SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home From Kerry To Obama

THE PLANK JUNE 30, 2008

From Kerry To Obama

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Barack Obama is a better candidate than his predecessor John Kerry in at least one important sense: he opposes a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, namely, in California. Over the weekend, Obama released a letter saying: "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."

That's quite a departure from the position Kerry and his runningmate, John Edwards, took in 2004. Indeed, the two couldn't find an anti-gay marriage amendment that they didn't support, swooping into states and urging Democrats to vote against civic equality. Kerry went so far as to endorse the effort in his home state of Massachusetts to reverse a 2003 state supreme court ruling mandating gay marriage, putting him in the unique position of supporting the repeal -- and not just denial -- of rights for gay couples. With John McCain now supporting the California amendment, he too earns that dubious honor.

In many ways, Barack Obama is just another politician. Here's an exception.  

--James Kirchick

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 9 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

9 comments

Well, thank god that Obama is "just another politician" and a damned good one.  Back in the days when the Democratic was dominated by pols rather than by wonks it was a lot more successful at the polls.  Perhaps the lesson has finally been learned.  Time for some serious kicking of Republican butt.  Couldn't happen to a creepier bunch.  Let's hope that when the Republicans get kicked out, the smarting is felt by all of their fellow travelers.

- roidubouloi

June 30, 2008 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm glad you're taking Obama to task for this James, no one else is. In many ways Obama is just another politician, including the spiel that he just has to get in office first before he can unleash his true goodness.  But the one way he IS different is that he refuses to be a chump for Republicans.

- Wandreycer1

July 1, 2008 at 6:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, homosexual marriage doesn't provide gays with equal rights, rather, special rights. Social & legal recognition for traditional marriage has provided for the continuation of life & for (some) protection for wives & children. A society that elevates the non-reproductive homosexual union to equivalency with the traditional family says there is no difference between the culture of life  the culure of death. Homosexuals can have the social dignity & respect all individuals dserve, but they dont qualify as marriageable.    

- jeanag

July 1, 2008 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jeanag, by the logic that marriage is for the procreation of children, then it would logically follow that you are against marriage for the elderly and sterile, right?  If children-bearing ability is your only yardstick, it excludes many more groups than just homosexuals.

- bigfish

July 1, 2008 at 8:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jeanag!  The protector of pure, quivering Americas from nefarious gays and murdering, pillaging immigrants -  I wondered what happened to you.  I suppose there will always be plenty of jeanags out there, good to be reminded of that.  How's the weather been under that rock of yours?

- Wandreycer1

July 1, 2008 at 8:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am glad that jeanag feels free to express himself here. That said, I completely disagree with him. Homosexuals don't have social dignity and respect if they are exluded from the institution of marriage. Opposing gay marriage implies a disrespect for homosexual couples and our social discourse would be significantly imporved if opponents would express this disrespect explicitly. Instead they make unpersuasive arguments about gender roles, which disrespect a great number of heterosexual couples as well.

- CraigMcGil

July 1, 2008 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CraigMcGil: I doubt you really believe that homosexuals can't have dignity unless they are admitted to the institution of marriage. One's dignity is interior & doesn't depend on what another thinks of you. See Prof. Virginia Black's essay in the Natural Law anthology "Common Truths" from ISI Books.  The idea that marriage means one man & one woman is not an "argument" I "make." It's a fact  documented  over thousands of years in virtually all cultures. Our fashionably post-modern society is not smarter than my (uneducated) grandparents, or theirs, back through time. Without the benefit of TNR blogs, those generations instinctively knew better than   any Smartypants of today.

And the fact that some men & women don't have children is a personal situation, sometimes a choice, sometimes a sadness, which does not negate the heterosexual impulse.

Anyway, thanks for the civil tone of your discourse, which is a big step up from some other fey & snarky posters

- jeanag

July 1, 2008 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jeanag, you are wrong on the facts.  The history of marriage "documented over thousands of years in virtually all cultures" mostly involves polygamy as an acceptable option, not just "one man & one woman".  Also marriage has largely been an economic contract, with emotional attachments as an afterthought.  So the whole modern concept of marriage as a romantic attachment between a heterosexual couple is pretty new, but you don't hear too many calls to return to the "traditional" form in which women and children are pretty much the property of their husbands/fathers.  

Since marriage has dramatically evolved to represent a contract freely made between consenting adults to symbolize a romantic desire to spend their life together, it's not at all obvious that it shouldn't evolve further to include members of the same sex.  Not that religious institutions have to recognize it as such if it goes against their doctrine, but there's no reason the state shouldn't.

- kagoss718

July 1, 2008 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

kagoss: what's your source for polygamy? I hope it's not the discredited writings of Margaret Mead & F. Boas, which are documented frauds. It's true that it took Christianity to develop contractual rights for ordinary wives (maybe you're confused from watching "Anne of A Thousand Days") & that polygamous  Muslim men have exploited women severely.  Still, for 99.99% of the world, anal sex between men is a tough sell; and it's not really about contracts.  

- jeanag

July 1, 2008 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close