-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
President Barack Obama acknowledged in an interview with ABC News that he supports redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is already trying to raise money off the announcement. Here are the president’s remarks:
I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point 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
Hardly anybody is surprised that this is the president’s actual position. He actually filled out a candidates’ questionnaire saying he supported same-sex marriage in 1996, which he subsequently disavowed. As president, Obama has tried to straddle the issue for reasons having to do with his coalition. But Joe Biden forced his hand and his position had become untenable in a party that increasingly supports same-sex marriage.
Obama and his advisers obviously calculated that the damage among black voters would be so minimal that it was worth making this announcement to please donors and excite the rest of his base, which has been waiting for him to endorse gay marriage. Black voters have long held more socially conservative views than the politicians who represent them, without the elected officials facing any repercussions. Perhaps the president’s position will move black public opinion on the issue somewhat.
But Obama stopped short of arguing that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. He said he favored leaving the matter up to the states.
View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/05/09/obama-comes-out-for-gay-marria
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Kingofthenet| 5.9.12 @ 4:43PM
Civil Right's is NOT a popularity contest. NO one gets a vote on them...PERIOD!
If you don't 'believe' in same-sex marriage, maybe you should just not marry someone of the same sex?
Bro| 5.9.12 @ 8:41PM
Well if you don't believe in incest then don't have incest.
9thID| 5.9.12 @ 4:57PM
If the depravity of gay marriage is a "Civil Right" then so too are polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality, but of course, they are NOT...
Derek Leaberry| 5.9.12 @ 5:01PM
Obama supports homosexual 'marriage" because he's a Gramscian-Marxist, a supporter of Alinsky, a hater of Christianity and Western Civilization, and is heavily financed by the homosexual community. The homosexuals forced his hand and mad an honest boy out of him.
Paul McGrath| 5.9.12 @ 5:32PM
His wife recently said she could leave the White House and keep on going. Obama, usually politically astute--if nothing else--had made one political blunder after the other over the last five or six weeks. This is probably the stupidest, espcially in light of the crushing defeat of gay marriage in North Carolina yesterday.
I'm beginning to wonder whether he just wants out. He's lost his energy, his hair is turning gray, he has no passion for anything, and his once calm demeanor has turned shrill.
He's a goner.
Bro| 5.9.12 @ 8:43PM
I have to agree. Biden boxed him in. Now Obama just alienated that 60 percent or so who voted against marriage of the same sex (who can prove they are gay?).
Obama is not going to win independent voters by coming out of the "leftist" closet himself.
spike59| 5.10.12 @ 6:08AM
Biden didn't 'box him in'; you're giving Biden too much credit. Hell, even the Democrats know Biden is a cretin. it's the bundlers who boxed him in with the threat of withholding campaign $$$$$
Trinacria| 5.9.12 @ 5:43PM
I've always been perplexed by the charge of discrimination against homosexuals on the issue of marriage. In point of fact, there is no discrimination whatsoever, as the very definition of discrimination involves treating an individual or group of individuals differently. In the case of marriage, homosexuals have precisely the same rights as heterosexuals, subject to precisely the same limitations; namely, one may not marry a minor or a blood relative (residents of West Virginia notwithstanding), a member of the same sex, or an individual who does not willingly consent to enter into marriage. Same rules for all; no discrimination.
DRed| 5.9.12 @ 6:07PM
Straight people get to marry someone they love-gay people don't. Is it really so perplexing to you?
Trinacria| 5.9.12 @ 6:47PM
So, by your definition, if I love young girls or my cousin or several women at once and don't get to marry them, I'm being discriminated against and therefore have a right to demand a federal law protecting my "right" to marry anyone I want to?
Oh yes, that's right - I forgot, that's the very definition of liberalism: I have a "right" to do whatever I want (except, of course, work hard, keep what I earn, drive the vehicle I want to drive, use the lightbulb I prefer to use, choose whom to associate with and whom disassociate from, hire who I want to hire and pay them what they're worth, eat what I want to eat, buy what I want to buy, say what I think, and - last but not least - disagree with the sacred liberal doctrine).
Yes, DRed, I must say I do indeed find your logic (or, to be more precise, the lack thereof) perplexing.
DRed| 5.9.12 @ 7:28PM
Well yes, those people are being discriminated against. The important difference is that there are proven harms resulting from certain types of marriage (do you really need me to tell you why we don't permit people to marry minors?). I'm not sure if marrying ones cousin is harmful-I do know you can marry your first cousin legally in far more states than you can marry someone of the same sex. There's no sociological evidence showing that same sex marriage is harmful to either party in the marriage or to society at large. I think my position is logically consistent.
