National Review Opinion piece: Does Obama Support Gay Marriage?

[canis_lupus]

Barack Obama might be the first major candidate for president to support same-sex marriage.

He won’t say as much. His definition of a “new politics” is capacious enough to allow for pose and slipperiness (as long as he’s the one engaged in them). But his stance on a California supreme-court decision that ripped away any middle ground on the issue makes him operationally pro-gay marriage.

In California, a domestic-partnership law gives gay couples, in the words of the decision, “virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law.” But that’s not enough. Marriage must be redefined to include same-sex relationships. Any arrangement short of this is comparable to segregation: famously progressive California as Bull Connor’s Alabama.

In a carefully hedged statement, Obama said he “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court.” He respects a decision that disregarded the will of the people in California, as expressed by a 2000 referendum that defined marriage as between a man and a woman; he respects a decision that excoriated his own position of support for civil unions and (theoretical) opposition to same-sex marriage; he respects a decision that rejects the sort of political compromise he extols. It’s like a professed abolitionist in 1857 saying he “respects” the Dred Scott ruling.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/23/opinion/main4124256.shtml

This phrase troubles me: "capacious enough to allow for pose and slipperiness." It touches on the one thing that bothers me about Obama ... he ability to be a "blank slate" onto which we read our own meanings of words like "hope" and "change" without ever really knowing for sure whether they match his definitions. Regardless, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, but I still get a queasy feeling about some of Obama's almost too carefully worded positions.

[Ichingcarpenter]

1. A Republican Conservative Rag tells you what to think about Gay Rights

The national Review????????? OK...

[canis_lupus]

4. National Review doesn't tell me what to think

... any more than Mother Jones does on the left. I do like to look at issues from differing perspectives, otherwise I'm no different than a beer-swilling red-stater who watches Faux News whenever he can't find a NASCAR race to watch.

The thing that struck me about this article was the way it articulated some of the points I've felt about Obama's somewhat slippery stance on LGBT issues and same-sex marriage in particular.

[BlooInBloo]

2. (shrug) He's clearly stated he favors "civil unions"... I assumed that we'd all have to work on him

to get him all the way to plain-old marriage.

This is definitely one of the things he needs improvement on, though.

[ccharles000]

3. He and Hillary don't support Gay Marriage.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. And both have made their positions QUITE clear

Obama is on record as saying, flat out, that he opposes same-sex marriage on the grounds of his religion, ignoring the equally clear fact that his church, the United Church of Christ, is one of the few mainstream denominations advocating for equal marriage.

If I can't trust him to lie convincingly, what else can't I trust him on? :shrug:

[MNBrewer]

7. And, Hillary doesn't support it either

Because of "tradition".

[NorthCarolina]

6. Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger also said he "respects the decision of the court"

(edited to add the word "also")

eom