I’ve said several times that Obama’s famously protracted “evolution” on marriage equality would end around the 2nd week of November. I was wrong. He has now publicly declared that he is in favor of full marriage equality, in an interview with ABC News. Politico reports on what he said:
President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he now supports gay marriage, saying ““I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”
“I’ve stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community. I hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient,” Obama said in a White House interview with ABC News’s Robin Roberts. “I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word ‘marriage’ evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs.”
But, the president said, years of discussion had resulted in an “evolution” to the point that many supporters had hoped for — full backing of gay marriage.
“I have talked to friends and family and neighbors; when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage,” he said, explaining why he’d made the decision.
There are many legitimate reactions to this. Some are going to cheer him on and note that this is the first time any president has ever said anything even remotely like this (the Republicans certainly aren’t going to say it — at least for another 20 or 30 years, after which they’ll take credit for it — and Clinton signed DOMA). And they’ll be entirely justified in viewing it that way.
Others will say they’re glad he did it, but what took him so long? And that’s entirely justified too. All this talk about an evolving view is nonsense, pretty words to hide raw political calculation. There is no way he would have said what he said if it hadn’t been thoroughly discussed among his advisers, completely with extensive polling and focus groups and deep analysis of whether it would help him or hurt him politically. And his advisers obviously have decided that it would help him, or at least not hurt him, in November. That is how such positions are taken.
But even if the latter is true, we should view that as good news. Yes, I’d rather have a leader who takes positions based on principle alone, who supports it just because it’s right and just. But we don’t live in that world. And if, in the world we do live in, taking the pro-equality position is now viewed as being good for a politician based on such calculations, that indicates just how far we’ve come in a remarkably short period of time.
Remember that this only became a major political issue less than 10 years ago, with the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts. And at the time, the polls showed that 85% of Americans were opposed to marriage equality. In 8.5 years, we have gone from massive opposition to a slim majority in favor nationally. Despite the loss in North Carolina on Tuesday, that is astonishing progress. Viewed with a bit of historical distance, we will be amazed at how quickly that shift has taken place.
As Greg Laden has pointed out, the one thing you can guarantee about every advance in civil rights is that it will not have happened soon enough. We didn’t end slavery soon enough; we didn’t give women the right to vote soon enough; we didn’t end segregation or pass the Civil Rights Act soon enough. It’s never soon enough. But in the end, justice and equality always do seem to win. We’re gonna win this one too. And regardless of whether it’s based on principle or political calculation, Obama’s announcement will be seen as a watershed moment a decade from now, just as LBJ’s support of the Civil Rights Act was 50 years ago.
71 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
heddle
May 10, 2012 at 11:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed,
And I was wrong about the Fairness Doctrine (You probably don’t recall: I bet you $10 in 2008 that an Obama admin would reinstate it.) I believe it was (but not sure and don’t care to look it up) a “charity of your choice” kind of bet–so let me know.
A
Lannisterheddle always pays his debts.Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
May 10, 2012 at 11:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed, don’t celebrate:
Michael Heath
May 10, 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed’s blog post title:
I think President Obama has a big step to make before his evolution is complete. As president and therefore part of the federal government, he took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. In my not at all humble opinion, that obligates him to defend the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by using all the powers he has to overturn local, state, and federal laws which prohibit GLBTs and their families from exercising their equal rights. In addition he is obligated to insure the federal, state, and local governments also must use their delegated powers to defend those rights as well.
What we encountered yesterday was an argument structured exactly the same as Sarah Palin’s claim she’s personally opposed to abortion as a choice based on her religious beliefs. This was the president’s exact point of reference as well, and he repeatedly noted this was his “personal” position. I care not a whit about personal preferences on the constitutional question, I do care whether an elected or running candidate will defend the Constitution per the oath they must take to hold office.
Of course this is an enormous step in the right direction by a president relative to the policy debate. Of course it matters. It brought tears to my eyes. But the president has yet to meet his Constitutional obligations along with his moral obligations. This may be where his evolution is complete, but based on the polling numbers I’d argue the balance still tips more towards cowardice than courage.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
May 10, 2012 at 11:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That part is from the longer video of the interview.
Phillip IV
May 10, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And I bet they were right about that. The electorate might be near-evenly divided on the issue, but the key point is that anything that keeps the national debate focused on social issues hurts the Romney campaign. He’s stuck between a rock and a hard place on that front, and trying to keep in between plays right into the “flip-flopper” narrative.
