You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor.
Ford's political ambitions have caused him to take a variety of socially conservative positions that he is now racing to disavow. The most morally pernicious of these was his effort to position himself as the most anti-gay of the anti-gay politicians that infect the American political system. It's probable that Ford really didn't have a problem with gay marriage. But, as Coates writes:
In the 1950s and 1960s, Alabama had in its midst men who knew segregation was a reeking abomination, but embraced it because it allowed them to fix a road in their hometown, build a clinic in the underserved backwoods, or just hook a friend up for a job. Or maybe it was just power--who can tell?
From my perspective, motive is irrelevant. (There's usually a good reason to do evil. That's the nature of evil.) It takes a particular kind of cowardice to throw people's lives aside and bow to the mutually destructive curse of discrimination. I can believe Harold Ford was never actually against gay marriage, and was more concerned with good schools and good roads. But then when he said "constitutional amendment," they stomped the floor.
Amen.
22 comments:
Fair points. But can't we level a similar critique against Obama (and, for that matter, most current Democratic officeholders).
I don't really believe in this day and age that a very well-educated person with Obama's politics sees a principled reason that marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman. Granted he hasn't pushed for a constitutional amendment, but I think it's important to ask if this is a difference in kind or in degree. I believe there's a lot of culpability to go round in a "good men do nothing" sense.
I think implicit in getting people to "stomp the floor" is actively ginning up hostility -- a distinction in kind, not degree, between Ford and Obama.
joe, why are you still claiming that Obama is opposed to same-sex marriage as a matter of law, when we have been through this already? He not only hasn't pushed a constitutional amendment, he has said that he wants to repeal DOMA because he considers it a discriminatory law. (Including when his DOJ filed a brief defending DOMA's constitutionality.) He spoke against Prop. 8 in California. If he sticks to the federalist ideas that he argued in 2006 when fighting the Republicans on a Federal Marriage Amendment, he can't now say, "Hey, let's have the federal government mandate that all states recognize same-sex marriages."
As for a principled reason that marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman, to the extent Obama is a Bible-believing Christian, the Bible only ever presents marriage as being between a man and a woman. Because Obama understands that his religion should not dictate the content of law, he doesn't argue that what's in the Bible should be law. But it's not wholly irrational for someone who is a Christian to think that same-sex marriages should not be sanctioned by the church.
There's a pretty big gap between a guy who votes for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, who votes for a state referendum to ban same-sex marriage, and the guy who has been using his bully pulpit to deal with issues other than same-sex marriage.
Agreed, PG. Thanks for mentioning that Ford supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Yet another reason why I won't vote for the man if he runs in the Democratic primary here in NY. (Another reason is his support for Nikki Tinker in a local race - she ran an overtly anti-semitic campaign against a Jewish candidate).
PG,
That is ultimately a bunch of spin. I do not believe for one minute that Obama has a genuine religious objection to SSM. I believe he is telling politically expedient falsehood, as all politicians do. I can't read his mind, but if I'm to take him at his word that "I do not agree...that homosexuality is immoral," then his principled opposition looks pretty shaky in the context of his educational and political background.
And yes, when he gets into "between a man and a woman" and "not in favor of gay marriage," and says he supports civil unions (originally created in Vermont as an alternative to "marriage") that means he wants to convey the impression he is against gay marriage (albeit leaving some wiggle room for some people to point to, including himself when, in the tradition of Clinton and Gore, he voices strong support for SSM after leaving office). How convenient that his genuinely held beliefs here track plurality opinion in the US. It's just the right spot to avoid totally alienating gay voters or "soccer moms"? How fortuitous!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_social_policy#LGBT_issues
Just to be clear on what Obama is endorsing: As a practical matter civil unions are not as separate but really, really equal as a lot of Democrats would like the LGBT community to believe. And that's why they don't believe it.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-15/12622269086610.xml&coll=1
So David has a good point when he notes Obama is not actively trying to stir up homophobia, but what I think he shares with Ford is a refusal to stand up and say what he knows is right. And I have no illusions, that's politics, and maybe the only pragmatic place to draw the line is at "stomping the floor." But I will not abide rewriting history.
joe,
But I will not abide rewriting history.
Yet you are in favor of pre-writing the future: "when, in the tradition of Clinton and Gore, he voices strong support for SSM after leaving office."
The Wikipedia article you linked just reiterates what I already said, "believes that decisions about the title of marriage should be left to the states." Unless same-sex marriage is a federal Constitutional right (something not even Ted Olson is arguing; he's only saying that Prop. 8 violated the 14th Amendment because it, as in Romer, is an expression of animus), Obama's position is the correct one:
(1) Repeal DOMA so the federal government is not defining marriage;
(2) Allow states to make their own decisions on how to define marriage and other familial statuses;
(3) Have the federal government respect the states' definitions, which is how the federal government always had dealt with marriage until DOMA;
(4) Speak against Prop. 8 and other unconstitutional expressions of animus toward homosexuals that would take away a right previously recognized.
What's your beef here? Is it just that you're convinced, in opposition to most con law scholars, that the federal Constitution clearly does mandate recognition of same-sex marriage and therefore this cannot be treated as a matter for states to decide?
PG,
On "pre-writing history," I am a realist and can see the writing on the wall here. It's no different from David's/Coates' belief that Ford never had a personal objection to gay marriage. In a courtroom under the rules of evidence, no, we can't prove what Obama really thinks. But in the real world? I think I've made a pretty good guess through common sense.
On a related note, why the hairsplitting over what Obama's position is? He's clearly trying to give the impression he's opposes SSM, and he's doing it out of political expedience. And this being David's blog let's not lose sight of anti-subordination: The LGBT community knows all this, and that's why they're not thrilled with Obama (though obviously he beats the Republican alternative).
And yes, as a matter of fact I can hardly care less what "most con law scholars" think about this. Their consensus is of course subject to change, and unfortunately it is currently all too often poisoned by the ideology of originalism. A plain reading of the equal protection clause is all I need to tell me that the this is not for the states to decide (unless they abolish marriage as a legal institution entirely). So I am no more impressed by "leaving it up to the states" on this issue than any other time "states' rights" has been invoked to justify federal inaction in the face of oppression.
All that said I am still a realist, so I can understand why Obama's taking this approach as a political matter. But we're not on Crossfire and at least one of us isn't advocating for a client, so I insist on calling it like it is.
On "pre-writing history," I am a realist and can see the writing on the wall here. It's no different from David's/Coates' belief that Ford never had a personal objection to gay marriage.
Sure it is different. David and Ta-Nehisi are skeptical of Ford's having a real conversion because it occurred at such a fortunate time: right when he decided to run as a Democrat in a state where Democrats favor SSM. Either he's lying about his current belief, or he lied about his prior belief; they assume he lied previously.
With Obama, he's suggested civil unions without saying that they are the most same-sex couples should expect. It's very reasonable on a political basis to obtain civil unions first, give the populace a few years to realize that the sky didn't fall, and then move to obtain marriage. Note that in Vermont, which followed this pattern (civil unions 1999; marriage 2009), support for same-sex marriage was sufficiently strong in the legislature to override the governor's veto. You may not agree with this as a political strategy, but that doesn't make Obama some sort of hypocrite for recommending it.
(I've lately considered whether it would make sense to implement a repeal of DADT one branch at a time, somewhat similar to how racial integration occurred, with the Air Force going first. Hypocritical, or a way to move past the standoff and ultimately gain the goal?)
He's clearly trying to give the impression he's opposes SSM, and he's doing it out of political expedience.
Then why oppose Prop. 8? Why oppose DOMA? His stances on these are a very odd way to give the impression of opposition to SSM as a legal matter.
