Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Obama's Gay Marriage Flip Flop

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Jerry Gamblin wrote:

> http://sacbee.com/1089/story/1051368.html
>
> To Summarize:
> Obama Thinks States Should Decide Gay Marriage Issues.
> Obama is personally Opposed to Gay Marriage.
> Obama  now thinks a ban is "divisive and discriminatory".
>
> Mike, Please tell me how this inst a flip flop or at the very least pandering?


Obama's position was for civil unions for gay/lesbian couples:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/09/obama_argues_for_civil_unions.php

   "As I've proposed it, it wouldn't be a lesser thing, from my
   perspective.

   "Semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I'm
   interested (in) is making sure that those legal rights are available to
   people," he said.

   "If we have a situation in which civil unions are fully enforced, are
   widely recognized, people have civil rights under the law, then my sense
   is that's enormous progress," the Illinois Democrat said.


I think Obama's thing is to be "personally opposed" to abortion and gay 
marriage based on religious faith but he also believes in not imposing his 
faith on others and therefore can support abortion rights and laws 
allowing homosexual unions despite his personal opposition.

For California, they just started doing "gay marriages" which is a little 
different from the civil unions Obama prefers, but they do provide the 
legal protections that Obama favors.  Now some people want to crush gay 
marriage in California which would take away those legal protections.

If Obama were to be perfectly consistent in his positions, where should he 
stand now?  In favor of civil unions, but California is not heading that 
way -- they are going either for marriage with full legal protections, or 
for no legal protection at all.  I guess to oppose the ban on gay marriage 
makes the most sense given his history of statements on this issue.

This is not inconsistent with wanting states to decide gay marriage 
issues.  If he wants states to decide, that means he opposes a national 
ban on gay marriage.  It does not mean that he won't tell states what he 
would like to see them doing.  What he'd like to see is civil unions -- 
less divisive, full legal protection.

I think he makes a lot of sense.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion