Hold on a sec - just going by what you've quoted here, Obama is definitely not saying that gays should not have the right to wed. He's left himself a huge (frustratingly huge, actually) amount of wiggle room; when he says "my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman," that is a far cry from saying that the law in an at least technically secular society should not permit same-sex marriage. Especially when he frames it with "I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue." Basically I think his words here can be interpreted to support almost any position on this issue - and he can certainly be criticized for that.Here is Obama's original quote:
I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.My understanding has always been that Obama was opposed to gay marriage--as a legal matter. Perhaps that opposition has nothing to do with opposition to gay marriage as a religious matter. Indeed, I could be wrong about his opposition to gay marriage. In this clip he says he is not someone "who promotes same-sex marriage. But he believes in civil unions." You can make of that what you will. A charitable interpretion argues that he's against it religiously, but doesn't have a problem with civil gay marriage. My interpretation is that he's a politiician and that he believes, perhaps correctly, that this issue could be fatal.
Honestly, I don't know. I'm just sick of playing the pathological problem child. I'm sick of black folks being America's sin-eater. It's a maddening--if neccessary thing--to extend good faith to people you deeply suspect are not in the same business.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I'm just sick of playing the pathological problem child. I'm sick of black folks being America's sin-eater. It's a maddening--if neccessary thing--to extend good faith to people you deeply suspect are not in the same business.
Amen.
I'm gonna just stick my neck out with an observation that won't please any side of this discussion, but I think there's at least some truth to it.
IMHO black folk don't tend to be more homophobic than others in their dealings with or awareness of gay people - actually less "phobic" if anything. But they're more likely to respond with naysaying to the particular issue of gay marriage in the "basket" of equal rights for reasons that are particular to the black community's sense of fragility around family/marriage issues, as well as the reason that's general to folks who tend to take their Bible more seriously than most, with a large dose of literalism in their theological traditions. I know this seems contradictory and unsatisfactory, but it's my sense of the situation. I think it's why folks familiar with the black community don't in general sense a meaner spirit regarding gay folks for the reason that it's not really there - but the polling, etc. on gay marriage in particular shows black folks tending to lag on one hot-button issue.
Okay - start throwing shit at me...
Why would we do that? It strikes me as a fair point...
Guess I'm paranoid. This stuff raises a lot of emotions.
brucds -
I think you have some good points here. This stuff is so intertwined with religion, family, class, race, ect . . . its just so difficult to sort them out. Even when you try you end up lumping people together in awkward categories. Where do you put the black atheist ACLU member? What about a white Catholic like Andrew Sullivan?
This blog has helped me sort through a lot prejudiced crap that floats around in my own head. I used to be slightly in the "blacks are more homophobic camp," depending on my mood that day. This is because the majority of the homophobia I have experienced has been from blacks. Then I realized that this was probably just due to my surroundings. If I lived Oklahoma then I would probably experience the most homophobia from other whites.
No freaking pathologies. Barack Obama is as sane as any politician can be.
In 1996 he was in favor of same-sex marrige. Look here at page 2: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_wct_20090114_obama.html
So he had no pathologies in 1996 but then he remembered that his father left him. C'mon, you guys.
BTW, a sane politician running for president and wanting to win in 2008 would oppose same-sex marriage. I would if I were him.
And for all political effects, he oppose marriage equality, period. Maybe he doesn't want to lie so crudely --I am almost sure he is indeed in favor of gay marriage as it is most of the intellectual elite in this country-- but let's be honest, you can say that you are personally against but you are in favor of civil marriage for gays as a right. He hasn't said that--not since the mid90s anyway.
not sure if this hits home but it seems like the whole Obama election came so quick and out of no where that it's hard, especially in this kind of off the cuff mode, to make sense of what we might really hope for/expect from our first black Prez. and how he could or should be the representative of both his race and his country. there are so many deep and often unvoiced/unexamined and perhaps conflicting responses that he seems to provoke that it may take more time and effort to work through than we are used to giving things...