A plain reading of the equal protection clause is all I need to tell me that the this is not for the states to decide (unless they abolish marriage as a legal institution entirely)
What's your argument here? Are you taking Loving as precedent and analogizing sex/gender to race, arguing that the state cannot look at the sex of marital partners in determining whether to recognize the marriage? Or are you claiming that homosexuals are being barred from marriage, despite the fact that quite a few homosexuals have married -- just not someone of the same sex? Or something else? Merely citing the equal protection clause doesn't get you very far, as its text contains nothing about marriage.
I referred to con law scholars by way of noting that Obama's failing to agree with your belief about the EPC (whatever that turns out to be, precisely) doesn't inherently make him a hypocrite; he could just honestly disagree with your reading of the EPC.
Sure it is different. David and Ta-Nehisi are skeptical of Ford's having a real conversion because it occurred at such a fortunate time: right when he decided to run as a Democrat in a state where Democrats favor SSM. Either he's lying about his current belief, or he lied about his prior belief; they assume he lied previously.
It comes down to another case where we can't read minds, we don't know what Ford is thinking, maybe he actually had a genuine change of heart. Or maybe he's lying now; why should we assume it's the other way around? But you're not in zealous advocacy mode for Harold Ford so the you don't poo-poo the considerable circumstantial evidence in his case.
But the circumstantial case against Obama is equally strong. He says he is "not in favor of gay marriage," but would that really be his position if, as he says, he sees nothing immoral about homosexuality? Trying to explain it away with religious belief is weak. The Bible literally commands stoning gays to death, that's not a moral judgment? Meanwhile he can divine that marriage is strictly man/woman based on what exactly?
Not buying it.
You may not agree with this as a political strategy, but that doesn't make Obama some sort of hypocrite for recommending it.
I actually never said I disagreed with this as a political strategy. Realism, remember? It makes perfect sense for Obama to pretend he is against gay marriage if it makes the difference in an election, and that's a net gain for gay rights (and a host of other issues) given the kinds of judges a Republican would nominate. (I think he could stand to be more aggressive on DADT without risking anything, though.) None of this means he is not engaging in the longstanding political art of hypocrisy, however.
His stances on these are a very odd way to give the impression of opposition to SSM as a legal matter.
When he says he is "not in favor of gay marriage" he means he is against it. Well you can't be a little bit gay married, you either are or you're not. You want to give him credit for saying leave it up to the states even though he is opposed, but then you also try to give him credit for only staying out of this because federalism demands it and if it were otherwise he'd surely be doing his all to enact full equality. Well he can't have it both ways. For example, can't say "I'm not for racially integrated classrooms, but I guess the constitution demands it" (a legalistic attitude but hardly progressive) and then turn around and say, channeling Barry Goldwater, "I think ending segregation is swell and everything, but the constitution leaves that up to the states so it'll just have to wait a few decades." And the latter statement may be cold comfort to the oppressed who see justice delayed as justice denied.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, for example, seems to adopt an absolutist stance when it comes to oppression: "From my perspective, motive is irrelevant. (There's usually a good reason to do evil. That's the nature of evil.)" There's a very real tension for anyone who agrees with this statement and wants to give Obama a pass.
What's your argument here? Are you taking Loving as precedent and analogizing sex/gender to race, arguing that the state cannot look at the sex of marital partners in determining whether to recognize the marriage?
Yes I am, though I think gays are clearly being denied equal protection in any event. The ability to enter into some loveless heterosexual marriage of convenience doesn't mean that gays are not substantially barred from marriage as a practical matter. Arguing otherwise is roughly equivalent to arguing for a poll tax. Only a formalist needs the clear gender stereotyping and discrimination to find an equal protection problem.
I referred to con law scholars by way of noting that Obama's failing to agree with your belief about the EPC (whatever that turns out to be, precisely) doesn't inherently make him a hypocrite; he could just honestly disagree with your reading of the EPC.
Maybe he does, but he doesn't strike me as a FedSoc kind of guy. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe anyone who reads the commerce clause to encompass almost anything, and who thinks the constitution confers a right to abortion (not mentioned anymore than marriage is), can genuinely balk at the notion that the equal protection clause means states can't discriminate against gay people. And my understanding is that Obama is hardly a strict constructionist on the first two matters.
