An editorial in today's New York Times entitled "President Obama’s Moment" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/president-obamas-moment.html) states:
"It has always taken strong national leadership to expand equal rights in this country, and it has long been obvious that marriage rights are no exception. President Obama offered some of that leadership on Wednesday. 'I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,' Mr. Obama said in an interview with ABC News that the White House arranged for the purpose of giving Mr. Obama a forum to say just that.
With those 10 words, Mr. Obama finally stopped temporizing and 'evolving' his position on same-sex marriage and took the moral high ground on what may be the great civil rights struggle of our time."
But listen to Obama state explicitly in a 2004 Illinois Senate debate that gay marriage is not a civil right (see: http://www.therightscoop.com/obama-in-2004-on-gay-marriage-marriage-is-not-a-civil-right/). Has Obama now actually abandoned this position?
As further observed by the Times editorial:
"We have one major point of disagreement with Mr. Obama: his support for the concept of states deciding this issue on their own. That position effectively restricts the right to marry to the 20 states that have not adopted the kind of constitutional prohibitions North Carolina voters approved on Tuesday."
Hold on! If, as claimed by the Times, "It has always taken strong national leadership to expand equal rights in this country," how is it that a purportedly strong national leader continues to leave this issue to be decided by the states? Obviously, Obama still does not regard gay marriage as a civil right, and while taking a stand calculated to assuage his supporters, he has left himself much wriggle room.
Ah, yes, his "evolution" on the issue continues.
Again Obama, trying to be smart, comes off half-smart and leaves us wanting for leadership. Wheather it's Gay Marraige, Healthcare Reform or Afganistan, he doesn't want to take a stand for fear of taking a loss. The irony is, by his disposition, he will probably lose everything.
ReplyDelete