothered me because marriage is a fundamental civil right and shouldn’t vary capriciously from state to state. But be that as it may, it really seems like a flip-flop to me, albeit a good one. His thinking has evolved, and that’s good. But how is not a flip-flop? Did I get his original position wrong?

  • hark, I think the distinction is between positive support for gay marriage rights (the position I hold, and that I wish Obama would take) and opposition to an active effort on the part of anti-gay bigots to remove those rights as conferred by the courts in California.

    My hopes for Obama ultimately rest in a guess that he has what Lincoln and FDR had: a sense of where the country is on a range of issues, a clear vision on where he’d like to take it, and an intuition about how to get from point A to point B. Marriage equity might be such an issue, where if he pushes too much change too quickly, he winds up doing harm to the cause.

    Which, per Tom’s point, isn’t to say that those of us eager to get to Point B shouldn’t push him–indeed, that Obama’s own rhetoric about how representative democracy is supposed to work doesn’t demand that we push him.

  • I think Tom has the right take. There have been a lot of comparisons between Obama and Kennedy, mostly comparing his image with the Camelot myth, but there’s a more interesting comparison to be made between the real politicians involved. And a good one too.

  • hark @ #5: Well, I’ll agree he’s walking a tightrope on this issue, but Obama never said that he thinks gay marriage should be banned outright. Since he isn’t going against a prior statement, speaking out against an out-right ban isn’t really a flip-flop. And he *is* being consistent with a bunch of prior statements about the need to be inclusive as opposed to divisive.

    So yes, he did come across as uncomfortable with actively supporting gay marriage, but he never actively went against it either.

  • 1. I am now more cautiously optimistic than I was. I have no delusions that we’ll get equal marriage rights just because he’s elected but it’ll be nice to have a Pres. who isn’t actively hostile.

    2. Obama expands his view on civil rights and the GOP says its flip-flopping. I’ve seen teh light and I’m voting for the guy who has always been a bigotted jackass.

    I bet the LCRs are laughing themselves sick right now. Or perhaps weeping silently and wishing they could change their 2000 votes.

  • Saying that various states should make their own laws makes no sense on this issue because the states have to respect the marriages conducted in other states. It is a cop-out. I’m glad to see he has reversed himself, since he was wrong before. However, coming out against a mean-spirited initiative (that will probably not pass and is out-of-step with most California voters) is not the same as supporting gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions). Obama has taken another tepid position that is better than his previous one, but he doesn’t deserve praise yet.

  • But be that as it may, it really seems like a flip-flop to me, albeit a good one. His thinking has evolved, and that’s good. But how is not a flip-flop? Did I get his original position wrong?

    Who cares?

    There’s nothing wrong, inherently, with a politician changing his mind on an issue (i.e. “flip-flopping”), ESPECIALLY when he changes from a bad position to a good one.

    The issue with “flip-flopping” is that too often it involves switching from a principled position that may be somewhat unpopular to a more politically expedient one. This is clearly the opposite.

    So, bottom line — good for Obama!

  • The reason it makes a difference as to whether Obama “flip-flopped” or not is that the right makes a big deal out of it, and so does the left. CB has a scorecard of McCain’s flip-flops, which number 48 at last count. It’s a crude political weapon, and Kerry suffered severely for his. The other side is out to win, not to be fair, and you can bet anytime Obama changes his position on anything, McCain will pounce and say he’s not to be trusted, you can’t count on him, he changes his mind with the weather, etc.

  • Gov. Schwarzenegger was on Meet the Press on Sunday and spoke out against the initiative. The recent Field Poll shows 51% of Californians against it, as well.

    I’d like to give Sen. Obama some credit for moving his opinion in the correct direction on this, but candidly I do not think he would have done it without calculating first that it will do him more benefit than harm in the election. Sen. Kerry voted against DOMA then wouldn’t stand up to the state initiatives banning gay marriage. Sen. Obama took essentially the same position, promoting civil unions but opposing gay marriage, until this most recent comment.

    It does seem that the Cal. Supreme Court did us a favor by deciding the issue so that the status quo is gay marriage, and the issue is framed as voting to discriminate and overturning it. That seems to have made it more acceptable for politicians to get on board.

  • There is no center so to speak. The country was moved so far to the right that what was left is now the center. Oabama ignores the polls at his won peril because the majority of Americans are liberal progresssive on the issues no matter what left – right term we use.

    A line has been drawn in the sand. Moving to the center is a myth…it’s moving to the right.

    Either you are for war or against it…for national health care or against it…for a surveillance society without oversight or against it. for doing something about global warming or denying it exist. I loved Obama when he spoke out against these things and he gave me hope he would do something about it. Now he’s far better than McCain but my hope for a change in government is slowly wanning as he changes his stands. It is totally unnecessary to gain support and yet here he is saying those dirty fucking hippies blamed America for everything. He made a point to condemn moveon rather than Limbaugh and then there’s the FISA capitulatioin condemned by nearly everyone excet a few dem leaders and all the republicans. It’s disappointing to see him embrace the Bush/Cheney spying policies and the McCain is better qualified to be commander-in-chief by virtue of being a POW (doesn’t even mention the USS Forrestal character).

    Calling it a move to the center is inaccurate when it is really a move to the right.

  • Obama has never demanded that gay couples obtain what is commonly called a certificate of marriage (a.k.a. marriage license). One like I have. He has always favored a nebulous kind of legal contract signed by gay couples at a notary public. It is far from clear that his current slippery statement means that he has changed his position. All he says is that states have the right to determine who gets a marriage license. That is not “courageous” at all because the US Constitutions says so. I am afraid that all of you happy Obamaists are run around in circles once again.

    • Comments are closed.