Same-Sex Marriage: Obama’s Lincoln Moment
by Daphne Muller, Writer
May 9, 2009
On Wednesday night, Governor John Baldacci of Maine signed legislation that he struggled to support. While governors are often pressed by their legislatures and constituents to support laws that they do not necessarily agree with, this bill—one that legalizes same-sex marriages—was a personal dilemma for the first-term governor. After weeks of agonizing over the decision, the Governor released a statement to the press that outlined the reasoning behind his eventual approval:
In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.
The first governor to sign a same-sex marriage bill, Baldacci touches on the heart of the same-sex marriage debate: The arguments for or against same-sex unions based on morality, religion, tradition, or any other logic is irrelevant. What matters is the law. And the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that he refers to clearly states “[no] State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Which means that, like it or not, from Baldacci’s perspective, gays and lesbians should be entitled to the right to marry if straight people are allowed to marry.
Over the course of the past several months, four states have legalized same-sex marriage in their states: Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire (Massachusetts legalized gay marriage back in 2004). Recently, both New York and Washington D.C. have decided to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. And now there is talk that New Jersey may become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage in the coming months.
Throughout this civil rights upheaval, President Obama and his administration have remained conspicuously mum. According to the New York Times, Obama has said that as a Christian he opposes gay marriage but remains a “fierce advocate of equality” for gay men and lesbians. And so far, he has remained true to that statement by pledging to sign a U.N. declaration, which Bush refused to sign before he left office, that calls for a worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality (the United States was the only western nation not to support the measure). Moreover, Obama has continually recognized qualified persons with same-sex sexual orientations for top level jobs: In his short time in office, he has appointed numerous openly gay officials for executive administrative positions and may be considering two prominent lesbian lawyers to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court.
Although the saying goes that “actions speak louder than words,” his silence is an action that may indicate his political discomfort with gay rights advocacy. During the election, he reiterated that same-sex marriage is an issue that should be decided by the states. And, to a certain extent, he’s constitutionally correct: There is currently no federal marriage license that any straight couple can apply for but, then again, opposite-sex couples who marry in their home state trust that their marriage will be honored no matter which state they travel to or live in. And while there is no federal law regulating straight marriages, the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress regulates same-sex unions. The Act explicitly outlines that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions performed in other states. That is a gross discrepancy.
While Obama has said that he supports a repeal of that legislation and of the military’s “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy, he has remained virtually silent on the gay marriage issue since he took office and has chosen to not comment on the landslide of same-sex marriage laws in recent months. Although this issue may not seem like a priority for the administration when they have an economic crisis and two wars to contend with, it should be a priority for the president since Obama has repeatedly stated that he wants America to rebuild and renew its reputation in the world. In a 2007 article he wrote for Foreign Affairs, he stated:
At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world — that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders. […] They used our strengths to show people everywhere America at its best.
Yet, how can those freedoms be realized if America does not follow its own laws and ensure that all of its own citizens receive the same “protection” under the law? If President Obama is going to continue to reiterate that marriage laws should be left to the states, then he should actively pursue a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act since it is a federal measure. So too, if he wants America to “lead by deed and example” then he must show support for states that have passed inclusive marriage legislation and encourage others to do the same. It sets a very bad “example” to have some areas of the country have more “freedoms” for its citizens than others.
Or, Obama could take a cue from his favorite president, Abraham Lincoln. When Lincoln took office in 1861, he viewed slavery as a states’ issue and expressly stated that he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.” However, two years later, he delivered his Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves because it was “an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution.” Certainly, it is thorny comparison between slavery and gay rights and America is not in a civil war where gay marriage is, like slavery was, the catalyst for domestic combat; nevertheless the United States is at a civil rights crossroads that needs to be addressed by the President. Had Lincoln chosen to never take that stand on slavery, decided to put it off until later, or thought he could leave the responsibility on to the next administration, Obama may have never even had a chance to be our president. Obama should take a page from the book of his presidential idol and realize that, regardless of the political risk, he is obligated as America’s national leader to stand up for the rights of all Americans.
Obama has continually said that he wants his presidency to speak to and for all Americans. In his famous Democratic nomination acceptance speech, Obama evoked Martin Luther King and reiterated that “now is the time” for the United States to rebuild and renew:
[I]n America, our destiny is inextricably linked, that together our dreams can be one. “We cannot walk alone,” the preacher cried. “And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.”
Indeed, we cannot turn back and now is certainly the time.