Of course, many more voters may someday have an unwanted pregnancy or be affected by what we can expansively call commerce, so never underestimate enlightened self-interest (for those voters or for elected officials).
I should add that I'm well aware of the very basic point that Obama has done a lot more for LGBT folks than Ford has. But anyone who takes a look at Obama's approach and decides the ends can justify the means also need to look carefully at a lot of red state Democrats. They, too, may provide a net benefit if the the alternative is a Republican riding a rabidly homophobic platform.
Far from saying Obama is a bad guy and deserves our scorn I'm saying there are tough questions on the moral framework we adopt and how we apply it.
Or maybe he's lying now; why should we assume it's the other way around?
I didn't assume that, David and TNC are. But there unquestionably has been a massive shift, from "let's amend state and federal constitutions to prohibit recognition of same-sex relationships" to "I'm pro same-sex marriage." We've seen no evolution; it's not like Ford gradually moved from "let's prohibit states from being able to decide this" to "I'm still opposed, but let's allow states to decide" to "Maybe we should have civil unions" to "Same-sex marriage, woo hoo!" At least in the public eye, it has been a 180. And 180s are not trustworthy.
I actually never said I disagreed with this as a political strategy. Realism, remember?
You only see favoring civil unions as political strategy in terms of Obama's getting elected. You have given no apparent consideration to it as having any merit in itself as a method of obtaining the goal of SSM. There's more to political strategy than just getting X or Y elected; there's also making gradual changes that will shift opinion and provide an empirical basis for future change (see also the 1957 Civil Rights Act as laying the groundwork for the 1964 CRA and the 1965 VRA).
He says he is "not in favor of gay marriage," but would that really be his position if, as he says, he sees nothing immoral about homosexuality?
The Old Testament and Paul's letters to the Corinthians are down on homosexuality. In the New Testament, Jesus says nothing about it. However, in speaking of marriage, Jesus refers only to man-woman unions. This has gotten confused by some conservative Christians, but the guiding part of the Bible for Christians is supposed to be the New Testament, particularly Jesus's words -- Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the Bible that consisted solely of Christ's teachings. That's why Christians don't worry about the other parts of Leviticus that discuss pork and shellfish (and why Christians who eat lobster but want to stone gays are mocked for their inconsistency).
So it's entirely consistent with Christianity to say that homosexuality isn't morally wrong, because Jesus does not condemn it, but that same-sex marriage is not Christian, because Jesus does not acknowledge it as an option.
When he says he is "not in favor of gay marriage" he means he is against it.
You're deriving the quote you keep repeating from Obama's statement to MTV when he was asked about Prop. 8:
"I've stated my opposition to this. I think it's unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
That's the statement of a guy who opposes same-sex marriage?
Moreover, not favoring X =/= opposing X. If he meant opposing, he could have said opposing instead of waiting for you to put the word in his mouth. I don't favor flag-burning, but I oppose amending the Constitution to prohibit it, which has the consequence of allowing as much flag-burning as people want to engage in.
Your invocation of TNC also takes out of context; TNC did not say that motive is irrelevant with regard to the principle that drives a policy (e.g. he didn't say that opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for overreaching the commerce clause power was just as evil as opposing it because it would reduce discrimination). He said that motive is irrelevant in a situation where you do what you know is evil but that doing it will allow you to accomplish some other goal that is good.
he doesn't strike me as a FedSoc kind of guy
Uh, a lot more people than FedSoc consider marriage to be appropriately left to the states. That the federal government is obliged to recognize a marriage based on the state of a couple's residence doing so, and that states are not obliged to recognize out-of-state unions that could not have been created in their own state, is a longstanding legal tradition that Lambda Legal and other pro-equality groups have cited in encouraging states to recognize same-sex relationships and in arguing against DOMA.
And as I've said repeatedly, Obama made a federalist argument against the Federal Marriage Amendment and DOMA before he was a presidential candidate. This isn't a new idea for him and it's not one he only brings up as a way to avoid moving SSM forward. You've made no case for his being insincere other than "he doesn't strike me as a FedSoc kind of guy."