W| 5.9.12 @ 8:20PM
Gay marriage will create more legal work for divorce attorneys. A gay couple can accomplish all the legal benefits of a marriage by a will for inheritance, financial and medical power of attorney for decisions, and a pre "nuptial" agreement on division of assets and support. If children are adopted, the custody and visitation can be handled by existing law because the issue is the best interest of the child for the custody/visitation and child support.
You are allowed to discriminate, treat differently, if there is a good reason to treat differently. We tend to use the word discriminate as if it means it is illegal discrimination.
Same sex marriage has been prohibited by almost every country and religion since recorded history. Why is that?
If we apply basic logic, you are saying that the state cannot prohibit a man from marrying a man or a woman from marrying a woman because there is not good reason for such prohibition. Well, if we assume you are correct, then why should a state limit the marriage to two people? Why not three or four or five, as long as it is a loving, stable family unit? You do know that will be the next argument from Muslims, who will also argue there is religious discrimination.
Bro| 5.9.12 @ 8:46PM
By insisting that two people of the same sex marrying are gay, then you are discriminating against those who want to marry without sex. Also you are discriminatint against bi-sexuals, who I understand outnumber homosexuals. They should be able to marry someone of both sex.
Trinacria| 5.9.12 @ 8:49PM
So, to be clear, it's your position that absent any evidence of harm to the individual or society at large, an individual should have the right to marry?
Surely there's no harm in having multiple spouses, provided that all parties consent. True? Surely there's no harm to me or society at large if I choose to marry my golden retriever, right? After all, she's loyal, house broken, and doesn't talk my ear off. And what's the harm in marrying one's sibling, provided that neither sibling wants to have children?
Where does one draw the line, then?
DRed| 5.9.12 @ 9:16PM
Your dog isn't a consenting human being-that's why you can't marry it. That's a pretty simple one. I assume that wasn't a serious argument on your part. Polygamy is trickier-as you say, if 4 people want to get married and live together, why should I care? However, the evidence we have suggests that polygamous relationships are inherently unstable. Look at the current societies in America that practice polygamy-people like the fundamentalist mormons. It seems that polygmay is conducive to power imbalances and sexual exploitation. Now, there may be some polygamists who could get happily married and live a healthy life together but I think society has a legitimate interest in prohibiting polygamy. Incest, again, is well documented as being psychologically harmful.
Why are you opposed to gay marriage?
W| 5.9.12 @ 9:41PM
Can you cite the evidence that polygmaus relationships are inherently unstable? You are showing your bias against multi person marriages by using words such as "seems that polygamy is conductive to power imbalances and sexual exploitation." What evidence do you have to support this? Any studies?
Trinacria| 5.10.12 @ 10:55AM
Surely you aren't suggesting that being conducive to power imbalances is sufficient reason to prohibit a particular type of marriage (have you met my wife?); on that basis, heterosexual marriages would fail to pass the test.
And while we're on the subject of broad sweeping subjective generalizations, perhaps you'd care to provide a single piece of evidence to support your claim that polygamous marriages are inherently less stable than traditional marriages. Perhaps divorce rates would be a good place to start - but be careful; you might stumble onto an awfully uncomfortable statistic (for example, if divorce rates among polygamists is, say 20%, and the divorce rates among blacks is, say 50%, are you then prepared to argue that marriage between blacks should be prohibited on the basis of inherent instability?). Oh what a tangled web we weave when we try to make the facts fit our preconceived liberal ideals...
Occam's Tool| 5.9.12 @ 6:43PM
I am certainly in favor of Civil Arrangements for homosexual couples. Certainly homosexual life partners should be able to have health benefits, next of kin statements, etc. But that is not the true purpose of marriage.
The purpose of marriage is to arrange for a proper institution for the care of the future generations; it is not a selfish institution but a time binding one that links generation to generation. Yes, there are childless couples, just as there are couples where one spouse gets killed in war, or dies of disease too soon to procreate. But the institution nonetheless exists for more than the selfish interests of the couple. There are very good reasons for this rooted in biology and the need for sublimation of male aggressive urges that are very dangerous to alter---for an example, look at the problems with the Black family structure and child rearing once you remove the man from being necessary for maintenance of the normal family structure.
People wonder at the death of civility when Civil Institutions are destroyed one by one. I don't. I get to see the results of a featureless plain, a barren desert that people try to build relationships and lives on fruitlessly, every damn day.
Thanks for making my job still harder, Liberals.
DRed| 5.9.12 @ 7:31PM
You do know gay people can have children, don't you? In the alternative, they can do what you did, and adopt children. It seems to me like you'd support gay marriage-it would seem to lead to more stable family units.