It’s suicide for Obama to come out and say he’s good with it. He’d never get his second term. By staying mum, he’s effectively silently congratulating the movement for being successful, rather than silently opposing it. Look at what he’s done for the protection of the LGBT community so far! Feel free to be angry, but be careful what you wish for and remember he’s better off IN the White House than NOT.
I would be offended as an African American to have a person write an article comparing gay rights with the enslavement of an entire people. When has a gay man or woman EVER been taken from their home, sold to another, been treated as property, whipped and even killed? There is debate whether Martin Luther King would have supported gay marriage and as such whether he would be insulted that people were using his cause to further a choice rather than something you are born as. I am not opposed to civil unions. What I am opposed to is this “civil rights” play that the LGBT spin has put on their cause. The gay marriage cause is not one that even compares to slavery
JDawg,
You make a good point. I’ll let the author respond to your point, but my only opinion would be that the civil rights movement might be a better comparison (or the women’s rights movement in the early 20th century for that matter). I doubt the author meant the slavery comparison literally, but I’ll let her speak for herself.
I must say that your point about “choice” is widely disputed my most scientists who study this matter. Also, many gay people have been lynched (granted no where near as many as AA’s, as it’s much easier to hide a sexual preference than skin color of course!) Your larger point is well taken, but I must address those two details in particular as suspect.
Thanks for the comment.
jdawg,
While I understand your anger at the idea that I compared gay rights to slavery, if you’ll read closely, I say that it is a “thorny” comparison where of course, slavery subjected a whole race of people to bondage and gays are certainly not in that position. I am not equating the two. The point of the comparison between Obama and Lincoln serves two fold: One, Lincoln is Obama’s favorite president so it makes sense to evoke him and the slavery battle that embroiled his presidency so that Obama could look to that civil rights issue for inspiration in addressing gay rights issues; and two, although gays were certainly never enslaved in this country, they have faced similar violence and discrimination that African-Americans have endured over the years. The Matthew Shepard Act that was just passed by Congress moved to extend hate-crime laws to include people who are transgendered, homosexual, disabled, and who have alternative gender identities. This act was a long time in the making and many in Congress still oppose it because they don’t think gays should be allowed any special protections even though, according the FBI, the majority of lynchings, killings, vandalism, and cross burning hate crimes in this country are now directed towards gays–not any particular race.
The same-sex marriage issue is certainly not slavery. But legalizing gay marriage is a step in the right direction towards tolerance and understanding. And, when it comes to health care, finances, jobs, education, you name it, gays are usually treated like second class citizens by their governments and their communities. All I’m asking Obama to do is to consider that, as an American who has realized so much in his short career, he not forget to be inclusive of all Americans. Because that attitude benefits us all, regardless of our sexual orientation or race.
JDawg – Make sure to re-read the paragraph stating “Certainly, it is thorny comparison between slavery and gay rights and America is not in a civil war where gay marriage is, like slavery was, the catalyst for domestic combat; nevertheless the United States is at a civil rights crossroads that needs to be addressed by the President.”
This article is not comparing homosexuals’ inability to “marry” to Africans being enslaved; it is comparing Obama’s response thus far with Lincoln’s response. If anything, Lincoln had a MUCH MORE DIFFICULT time taking a stand to protect the human rights of Africans and African Americans than Obama does in supporting more rights (or equal rights) for homosexuals.
Also, your tepid point about Martin Luther King falls flat. None of us could possibly know what he would think about “gay marriage” in today’s America, and to a large extent his current influence as a thinker and civil rights advocate is far more important than his literal, actual views.
Just as great scientists pave the way for future great discoveries (some of which even prove the original theories wrong), great civil rights leaders are a product of their time and place, and should serve as general inspiration more than as messianic figures whose opinions are valued as fact.
I understand your anger about slavery, but trying to play the “my struggle is worse than yours” card gets us nowhere as a human race.
Also, be careful about throwing around statements like, “When has a gay man or woman EVER been taken from their home, sold to another, been treated as property, whipped and even killed?”
Have you ever heard of the Holocaust?
Respectfully,
Eric
@nailz1000: I’m so sick and tired of the “pragmatism” argument. This is not directed at you personally, but rather at all the people who have watched as Obama has compromised his beliefs for this reason or that reason. Just today he reversed his position on the release of prisoner abuse photographs. How does the pragmatist explain this? Obama is falling into the trap of political expediency, which is the true bipartisanship that exists in Washington. “Well, it’s better for him to compromise on a few things so that he can remain in office.” Remain in office to do what? Compromise some more?