As for your seeing this as purely an equal protection matter based on sexual orientation, wherein homosexuals have a right to marry someone they find sexually attractive, how would this apply to bisexuals? Or to heterosexuals, for that matter -- suppose I want to marry someone for reasons other than sexual attraction? Formalist arguments are useful because they favor rights that apply to everyone, not just one subordinated group.
We can keep the circle going on how to take "do not support" here, but I think the long and short of it is you hear him saying he doesn't support gay marriage as a matter of personal conviction, I hear him saying he does not believe legalizing SSM is a good policy (even if states have the right to get it wrong). So to me it's analogous to saying "I do not support NAFTA, but I don't think it's worth seceding from the Union and a costly civil war." In this case "do not support" does mean "oppose." It's a common-sense definition: If you'd vote against it on a state referendum, you oppose it.
The reason my interpretation is better is because he's a politician and the general topic is a policy one. If he was trying to convey a mere individual conviction he should be more clear about it. For example, a lot of Democrats will say they believe abortion is wrong, but they go one to say that belief can't interfere with a woman's right to choose. If Obama were trying to set up that kind of distinction he'd say his personal views on marriage take a backseat to gays' to marry their partners.
You only see favoring civil unions as political strategy in terms of Obama's getting elected. You have given no apparent consideration to it as having any merit in itself as a method of obtaining the goal of SSM.
I do give it consideration. My point is just that Obama falls very short on an absolutist scale of morality. Why is this important? Because in political discussions many people on both the left and the right adopt absolutist scales, such as "motive is irrelevant." And that's their prerogative, but for the purposes of challenging assumptions I think it's important to make sure we see the ramifications of that kind of judgment.
Under some absolutist views Obama is condoning injustice by at least being evasive instead of making a strong moral case for total equality. If it's all part of a master plan to implement new legislation (or whatever) sometime down the line
So it's entirely consistent with Christianity to say that homosexuality isn't morally wrong, because Jesus does not condemn it, but that same-sex marriage is not Christian, because Jesus does not acknowledge it as an option.
Even if I were to postulate that most people who genuinely oppose SSM hold that view out of scriptural interpretation instead of the less socially acceptable impulses of revulsion and bigotry, that doesn't work. Implicit in saying (or agreeing with Jesus) that "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" is a judgment that no homosexual relationship, no matter how loving and healthy, can be as sacred as a even a troubled heterosexual relationship. That sounds like a moral judgment to me.
As for your seeing this as purely an equal protection matter based on sexual orientation, wherein homosexuals have a right to marry someone they find sexually attractive, how would this apply to bisexuals? Or to heterosexuals, for that matter -- suppose I want to marry someone for reasons other than sexual attraction? Formalist arguments are useful because they favor rights that apply to everyone, not just one subordinated group.
I'm not saying formalist arguments are never useful, but I am saying that they're not necessary for making the case here. There's no problem extending my argument to bisexuals. (Your hetero person marrying for some non-romantic reason is a trickier analysis, but it would be tricky under formalism too.)
TNC did not say that motive is irrelevant with regard to the principle that drives a policy (e.g. he didn't say that opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for overreaching the commerce clause power was just as evil as opposing it because it would reduce discrimination). He said that motive is irrelevant in a situation where you do what you know is evil but that doing it will allow you to accomplish some other goal that is good.
This is a distinction without a difference because the Barry Goldwater who knows civil rights should be granted and votes no is also hoping to accomplish some other goal that is (to his mind) good. In this case that goal would be preservation of rule of law under the constitution, limiting federal power, leaving the development of human morality unstained by the corrupting edicts of Big Government, and any other stuff from Conscience of a Conservative I forgot to mention.
It's a common-sense definition: If you'd vote against it on a state referendum, you oppose it.
