Obama Becomes First President of the United States To Support Marriage Equality

Barack Obama’s view has finally evolved to the right position: “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.”

This is important for reasons beyond this particular issue. Considering the importance of marriage status in so many areas of our lives, this is a fundamental issue of individual rights and liberty. With the Republicans pushing a social agenda of increased government intrusion in the private lives of individuals. I would like to see the Democrats be more consistent in taking a pro-liberty stance. (Now if Obama would stop those marijuana raids as he promised.)

Prior to this interview, I had been wondering if Biden’s statement that he backed gay marriage was a planned trial balloon as opposed to Biden running off at the mouth?

With the importance of this news, I reversed usual procedure and posted on social networks (where much of the blog discussion has moved) first while writing the full post. The discussion on Facebook shows enthusiasm for this decision, along with a warning that this might energize the base on the right. There is a danger that this might get some evangelists to vote who might have stayed home. However, it works both ways. This might also help increase turnout among the young, showing another clear distinction between the parties. Democrats are not going to win long term by shying away from principle. It is harder to accept a disagreement on basic principles as opposed to accepting compromises on other types of policy issues. For example, many who would have preferred a single payer system still appreciate Obama’s tremendous accomplishment with health care reform and recognize that a single payer  plan is not politically feasible in this country at this time. It is harder to justify taking the wrong position on a matter of individual rights of this nature.

In contrast, Republicans were victorious in passing an amendment to block same sex marriage in North Carolina last night. Just a reminder to Republicans: You are not a supporter of small government if you want to tell people who they may or may not marry. You are not a supporter of small government if you want the government to tell women whether they can use contraception or have an abortion. You are not a supporter of small government if you supported the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act.


  1. 1
    David Chess says:

    Yeah, I think the Biden statement must have been a trial balloon; he’s not *really* a buffoon.

    And isn’t it the case that same-sex marriage was already outlawed in North Carolina, and that this new thing even outlawed civil unions? Sounds like many / most people didn’t actually know what they were voting for (as usual)…

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    I think that most saw it as a vote about being for or against gay marriage, and whether it was already illegal didn’t matter. I bet that most voting against it were also happy it outlawed civil unions. Some might have also seen an advantage in having a Constitutional amendment. You never know when a bunch of liberals will take over the state government and push through legalization without it being in the Constitution.

  3. 3
    John Sonntag says:

    RT @ronchusid: Obama Becomes First President of the United States To Support Marriage Equality #p2 #p21 #topprog http://t.co/BUzbVYP1

  4. 4
    Cody Scoles says:

    I agree that Republicans are not supporting small government by imposing marriage licensure and regulations on the public. Marriage should be an institution governed by the church. And if a church allows homosexuals to marry, then that seems like a religious freedom issue to me.

    Personally, of course, I would not attend a church that allows gay marriage.  

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    So you are a bigot. Your bigotry should not be imposed upon others.

  6. 6
    Cody Scoles says:

    I’m sorry, was I making an ad-hominem attack against you, Ron Chusid? No, I wasn’t, since this is an irrational argument that lends itself to demagoguery instead of civility.

    I do not hate gay people. I simply do not think that a church should be forced to embrace an idea of sexual union that is nontraditional. Nor do I think that a state should force others to embrace a religious or even secular idea of marriage. Who are representatives of my government to tell me who is married and who is not?

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:

    Nobody is saying a church should be forced to embrace any idea. Legalization of gay marriage would not force any church to perform gay marriages. The point is that gay individuals should have the same rights that you and I do to get married to the person of their choice. The government should not be restricting this, but the Republicans have widely been using government to limit the rights of others. It is a basic matter of individual liberty which the Republicans are using government to restrict.

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    As for your display of bigotry, you did say, “Personally, of course, I would not attend a church that allows gay marriage.” That is a clear expression of bigotry. Of course you do have the right to choose which church to attend, but you should not have the right to say what other churches or civil bodies should be able to do. I also would avoid any organization which promotes discrimination against a group such as this.