Is there any difference between civil unions and civil marriage ? I'd really just like to see the whole idea of "state sanction" applied to "civil unions" and let the clergy take care of the "marriage scrament" bit if that floats the boat. It's probably asking way too much to make that shift, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me. If two heteros go down to the courthouse and get married - and skip any ceremony linked to any religious sacramental tradition - it's the same damned thing as what pols are calling "civil union" to skirt the issue so far as I can see. Also, under that arrangement, there's nothing to stop churches like the UCC, Unitarians, Metropolitan Community parishes, etc. to do their marriage thing for gay people.
You are creating a new legal entity just to not being forced to recognized that we are in equal footing as human beings, that our relationships are not equally worthy.
I am OK with churches doing so: hence religious marriage should be left to the churches.
I am HELL-NO not OK with the government doing so.
What would be equal would be to make the two heteros go and get civil-unionized but this is simply not happening.
"What would be equal would be to make the two heteros go and get civil-unionized"
That's what I'm saying...because if folks want to define marriage as a "sacrament" then it's not a government thing. But you're right that it's not going to happen.
You've hit at the core of the issue, I believe. As a Christian, my belief system looks at marriage sacramentally as opposed to a civil institution. A civil marriage is essentially a contract which can be broken in a divorce proceeeding. With sacramental marriage, there is only one legitimate reason for divorce -- adultery. I wrote a few blog posts during the campaign talking about this. I don't think the problem is gay marriage -- the problem is the state being involved in "marriage" at all. The state has jurisdiction over civil unions, while the church governs the institution of marriage, which for Christians, is ordained in the Bible in Genesis Ch. 2.
Thus, a gay or straight civil union would carry equal weight in the eyes of the state with respect to rules regarding property, insurance, bequethal of property, etc. while at the same time preserving the sacramental significance of marriage. In fact, I believe there would be fewer church weddings in such a scenario given the postmodern direction that our culture seems to be rushing headlong in.
Civil marriage is marriage, at least in a legal sense. A church wedding has no legal force w/o the civil procedures (marriage license, etc.), & tying the knot in front of a justice of the peace is as much marriage in the eyes of the law
Opponents of gay marriage are either victims or exploiters of a fuzziness in how many of us view marriage - we think of it as both a legal and a spiritual/communal contract. But legally these are completely distinct.
"But legally these are completely distinct."
Maybe they should be more distinct, because gay marriage opponents conflate a civil, legal recognition of certain rights and responsibilities with their version of a religious sacrament. That's why I was saying that, de facto, a "civil union", as Obama and other pols trying to dodge the bullet define it, is no different than a "civil marriage" at city hall except for the name change. There's a weird opportunistic sleight of hand going on in both directions - IMHO the thing that ultimately matters is that the equal legal rights for couples are available. But I also get that being handed them via some back door, with a "hush-hush" is pretty damned insulting.
"I'm just sick of playing the pathological problem child. I'm sick of black folks being America's sin-eater."
Its funny you bring that up because as a white man, I've always felt being the bad guy was our territory. At least in the classes I took in college, every social problem seemed to boil down to the evilness of the blue eyed devil.
Sometimes in these classes I felt like saying "hey, we aint ALL bad!" But I never did because I was pretty sure someone would start lecturing me about how my white privilege blinds me to the fact that I am indeed an innately exploitative and racist white man.
In all seriousness though. . . From reading your posts, TNC, it appears that you know far more about gay marriage than I do - and I'm gay. This means that you are far more concerned with equality and justice than most people in this country. So who gives a shit what the rest of them think?