Except, of course, unlike Harold Ford, Obama never has voted against SSM in any way. He voted against the FMA and publicly opposed Prop. 8. Opposing Prop. 8 indicates that even where it is being decided at a state level, Obama has a preference for which way the decision should go, and it's not taking away SSM rights. Your analysis keeps skipping over this actual evidence of Obama's stance in favor of speculation about what "not in favor" means. I don't know why you continuously fail to acknowledge that your "not in favor" quote was part of a larger answer about why SSM rights shouldn't be taken away even at the state level.
If he was trying to convey a mere individual conviction he should be more clear about it.
I think within the confines of an MTV interview, where the question was about his stance on Prop. 8, he was pretty clear. Opposing Prop. 8 means that contrary to your claim about how Obama would vote in a state referendum, he wouldn't vote against SSM.
Even if I were to postulate that most people who genuinely oppose SSM hold that view out of scriptural interpretation instead of the less socially acceptable impulses of revulsion and bigotry
The relevant set isn't "all people who genuinely oppose SSM"; it's "people who oppose SSM while having gay friends," since it would be odd to oppose SSM out of revulsion and bigotry without feeling those same emotions toward gay people themselves. Among the latter group, in which Obama belongs, the majority do seem to have come up with particular religious explanations for why marriage between people of the same sex can't be the same as marriage between people of opposite sexes. Since I consider marriage a wholly legal matter and not a religious one, I don't find any of these ideas convincing, but for people who think there's some persistent link between contemporary marriage and religion -- even if just as a matter of personal preference -- it's not necessarily about bigotry and revulsion. Lesbian Eve Tushnet says she is directed by her Catholic faith's conception of marriage to oppose SSM. Is she acting on bigotry and revulsion?
Implicit in saying (or agreeing with Jesus) that "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" is a judgment that no homosexual relationship, no matter how loving and healthy, can be as sacred as a even a troubled heterosexual relationship. That sounds like a moral judgment to me.
It sounds that way because you conflate what is religiously-expected with what is moral, and assume that if someone believes something is incompatible with his faith, that thing must also be immoral. I don't think that's true. Developed religions generally acknowledge that people should act differently in different roles. For example, in Hinduism that which should be your focus at one stage of life should not be the focus at another stage: the mature person with a spouse and children should not go live at an ashram and devote himself to meditation, because that is not appropriate for the set of responsibilities he has and for what can be done at his age. It is a perfectly appropriate choice for someone whose children are living independently and who is coming to the end of his life. Hinduism also considers vegetarianism preferable, but doesn't categorically condemn meat-eating as immoral. (See also Catholicism on fasting and fish Fridays.) You assume that religion must operate on your absolutism.
Your hetero person marrying for some non-romantic reason is a trickier analysis, but it would be tricky under formalism too.
Why? Under the formalist analysis that says sex/gender classifications should be scrutinized as race classifications were in Loving, one's sexual orientation is utterly irrelevant. It didn't matter in Loving why the couple chose to marry each other or whether each was capable of finding someone of his/her own race sexually attractive. The only thing that mattered was that the government was basing marriage recognition on racial classifications.
This is a distinction without a difference
No, it's different. TNC was talking about politicians saying it's OK for them to do some evil in order to get elected, because once they are elected they'll do so much good in a different area that it makes up for the evil. Goldwater wasn't trying to get elected based on his stance on the CRA of 1964 as being good or bad as a policy matter.
I don't know why you continuously fail to acknowledge that your "not in favor" quote was part of a larger answer about why SSM rights shouldn't be taken away even at the state level.
The only reason we even have debate about taking those rights away on the state level is that some courts have seen fit to recognize them. The real question isn't whether he'd vote against Proposition 8 or its ilk because he doesn't like the idea of changing constitutions on this issue. The real question is if he would vote for a referendum that positively provides for SSM.
The relevant set isn't "all people who genuinely oppose SSM"; it's "people who oppose SSM while having gay friends," since it would be odd to oppose SSM out of revulsion and bigotry without feeling those same emotions toward gay people themselves.
I think we're both getting off on a tangent (which, to be fair, I probably started), but do you really think having friends of X group is an innocculation against prejudice? I thought "I have black friends" was a great way to get eyes to roll around here.