Arriving at the end of his “evolution” at this precise moment of time is handing the social conservative wing of the GOP a big gun aimed at the party’s own foot and cordially inviting them to deliver the coup de grace. Here’s hoping they take him up on the offer.
Michael Heath
May 10, 2012 at 11:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Me earlier:
I’m reminded of the old Janet Jackson song, What Have You Done for Me Lately?; which was my reaction after reading my above post after publishing it.
I think it’s arguable I’m too harsh on the president regarding his cowardice or courage on gay marriage rights. He’s done a lot for gay rights in general, but the 14th Amendment equal protection clause is not a cryptically worded clause. Instead the meaning is plain, unambiguous, and avoided by the media and nearly all politicians. I’m glad it’s not avoided by the majority of the 9th Circuit justices ruling on Perry v. Brown, Judge Vaughn Walker, Ted Olson, and David Boies.
d cwilson
May 10, 2012 at 11:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort:
Ed’s post is about Obama’s
evolutionpolitical calculation, not about the end of marriage inequality. Anyone who thinks the president has the power to grant marriage equality with a wave of his hand is delusion.Obama’s coming around on this issue is a symbolic gesture, powerful symbol, but still just symbolic. The issue is going to be fought out in the courts and in the state houses across the country for years to come. I don’t see how his recognizing that fact changes how important it is for a presidential candidate to come out in favor of marriage equality.
Trebuchet
May 10, 2012 at 11:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Phillip IV: I hope you (and Obama’s advisors, if that’s what they really decided) are correct. I’m very concerned that this will be an issue that sways a significant number of middle-of-the-road voters in swing states, in the wrong direction. Lots of otherwise sensible people are still very uncomfortable about homosexuality. As I say, I hope I’m wrong but it worries me.
d cwilson
May 10, 2012 at 11:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There’s one fatal flaw in your not at all humble opinion: The president has no power to overturn local, state, and federal laws. The most he can do is change policy matters in the Executive Branch. But he can’t make state DOMA laws disappear or rewrite state constitutional amendments like the one passed in North Carolina this week. He can’t even unilaterally repeal the federal DOMA. The most he can do is 1) Not defend the law in court (which he has already done so) and 2) Urge Congress to repeal DOMA if the courts uphold it.
Gregory in Seattle
May 10, 2012 at 11:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You omitted an equally legitimate response, the one that a great many LGBT people — the ones who are actually affected by the President’s statement — are expressing: outrage that he has reiterated his opinion that basic human rights are a matter for states to decide.
His words seem to make it very clear that he has no problem with North Carolina stripping away our rights. Would you be so sanguine if the federal government had taken this position regarding race and sex, and refused to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by saying that these were matters best left to the states?
Adding insult to injury, he was extraordinarily careful to express his support as a matter of personal opinion. Nowhere does he say that he will help to right the string of injustices against the LGBT community. Nowhere does he say that he will make good on an earlier promise that he has consistently failed on: to be a “fierce advocate” for our rights. His statements were not “fierce advocacy”, Mr. Brayton: they were stirring up the wolves and telling us that we were on our own against them.
aaronbaker
May 10, 2012 at 11:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And, as always, I wonder why Obama should be criticized for not being a fool. The world we live in is the only one that counts–and Obama is wonderfully attuned to the politics of this world. As one result of that attunement, he’s done (and been in a position to do) more for the equal rights of gays than any president before him. Near-universal health care owes a great deal to the same adroitness. No opportunistic attunement, no beneficial accomplishments.
aaronbaker
May 10, 2012 at 11:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I also agree with d cwilson about the limits of Obama’s actual power.
Randomfactor
May 10, 2012 at 11:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What I’m saying is different states are coming to different conclusions.
It don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that “full faith and credence,” and if you can’t file a joint 1040.
Gregory in Seattle
May 10, 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@d cwilson #9 – As head of the Executive Branch, President Obama could change federal policy. As Commander-in-Chief, he could issue orders. As current holder of the Bully Pulpit, he could preach on equality. As President, he could prepare legislation in support of equal rights, submit it to Congress, and put public pressure on them to pass it. As the embodiment of the Democratic Party, he could put unequivocable support for LGBT rights into the Democratic National Platform. As Leader of the Free World, he could lead this nation towards freedom and serve as an example to the world on how that is done.
He consistently refuses to do any of that.
