Obama and gay marriage

Great Debates
1

Obama’s officially stated position on gay marriage seems to be that he supports civil unions, but opposes gay marriage. Here’s a quote of his discussing Prop 8 in CA (from here):

That seems in many ways identical to the much-debated position of Magellan01, who opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions. And yet Obama is generally revered by SDMB liberals (including me), while Magellan is vociferously opposed (sometimes by me) and sometimes even called unpleasant names (at least once by me) (although I think I’ve usually been polite while debating him).

So, what’s the deal? How do we resolve this apparent contradiction? (And I believe we should resolve it, if only to keep people from harping about it.)
I think there are several different lines of thought. First of all, I think a lot of people basically think Obama is lying. The theory is that Obama is, honestly, internally, pro-gay-marriage. But he believes (likely correctly) that being pro-gay-marriage is still political suicide in presidential politics. So he says what he has to say, hopes he can get elected, and then does what he can to help gay marriage once he gets elected without revealing his true beliefs.

This is the theory that I hold. Now, obviously, it’s not often that one approves of a president publicly lying, but, assuming that’s what’s going on, it’s something I heartily approve of in this case. Honesty is important, but so is political pragmatism. Obama fibbing in the white house is WAY better for gay marriage than Obama telling the truth and McCain being elected.
On the other hand, even if we assume that Obama is telling the truth, there are a couple of very important distinctions between his position and Magellan’s. First of all, Magellan obviously cares about the issue deeply (or else REALLY loves to argue). He’s produced hundreds of posts across dozens of threads explaining his position. Obama, assuming he is in fact anti-gay-marriage, sure doesn’t mention it often, or ever seem to publicly act on that position. It’s clearly just not a high priority for him, and in fact when he takes positions (such as opposing prop 8), you’d hardly know he was anti-gay-marriage at all.

Secondly, one of the (to me) frustrating things about Magellan’s position is that he ranks things like this: civil unions > nothing > gay marriage. That means that while he believes gays should have rights like visitation and inheritance and stuff that come with either civil unions or gay marriage, he thinks that that is LESS important than his opposition to gay marriage, despite the fact that that opposition seems mainly based on concerns of language. Now, I haven’t had a detailed discussion with Obama about his prioritization of various issues, but I suspect (or am I just fooling myself here because I generally like him so much?) that even if Obama DOES believe that the word “marriage” should be restricted to opposite sex couples, he would still vote for gay marriage in the absence of civil unions.

So anyhow, issues up for discussion:
(1) what is Obama’s position, truly, way down deep? And could his public statements be parsed in a very Clinton-esque way to support legal gay marriage without being actual lies?
(2) if Obama supports gay marriage but is lying about it, is he acting immorally, unethically, or in any other way badly?
(3) if Obama does in fact “oppose gay marriage”, does he prioritize things civil unions > nothing > gay marriage, like Magellan?
(4) is it a fundamentally reasonable position to say “I disagree with this position that a public figure who I really respect holds… so I’ll just assume he’s lying and doesn’t really hold that position”?
(5) to what extent is it hypocritical for anyone who supports Obama to argue vociferously with Magellan (or others who share his position)?

2

Is this thread about Obama or Magellan? Frankly why go half-assed if you’re going to call Magellan out? Either say what you want to say and narrow it down to some very specific and original points or this is just going to turn into another 8+ page thread of him saying the same thing over and over and over. Probably something that includes lots of repetitions of ONE SET OF LAWS! How many of those do we already have?

Re: Obama’s position: there’s no way to resolve it. I disagree with it completely, even though I voted for the man.

3
  1. There’s no way for anyone here to know what his position “really” is. All we can go on is his publically stated opinion, which is that he is opposed to gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions. I’ve seen no reason to assume that this is not how he really feels, other than wishful thinking.
  2. That said, if he is lying about it, I’m not too upset about it. It was a close election, and coming out in support of gay marriage could very well have swung it to McCain. Considering that, as president, there’s really not much he can do to legalize gay marriage in the first place, I don’t have any sort of objection to him staking a position to the left of McCain, but still short of full equality.
  3. I’ve no idea.
  4. Not particularly, no.
  5. It’s not remotely hypocritical. I support Obama, but that doesn’t mean I’m required to agree with him in all respects. It bugs me that he opposes giving gays full equality under the law. On the other hand, I like that he’s willing to give us more legal protections than pretty much any other president in history. There’s nothing hypocritical about supporting the guy who will give you the best deal, even if it’s still not the deal you want.
4

I think that you’ll find that a lot of liberals (myself included) actually disagree with Obama on this. So, they disagree with both Obama and magellan01. There’s no discrepancy.