The problem I have with this whole issue (I'm against gay marriage mind you, but I understand the rationale--gay people are tax-paying, law-abiding citizens and want all the rights straight people have) but they seem to want Obama to do their legwork for them. What I mean is that the movement learned the wrong lessons from the Prop 8 debacle. Full disclosure: I agree with the Prop 8 decision but I found it cruel that 18,000 people were allowed to get married in the interim between the California court decision and the referendum and then risked getting their marriages overturned by a Court that had already said a marriage ban was unconstitutional. The whole thing smacked of too much ex-post facto legislating and lawyering and it was an idiotic way to deal with this issue. No state should conduct business that way.
But as I said before the gay rights movement seems to have learned nothing valuable from the whole debacle which was that people in CA voted overwhelmingly for Obama and for banning gay marriage. And anytime there has been a referendum on allowing gays to marry in a state, it doesn't pass. This isn't just Obama slowfooting it, it's most of the country. I don't see anyone in the media being harsh on Obama for this except people who are on the left and even then it's framed as the gay activists pressuring Obama. And because of that, they need to do some ground work in convincing people who are economically and socially liberal on every issue except their right to marry. Instead, what they learned was: black people are church-going bigots despite their own history of discrimination--how dare they;and Mormons are evil with money and influence. While you might be right, taking this view instead of we need to craft better coalitions with groups who disagreed with us but are convincable. Where is the new Harvey Milk paving the way? I know gays gave Obama money, but he is not a concierge. You need to lay the groundwork by protesting vocally--marching on Washington to give Obama coverage if he wants to overturn Congressional legislation like DOMA and DADT.
If Obama comes out for marriage rights for gays, say good-bye to the House or Senate in 2010 and say goodbye to any other progressive issue for the rest of his term, including gay rights. Most of the Democratic gains have been in the South so the Dems aren't getting more liberal. As some commentator said recently, there's a far right crazy party and a center-right party. The teabaggeers got 200K people out on tax day and wall to wall coverage. Why can't a coalition of gay rights groups get together and do something like this? Why does Obama need to do everything for you? He has so much on his plate already.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that instead of griping about Obama not doing this and that, the gay rights movement should look at itself. If they're going to claim to be a civil rights movement they need to start acting like one. The fact is Civil Rights legislation passed in this country in the 1960s, not because LBJ was hounded by black people, even though he was lobbied but b/c people saw on there TVs that black people were protesting and demanding rights in the streets in various ways and were getting killed for doing so. The country couldn't go on proclaiming to be land-of-the-free and killing people trying to vote. For the gay rights movement to be successful, they need someone who can light up America's conscience in a way that MLK did. You need an MLK before you get an LBJ and until the gay rights movement realizes this and acts accordingly, they are just looking at windmills. I'm not not for gay marriage, but I'm just saying....
You are not for gay marriage and then you fault us for not to have a MLK, for not being well-organized, etc. If we did all that, would you then change your position? How well behaved do we have to be as a movement to deserve to be granted the same rights as anybody else? If you are straight you can rape and kill someone, go to prison and then get marry. Or do as Britney Spears and get married and divorce the same day. So why do we get to be so, pardon me, fabulous to even get your ear?
One more thing, I certainly am not Harvey Milk and so I cannot talk in the name of the gays, but for what I read over and over and over again we are not happy with Obama on gay issues not because he doesn't support marriage equality but because he hasn't even start to fulfill the promises he made to us, and mostly because his administration has done things that are in full contradiction with what he promised. As in the hideous defense of DOMA that equates gay marriage with incest and pedophilia. If that were made by the Bush admin we would have had a fit too. Indeed, google Santorum.
Criticism of Obama by the gay community is fair as far as I'm concerned. It would be one thing if he hadn't campaigned as a great friend of theirs; but the fact is that he did and he does need to back up what he claimed. DADT is shameful; and even Georgia Sen Sam Nunn, its architect, says its time to take another look at it.
Yes, the Dems have some conservative members. But I highly doubt that voters would sweep the Dems from office in 2010 or 2012 because they passed through gay rights. The next two elections will be based on the Dems handling of the economy and foreign policy; things are too messed up in this country right now for people to vote based on sexuality.