Ed Brayton
May 10, 2012 at 11:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The title of this post was actually intended sarcastically; I don’t believe Obama’s views evolved at all on this issue. I think he’s always been in favor of marriage equality, but he’s also always been making careful political calculations about it in a very Romney-like fashion. That criticism coming from the right, while utterly hypocritical coming from those who support Romney, is still accurate. He isn’t evolving, he’s triangulating. But that doesn’t mean that what happened yesterday isn’t important. It was, regardless of the reasons. In this case, the glass really can be half empty and hall full at the same time. We should be both disappointed and excited.
jayhawk
May 10, 2012 at 11:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“(the Republicans certainly aren’t going to say it — at least for another 20 or 30 years,”
Aside from arguing about whether Obama’s support is luke warm or non-existent, much like his non-existent change in drug policy, a slightly different take on this:
If Obama wins in November, I predict all future Democratic candidates will support gay marriage and then after one more Republican Presidential candidate loses (after 2012), the next will support gay marriage. Theoretically, this could be decades from now, but I am hoping it is in eight years, but probably more likely to be 16 to 20 years.
If Obama loses in November, all bets are off and you reshuffle the Etch-E-Sketch.
jayhawk
May 10, 2012 at 11:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sorry, Etch A Sketch, should have looked it up.
d cwilson
May 10, 2012 at 11:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Which is exactly what I said.
Only if you ignore:
1. His rescinding the executive order the denied LGBT people from getting security clearances.
2. His convincing Congress to repeal DADT.
3. His sending Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to address the persecution of gays on the international level.
4. His decision to cease defending DOMA in the courts.
5. His order to give benefits to same-sex couples of federal employees.
6. His signing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law.
7. His ensuring hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples.
8. His recording an ‘It Gets Better’ video to support LGBT youth experiencing bullying.
Gregory in Seattle
May 10, 2012 at 11:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Ed Brayton #15 – My apologies for manifesting Poe’s Law, then. Unfortunately, I have been hearing an awful lot of people who should know better saying the exact same things you said in your OP… and actually meaning them.
aaronbaker
May 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gregory in Seattle:
There’s no evidence that the “bully pulpit” works, and a good deal of evidence that it doesn’t. See http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/03/clinton-and-health-care-on-deaf-ears
As to what’s actually practicable: Obama’s failure to ban anti-gay workplace discrimination by Federal contractors (something he could have accomplished with an executive order) is a legitimate ground for criticism–but that’s at least in part because the political cost, had he done so, seemed minimal to non-existent. If it were political suicide to issue such an order, I wouldn’t be bothered by his failure to issue it.
So, I’m not “disappointed,” except to the extent that he’s actually failed to do what’s feasible–nor do I think I should be.
Aratina Cage
May 10, 2012 at 12:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, considering that I and most everyone else expected him to reiterate his former personal objection to same-sex marriage (that it was against his own beliefs) during the interview as damage control after Biden’s loose mouth, I and many other people were elated or pleasantly surprised to not hear that!
I was getting pretty damn sick of hearing how he personally disagreed with marriage between two women or two men. It felt like he was spitting on us and all his pro-LGBT accomplishments every time he trotted that horse back out. So while I realize how low my expectations for him have gotten, it really is great to know that I’ll probably never hear him speak badly of our families again.
Gregory in Seattle
May 10, 2012 at 12:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@d cwilson #18
1. His rescinding the executive order the denied LGBT people from getting security clearances.
An executive order that expired automatically at the end of his predecessor’s term, which he did not reissue.
2. His convincing Congress to repeal DADT.
The closest he ever got to a public show of support for legislative repeal was in his vociferous opposition to a judicial repeal, and there have been many reports that he quietly lobbied Congress NOT to pass legislative appeal.
3. His sending Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to address the persecution of gays on the international level.
While endorsing policies that favored the persecution of gays at the local, state and national level.
4. His decision to cease defending DOMA in the courts.
While he continues to stonewall, impede and otherwise obstruct federal cases against DOMA outside the courtroom.
5. His order to give benefits to same-sex couples of federal employees.
Made June 10, 2010, as a case against him on this matter was accepted by the federal courts. His efforts to head off a judicial ruling failed, however, and on April 5, 2012, James Ware, chief justice of the US District Court in Northern California, ruled that denying benefits to federal employees’ same-sex spouses violated federal laws mandating a discrimination-free workplace.