Pelleas| 5.9.12 @ 8:08PM
O/T:
I can only wonder that you are not making some of your PATIENT'S lives more "difficult", in the same way--if that's your "theraputic" outlook .
It must be nice to be ruler of the universe- and have the DEFINITIVE MEANING of marriage, at YOUR power, no?
Bro| 5.9.12 @ 8:47PM
You should know.
Kingofthenet| 5.9.12 @ 8:42PM
Civil marriage is all about what the Govt. does to/for you NOTHING more.You get married in Church for your relationship with the Non-Existent Sky Daddy, the two are NOT the same thing.
spike59| 5.10.12 @ 6:28AM
Civil marriage is all about what the Govt. does to/for you NOTHING more.
========================
and yet, we keep hearing the shrill cries from the Left: "Civil unions aren't good enough!"
Kingofthenet| 5.9.12 @ 9:46PM
Physician heal thy self...
Calvin| 5.9.12 @ 8:06PM
Well, well, well, black people have once again not shown solidarity with gay people. Instead of whining to those that you disagree with about almost everything maybe you should take a drive into the inner city and let those misguided people have it. I mean they are on your side on everything else. It seems like it would be easy to convince them of such a simple matter. You are just like them after all and they should see that.
Paul McGrath| 5.9.12 @ 10:35PM
"We have now sunk to a depth at which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell.
"Neither you, Mr. Baldwin, or you, Mr. Hlavac, have seen the need to bring up the fundamental reason that the institution of marriage exists in the first place, which is, of course, that the relationship between a man and a woman might possibly produce children. As children are so obviously incapable of caring for themselves, and as society is incapable of caring for them, and as society also believes that the healthiest way for children to be raised is by the natural mother and father, it chooses to bestow the so-called privilege of marriage on those who may have them.
"Despite the myriad of straw men you have both set up, nobody is suggesting that gay people be prohibited from raising children or from otherwise living out their lives as they see fit. Society is instead arguing that allowing marriage between two men or two women will detrimentally alter the institution of marriage, which, again, is designed SOLELY for the purpose encouraging a system by which babies in this nation--and just about every other nation--are nurtured and raised.
"That children aren't always raised in this way is a problem, but because they are not always raised in this way doesn't mean that it should not be the ideal. Society should continue to encourage marriage between heterosexual couples only, rather than let the institution be destroyed piece by piece by the selfish desires of those who seemingly could not care less."
Me. At some point.
Paul McGrath| 5.9.12 @ 10:47PM
Marriage used to be a very solemn event. Ideally, hundreds of people would gather around to witness the vows taken by a bride and her husband. Vows of fidelity. Promises to stay faithful. Promises to stay together through sickness and health. The idea was that if they had children--and raising children can be difficult as we all know--the bride and groom would look back upon their vows and, hopefully, gain strength from the promises that they made. In front of their family, and friends, and everybody. They can think to themselves: other people have done it, we can do it too.
Now, two men can marry, in some places. Or two women. Many of these people will take their vows seriously, I'm sure. But many won't. To some, it will be a joke. To some, fidelity means only Monday through Friday. To all, to all, the thought of accidentally becoming pregnant is not a concern. Gay sex, in any way shape or form, can not possibly result in the birth of a child.
The seriousness of marriage, in general, will be degraded. It already has been degraded by divorce and out of wedlock births, but it will be degraded further by the fact that gay people marry.
The people who will suffer won't be you or me, or my children or your children. THe people who suffer will be children born in an age when the idea that being brought up by a mother and father who have vowed to stay together for them has been extinguished. It will have been extinguished by the selfishness of heterosexual adults who think that their own sexual pleasure is more important than raising children, and it will have been extinguished by homosexual adults who believe that societal recognition of their sexual proclivities is more important than seeing that children are raised in a two-parent environment.
DRed| 5.9.12 @ 11:37PM
Maybe some of those homosexuals also want to have a family, and live in a committed a socially accepted relationship with each other. We no longer live in an age in which it's necessary to have any sort of sex in order to have children. I've been to gay weddings-they look just like the kind of ceremony you describe. Gay people aren't more inclined to take their marriage more or less seriously than straight people-if anything, an actual marriage increases pressure to stay together. You have more obligations, both from your family and legally, than you do if your relationship isn't recognized by the law.
Trinacria| 5.10.12 @ 12:50PM
So who gets half of who's shit in a divorce?
spike59| 5.10.12 @ 6:04AM
But Joe Biden forced his hand and his position had become untenable in a party that increasingly supports same-sex marriage.
============================
I call BS on this MSM approved talking point-it was the threat of losing campaign $$$$ that 'forced his hand'