Obama changes political standards for good
On Wednesday, May 9, in a taped interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, President Barack Obama made history by becoming the first president to announce support for marriage equality. Citing his support and admiration for friends, colleagues and military personnel who are in “incredibly committed monogamous [same-sex] relationships,” he said, “At a certain point 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.”
He went on to explain how the first lady and his daughters also had positive influences on his views of the issue, stating that, “You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples…it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently.”
Ultimately, though, he played it safe by also saying that, at this time, he thinks the debate should be left up to individual states to decide. In that context, he reaffirmed his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law which prohibits federal recognition of the same-sex marriages that six states and Washington, D.C., currently allow. Thirty states, including Oregon, have constitutional amendments explicitly banning same-sex marriage.
Although a select few allow for “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions,” even at the state level these do not typically afford all the same rights and benefits of marriage. As both history and those examples show, “separate but equal” is never actually equal.
The president’s announcement came three days after Vice President Joe Biden said on Meet the Press that he was “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriages and two days after Secretary of Education Arne Duncan shared that sentiment. In a subsequent interview, Obama clarified that he had already planned to come out in support of marriage equality some time before the Democratic National Convention in September; however, the media attention given to the remarks made by members of his administration sped up his timetable.
In stark contrast, shortly after news broke about the president’s ABC interview, Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican candidate for the 2012 election, went on record stating, “I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name.” A few days later, in a commencement speech given at Liberty University (a religious college with a “museum” dedicated to the belief that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago), Romney suggested that as president, he would support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. And, thus, the battle lines have been drawn.
To anyone with an ethical sense of fairness or a modicum of legal knowledge, this situation should be a no-brainer: the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” as well as that no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” More than 1,000 benefits, privileges and rights are currently conferred on heterosexual couples through federally recognized marriages. DOMA and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage directly deprive same-sex couples of those rights and privileges.
In fact, the most promising path to settling the matter is largely considered to be a Supreme Court hearing on precisely that issue. There are a few cases currently working their ways through the system toward that direction, but when or if the Supreme Court would even agree to hear them is entirely unclear.
Opposition to marriage equality is uniformly swathed in religious beliefs. This is deeply problematic, and that opposition should not be considered valid for two reasons: Our country is supposed to operate under a notion of the separation of church and state, and marriage in the U.S. is primarily a government-sanctioned legal contract which affords certain benefits—not a religious institution. A couple does not go to a church to get a marriage license; they go to their county clerk’s office. If marriage really were inherently a religious matter, atheists, agnostics and many non-Christians wouldn’t get married. (Hint: they do.)
Religion really has nothing to do with marriage insofar as it is a legal contract issued by the government. So, frankly, claiming that someone else’s marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a doughnut because you’re on a diet.
There are potential political dangers and advantages to the president’s announcement. Despite the fact that government-issued marriage contracts should have nothing to do with religion, some have speculated that it may weaken his re-election campaign by simultaneously alienating his religious black supporters and energizing other religious conservatives to vote against him.
The flip-side to that argument is that it will also probably solidify support for him among his most critical voting bloc—young people. The president himself said in his ABC interview that this was mainly a “generational issue,” with most young voters (even young Republicans) firmly supporting marriage equality.
It will be interesting to see to what degree the debate will affect the upcoming presidential election. How will it play out? For now, it’s really anyone’s guess. I think one thing is certain, though: There will never be another Democratic presidential candidate who is not in favor of marriage equality. And that’s what we call progress.