6. His signing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law.
A law that, like the repeal of DADT, he did not support, did not lobby for, and signed only because he would not be able to get away with vetoing it. And, more to the point, a law that his Justice Department has so far refused to invoke, even though there have been several federal cases in the last 2.5 years where it could have been applied.
7. His ensuring hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples.
You have apparently forgotten the brouhaha over that. Several days before Obama issued his memorandum (April 15, 2010), HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in an interview that she supported such a change in federal rules. She nearly lost her job for proposing policy without first having it cleared by the White House, but the damage was done: Obama had no choice but to come out in support and let it happen.
8. His recording an ‘It Gets Better’ video to support LGBT youth experiencing bullying.
What has he actually done to end bullying? What local or state legislation has he unambiguously endorsed? What changes in federal education rules has he proposed? Where has he stepped in and reprimanded school districts and officials who have egregiously allowed — encouraged, even — the constant and occasionally fatal bullying of LGBT students?
regexp
May 10, 2012 at 12:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
outrage that he has reiterated his opinion that basic human rights are a matter for states to decide.
I think most are over estimating how “angry” “the gays” are at that comment mainly because most of us understand that its the States and Congress who write laws regarding marriage and not the President.
As someone who is gay – I’m not outraged in the least and appreciate that a sitting President has finally shown some candor on this topic.
The Lorax
May 10, 2012 at 12:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think Ed hit the nail on the head when he said that the glass is both half full and half empty, and that it’s perfectly fine to be excited and upset.
All else aside, I think one thing we can agree on is the precedent set here: the President of the United States went on record to say that he’s cool with gay marriage, and so far, the only people in an uproar about it are the people who weren’t going to vote for him anyway. That means that the statement, the stance, was NOT political suicide, and indeed, if his numbers go up because of this, then Obama has changed the political game, and others will jump on that bandwagon if it’ll help their chances as well.
We are at the tipping point, people. Obama might have only moved a small stone to the other side of a large scale, but if it tips the scale just slightly, it can potentially cause an avalanche. Keep your eyes on the numbers; Obama’s support from progressives, liberals, and (non-conservative) LBGT voters is probably going to go up.
Gregory in Seattle
May 10, 2012 at 12:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@aaronbaker #20 – There’s no evidence that the “bully pulpit” works, and a good deal of evidence that it doesn’t.
And that justifies the President’s dearth of even meaningless words, and his failure to take any action whatsoever? Let’s suppose it does. What, then, about his being the Chief Executive, and Commander-in-Chief, and President, and embodiment of the Democratic Party, and Leader of the Free World?
Gregory in Seattle
May 10, 2012 at 12:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Aratina Cage #21 – He was very careful to point out that his personal, private, innermost views have changed. He was equally careful to avoid offering any kind of political, meaningful support. Further, he insisted that marriage should remain solely a matter for states to decide. Coming the day after North Carolina enshrined anti-marriage bigotry into its constitution was a huge slap in the face: it seemed almost a deliberate statement that he is perfectly fine with states considering us to be unworthy of what even the US Supreme Court called a basic human right.
slc1
May 10, 2012 at 12:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Gregory @ #25
Let’s look at the alternative. Romney has promised to overturn the DADT decision, he promises to support a constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriages, which would make null and void the laws in the 6 states where they are permitted. By the way, he would extend the amendment to include civil unions which not even former president George W. Bush opposed. Further, given the fact that Robert Bork is his principal adviser on judicial appointments, he would appoint justices like Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts to fill any vacancies on the Supreme Court.
Michael Heath
May 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dcwilson writes:
I never claimed otherwise, I instead claimed he should use all the powers at his disposal.
Gregory in Seattle
May 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@regexp #23 –
Spoken like someone with heterosexual priviledge.
I am a gay man. I am an activist who has been involved in politics at many levels for more than 30 years. I understand how laws regarding marriage work: they work just like laws regarding sex and race used to, until the FEDERAL courts started invoking the 14th Amendment, and until the FEDERAL government passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And let us not forget the US Supreme Court ruling on marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
When the president says that your right to marry shall be subjected to the bigoted whims of the states, and does so the day after a state enshrined opposition to your right to marry into its constitution, I will consider your comments on the matter to be something other than priviledged condescension.
Gregory in Seattle
May 10, 2012 at 12:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@slc1 – So a person who claims not to be, say, a racist, but who takes no steps towards meaningfully ending racism and asserts the right of states to institutionalize racism in state law, is a better choice than someone who is openly racist?
You will understand why I don’t buy that argument. Being slightly less evil than the other guy is not exactly a ringing endorsement of good.
d cwilson
May 10, 2012 at 12:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Gregory in Seattle #22:
I see a lot of suppositions, assumptions, and “reports”, but not a single verifiable source to support your claims that Obama has been working behind the scenes to undermine the same policies he’s publicly endorsed. Until you come up with a specific example of him, say, endorsing state or local laws for the persecution of gays or that he was actively lobbying against passage of the Matthew Shepherd Act or the repeal of DADT even as he was publically endorsing them, I’m not going to bother addressing your individual complaints.
cptdoom
May 10, 2012 at 1:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Except that he came out against Amendment One, in the same way he came out against Proposition 8 in 2008 – his lack of support was pretty lukewarm, to be sure, but it also negates your conclusion. I interpreted the “state’s issue” language to mean two things, which are also part of his political calculation:
1) He’s not introducing new federal legislation and
2) He’s fine with the CU and DP benefits in states like WA and NJ.
He’s deliberately remaining silent on the Constitutional issues inherent in the fight over Prop 8 that will likely make it’s way to the Supreme Court in the next 1 – 2 years. As a Constitutional Law professor, that’s sad; as a President trying to get re-elected, I understand it.
The important thing for the public is that no news media is parsing his statements as we do in the blogosphere. The news most Americans are hearing is simple – Obama supports same-sex marriage. That is huge, no matter what the political calculations behind it. Just like LBJ using the phrase “we shall overcome” when introducing his comprehensive Civil Rights legislation – he could have come out long before that as in favor of black equality, but the impact when he did can’t be underestimated.
Michael Heath
May 10, 2012 at 1:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gregory in Seattle writes:
I’m appalled and bemused that some TV talking heads last night were claiming that Obama’s position was a signal to Justice Anthony Kennedy on the upcoming Prop. 8 case, the afore-mentioned Perry v. Brown. In fact he did a signal with clear language but the opposite they discerned – which they idiotically argued was to promote J. Kennedy ruling in favor of gays. Obama’s clear language yesterday instead continues to provide constitutional and even moral cover for state and local bigotry while avoiding the very existence of both the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and his obligation to defend our rights given that clause. To send the message claimed by these doofuses, Obama would have based his argument at least partly on the 14th.
Michael Heath
May 10, 2012 at 1:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gregory in Seattle writes:
To win in politics it’s just as necessary to play solid defense as offense, if not more so. It’s distasteful, but imperative if one wants to win. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to destroy the paradigm which requires us to play defense on a certain matter, but until then . . .
slc1
May 10, 2012 at 1:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Gregory @ #30
My position is that a liberal living in a state like Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma or Utah is perfectly justified in casting a protest vote for a 3rd party candidate as Obama has not the slightest possibility of carrying any of those states. A liberal living in Virginia, Florida or other swing states who does likewise is totally irresponsible. Those liberals in Florida who voted for Nader in 2000 deserved Alito and Roberts; unfortunately, the rest of us did not.
By the way, I have to plead guilty in this regard. In 1968, I, as a resident of California, declined to vote for Humphrey based on the Vietnam War. The number of such folks exceeded the margin by which Nixon won the state and thus the election. Thus, I share responsibility for Watergate and William Rehnquist. Been there, done that.
dave
May 10, 2012 at 1:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sure, lets not forget it, but lets also place it in its proper historical context — At the time Loving was decided, only 16 states prohibited interracial marriage, half the number that had prohibited it 20 years earlier. IOW, when Loving was decided, the majority of states, and implicitly, public opinion, was in favor of allowing interracial marriage. Loving didnt enforce a new right on a reluctant nation, it forced the troglodytes to accept what the rest of the country had already concluded was right. Today, 6 states allow same-sex marriage. The battle for public opinion is still ongoing, and in that battle, Obama’s comment ia a major win. It is not a legal win, but it is huge in the battle to normalize same-sex relationships in the public’s eye. And winning that battle will go a long way in helping to win the legal battle.
Doug Little
May 10, 2012 at 1:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If they would change their vote just because they are uncomfortable with homosexuality then they are not sensible.
R Johnston
May 10, 2012 at 1:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What Obama said yesterday translates directly from politicalese into English as “I have some gay friends, but faggots, faggots, faggots, don’t deserve equal rights.” Just ask Lee Atwater’s ghost.
