The Store Wasn’t Ready: An Explanation of Obama’s Gay Marriage “Timetable”

I support marriage equality. That’s for another post. But I think this has to be one of the most patently cynical fundraising moves I’ve ever seen.

Up until a few days ago, Barack Obama was publicly against gay marriage.   Even now, his support is hedged in states’ rights issues there’s frankly no way he believes in.   Equal protection under the law is not a states’ rights issue, and Barack Obama was, let us not forget, a professor of Constitutional Law.

Forgive me, but what the hell is “Obama Pride”?





  1. Nathan Key · May 12, 2012

    I don’t believe that marriage is a state’s rights or national rights issue and if I had my druthers, I’d get rid of the “legal” institution of marriage altogether.

    In our current society, legal unions serves very little purpose and it’s become confusing and frustrating for all of us because it overlaps with the spiritual commitment and definition of marriage that religious groups believe in which is NOT the same as a civil union (in my humble opinion).

    In my perfect world, NO ONE gets married by the state- not heterosexual couples or homosexual couples or christians or muslims or agnostics or atheists or anyone else!

    If you want a spiritual commitment between you and your companion- that’s something between you and God (or whomever/whatever you believe in) and the religious community you belong to and it should merit NO favors from the State/Nation whatsoever.

    That’s equal.


  2. Christopher Cocca · May 12, 2012

    I basically agree that there should be no such thing as “marriage” for anyone in the eyes of the government. Civil Unions, with all the full rights currently associated with heterosexual marriage, for consenting adults regardless of gender. Give CUs the full respect and civic importance of “marriage.” Marriage, as such, becomes an issue of spiritual or non-spiritual personal choice. Get married in a church or get married in some other ceremony of commitment.

    BUT, I also understand how a discussion between straight men talking about changing the words and terms of the debate can end up sounding like willful disenfranchisement. And for people who are simply anti-gay and can’t stomach the thought of marriage-rights for homosexuals, an argument like the one we might make from an interest in liberty and separation of church and state can come off sounding like spite and repression of equal rights. How to make sure that’s not how we sound when we say, from a place of sound political philosophy, that the government shouldn’t have a role in “marriage,” and how to police religious communities who have no problem “marrying” children to grown men, for example?


Join the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s