President-Elect Obama's Switcheroo on Gay Marriage

During one of the presidential debates, Barack Obama indicated his opposition to gay marriage.  He has repeatedly said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

Even though gay interest groups are a key part of the Democratic coalition, Obama received passionate support from pro-gay agenda Democrats around the country in spite of these statements.  How could this be?  Because they knew he was not serious.  They knew he was obfuscating.

And the evidence is clear.  Obama had the opportunity to endorse California Proposition 8, which passed this week.  Instead, he opposed it:

"...I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.

His position is reminiscent of Kay Hagan, who opposed an amendment to the North Carolina state constitution on this matter.  Recall that she exploited her membership in a liberal church last week to disguise her secularism and her appeal to rabid church/state separationists.

Even in a state like California, the voters rejected gay marriage-- despite Obama's stand against Proposition 8.

In any event, our President-Elect will get by with his obfuscations, because he can count on the fact that the media will cover for him, and that the American people will have a short memory.

Addendum: Obama was flaunting his intellectual dishonesty on this issue on MTV on Monday-- the eve of the election.

Comments

[bubba]

"In any event, our President-Elect will get by with his obfuscations, because he can count on the fact that the media will cover for him, and that the American people will have a short memory."

Always and forever.....

The re-write of recent history will be simply astounding.

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, it may be rewritten and subjected to revisionism. But it also may be simply forgotten, or the media will simply refrain from bringing up this type of thing. Remember-- errors of omission, and errors of commission.

[bubba]

"Remember-- errors of omission, and errors of commission."

Both will play a major role in shaping the news that will be made available to the public from the administration and their Tank Team Media allies.

That's why our continued involvement is essential, at least until we're "Fairness Doctrined" and non "Net Neutralitied" out of existence.

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, it was astonishing to me that Obama would have taken this position on national cable television, on the eve of the election, in a direction that was precisely opposed to the impression he tried to create during the debates.

A person with any amount of discernment and skepticism would understand what he is doing. And yet, except for 'net surfers with an interest in these matters, the American people will not hear it, and will not understand it.

[Joe Wilson]

Joe , the eve of the election was two weeks prior to that comment. The election ended last Saturday at 5 p.m., Tuesday was just a theatrical presentation. look at the numbers and you'll see it was over long before the polls opened on Tuesday.

He was free to say anything he wanted,he was the new president by then. That explains why he was playing basketball hours before the polls closed.

[Roch101]

Something new we will see from President Obama that conservatives and liberals alike will have to get used to is the incredibly sane and much needed pragmatic approach to governing where one can say, "I believe" this or that but also acknowledge that we may no subject others to our beliefs if it denies them equal rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

[Joe Guarino]

Joe, you are probably right. In fact, one can argue it was all over around the end of September when the financial crisis hit.

Roch, that may be a reasonable approximation of Obama's belief's. The problem is that it is tantamount to supporting gay marriage, when he specifically went out of his way during the debates to create the opposite impression.

That was, plainly speaking, a huge lie. He deliberately misrepresented his position when the most people would be watching so he could get elected.

But make no mistake about it. If he wants the judiciary to be able to create a right to gay marriage, then he supports gay marriage, notwithstanding his protestations.

Just like Kay Hagan.

[Roch101]

Maybe I'm unaware, Joe. Are you saying Obama said he would support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

[Joe Guarino]

No, he did not, Roch. Instead, he deliberately created an erroneous impression in the minds of voters.

He made it appear he opposes gay marriage, when in fact, as a former professor of constitutional law, he knows very well that the judiciary can create the right to gay marriage, and in fact is already doing so in some states. And he has previously expressed support for the dubious premise that the 14th amendment creates a right to gay marriage.

So he was extremely dishonest and disingenuous when he deliberately misrepresented his true position in the debate setting, when he knew tens of millions of voters would be watching. He knew he would never lift a finger to prevent gay marriage from becoming the law of the land, and that he would, in fact, facilitate it.

[Roch101]

Think what you will. It was pretty clear. The man has a personal belief that he thinks is contrary to the Constitution. It's refreshing to see someone understand where to draw the line.