Lesbian Eve Tushnet says she is directed by her Catholic faith's conception of marriage to oppose SSM. Is she acting on bigotry and revulsion?
I don't know, because I don't know that much about Eve Tushnet and haven't parsed her statements for logical inconsistencies.
But bringing this back to Obama, remember that he is an avowed believer in the separation of church and state. Now, he has said that "we are under obligation in public life to translate our religious values into moral terms," so that would get him as far opposing SSM on moral grounds stemming from religious conviction, but that doesn't square with his assertion that homosexuality is not immoral.
Of course, you think Obama doesn't mean to convey opposition to SSM and in that case it's a moot point. I disagree, given the ease with which he could say "I believe principles of fundamental fairness require state governments to recognize gay marriage, even though I believe as a religious matter marriage is only between a man and a woman and even though I think the US Constitution is silent on the matter."
You assume that religion must operate on your absolutism.
I see it as me recognizing privilege when I see it. Something doesn't need to be categorized as a sin to be subject to moral judgment.
Why? Under the formalist analysis that says sex/gender classifications should be scrutinized as race classifications were in Loving, one's sexual orientation is utterly irrelevant.
In that case, the hypothetical marriage is legally screwed as long as the sexual interest requirement is gender neutral.
The real question is if he would vote for a referendum that positively provides for SSM.
And of course there's been no such referendum anywhere because the people actually leading the equality movement aren't idiots and know that they would lose. They have a hard enough time fighting the referenda that take away SSM, either pre-emptively (like the state constitutional amendment Ford bragged about voting for in TN) or after the fact (Prop. 8 in CA, Prop. 1 in Maine). In the real world, voting against referenda that take away rights is the voting behavior that advances equality. And that's the behavior Obama advocated regarding Prop. 8, no matter how much you want to wave that away as somehow unimportant -- despite the fact that if every person who voted for Obama had also followed his stated preference on Prop. 8, Californians would still be able to marry without regard to gender, which to me seems pretty important. If Obama had wanted to dodge that question, he could have just said, "I'm not a Californian, this is up to Californians to decide and it's not appropriate for me to opine on this issue."
do you really think having friends of X group is an innocculation against prejudice
You didn't say mere prejudice, you referred to "revulsion." If I am revolted by the sight of white people's pasty skin, and their smell and the way they talk... yeah, it's kind of difficult to be friends with them.
so that would get him as far opposing SSM on moral grounds stemming from religious conviction, but that doesn't square with his assertion that homosexuality is not immoral.
Just went through this: Jesus did not condemn homosexuality and so there is no reason for a Christian to think that it is immoral; however, Jesus did speak quite a bit about marriage and at no point did He admit of the possibility of anything other than opposite-sex marriage, so it's reasonable to be skeptical that He wanted His church to celebrate such marriages.
And again, "not compatible with my religion" =/= "I judge this to be IMMORAL!" You are taking an extremely simplified view of religion if you think this is so, which surprises me because I am sure you have encountered people whose religious prohibitions don't operate this way. Coming back to Leviticus, David has blogged about the difficulties of keeping even a very low level of kosher in the U.S. due to things like airline meals having ham. Do you think he views me as immoral for eating bacon, or do you think he can distinguish between what he feels is right for him as an adherent to a particular religious tradition, and what should be morally obligated of everyone?
the hypothetical marriage is legally screwed as long as the sexual interest requirement is gender neutral.
Uh, where in the U.S. is there a sexual interest requirement for marriage recognition, so I can make sure my parents (arranged marriage, and I have no idea whether my mother even likes sex because that's a talk we don't have) don't go there?
despite the fact that if every person who voted for Obama had also followed his stated preference on Prop. 8, Californians would still be able to marry without regard to gender
But the states that haven't had their supreme courts step in would be no different. He framed his answer as narrowly and legalistically as he could. That's hardly speaking out, bearing witness if you will, for equality.
Do you think he views me as immoral for eating bacon, or do you think he can distinguish between what he feels is right for him as an adherent to a particular religious tradition, and what should be morally obligated of everyone?
