Posted 11:55 pm Saturday, January 26, 2013
Send to Kindle
Same-sex marriage the new civil right?
Many are still unpacking that stem-winder of an inauguration speech President Barack Obama gave on Monday. And there’s much there to study. In just one example, he elevated gay rights — specifically, it seems, same-sex marriage — to the struggles for women’s rights and against the Jim Crow laws.
“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall,” he said.
Seneca Falls is the site of an 1848 conference that issued a “Declaration of Rights and Sentiments” demanding equality for women. Selma was the site of bloody marches in 1965, when state police beat and tear-gassed peaceful civil rights marchers.
“Stonewall,” however, is a reference to a series of riots at a New York City gay bar in 1969.
That’s quite an elevation for an issue that Obama held quite another position on as recently as 2009, when he said, “What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting.”
In 2010, he said his position was “evolving.” But his White House spokesman, in June 2011, said “The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it.”
Questioned again about the issue in July of 2011, Obama told reporters, “I think it’s important for us to work through these issues because each community is going to be different, each state is going to be different.”
And of course, in May 2012, he said in an interview with Robin Roberts that he now supports same-sex marriage — and implied that his Justice Department could argue for it before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Two things are important to point out here.
First, the issue of same-sex marriage simply cannot be decided at the state level. Why? Marriage is, first and foremost, a binding contract. It’s perhaps society’s original binding contract. And the U.S. Constitution says that any contract made in one state must be recognized by other states. That means when the Supreme Court hears same-sex marriage cases in March, it will likely decide not just on California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but on the ability of gays to marry throughout the nation.
“Stonewall,” however, is a reference to a series of riots at a New York City gay bar in 1969.
That’s quite an elevation for an issue that Obama held quite another position on as recently as 2009, when he said, “What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting.”
In 2010, he said his position was “evolving.” But his White House spokesman, in June 2011, said “The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it.”
Questioned again about the issue in July of 2011, Obama told reporters, “I think it’s important for us to work through these issues because each community is going to be different, each state is going to be different.”
And of course, in May 2012, he said in an interview with Robin Roberts that he now supports same-sex marriage — and implied that his Justice Department could argue for it before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Two things are important to point out here.
First, the issue of same-sex marriage simply cannot be decided at the state level. Why? Marriage is, first and foremost, a binding contract. It’s perhaps society’s original binding contract. And the U.S. Constitution says that any contract made in one state must be recognized by other states. That means when the Supreme Court hears same-sex marriage cases in March, it will likely decide not just on California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but on the ability of gays to marry throughout the nation.
The other thing that’s notable is how Obama phrased his support. Opposition to same-sex marriage is now no longer a reasonable position, held by reasonable people. It’s now akin to opposing the rights of women to own property and hold employment, and to denying African-Americans the right to vote.
In other words, Obama now claims the mantle of righteousness in his new-found support for same-sex marriage. Those on the other side of the issue don’t merely disagree — they’re on the wrong side of history, humanity and progress.
It’s a sign of things to come. There’s no reasoning with a leader who sees himself as spiritually superior.
In other words, Obama now claims the mantle of righteousness in his new-found support for same-sex marriage. Those on the other side of the issue don’t merely disagree — they’re on the wrong side of history, humanity and progress.
It’s a sign of things to come. There’s no reasoning with a leader who sees himself as spiritually superior.
