On Gay Marriage, Media Give Obama a Pass


Pages: 1 2

Why does President Barack Obama enjoy a no-fly zone on gay marriage?

The Republican presidential contenders, with the exception of libertarian Ron Paul, have never supported gay marriage. Barack Obama, on the other hand, in a span of 16 years, has gone from supporting it, to “undecided,” to opposition, to a position that he currently describes as “evolving.”

Obama, right now, opposes gay marriage — just as does Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. In 2008, presidential candidate Obama sounded Santorum-like when he said: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian … it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

When Santorum, the pro-life, anti-gay-marriage former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, was challenged in New Hampshire by pro-same-sex-marriage teenagers, he attempted to use the Socratic method to explain his opposition:

“How does it affect you, personally, if two men or two women get married?” Santorum was asked.

“Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry?”

“Yes!” shouted the crowd.

So anyone can marry anyone else?” Santorum asked.

“Yes!”

“So anybody can marry several people?”

This elicited some silence, mumbles and a few “no’s.”

“So if you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that OK?” Calling the crowd back to order, Santorum continued, “If your point is, people should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy, right?”

“As long as they don’t harm other people,” a young woman replied.

“Who determines whether they’re harming people or not?”

“Well, anybody can understand that.”

“Everybody can understand it. … So we’re not going to have courts?” said Santorum.

“This isn’t, it’s morals, like …”

“So there is some objective standard?” asked Santorum.

“It’s morally right for two men to have the same rights as a man and a woman.”

“If it makes three people happy to get married, based on what you just said, what makes that wrong and what you said right?” said Santorum.

“That’s irrelevant. … That’s not what I’m talking about.”

“I know. …”

“I’m talking about the basic right that you give you and another woman.”

“OK. You know, it’s important if we’re going to have a discussion based on rational, reasoned thought, that we employ reason.

“OK? And reason says that if you think it’s OK for two, then you have to differentiate with me as to why it’s not OK for three.”

The young people wanted nothing to do with Socrates.

Pages: 1 2

  • Ann

    we need to start putting it back in his face and bringing up all his crap—everyday in every way—never stop—never!!!

  • Hyhybt

    "The real story should have been this: Why did the teen get away with simply saying, in effect, “I’m not talking about more than one spouse”? Does that end the discussion?"

    It ought to end that branch of the conversation, yes, and steer it back onto the topic of whether *same sex couples* (not just any arrangement of people and/or things you can imagine) should marry. The purpose of bringing up polygamy *at all* is either to invoke the logical fallacy of a slippery slope, or else to serve as a distraction so you wind up arguing over whether polygamy is a good idea or not when that's not even on the table.

    Whether the person you marry may be of either sex is a totally different question than how many spouses you may have. It's logically equivalent to insisting that a discussion over whether to raise the speed limit be focused on the disadvantages of letting people drive on whichever side of the road they want. Anyone who tried that would rightly be shoved back on-topic, and there's no reason the gay->polygamy crowd shouldn't be treated the same way.

  • Bobby

    The difference is President Obama is not calling for a constitutional amendment banning Gay marriage and Mr Santorum is. They do not hold the same opinion despite attempts to portray them as the same.

    • Hyhybt

      Indeed. Whatever the details of Obama's stated position, he's against an anti-marriage amendment, against removing gay marriage where it exists, and in favor of repealing DOMA to the point that he refuses to have the DOJ defend it in court. Santorum is as far from that as it is possible to be, short of calling for a reversal on Lawrence v. Texas.

  • http://www.whycanadamustend.com Tony Kondaks

    There are 6 or 7 states in which community property is law。This is a holdover from both the previous Spanish (California, Nevada,etc.) and French (Louisiana) regimes.

    Well, see the ’60s era movie “Hawaii” starring Julie Andrews and you'll see that prior becoming part of the U.S., Hawaii had a centuries old tradition of incest marriage amongst Hawaiian royalty。 Thus,there is more legal, historical, and traditional precedent in U.S.history for both incest marriage and polygamous marriage (Utah and the Mormons) than there is for gay marriage。

    • Hyhybt

      …none of which negates the fact that “which sex” and “how many” are different questions.

  • Wayne Lela

    Thinking people have known for centuries that homosexual activity is immoral and a bad legal precedent. Heterophobic homosexuals should not be deemed normal. "Gay rights" (sad wrongs) is not a cause that deserves support. That's just the way it is.

  • LesbianNproud

    the LGBT community rocks, and one day we all with have equal rights. And I will laugh in the faces of all bible thumpers!

  • Steve

    First off, our Constitution states two things very clearly: first. ALL people are created equal, and second, we have Freedom of religion. With that said, what part of “ALL” is it that you do not understand? And just to drive the second point home, your religion, or religious views and beliefs DO NOT trump mine!