Addressing the individual points you brought up:

He’s actually quite clear about his position on same-sex marriage. He opposes it because of his religious beliefs.

In The Audacity of Hope (Chapter 6), when talking about opposing same sex marriage because of his religious beliefs, Obama writes:

It’s possible that he’s just lying about it, but I haven’t seen anything that would suggest this.

If he’s lying about it, then one would wonder why he was. The only reason I could come up with as to why he would even contemplate doing that, is to pander across the aisle. In which case, it would be sleazy in a “sleazy politician” way.

But, again I want to emphasize that I don’t see any reason to suspect this.

If you’re asking whether or not Obama is fine with the idea of civil unions, then the answer is yes.

I don’t think it’s reasonable at all to assume someone is lying, unless there is something that actually suggests it. Just because you hope someone holds a certain point of view - or even expect them to - that they don’t, doesn’t mean you can just assume they’re just lying. I don’t even know why someone would insist on doing that, since they would only be trying to fool their self.

It’s only hypocritical for someone to support Obama’s position, but oppose magellan01’s position (assuming they are one and the same). You can support a politician without supporting their views on every issue.

5
  1. I trust Obama. He’s got a lot of credibility to me. For that reason alone, I believe that he is smart enough to realize that marriage separation is not equal, but like you said, it may be political suicide to do it. Even California reversed it, so it shows that despite support, full gay marriage is still a few dozen years away. Therefore, I don’t really care about any Clinton-esque lies
  2. None of the above. Its a gamble, I admit. But given the political climate, better to have a closet gay supporter than an outright gay opposer
  3. Not sure
  4. You assume that he’s lying and that he doesn’t really hold that position. Its fundamentally reasonable to assume a reasonable person would hold a reasonable position. Obama, being half-black, would know better than anyone that separate but equal isn’t equal. It is also fundamentally reasonable take into account our current political climate
  5. Not hypocritical. We can’t exactly argue with Obama can we? And if we believed Obama isn’t sincere, then he holds different views from Magellan, so it would be ok to argue with one and not the other
6

Wasn’t magellen the one with the “separate but equal would never go wrong” argument? If so, it’s not the position of being pro-CU/anti-SSM which is the problem (though that is flawed) - it’s the insane denail-of-reality logic that he buttresses his postion with.

Regarding Obama, despite boneheaded claims to the contrary, he’s a Christian. I consider us beating the curve that he’s not in favor of deporting gay people.

7

The thread is about the apparent contradiction between the general SDMB reaction (and I hate to talk in such generalities, lest I turn into Shodan and start ranting about the “usual suspects”) to Obama’s position and Magellan’s position. I think that’s quite clear.

I agree with you in general, but I think in this case there actually is some at-least circumstantial evidence that Obama might be basically pro-gay-marriage. Which is why I started the thread. The two main things that make me optimistic are:
(1) his actual actions, and the stances he’s taken on actual specific bills (DOMA, prop 8, etc.)
(2) the fact that someone who was in precisely his position who was in fact pro gay marriage would quite likely, due to the political realities discussed above, deny it just as he has done. Asking a serious presidential candidate if they support gay marriage is probably just as unlikely to result in an answer you can really depend on as asking a 5-year-old if he’s the one who broke your lamp.
Also, there’s the issue of exactly what being pro gay marriage means. If Obama thinks that his religion says that gays shouldn’t get married, and honestly believes that, BUT also believes that the law of the land should not be dictated by religion and thus would vote in favor of a bill legalizing gay marriage, is he really “against gay marriage”?

8

I don’t know waht his position truly ius, but it is obvious that it is not even close to a priority, which is too bad given this is a civil rights issue.

9

I’m a liberal who voted for Obama.

I don’t actually think Obama is all that liberal. Certainly he’s to the right of me on several positions - gay marriage, prosecution of people who authorized torture, legalization of marijuana and other drugs, single-payer health care, just off the top of my head.

I voted for Obama - and I was happy to do so - knowing that I wouldn’t agree with all his decisions. But that was true of all the other candidates too. And the Republican candidates in particular looked like something out of bad dream compared to him.

So I don’t agree with all his positions but I trust that he will proceed thoughtfully, humanely, and calmly. I don’t consider my disagreement with him on some subjects to mean that I don’t support him or regret my vote. “Supporting the president” doesn’t mean we have rubber stamp all his policies. It certainly doesn’t mean we need to bite our tongues when someone else advances those policies.

We all know what foolish consistancy is, right?

10

I don’t think Obama is very liberal, and I don’t agree with a lot of his positions. But I voted for him because the alternative was much worse. That doesn’t mean I like, respect, or trust him however; it just means I fear and despise the other side.