If you can’t see that then you’ve missed the last 230 years of American politics, especially the last 70 or so, and you’re easily distracted by shiny objects like a pathetic proclamation of personal belief directly contrary to the President’s immediately following statement of policy.
aaronbaker
May 10, 2012 at 1:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, as I think I’ve indicated, I’m not convinced he’s “fail[ed] to take any action whatsoever.” And I’m with d cwilson in wanting to see some corroboration for your claims that Obama “endors[ed] policies that favored the persecution of gays at the local, state and national level,” which at the moment I’m finding hard to believe.
abb3w
May 10, 2012 at 1:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s a step.
The next steps are for Congress, legislatively ordering:
1) That military chaplains, whose religion permits, may officiate at weddings of military personnel at bases in states that allow gay marriage (currently up for ban)
2) Overturning DOMA, and stating that the Federal government will recognize any marriage recognized by any state in the Union.
3) …and requiring all states and territories to recognize marriages, gay or straight, recognized by the other states.
The GOP might try to elevate DOMA to an Amendment meanwhile, especially if they take the House and Senate. It seems likely to be filibustered in the Senate, and a long shot to get 38 state ratification. Obviously, that would render 1, 2, and 3 moot. On the other side of the coin, we’re still easily a decade and probably two from an Amendment requiring all states to allow gay marriages, and putting an end to the question. However, should it be needed due to the GOP pushing one through… I think no more than three until one would first be sent to the states, and no more than four until one is ratified.
R Johnston
May 10, 2012 at 1:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Off a cliff, maybe.
Saying that a fundamental right is subject to state approval means something, and it’s never, ever, ever something good.
Aratina Cage
May 10, 2012 at 2:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t think it actually was huge like it was the first few times he, a former constitutional law professor, said it. This time it was a slap without a sting and overshadowed by his decision to “evolve” as Brayton put it.
The whole states’ rights angle is just political pandering to right-wingers in the Democratic Party anyway because the president is currently acting on his justified belief that DOMA is unconstitutional by not having it defended in court by his administration, and once DOMA is gone by federal court order, all these state marriage bans will be forever rendered moot.
Michael Heath
May 10, 2012 at 2:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dave writes:
I’m pretty sure Gallup has an accessible on-line poll showing about 73% of Americans were opposed to miscegenation, far more opponents than those currently opposed to gay marriage. However your point is taken regarding the status of legislation back then; so the comparison between this issue and gay marriage is not equivalent. But the social opposition in ’67 was enormous in terms of volume, I’m too young to know the median level of stridency for this issue, I’d guess not as much but if true, that’s offset by so many more people opposed.
tomh
May 10, 2012 at 2:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t see why that would follow. Once DOMA is gone there is no reason that anyone legally married, including same-sex couples from the six states that allow marriage, should not receive all the federal benefits that married couples are eligible for. All states should recognize those marriages, also. But states set their own marriage laws, and until the Supreme Court rules that a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, those bans will still apply. I don’t see why DOMA would affect those.
Aratina Cage
May 10, 2012 at 3:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think you answered your own question. It would affect the individual state bans because it would open the floodgates. For instance, legally married straight cousins who move to a state that doesn’t allow opposite-sex cousin marriages do not magically become divorced.
Childermass
May 10, 2012 at 4:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So is their a betting pool on just how long Romney will take to “evolve” from “whatever it takes to get me or keep me in power” to endorsing gay marriage?
Childermass
May 10, 2012 at 4:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
s/their/there/;
tomh
May 10, 2012 at 4:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ 45
I thought you meant that all states would have to allow marriages be performed in their states. Plus, there’s no guarantee that all states will recognize all marriages, even without DOMA. That will end up in court too. It may be that a state constitutional amendment may have to be ruled unconstitutional first.
dave
May 10, 2012 at 4:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My understanding is that there was a 1965 poll, although I am unaware of the results being accessible on-line (my source is of the dead-tree variety), that showed that nationally, amoung white males, 46% opposed anti-miscegnation laws and 48% were in favor. This broke down regionally to 42% in favor in the north and 73% in favor in the south. If you have different information, I would be happy to look at it. I have heard of, but have not been able to track down a source for, a 1958 poll showing 94% opposed to miscegnation, which would support the idea that public attitudes towards miscegnation was shifting rapidly in the 1960s.
