It's pretty clear that this was a rushed piece of political positioning (I've read some reports that this was planned as the big convention lead-in but Biden spilled the beans) and I've been pondering the thinking that went into this.
My guess is that this is a money plus college student beats lost black vote (if any) equation that they believe works for them.
It will be interesting to watch.
-XC
FDR violating the law to start Lend Lease and re-arm the country before WWII, pressing the draft at the end. There are a lot of things like that - I'd probably put LBJ's very very reluctant support for civil rights in there, frankly. Presidents don't get to be president without being good politicians. Having said that, there are lots of not-back-up-against-the-wall examples of positions they take as bedrock. I think perhaps Obama care was one for Barack. -XC
Sometimes, both the tactical and the moral can coincide and thankfully, they did here.
I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality: http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution. But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction. What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens. Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently. So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them. If you agree, you can stand up with me here. Thank you, Barack That last line about the states made me sad. I'd be fine if he didn't think his belief was going to become Federal law, but I would have preferred he not include that itself as part of his belief. I was very happy to hear the statement, but not as impressed as I could have been. But with this development, I also learned that Romney doesn't just oppose gay marriage, he opposes civil unions too. What a shitty position that is to take! Bush supported civil unions, and Cheney is even down with gay marriage now. Someone should ask Mitt if he'll reinstate don't ask don't tell.Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:
- He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so.
this is where i stopped reading. just stfu. him coming out and saying anything for gay marriage is a win. why are you bitching? why are you over analyzing. jesus.
First of all, where would this right spring from? Is it just something people should be able to do? Is it a "human right," whatever that means? A constitutional right? If it's a constitutional right, does it spring from substantive due process or equal protection? Does it apply to the federal government through the 5th amendment or only state governments through the 14th amendment? Assuming that it's a constitutional equal protection right, why the hell is the president telling the Supreme Court how to do their job? Your example with black and white children attending the same schools is a totally different situation: there, the Supreme Court had ALREADY decided black and white children had a right to attend the same schools. The executive branch was dragging its feet in executing EXISTING LAW. I may be incorrect here, but I know of very little historical precedent for the president making a public statement about how laws should be interpreted. That's simply not his job. If Obama truly believes that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, what action should he take? As President, he needs to enforce the laws. So he needs to go after 42 states for violating the federal constitution, even though the Supreme Court does not believe these states are in violation of the constitution? FInally, Obama saying that gay couples "have a right" to marry is patently false. Under current civil rights jurisprudence, they don't. This would be like JFK saying that women "have a right" to an abortion in the 60s. It's simply not true. I guess if you wanted to get really nitpicky, you could ask that Obama say something further, like "I believe that gay couples should be able to marry. I encourage the Supreme Court to accept certiorari in Perry v. Brown and not only affirm the 9th Circuit's decision but find that equal protection extends to same-sex marriage." That gets you maybe halfway to a President straight up saying gay couples "have the right" to marriage. And can't you see how overreaching this statement is compared to an expression of his personal beliefs? Anyway, I hope this rant was somewhat coherent. To the general public, there is little difference between "should be able to" and "have a right to." To the legal and political community, there is a major difference between a president expressing his personal views on a political issue and a president expressing a patently incorrect interpretation of the law.
- FInally, Obama saying that gay couples "have a right" to marry is patently false. Under current civil rights jurisprudence, they don't. This would be like JFK saying that women "have a right" to an abortion in the 60s.
This is a poor analogy. Abortion was legalized under due process concerns, while schools were desegregated under the equal protection clause. The current issue is definitely one of equal protection, so desegregation is a better analogy. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because people are not granted rights by the Court (you know, that whole "inalienable" thing). People are inherently free and the Court gets to sometimes decide what, exactly, this means under the law. That doesn't mean that politicians (or you or I, all of whom enjoy free speech) can't advocate for what they view as a human right. He has as much right as you or I to say if he does or does not view this issue as one of civil or human rights. I didn't make a reference to schools, btw. I said Jim Crow, which is far more encompassing, and the Court didn't decide on. Jim Crow was ended by an act of legislation, independent of the courts, that LBJ lobbied for relentlessly. I don't know where you're possibly getting the idea that only courts can be the arbiters of what is and isn't a right. The Federal government could pass a law tomorrow making any type of marriage legal, which would automatically make all the state laws barring it null and void. The courts could then decide on the Constitutional legality, if it were challenged. What else is there to executing the laws of the land? Its a constant interpretation. The executive branch has to set up non-specified regulations, decide which illegals to arrest, decide how forcefully it will pursue the war on drugs, etc, etc, etc. They make interpretations every day. (Remember the Bush memos about torture? The whole Bush Doctrine, for that matter?) The Court doesn't do this. The Court only rules on what is legally challenged, and they have no standing to arbitrarily say "this law is unconstitutional" without some party bringing suit.I know of very little historical precedent for the president making a public statement about how laws should be interpreted.
PBO is President Barack Obama is Peebo. Like Peabo Bryson - Can you stop the rain? He was good. Anyway, I think Romney will NOT hail Mary like McCain did - that man had the political instincts of a stump and the open running ability of Czonka. I'm really crossing my fingers for Bobby Jindall, but I think that's a long shot. I'm looking to see either another Gov with better conservative credentials. I'd have said Mitch Daniels but I think Indiana is solid red for 2012. It certainly wont be Christie as he's farther left than Romney. Rubio's taken himself out by going to the Senate - but he's planning a run in 16 or 20, so that makes sense. A lot of people think he'll pick Portman to take Ohio, but he violates the "day one test". (As does Bobby.) It'll be interesting. -XC