As for my guess at his real beliefs ( and a guess is all it can be ); I think he’s a moderately anti-gay bigot, as opposed to the more fervent anti-gay bigot he replaced. He’s willing to take the votes of gays, but he won’t do anything for them or show them any real respect. I recall how when people like me complained about him letting that anti-gay preacher speak at his inauguration, how we were told were overreacting and that we should wait and see. Well, we’ve seen, and he’s no friend of the gays.

11

DOJ defending DOMA in federal district court yesterday.

12

I’ve no idea what Obama’s personal feelings are, of course, but I can appreciate the strategic value of his stance. By coming out (heh) against gay marriage personally, he can blunt its impact as a campaign issue in 2010 and 2012, and by the latter date, it is reasonable to assume five to ten more states will have approved gay marriage. If this is an issue Obama has to address at all (and he certainly has other compelling priorities), he’s much better off waiting for his second term.

13

What does the New Testament say about homosexuality? Presumably almost all Christians disregard the Old Testament seeing as they shave, sleep near women on their period, wear clothes woven of 2 fabrics, etc.

14

I wouldn’t say he won’t do “anything”. He came out against Prop. 8 in California, and he’s said the Senate needs to pass the hate crimes bill. He also appointed John Berry to OMB. I think it’s better to say that he’s willing to rhetorically support gay rights in a lot of ways, but that he’s not willing to spend political capital on gay rights, because it’s not something that he cares much about.

15

Athough I am a strong supporter of gay rights, it was not an decisive issue in the Presidential race for me, so I don’t feel any kind of hypocrite
I heard recently on talk radio that many of the congressional seats recently won by democrats are in fairly conservative areas and are by no means secure, they went on to speculate that after the next cycle of congressional elections might be a better time for a bold gay move. Certainly Obama has plenty on his plate right now, and his own re-election will far more likely ride on the economy. Interesting theory, not sure if I buy it.

16

Obama has not been vague on this; he’s explained his position clearly and consistently and explained why he holds it (though not at the length or detail of magellan). Maybe he is lying, but it seems kind of unfair to assume that. In any event, trying to figure out what anyone “really thinks” is probably a waste of time, and irrelevant.

I do think it speaks very ill of people who insult magellan for his opinion and yet give Obama a pass. AFAIK he’s always been polite about expressing his views, and in the face of some pretty nasty insults. If you’re going to call him a bigot or a homophobe for his position, it’s pretty obvious you have to apply that to Obama and his identical-as-far-as-he’s-explained-it opinion.

I’ll leave it to Obama supporters who do assume he’s lying to decide what that says about them, their opinion of him, or their priorities in politicians.

The irony, of the whole thing is this: I think Obama still would have won if he had supported GM, unless he went out and made it a major issue and made promises about making it happen ASAP. The only group in the democratic coalition I really see it hurting him with is blue-collar white men; and they would be partly balanced by libertarians coming to his support.

Like all issues, there are the hard core on both sides, and then the majority in the middle. On GM, that middle has been slowly moving towards acceptance. Provided Obama phrased his support as a “eventually” kind of goal, rather than something he was gonna ram through ASAP, I think he’d be putting himself right in the mainstream.

I know there’s some who are going to insist that the GOP would have made it an issue; if they did I think it would backfire – that mainstream includes a lot of people (I’m thinking of middle-class white females) who are anti-GM at this point, but are nonetheless sympathetic and would be turned off by crude anti-gay rhetoric.

Certainly it hasn’t hurt Dick Cheney; he’s been pro-gay marriage since at least 2000, was elected Veep twice, and he’s still popular with the Pub base. I see no reason to think it would sink Obama.

17

While i vehemently disagree with Obamas position on gay marriage i gotta admire the strategy of it. He sure as hell won’t try to STOP gay marriage from happening on its own, like its been happening so far, so he can continue to say hes against it but by the end of his second term i bet it will be legal in at least 20+ states. If he had come out as pro gay marriage we might have had a president right now who would actually be trying his best to stop it from happening.

18

Wasn’t McCain’s position that it should be up to the states?

Anyway, I agree that it’s futile to try and tease out Obama’s “real” thoughts. I voted for him even though I disagree with him on the issue of SSM. It was one issue out of many. Besides, my position is that SSM is a matter for the legislatures of the states, and that the federal government shouldn’t be involved one way or another. As for magellan, I’m not sure I’ve ever debated him on the subject.

19

I don’t know about this. I don’t think I’ve insulted him, but I have watched him dance around and dodge, and refuse to defend his statements, and generally argue in a style that seems calculated to irritate everybody.

20

. I think that he’s been told by his handlers that Average Person is still a little uncomfortable about gay people. Things are changing but it’s prolly akin to the mood of Average Person back in the 60’s when all that civil rights unrest stuff was going on.