Michael Heath
May 10, 2012 at 6:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Here’s the aforementioned poll showing disapproval of black-white marriages at 73% in 1968: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1687/Race-Relations.aspx . Note 94% disapproval in ’58.
Chris from Europe
May 10, 2012 at 7:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@tomh
Why should a state be allowed not to honor the decision of another in this case when DOMA is gone?
slc1
May 10, 2012 at 7:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Gregory @ #30
Perhaps Mr. Gregory should consider the implications of the following story before deciding to throw Obama under the bus.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/romney-a-gay-basher-in-high-school.html
Chiroptera
May 10, 2012 at 7:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Aratina Cage, #45: For instance, legally married straight cousins who move to a state that doesn’t allow opposite-sex cousin marriages do not magically become divorced.
Do states that currently forbid cousin marriages recognize them if they have been performed out of state?
I ask because during the era of anti-miscegenation, states that prohibited mixed race marriages did not and were never forced to recognize such marriages that were performed in another state. At least not until anti-miscegenation laws themselves were found unconstitutional.
If a state that forbids cousin marriages does nonetheless recognize them if performed out of state, that could (I am not a lawyer!) potentially be an interesting legal wedge to point to the inequity of not recognizing same-sex marriages.
Akira MacKenzie
May 10, 2012 at 8:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ignoring the obvious oxymoron, a question:
Why the hell should we care what these “sensible” scumbags want?
Akira MacKenzie
May 10, 2012 at 8:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And while you’re “stepping,” people are suffering here and now. How many decades or centuries are would going to have to shuffle along in hopes of arriving at some hypothetical progressive future that, knowing human stupidity and superstition, will never arrive and if it did would be a cold comfort to those who were deprived their rights in the present. If history has shown us anything it’s that “progress” is not some eventuality to be taken for granted.
tomh
May 10, 2012 at 8:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Chris from Europe wrote:
Why should a state be allowed not to honor the decision of another in this case when DOMA is gone?
States don’t have to recognize a marriage from another state, for instance, common-law marriages are recognized in some states but not others. A number of states consider first cousin marriages void, even if entered into in a state where it is legal. Many licenses, such as driver’s licenses, license to practice law, realty license and many others are not transferable from one state to another and the same could be true of a marriage license. That’s why the issue will end up being decided in court.
dave
May 10, 2012 at 8:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael@50
Thank you for that. Interesting. I have still not been able to find a link validating the results of the ’65 poll, but I have been able to confirm the question was asked: http://brain.gallup.com/documents/questionnaire.aspx?STUDY=AIPO0705 (If anyone has a gallup brain account, feel free to post the results.) Assuming the results I have are correct (and they are referenced in a number of sites in addition to my dead trees) then I would note that the questions are somewhat different. The ’65 poll asked specifically about approval of laws banning interracial marriage, while the ’58 and ’68 polls appear to ask about approval of the act itself. Were Americans less likely to legislate their personal morals 47 years ago?
Aratina Cage
May 11, 2012 at 2:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Evidence or GTFO.
Aratina Cage
May 11, 2012 at 2:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Never mind. It looks like tomh might be right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_court_cases_in_the_United_States
A few state court cases have voided cousin marriages in 1952 (KY), 1957 (AZ), and 1979 (MT). And it does appear that a handful of states have laws on their books to void cousin marriages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
It’s probably because there are so few cousin marriages in the USA that these laws aren’t often challenged.
tomh
May 11, 2012 at 3:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ 58
Evidence or GTFO.
I don’t know what that means, but here’s an example. From the County Clerks’ Guide To Kentucky Marriage Law “Kentucky does not recognize such a marriage between first cousins even if it is consummated in another state.” There are others. In fact, in Kentucky you could be arrested for incest, a Class A misdemeanor.
Chris from Europe
May 11, 2012 at 5:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@tomh
That doesn’t mean that a future Supreme Court must agree, especially as the reason for the public policy exception in respect to cousin marriage doesn’t apply to gay marriage. (It doesn’t make that much sense either.)
Chiroptera
May 11, 2012 at 5:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Chris from Europe, #61:
I suspect that the Supreme Court will rule all prohibitions against same sex marriage unconstitutional before it rules that a state has to recognize a marriage performed in another state between partners ineligible to be married within its own jurisdiction.
