An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Disassociate

Clark, Day, and a ‘Licence to Loathe’ »

I support the rights of states to choose, unless that doesn’t work out

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Politics.
Jul 1st, 2008 | Comments

I do not agree with all of the cases where opponents of Barack Obama have characterized him as “flip flopping” on various issues, and throwing various people or subjects “under the bus.” (And no, I do not subcribe to “This Week in Bus and Driver“) However, it certainly does appear that the Illinois Senator has once again taken up the issue of gay marriage and done a double back flip, pike position with a half twist.

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group’s annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.”

“And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” Obama wrote.

Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.

I remember quite clearly when Obama raised some eyebrows among his base as he came out during the debates opposing gay marriage but supporting civil unions. While I didn’t agree with him, I didn’t find it a shocking position and one held by many politicians trying to straddle the fence on this divisive issue. Just for the record, I don’t agree with McCain either. Even Bob Barr takes the states’ rights stance on it, while I feel that government at all levels needs to get entirely out of the business of marriage.

But back to Senator Obama, if he wants to be taken seriously he should pick a position and stick to it. This is a definite reversal in such a short period of time that one can not assume that his position has simply “evolved” over time as he ages and considers the matter further. This was an absolute flip-flop on an issue which raises controversy all across the country. I don’t see it as being quite as high on voters’ priority lists as energy policy, the economy or foreign affairs, but it would still be nice to see some conviction and consistency on the part of the candidates seeking the White House.

GreenDreams

Amending the constitution is a bigger deal than legislation or executive order. I don't have a problem with this. Obama might oppose amending the US Constitution and state constitutions FOR gay marriage too. What's wrong with that?

aba23

Well, first, "marriage" is one thing and fully equal rights and benefits (as might or might not exist in civil unions) are another (incidentally, the Supreme Court of NJ and I don't believe that, but he might), so that's one way in which the statements above are at least facially consistent.

It does get stickier looking at the California situation because their existing civil union law did confer all such rights and benefits as the state could confer. But many significant ones exist at the federal level. So, if anything, his new statement seems to be expanding his support for civil unions to federal recognition, perhaps. A change, but hardly the 9.0 difficulty dive you characterize.

Moreover, it seems to me, his opposition to constitutional amendments addressing these matters is based on the fact that they tend to be driven be people not protecting their own rights, but rather seeking to deprive others of similar ones (or, worse, politically motivated to drive a wedge between Americans), that is "discriminatory or divisive efforts," as he put it.

Notwithstanding all of that, why can't he have a position on the issue AND YET respect states to make their own decision? Isn't that the nature of federalism when the supremacy clause, fundamental rights, or other constitutional constraints aren't implicated?

Degrance

I agree with GreenDreams. I see no contradiction in the two statements you refer to. In fact they seem entirely consistent.

runasim

I don't see a contradiction, either.

A panel discussion on C-Span revealed that there are (were?) some gay activists advising against a fight over terminology (marriage vs. union). They feel that a battle over words is a distraction over the larger battle for giving civil unions absolutely all the rights and protections of marriage. In other words, substance is more important than appearance.
This approach leaves the door open to future developments and future battles.

That's a whole different kettle of fish than banning marriage.
A ban shuts the door on the future. Period.

runasim

Jazz,
The following is not meant for you personally.. It's a reaction to our political culture.
----------------------
I'm getting more than a little tired of the perpetual flip-flop hunt.
This is only one of many, many blog posts devoted to the subject, of flip-flops. and most of them are facile off-the-cuff 'gotcha' type of commentary.There is seldom any evidence of research or more than momentary thought involved.

This is the kind of thing which breeds cynicism about politics, IMO..

.

blog comments powered by Disqus