Well I don't want to single David out, so I'll just say that any religion that presents itself as a moral authority implicitly makes the judgments I am talking about. You forget that these are belief systems that bill themselves as the Right Way to View the World. So on some level the people who don't hold to the belief system at all are wrong. That's why you can't just get out of the moral judgment by saying "well, what's right for X isn't what's right for Y."
Uh, where in the U.S. is there a sexual interest requirement for marriage recognition, so I can make sure my parents (arranged marriage, and I have no idea whether my mother even likes sex because that's a talk we don't have) don't go there?
Nowhere. We were discussing your hypothetical.
He framed his answer as narrowly and legalistically as he could.
Nope. You keep saying he's opposed to same-sex marriage, yet he's never actually said that. And if he'd wanted to be as narrow as possible, he could have dodged the question as I've suggested, by saying it's a matter for Californians and not something on which he should opine. Nor is there anything very legalistic about the following:
Sway: The next question comes from GangstaGigz, out of San Leandro, California, which is near my home town of Oakland: "I was wondering, what is your reaction to Proposition 8, and would you vote yes or no on it?" And for our audience, Proposition 8 is the California state ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
Obama: I have stated my opposition to that. I think it is unnecessary. I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about. Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them. What I believe is that if we have strong civil unions out there that provide legal rights to same-sex couples that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, that they can transfer property to each other. If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners. I think that is the direction we need to go. I think young people are ahead of the curve on this, for the most part. I think their attitude generally is, "We should be respectful of all people," and that is the kind of politics I want to practice.
Sway: So you would vote ...
Obama: I would vote no on the proposition.
Well I don't want to single David out, so I'll just say that any religion that presents itself as a moral authority implicitly makes the judgments I am talking about.
OK, do you think your (semi) observant Jewish friends in general consider you to be committing a moral infraction by eating pork, or do you think they can distinguish between a particular religious preference and a universal moral obligation?
Nowhere. We were discussing your hypothetical.
And where in my hypothetical did I mention sexual interest? You're staking your argument for why a failure to recognize SSM is a violation of equal protection on its not allowing homosexuals to marry people to whom they are sexually attracted, i.e. persons of the same sex. Sexual interest is something you posit as relevant, not I. I pointed out that bisexuals can be attracted to some folks of the same sex, and that heterosexuals may desire for nonsexual reasons to marry someone of the same sex, so tying marriage rights to "I should be able to marry someone to whom I am sexually attracted" may not be a sound principle, whereas the formalistic argument you disdain (the government should not discriminate on the basis of each party's sex in determining which marriage to recognize) would cover all SSM, regardless of sexual attraction.
We keep going round and round on what opposing SSM entails. I'm happy with my arguments on this point so I'll leave it there. I'd be interested to hear how other commenters interpret Obama's statement on this issue, but the original post is almost off the front page here so I suspect most of them have moved on.
OK, do you think your (semi) observant Jewish friends in general consider you to be committing a moral infraction by eating pork, or do you think they can distinguish between a particular religious preference and a universal moral obligation?
I'm not going to single out my (semi) observant Jewish friends. Again, there is an implicit moral judgment going on under any religious system purporting to be a moral authority. So the question here is whether the obligation is a moral one within the group itself. If it is I don't think you can get out of it by saying "Well it's fine for you godless heathens to do things differently."
And where in my hypothetical did I mention sexual interest?
When you asked "suppose I want to marry someone for reasons other than sexual attraction?"
Now, I never said sexual interest was the sole defining feature of marriage, but it is in practice a pretty big part, so if some group is categorically denied the right to pursue that it's a huge problem. And I noted that under formalism a statute requiring "sexual interest" would be fine as long as it's gender neutral.
I also think that saying I was disdaining formalism here is a little strong. I just pointed out is was not necessary for marriage equality.
As far as your bisexual hypothetical goes it's still impermissible discrimination to cut down on the amount of (adult) prospects for marriage like that.
Post a Comment