Obama, cousin, say it isn't so!
Jim Geraghty at CampaignSpot (an NRO blog) is completely befuddled by Obama. The
overall list of contradictions on his views of neutered marriage are well thought out, but he also gives this summary contributed by one of his readers...
As chief executive of the federal government, Obama will fight to make sure that every state has the right to make its own decisions on gay marriage, as long as it decides to correctly adopt non-discriminatory and non-divisive policies that he personally doesn't favor because of his religious beliefs, which aren't shared by his church.
Dale Carpenter even piles on,
So what's really going on? I think there are two things happening. First, I don't think Obama really opposes gay marriage deep down and I suspect he does see the exclusion of gay couples as a kind of discrimination. He has never been able to explain his reasons for opposing gay marriage — which is very revealing for a man who's otherwise unusually thoughtful. He just says, basically, I oppose gay marriage "because I say so." So calling the amendment discriminatory and divisive may be candor squeaking through. Second, and probably more importantly, this is an instance where politics necessitates cognitive dissonance. [...]
Obama's explanation for why he opposes gay marriage and opposes the proposed California amendment banning it can't be squared as a matter of logic. It's a matter of politics, which says something about how much things have changed in a short time.
Or how much they haven't changed. It is difficult to say for sure without Obama coming out to clarify his remarks, but it seems
the more churlish take on Obama is the justified one.
To be fair, Dale suggests the silver lining here is that this is an improvement towards favoring neutered marriage from John Kerry (hence the change). Which would be a good side of the issue to be on to be sure,
if Kerry had won.
But this humble author can't help but point out that ideologically his position against neutered marriage and against discrimination is reconcilable. Truly one can be for marriage, the historic institution of integration of all genders (well, both) and against discrimination in marriage. One can even find support for homosexual couples, as well as the much broader non-sexual couples who are in committed loving relationship raising children. The broader support being important to allay fears of being biased towards homosexuals in supporting mutually reciprocating committed relationships. And it doesn't require a change in marriage at all, just a program like Hawaii has in Reciprocal Beneficiaries.
Obama's problem only comes from his plan, how he wants to execute his position on neutered marriage (he's seeking the office of the executive branch after all, so this is important). In execution, he calls DOMA and the marriage amendment in California discriminatory. Since that legislation simply states his own opinions, that marriage is between a man and a woman and that states should choose for themselves, he in effect calls his own opinions discriminatory.
Robert Parker
challenges the LDS church on its stance on neutered marriage (which I should write about soon). Interestingly enough, the existence of programs like Reciprocal Beneficiaries, Domestic Partnerships, and Civil Unions is cited as a reason for concern.
In fact, it is the ban on gay marriage which harms children, families and basic morality. If marriage is banned for the more than 160,000 same-sex households with one or more children (according to the 2000 census), society will set up new structures for same-sex couples - a patchwork of domestic partnerships, civil unions and partner benefits short of marriage. A cornucopia of non-marital options will be set up for all couples, including heterosexuals. Marriage will be just one of many lifestyle options open to co-habitating couples, and it will lose the primacy and sanctity which it surely deserves. Ironically, the pro-family LDS church will have participated in this tragic erosion of the sanctity and uniqueness of marriage.
Actually, I would argue he has it backwards. The primacy and sanctity of marriage comes in distinguishing it from other lifestyle options, not conflating them all as the same institution. An example that comes immediately to mind is no-fault divorce. Before this, marriage was a commitment and the government expected that commitment to be followed through. It took a good reason to relieve each party of their commitments. Since then divorce was unilateral, meaning it everyone was by default in a relationship with less expectation of commitment. And option was enough to see a rise in divorce rates to where marriage today means something more like co-habiting than it did 60 years ago.
Imagine if back then someone said, lets give people the option to have a less-committed relationship. Then the delineation would have been better preserved. While this may sound to some like a rather theoretical, there has been a movement to establish such a delineation called "covenant marriages".
While we can argue whether easy access to divorce is a good thing or not (there are many arguments on both sides that deserve attention), the pattern from this example is clear. Conflating marriage with co-habitation simply defines marriage down. Giving people a good ability to distinguish gives them, if nothing else, a good bit of reason to think their options through and hopefully stick with them. Conflating them all gives people the ability to intend to be committed, but at any moment of inconvenience act in the same non-committal way that the lowest-common denominator does with the term.
Hence the primacy of marriage is best preserved with the strong ideal of marriage, the life long mating commitment that lasts well beyond their own lives. A commitment that remains intact and lasts as long as their posterity.
The LA times reports on the use of
money and images in the run-up to Prop 8. There are a lot of good facts and figures, but this one in particular caught my eye...
Opponents have raised 44% of their money from groups and individuals outside California. Backers have raised 34% from outside the state.
The measure is attracting outside interest in part because of its national implications. Out-of-state couples are coming here to marry, and could then sue their home states for not recognizing California marriages.
No doubt the interest of the 44% of the opponents drives at least in part the interest of the 34% of the backers. But there is also reasons for money from within the state of California. Not the least of which is the industry which caters to gay couples, promising to supply them with people willing to be paid to abandon their children to them for a price. I speak, of course, of the IVF industry here. Some clinics of which do specialize in homosexual couples.
But certainly the whole industry does not cater to just homosexual couples. Yet even before neutered marriage entered the picture California was a leader in third party fertility industry. It was rivaled and maybe even eclipsed by other state -- Massachusetts. I think the image of a college student walking away with money while the homosexual couple walks away with a baby is one that should be included in this imagery.
(Source Link)
07-01-2008, 10:20 PM
Obama taking a beating on his marriage views, how to define marriage down, and the mo
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