To all appearances, Obama is not a particularly religious individual. He never attended church services in Chicago before he ran for the Illinois Senate. He understood that no African-American can get elected for anything in Chicago without the endorsement of at least one of the city’s powerful black preachers. Kevin, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that that sort of support is necessary. And he knew that. So he joined Rev. Wright’s church. But (1) the fact that he hasn’t attended church since becoming president and (2) he did not make a public charade of his religion on the National Day of Prayer tells me that he’s paying lip service to religion. Another compromise.
But seriously, he needs to stick to his guns. “Domestic partnership” or “civil unions” are just weasel positions that are designed to appease both the Right and the Left. It’s not marriage. That’s what gay rights proponents want: they want the word. And they want the word because having the word means that their relationship is validated by society at large.
Anyway, back to Barack Obama. He had better embrace one side or the other, lest he risk alienating everyone.
Great comments throughout!
Mark, I agree with your assessment that Obama has been an opportunist on quite a few matters, but I don’t see this as any different than any politician (maybe that’s the problem since many people believed him to be). Honestly, I think Obama cares deeply about a few concrete issues at any given time and everything else is tangential. Right now it’s the economy, health care, his supreme court nominations, and the environment (in that order). He will be very cautious on everything else. If he doesn’t get something done on the first two, nothing else matters–he won’t be reelected. I think you’ll see a shift of priorities after health care reform happens this year (looks likely at this point). The environment will probably become the top priority, although the fight on cap and trade may not happen until 2011.
Overall, he’s been largely silent on gay marriage lately. Aside from the point that I think marriage should be privatized anyway, I agree that this is concerning to those who want equal rights under the current (and inappropriate) way the law is set up in this matter. However, I would argue that having the opinion that “this is a state’s matter” (which I think is Obama’s subtle position) in the current environment is the equivalent to endorsing gay marriage in half of the US states in the next 10 years including his home state of Illinois (I wouldn’t be surprised if it was legal here in the next 4 years, probably after Obama’s reelection campaign). If Obama is elected to a second term, there will be new priorities, and who knows, gay marriage may be one of them (although probably not). The ironic thing is that by getting reelected, Obama may create the only opportunity to legalize gay marriage in ALL states (by 4+ supreme court appointments).
So overall, I don’t see this as only a matter of being incremental with one policy (gay marriage in this example), but rather being highly selective about which issues you’re going to spend limited political capital on. There are many issues that will take the back burner because of this, including gun control, gay marriage, etc. I think it’s a lot easier to argue against incrementalism on a specific issue than prioritization of issues within the context of a limited amount of political capital in any given political cycle. I guess it’s a matter of which frame one sees it through. (Where is a political system with a benevolent dictator when we need it?)
(Btw, that’s interesting that Obama hasn’t attended church since entering office–I didn’t know that, and I’m surprised by that. Not because I think he’s necessarily religious, but because he still has to run for reelection!)
Related to this article mentioning that a Lesbian was being considered for Obama’s Supreme Court nominee (I assume Daphne was referring to either Kathleen Sullivan or Pam Karlan), I just saw that one of the names leaked by Obama as being considered for Supreme Court nominee today (Carlos Moreno) was the author of the California Supreme Court’s decision to make gay marriage legal (before it was illegal again due to California’s arcane ballot system). While I doubt he’ll be selected this time around (it seems about 99% likely that a woman will be selected), he, Sullivan, or Karlan may have a good shot for a potential second or third opening. Also, if you don’t think Moreno is seriously being considered for this opening (fair assumption), this leak was done to send a subtle message: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_supreme_court
Also, apparently Elena Kagen, who does have a realistic shot, is apparently a big gay rights advocate:
http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/no-lesbian-on-supreme-court-shortlist-maybe-maybe-not.html
This article tries to make a strong statement that Obama should learn from taken a page from the book of his presidential idol (Lincoln) but even Lincoln only did what he did because what he believed in. Lincoln being a Christian, his conscience led him to do what he felt were right by God and that lead to him freeing slaves. So I agree. Obama should follow Lincoln’s example in history and do what is right by God as a Christian and not by people so Obama might have peace with his decision as well.
obama i think that the same sex marriage is wrong and not right. god made adam and eve not steve and tom. i think that it should not be passed from nancy god bless you