Obama really has no excuses for constantly telling the gay community they have to "wait" to be treated as equal citizens. He might recall that blacks in this country were once told the same thing.
Sorry, I thought straight people were the ones that were supposed to learn from Prop 8.
Snark aside, gay people WERE protesting in the streets demanding their rights. Famous people DID step forward to try to lead on the issue (Ellen and Portia, Wanda Sykes, David Hyde Pierce), and offered well-reasoned and well-spoken arguments. The usual suspects in conservative media responded by calling the demonstrators violent and riotous.
As a person of faith, I am against gay marriage. Do I understand the constitutional issues that gays have especially concerning the 14th Amendment--yes. Do I think gays are on firm constitutional ground--yes. If it get's passed I don't really care, but I would never vote for it if it was placed on referendum in my state because of my religious beliefs/conscience. As I alluded in my first post, the problem is that Obama's position and mine reflects that of roughly 50% of the population. No one is giving him grief about his position except people on the left and if that's all you have in regards to this issue, you're not going to get anywhere. Again, the movement needs to learn from California debacle--people whites, blacks and Mormons vote for Obama and against gay marriage. So, this issue is not about Obama, it's about America's views.
The gay rights movement is reactive: A Carrie Parejean comes along and they tackle it; a Prop 8 comes along they tackle that. Where is the long-term strategy to convince Americans that gay marriage is constitutional and poses no threat to a millenniums long taboo against homosexuality that cuts across most social and religious groups? I mean this unites most people who are in a Abrahamic religion. I mean when there was a gay pride parade schedule in Jerusalem, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clerics UNITED to oppose it--it was later moved to Tel Aviv.
There is no leader out there to challenge and lead their movement and they want Obama to be the leader. And if he does, it will cost him in the Congress and hamper his agenda. If he does nothing, he can paint himself as a moderate and still win re-election. He's a politician and he loses nothing by not commenting on this or kicking it down the road. The only way to force his hand is to loudly protest and make the issue about Americans instead of Obama. Personally, I think Obama is for gay marriage but it is a political minefield for him to advocate for especially since it worked so well for the last Democratic president. It's going to end up like Roe v. Wade where a court does something that half the country hates and that half campaigns and dilutes it down. Again, the gay marriage movement isn't willing to be in the streets and stir up and challenge America's conscience about this issue and force their Congresspeople to tackle it, they are not serious.
But there has been huge, huge movement in terms of public opinion on the issue of gay marriage. According to this poll - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/04/on_gay_marriage_an_even_split.html - more folks support gay marriage than oppose it, up 13 percent in just three years.
The campaign for gay rights has made tremendous strides in a relatively short amount of time (it wasn't so many years ago that it was illegal in many places to go to a gay bar, or that homosexuality was a diagnosable disorder in the DSM-II. There were still anti-gay sodomy laws on the books in many states when the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 etc. etc.)
I think in critiquing the gay rights movement as you do above, you're overlooking the act of coming out as a political action. I think what cuts through a "millenniums long taboo against homosexuality" isn't so much gay folks in the streets marching and protesting (although this has happened, and has made a difference), but it's gay folks in neighborhoods, in PTAs and coffee shops and in families, living their lives openly. American views are changing on gay rights because more and more Americans know gay people (or I guess more accurately, they know that they know gay people). It's easier to carry an unexamined prejudice against "teh gays", but it gets harder when you know that category includes your co-worker, your uncle or you kid's teacher. THAT's the long term strategy, and it's working.
Also, I don't believe that equal rights are a reward for a group of folks who are organized or focused or "serious" enough in their political action. I know that that's often how it goes, but it shouldn't be. Rights are rights - period.
I think he's trying to bait the gay community into accepting civil unions as a compromise.
Ideally ALL govt. regulated unions would be civil unions. I think Obama would rather have it this way also but fears losing some religious voters.