That’s a dangerous oversimplification.
I think he realizes that the term “Marriage” is, and always will be, a largely ‘religious’ term - and therefore fights for what he knows he can provide - equal rights under the law.
Once the law of the land no longer sees a difference, then the religions and individuals can redefine the word marriage appropriately - atleast in common usage - but that will take longer.
I doubt he felt too strongly about it one way or the other.
You are thinking of the sacrament of matrimony or the religious equivalent of it in other religions. Marriage itself is a legal term and equal rights to marriage under the law are the government’s responsibility.
That said, like Brown Eyed Girl, I take him at his word. I’m not in the habit of assuming people don`t actually hold the bigoted beliefs they profess to hold just because I like them otherwise.
I haven’t the foggiest idea of what his opinions were 20 years ago. However, to me, “my attitude may be evolving” is code for “This is a political issue for me, not a moral issue,” ie, “I know that eventually the Democrats are going to push for SSM, but at the moment it’s politically safer to push for civil unions, so I’m going to stick with that until it becomes politically safe to endorse SSM.”** If you really were against SSM, you would not go around hinting about “evolving” attitudes, you’d have an absolute opinion about whether it’s wrong or right.**
It may seem to some as if his reluctance to push for gay rights is a matter of personal bigotry, but in his case I don’t think it is. For example, think of the foot-dragging over integrating schools in the Civil Rights era. I’m sure that the people who saw the National Guard escorting black students into white schools saw the writing on the wall and knew that eventually the schools would be integrated, but they viscerally objected to it even though they (presumably) knew it was inevitable, so they dragged their feet as much as possible. They didn’t say, “Gee, at the moment I’m opposed to integration, but my attitudes may be evolving. Maybe 5 years from now we can rethink the school integration issue.” What Obama is doing, IMHO, is not foot-dragging out of some kind of moral or visceral reluctance. What he is doing is calibrating his decisions so that they “evolve” precisely along the lines of the voting public opinion–playing to the center, because it’s ultimately the center that decides presidential elections. In other words, he is playing it safe for political reasons.
I am seperating the ceremonial part of the union from the legal aspect of it - once we address the legal aspect of it, the ceremonial will follow. Indeed, for those that just want to be ‘married’, neither the legal or the ceremonial aspect of it matters to them, but we need to resolve the legal aspect of it for equal protection under the law - something that is lacking now.
(I think I am explaining myself clearly - Gays/Lesbians that currently want to be ‘married’ in the ceremonial sense have that - its just not recognized by the state/federal gvts - that needs to be resolved - once that is resolved then access to more public ceremonial aspects will follow - the religious aspect will likely never be resolved as there is too much ingrained there - but that is generally not the focus of the SSM proponents)
ETA - My opinion of Obama’s stance and careful wording is that he also recognizes the difference between the two and is attacking the part he knows he has an actual influence on.
No, he didn’t but he did say that Obama attended a “Muslim school” and that he “converted” to Christianity, implying that Obama was Muslim before he became Christian. He also implied that Obama formed bias against gays (typically held by Muslims) as a result of attending a “Muslim school.” Well, it wouldn’t surprise him, at least. I’ll bet it also wouldn’t surprise BigT if Obama were indoctrinated in Muslim belief at this “Muslim school”? He’s only a step away from implying that.
I have no idea what he really believes. Of course his stated views are pure political calculation. This is true for every view, not just SSM.
Same as QuarkChild.
Going for gay marriage at this time is high effort-low payoff.
It’s high effort because it’s an issue relating to family, gender, sex and religion (some very emotional topics which are seldom thought about rationally) with some well organized opposition.
It’s low payoff because it’s about giving something of symbolic importance (the word “marriage”) to 1-3% of the population.
As ridiculous as homophobes are, the opportunity cost of going for SSM is above its utility for Obama.
I don’t think most politicians are against same sex marriage, or anywhere near as religious as they claim to be, or that they really believe 90% of the idiotic crap they have to sprout in order to pander to the massive amount of ignorants the world over.
I agree with what some others have posted. I feel Obama doesn’t really have any strong feelings about gay marriage. He’s not opposed to it but he also doesn’t actively support it. The initiative on gay marriage, for and against, has passed to other political entities like Congress, the states, and the court system. Obama is just reacting to events on this issue.
Well, I’m nearly 30 years older than him and, while I was surprised when the issue first arose, I had no problem with it. Doesn’t affect me, after all.