  9. 9
    Cody Scoles says:

    I said “personally, of course,” because I am a traditional Christian. Given your response to my statement, I figure this was pretty obvious to you.  I am also a capitalist, a philosophy which eshews all forms of irrationality, including bigotry against homosexuals.

    And I did not say that I want to go to a church that keeps gays out. In fact,  I want to go to (and in reality do attend) a church whose conception of marriage is between one man and one woman. If a gay decided he wanted to share such a doctrine, why would anyone stop him?

    Republicans force morality on the public. So do Democrats. Paying for contraception is just one example. 

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:

    Capitalism is an economic philosophy which says nothing as to whether its adherents are irrational. I’m a capitalist and my views are certainly quite different from yours.

    Your comment on gay marriage is rather irrational. Acceptance of gays includes acceptance of their right to marry. If you are saying you will accept gays only if they accept your view that they should not be allowed to marry you are expressing bigotry.

    Republicans force their morality on others. Democrats who protect the rights of individuals do not. This includes the right to use contraception. Payment is a totally different matter. Part of a democracy is that pretty much everyone winds up paying thru taxes for things they do not want, but this is a totally different matter than Republicans directly using government to enforce their religious views.

  11. 11
    Cody Scoles says:

    I think you and I have two very different conceptions of individual rights. An individual does not have a “right” to take achievements from another in order to fund contraceptives. Nor do other individuals have the obligation to pay for the well-being of another’s child. It is entirely moral to allow another man’s child to starve to death, regardless of how cold that decision might seem. That being said, I doubt common human morality would allow this, except in extreme cases of cuckholding. Does this make me a bad person? No. On an individual level, I am a very generous.

    I, too, believe that gays should be allowed to marry. But I do not think it should require legislation. In fact, I would prefer our existing statutes on marriage be abolished. Why does such a thing need to exist for the free assocation of two people under God? Or without God, depending on what marriage means to you. It is just an excuse for more lawyers and more legal confusion.

    Basically, you are arguing for a “looter” politic that has nothing to do with individual rights. And you are relying on the envy of the many for the production of the few in order to gain support.

    If people cannot afford contraception, that is their own problem. If they cannot afford kids, then that, too, is an individual concern. There is no right to take from another in order to make either of these two things happen. A better solution would be not to engage in sexual activities, which by the way, are also not an individual right.

  12. 12
    Ron Chusid says:

    You continue to confuse matters of rights and matters of fiscal policy

    The issue over rights is that conservatives are trying to prevent women from purchasing contraception. Similarly conservatives are pushing legislation which prevents gay marriage. These are clear cases of Republicans using government to restrict the rights of individuals. Marriage has many legal ramifications and government cannot be taken out of it.

    The question of government coverage is a totally separate issue. In the vast majority of cases, contraception is not paid by government. In some cases, when a woman has health coverage thru a government program, then government might be paying. In many of these cases, contraceptives are used for health reasons other than to prevent pregnancy. In terms of fiscal conservatism, it is more cost effective to pay for contraception than to have poor women have unwanted children. Government health care plans cover a wide range of things. It is also a case of conservatives wanting to impose their views when they single out contraception as the one thing not to cover.

    The line about a “looter” politic is a totally nonsensical right wing talking point. Conservatives are responsible for more increases in government spending for their programs than liberals in recent years, and conservative areas receive a disproportionate amount of tax money. While it is ridiculous to describe legitimate government expenses as looting, if anyone is a looter it is the conservatives.

  13. 13
    Cody Scoles says:

    You know, I just came back and reviewed this argument. I think you are making some good points about restrictions on individual rights. The problem we were having was a difference of presumptions. For me, there was a different underlying reality. This was causing difficulties in lingual communication.

    I no longer care about issues like these. It was just a fad for me. For me to learn a large enough amount of information to respond intelligently to this argument requires more time than I am going to invest. Maybe later, though. And I appreciate the blog. It’s always good to see a range of opinions.

1 Trackbacks

Leave a comment