Jun 13 2009
But He’s So Enlightened!
Something that has been largely swept under the rug by the personality cultists in the media throughout President Obama’s career in the public eye is that he’s probably not as pro-gay as his progressive fans expect. Due to the unpopularity of gay marriage in America, supporters of gay marriage have gotten used to the presumably pro-gay marriage politicians saying they think marriage is between a man and a woman. With progressives any such comment is assumed to be tongue in cheek. That’s why it didn’t set off a ton of alarms when Obama said in his book The Audacity of Hope that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, especially because he stated opposition to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act.
Even when he seemingly passed on using any of his political capital to help gay rights, people assumed that it was just because he was keeping his political capital free to use for his economic agenda. When Andrew Sullivan, a huge Obama booster during the campaign and a prominent voice for gay rights called out the Obama administration for its failures to address these issues, it didn’t get a shred of coverage from the mainstream media.
But as the days go by, a question has to be building amongst people who do care about gay rights: What if it’s not an act? What if President Obama doesn’t give a crap about gay rights?
Those asking that question have gotten some evidence in support of the “yes” theory over the last week. The Obama Department of Justice is fighting against overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. Now at face value, it’s not the worst thing in the world. It’s the law, and it certainly would look bad while gearing up for a battle over a Supreme Court Justice confirmation if the Obama administration sought to overturn a law right now is all that stands between us and national gay marriage through the courts.
A quick layman to layman refresher on DOMA is this. In the Constitution there is a clause referred to as the “full faith and credit clause” which says that all contracts in any state will be given full faith and credit in all of the states, so if you’re married in Maine you’re married in Florida. The kicker is the specific text says “so authenticated”, meaning the federal government has the authority to define what constitutes a contract that will be given full faith and credit in all of the states. So congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which stated that, as far as the federal government is concerned, marriage is between a man and a woman, so gay marriages would not be authenticated by the federal government. If this were overturned as unconstitutional, then full faith and credit would require all states to recognize gay marriage because it’s recognized in some states already. That said, it’s not particularly radical legal theory to say that DOMA is constitutional, due to the “so authenticated” clause. I mean, personally I think it’s questionable whether such a law is constitutional, as whether or not it’s a gay marriage doesn’t seem to be a legitimate basis of refusing to authenticate a contract, and whether the de facto usurption of marriage policy violates the enumerated powers, but I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know if that’s in any way a legitimate basis of a challenge. Any way about it, it’s not radical to suggest it’s constitutional by any means.
What’s really made the gay community angry, aside from the general principle of defending DOMA, is a couple of case citations the DOJ has been using in this defense. They used the case Catalano v. Catalano, where an uncle that married his niece’s marriage, legal under Italian law, was not accepted in the United States, and Wilkins v. Zelichowski, that a marriage to a 16 year old in Indiana was not held binding to the state of New Jersey.
In short, they’re mad because the Obama DOJ essentially equated homosexuality with incest and pedophilia. Who would be mad about that?
I personally think that in the long run, homosexuality (which I think is NOT a choice) will be found to be discriminated against. I’m very happy that after Iowa’s Supreme Court decision, two states have decided to allow gay marriage (Vermont and New Hampshire).
The majority of the people opposed to gay marriage–and let’s be honest about it–are opposed to it because of ultra-conservative religious backgrounds. The founding fathers created a separation of church and state for a reason; and this is a prime example of it.
On a side note–regarding religion–I am very happy that President Obama seems to have a tongue-in-cheek attitude when approaching religion. I mean, I think that he’s honestly a pretty religious guy, but as a non-religious person, I’m so far very happy with the way that he has put it (religion) on the back-burner (as opposed to George Bush getting briefings from the CIA with Bible verses in the footnotes).
PS- Why is ‘zionist’ a word I have to type to confirm that I’m a real person? haha
Well, I think ultra-conservative religious backgrounds might go a little far. Granted, ultra-conservative is a relative term, but considering about 35% of the country is conservative (let alone ultra-conservative) and on average about 50% oppose gay marriage, the definition of ultra-conservative would have to be quite diluted for that to be the case.
That said, I think you’re probably right about the religious origins of the aversion to homosexuality. I don’t think most people who oppose gay marriage do so to deliberately force their religious beliefs on society, but I think the visceral aversion probably originates from a religious place (which, as a religious person, absolutely blows my mind). That said, it’s hard to present the origins of visceral aversions in court as evidence of breaches of the first amendment.
I personally don’t think President Obama is a religious guy. I don’t care, although it does bug me when non-religious people feign religiosity for the sake of public gains (”When you fast, do not look sullen like the hypocrites, for they make their faces unattractive so that people will see them fasting. I tell you the truth, they have their reward.” - Matthew 6:16), but I prefer someone who does the feigning low-key over those that feign religion and pretend to be zealots.
The word test thing is all a zionist conspiracy, you’ve just gotta get on board.
So I think I’m relatively progressive (fair warning). But anybody who voted for Obama thinking he was some sort of Black Dennis Kucinich is a fool. Obama is more or less a centrist/populist, though we have radically warped what would traditionally be called the center in this country. I’m not saying he’s not to the left of plenty of politicians in his own party, let alone in the GOP, but that doesn’t a Marxist make.
That said, the reason why so many of us are pissed off at Obama is not because of his religious beliefs (whatever they may be) or his belief that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman; it’s because his initial base of support came from under-30s and college students, a demographic that is overwhelmingly pro-gay marriage and, even more than the general public, supports overturning DADT. Obama made promises to them (us), particularly regarding adoption and hospital visitation rights, which I’m pretty sure very few people honestly think ought to be denied to gay partners. He spoke with great emotion about how it pained him to see one person unable to see his or her loved one in the hospital because s/he was not a legally recognized family member. In having his administration defend DOMA, he’s essentially defending what he spoke so passionately against.
Trust me, I’ve got no illusions about Obama. The problem is, he’s not even performing up to the mediocre standards the more realistic among us had. Personally, I think his performance on the world stage has been masterful, but I seem to remember a li’l something from scripture (though I by no means claim to be religious myself): “First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5).
I have to admit part of the motive of this post was to see how you’d respond. Considering you still hold DOMA and DADT against Clinton, I’m curious to see how the social progressives deal with another “progressive” Democrat President who gleefully throws the gays under the bus.