Now, assuming that it is eventually legalized in California (either by court decision or a new referendum), the shit will really hit the fan. Here’s why. California is a community property state. When income tax was first imposed, married couples in California and the other Spanish law states were entitled to split their incomes, but nobody else was. This was so unfair that eventually Congress decided to allow income splitting for everybody. If gay marriage is legal in California, then, despite the Defense Against Marriage Act (I do know its actual name, so don’t bother correcting me), California gay couples will start splitting incomes. Since there are some gay spouses already, I am surprised they haven’t already tried. Or have they?
There are far too many baseless conclusions and assertions here. I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that someone who attended a school in a largely Muslim-dominated society to have been exposed to strong anti-gay rhetoric for the duration of that term. Also - people convert to Christianity from a GREAT many backgrounds, including just a good ole plain non-religious one. Which is exactly the case for Obama, as espoused in his book “Dreams From My Father”.
Really? He attended public school in a affluent part of Jakarta when he was 7 or 8 years old. Do you really think he’s going to be forming bias against gays at that age in the 1960s in Jakarta, Indonesia? That seems a little more than slightly ridiculous.
BigT talks about Muslim influence and then talks about his conversion to Christianity and I should assume he’s insinuating that Obama converted from atheism? Why is my conclusion baseless? Obama’s supposed Islamic education was a well-known accusation and there are apparently still people who believe that and some who would like to promote that erroneous belief.
Yes, I agree with BigT on this. It’s not hard at all to imagine a child the age of 7 or 8 to form a bias in ANY religious environment. I was raised Catholic in Catholic schools for 16 years and formed a pretty healthy bias against gay people because of it (I got better).
You stated yourself earlier that he wasn’t raised in a religious household, and now professes himself to be a Christian. That’s pretty much the textbook definition of conversion.
You don’t see a significant difference between a kid from a non-religious family attending a non-denominational public school in a Muslim country for a year or two at a very young age and being raised Catholic for 16 years in Catholic schools? Really?
Your missing the point. The issue is not whether he converted from atheism (which BigT never mentioned or even alluded to), it’s linking perceived Muslim influences (which he did mention) with conversion to Christianity.
Sure I do. But I do have a problem with assuming that a public school in a predominantly religious country would be anything approaching “non-denominational”, if not in actual policy than in practice. But even just a couple years living in a predominantly religious country is going to instill some level of bias. It’s not guaranteed, but it sure as hell isn’t a stretch.
That link is a complete figment of your imagination. Look at what BigT wrote again:
Please note the phrase “like most Christians”. I cannot possibly see how you think he’s making out a “conversion to Christianity” to mean “conversion to Christianity from being a Muslim”. It’s entirely unsupported by what he said, or even relevant.
I think Obama’s intelligent and logical so he was always for gay marriage, he just couldn’t say that out loud
Bigoted towards whom?
Sort of like perhaps the 1950s liberals (such as JFK) who intellectually accepted equal rights for blacks but did very little for it?
I think you’ll find that every country with the exception, probably, of a few European nations, is a predominantly religious country – seeing as how religious practice pretty much dominates the world. The U.S. is a predominantly religious country. That doesn’t mean its public school system, or that of any country populated predominantly by people who subscribe to religion, should be assumed to promote religious values and teachings. It just does not follow.
How about providing a cite that the actual practice, if not policy, in Jakarta’s public schools was to inculcate Islamic beliefs? There is no evidence of anti-gay bias presented or instilled as a result of Obama’s brief education in Jakarta’s public school system. I would expect he received far more religious inculcation at the Catholic school in Jakarta, so I hardly see the point of mentioning Obama’s brief experience at a supposedly “Muslim school.”
I do note that you left out the preceding statement presuming that Obama likely learned anti-gay bias first from Muslims.
[QUOTE=BigT]
But it wouldn’t surprise me that, as a kid in a Muslim school, he learned and at one time believed that gay people were not as good as everyone else.
[/QUOTE]
So far, BigT has yet to clarify his misstatement as to Obama’s schooling.
Leaving religion completely out of the equation*, Obama grew up in a time and culture (Hawaii being a significant cultural experience) that did not look kindly upon homosexuality. Having lived in Hawaii, I found most people to be quite negative towards homosexuality, as a rule, though the tide seems to be turning there as well. I think it likely that a significant number of his generation who have come to accept homosexuality as not a big deal have had some personal revelation that perhaps Obama never did. I hope he comes around, though. I think of his stance as a personal failing of his.
- There are plenty of Christians who do not take issue with gay marriage and/or homosexuality between consenting adults. Maybe he can find a means of reconciling his faith with the notion of equal treatment under the law.