I might be wrong though.
tomh
May 11, 2012 at 5:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Chris
I’m not sure I follow you, a future Court might do anything. If Romney gets a few appointments, all bets are off. But my point was, that states do not have to recognize marriages from other states but they all choose to. That doesn’t mean that if a married couple, first cousins, for instance, moves from state A to state B they’re not married any more, it just means that state B doesn’t recognize the marriage for purposes such as taxes, benefits, etc. A same sex couple who married in Massachusetts and moves to Texas is still married, Texas just won’t recognize the marriage. That’s why repealing DOMA won’t automatically mean that same-sex marriages will be recognized in all states. It will have to be defined in court.
dave
May 12, 2012 at 5:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@tomh
That is incorrect. The full faith and credit clause of the contitution does obligate one state to recognise marriages from another. As Chris From Europe points out though, there is a public policy exception to that rule: State A can refuse to recognize a marriage from State B if that marriage runs counter to a legitimate public policy of State A. It is because of this exception that states can refuse to recognize cousin marriages from other states. I do not share Chris’s confidence that courts would not apply that exception to gay marriage however. I suspect that Chiroptera is correct and that courts will find SSM as a matter of right before excepting it from the public policy exception.
tomh
May 12, 2012 at 10:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ 64
The “full faith and credit” clause requires states to honor court judgments from other states, but no state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they didn’t want to. Fifty years ago, when many states banned interracial marriage, it wasn’t used to force them to recognize those marriages, and it wasn’t until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967 that the issue was resolved. The same will happen with gay marriage. That is, that is how it will be resolved, which way I don’t know.
tomh
May 12, 2012 at 11:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I meant to add, the way the full faith clause has played a part in this debate, is that conservatives have used it as a bogeyman to scare state legislatures into passing mini-DOMA laws, claiming that without such laws states would be forced to recognize same sex marriages from other states because of the full faith and credit clause. They conveniently fail to mention that in 200 years the clause has never been used for that purpose. Thirty eight states have passed such laws.
Aratina Cage
May 12, 2012 at 4:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@tomh, can you please tell us where you are getting your information from?
Is there some place trustworthy that has fact-checked this assertion that you could point us to?
Aratina Cage
May 12, 2012 at 4:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In fact, Loving v. Virginia was triggered by a couple marrying in a state (well, D.C.) where there was racial marriage equality and then moving to a state where there wasn’t such equality (although their marriage had the substantially greater burden of being considered criminal much like it was for gays before Lawrence v. Texas). It wasn’t argued or decided on Full Faith and Credit but on Equal Protection and Due Process.
tomh
May 12, 2012 at 6:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ 67
Well, here’s an article by a Yale law professor who testified at a Congressional hearing on a marriage amendment, who states flatly, “The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state’s marriages. It hasn’t.”
The thing about the “public policy doctrine,” which others have cited, is that states can use anything to prevent recognition of another state’s marriage. After all, if they passed a law against it, it must be public policy. The only caveat is that the policy can’t be unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court found the laws against interracial marriage were. That’s why nothing will be settled until the Court decides whether laws against same-sex marriage are constitutional or not. If they decide they are unconstitutional, that will be the end of it, just as it was with bans on interracial marriage. It’s also why Romney and his supporters want a Constitutional amendment, since that would take it out of the courts.
In Loving Warren wrote, “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Why that wouldn’t apply exactly to same sex marriage I can’t imagine. But I can guarantee you that Scalia & co. will find (or invent) plenty of justification to deny it. The only question is whether Scalia can muster enough votes to carry the day. In fact, to me, that’s the only thing that matters – will Scalia get enough votes? Everything else is a side issue. Others, of course, may see it differently.
Aratina Cage
May 12, 2012 at 7:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks, tomh. Your source looks very reliable, and it is quite disturbing to read. I’ve found a similar article on the Huffington Post about this topic by one of Obama’s advisors from his 2008 campaign: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-barrington-wolff/doma-repeal-and-the-truth_b_905484.html
And I also found a really discouraging lawsuit by Lambda Legal that failed miserably in October 2011 because of exactly what you said. A gay couple from New York wanted both their names on their adopted child’s Louisiana birth certificate based on the Full Faith and Credit clause. They won in US District Court, won at the three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, and then sadly lost in the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court turned down their last remaining appeal (see Adar v. Smith): http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/us-supreme-court-denies
tomh
May 13, 2012 at 2:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ 70
Thanks, I thought the piece by Wolff was very well done.