[Stormy]

Well, technically, President Obama really would have no power over abridging anyone's rights under the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This amendment prohibits states from making such laws. It does not speak to the President or federal law. And, if a state does make such a law, the aggrieved individual would have to pursue a remedy through the judiciary. Pragmatic approach or not, President Obama has no standing in this.

[Everest]

Joe - Obama is all over the place on this issue, and contrary to what Roch tried to imply, this has nothing to do with "principles" and everything to do with political expediency and obfuscation...

While Obama claims to be against gay marriage (saying his Christian beliefs lead him to believe marriage is between a man and a woman), he was a vocal opponent against the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (h/t: Chicago Tribune.) You may recall that this defined marriage as between and man and woman, and passed in the Senate 86-14 and was signed into law by President Clinton.

At the time and since then, he said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized....I guess, except for the California amendment. What Roch fails to mention is that the only reason the VOTERS of California had to amend the state constitution was that the California Supreme Court had overturned the California Defense of Marriage Act this past May...thus, forcing the state to amend the Constitution. So Obama supports California's right to enact legislation restricting marriage, but doesn't support their right to amend their own state Constitution when that legislation is overturned by activist judges...? Is that the "sane and pragmatic" approach you're fond of Roch...? And that's the kind of "principled" leadership we can expect from Obama, Roch...? Wow, now that's impressive...

[Joe Guarino]

Everest, that was precisely the point I was going to make next. It was an activist judiciary that wrote the gay marriage law in California; and Obama was arguing AGAINST invalidating their work through the only remedy California citizens had available to them. That makes his debating statements seem even more outrageously deceptive.

We are apparently supposed to believe he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, unless judges who share his worldview think otherwise. Somehow that did not get communicated widely to the American people this election season.

Roch, I strongly doubt his personal belief is against gay marriage, regardless of what he may say. His words, just as in the case of Clinton, sometimes have to be disregarded. Watch what he would do, not what he says.

[Roch101]

"While Obama claims to be against gay marriage (saying his Christian beliefs lead him to believe marriage is between a man and a woman), he was a vocal opponent against the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (h/t: Chicago Tribune.)" -- Everest

I know this is tough and that it is going to take some time for you guys to wrap your minds around this, but I'm happy to say it again. What we have is a president elect who understands that just because he has a personal belied does not mean that he is willing to circumvent fundamental principles of equality to impose them on others. You'll get.

[Joe Guarino]

I understand that is his belief, Roch. He should have disclosed that during the debates, instead of concealing it. He should have been honest with the American people. But he did not, and was not, respectively.

And by the way, the media should have reality-checked his representations on this issue very prominently.

[Roch101]

"I understand that is his belief, Roch. He should have disclosed that during the debates, instead of concealing it." -- Joe

He did:

"He has repeatedly said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman." -- Joe

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, I can't keep on going around and around on this. You are unwilling to admit what is painfully obvious. I invite you to find and review the debate transcripts to find what he did not say. I am stopping here.

[Everest]

For someone who likes to take everything so literally Roch, you sure are all of a sudden ommitting important planks/views of our President-elect....

I commented above that "At the time and since then, he said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized....I guess, except for the California amendment. "

Now, what part of the "letting individual states determine..." did you miss? If I need to send you the link to the Chicago Tribune's discussion of this, I'm happy to oblige....

Whether you and Joe/I/ everyone else rational agree that Obama has played this particular issue on both sides is immaterial. What is important is that during the campaign Obama argued that while he supports civil unions, he ALSO supports states' rights in defining marriage between a man and a woman (which as you outline, he agrees with.) My issue is that while during the campaign he supported a state's right to limit marriage, he now comes out against Prop 8, which does just that...

What part of that is incorrect Roch...?

And STILL waiting for those economic policies of Obama's...you know, hopefully part of the reason you supported him? I hope it's more than trashing an 87-year old widow, like we saw yesterday....

[Stormy]

Everest,

Obviously, you do not understand. When libs such as Obama and Roch say that they will let individual states make a determination, what that mean is the individual states' JUDICIARY, not the people. You must remember that libs rely upon activist courts to make law. They can't trust the rabble to make important decisions such as that. We all know that the religious rabble is just ignorant and biased. It takes the educated and impartial judicial elite to shed light into the darkness. So, when the appeal is made to the state supreme court and they overturn the citizens' will, then Obama and Roch will say that is evidence of the will of the people.

[Joe Guarino]

Stormy, it appears that you have seen this type of happen before.:)

[Roch101]

Everest, has Obama said that he thinks California does not have a right to decide their marriage laws?

Look guys, it's not that hard, but it's new and different and it is going to take a wee bit of effort to understand.

What we have is a president elect who can hold personal beliefs that he recognizes should not infringe on legal rights. Thus:

- Obama believes (personal belief) that marriage is between a man and a woman but does not think laws should try to impose that (respect for the Constitution).

- Obama thinks states have a right to make their own definitions of marriage (respect for the Constitution) but believes (personal belief) that what California just did is wrong.

I might have a moral objection to alcohol, but I might also recognize that adults have a right in America to decide for themselves.

I might have a moral objection to shooting people, but I might also recognize that adults have a right in America to bear arms.

I might have a moral objection to sex before marriage, but I might also recognize that people have a right to decide for themselves.

And on and on. I've explained it. If you keep on insisting that Obama should want the law on this issue to reflect his personal beliefs, you are intentionally missing the point.

[Stormy]

Oh, thank you for shining light into the darkness for us Master Roch. We understand much better now.

[Brenda Bowers]

People, Roch was struck deaf, dumb and blind by the Obama Mystique, and will remain so until the evidence of Obama's duplicity is so overwhelming that even those such as Roch can no longer bear it.

If you will recall Roch and his friends were behind and defending Dear Mitch vehemently until the games at City Hall became so glaring that Greensboro is now known nationally as a farce. Only then did he and a few others back off. They never admitted they were wrong, but they did lay off. Some people just simply can not read the handwriting on the wall unless they write it.

Now it will be the same bull headed and silly arguments defending our 44th President, his militant staff and Cabinet and the Democrats in Congress. I, like you Everett, am amazed that this person who is so exacting with the details and the literal meaning of every dot, dash and comma can himself be so lacking in understanding. Unlike so many of his cohorts Roch is no fool, merely foolish at times. However, we can take heart in the fact that we won't have to endure this nonsense long because Obama and Congress are gearing up to take the country by storm with their communistic/socialistic reforms before anything much can be done about it.

Refer you to: Obama's Real Opponent.
President's Come and President's go; Congressional barons are forever
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593259568103473.html?mod=djemEditorialPage good sketch of some of these Congressional Maverick Barons.
I blogged on this article: November 6th Congressmen who Rule. I have for some years now watched certain congressmen who hate the United States and our Constitution and have been working quietly for years towards the end of our democracy. While most people are concerned with the thieves in Congress, it is by far more dangerous to underestimate these people. Many of these people are now in positions of power and surrounding themselves with flunkies, and fools to be manipulated. BB

[Roch101]

"If you will recall Roch and his friends were behind and defending Dear Mitch vehemently until the games at City Hall became so glaring that Greensboro is now known nationally as a farce. Only then did he and a few others back off. They never admitted they were wrong, but they did lay off. Some people just simply can not read the handwriting on the wall unless they write it."

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Do you?

[Everest]

Roch -so I suppose that it depends on what the definition of the word "believe" is...? Haven't we already been through that lesson before...? And since when did ANY liberal not advocate pushing their own personal beliefs/agenda on the public at large...? So, by that measure, then Obama believes that while people should be able to vote for him by secret ballot, they should also be able to vote for/against unionization by secret ballot? And even though he is against any restrictions on abortion, he should respect and support states' abilities to limit abortion as they see fit? And that judges should rule on the law as it is written...not base it on their own personal beliefs/interpretations..? Wow, that's not something I've seen from him so far, but am excited it's coming...!

It's remarkable that you continue to advocate that he is a different type of politician...surely you're not naive enough to genuinely beleive that. He may be a BETTER politician than we've seen in a while, but different..not a chance....