Gay Marriage and Obama

Three federal judges have now ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution’s “equal protection” clause. President Barack Obama seems to disagree.

He has repeatedly stated that, while he personally supports same-sex marriage, the issue should be left to the states. In other words, the nation’s first black president holds a states-rights position on what has shaped up to be the civil-rights issue of this generation.

Most states ban same-sex marriage. And if they are left to work out the issue for themselves in the years and decades to come some will likely reverse their bans, but many won’t. The question will remain: Are same-sex marriages protected under the 14th Amendment?

It’s hard to imagine that Obama, a former constitutional law professor who has cited the 14th Amendment when discussing gay rights, believes that the equal-protection clause does not apply to gay and lesbian couples seeking a government-issued marriage license. More likely, he has taken a go-slow approach to avoid alienating constituencies—and inflaming the opposition.

His caution has been understandable perhaps even helpful in the short run. But it will become increasingly difficult for him to avoid taking a clear stand. Marriage equality is likely to come before the U.S. Supreme Court before the end of his term, possibly within the next year. At that time Obama will have to decide whether to support the plaintiffs.

He should, and he should not wait for the court to force his hand.

The presidential bully pulpit has been a powerful force in acceleration the evolution of freedom and equal rights in America, and the energy with which presidents have used their platform – or not—shapes their legacy.

In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower declined to speak out in favor of civil rights, saying, “I don’t know what another speech would do about it right now.” In response, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Negro Leaders Conference sent a telegram urging him to “use the weight of your great office to point out to the people the rights of all human beings.”

While a strong case can be made that history has so far under-appreciated Eisenhower’s record on civil rights, his unwillingness to make energetic use of his office is widely accepted as a failure.

President John F. Kennedy is still faulted for waiting two and a half years to fully embrace the cause of civil rights. When he finally did, in an Oval Office speech in June 1963, he cast the issue in terms of morality and American values. And while this may have angered opponents, it inspired more hope than hate. It became a turning point in the civil-rights movement and saved his presidency from history’s harsh judgment.

This Congress is hardly likely to pass a low prohibiting discrimination in the granting of marriage licenses. But that should not stop this president from addressing a controversial question. If Obama believes that the 14th Amendment protects same-sex marriage, he should explain why he has changed his own mind. It is an argument that Americans – who polls show favor legalizing same-sex marriage – are increasingly ready to accept. If he makes the case in a tone of respect toward opponents and if he tempers proponents’ optimism by acknowledging the lengthy nature of civil-rights movements, he can help soften the fallout from the eventual Supreme Court decision, whatever it may be.

For a president so stymied by an obstructive Congress, an Oval Office address on same-sex marriage could be a high point of his tenure. It would also be a fitting way for a barrier-breaking president to secure his place among leaders who have pushed to extend the full rights of the Constitution to all Americans.

Same-Sex Politics

On November 6, 2012 voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved same-sex marriage. A historic turning point, it is the first time that marriage for gay men and lesbians has been approved at the ballot box. It had been voted down more than 30 times.

In Minnesota, in another first, voters rejected a proposal to amend the State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, a measure that has been enshrined in the constitutions of 30 states. The votes meant that same-sex marriage is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia.

Rights groups said the victories were an important sign that public opinion was changing. Though same-sex marriage remains unpopular in the South, rights campaigners see the potential for legislative gains in Delaware, Hawaii and Illinois.

Same-sex marriage became a reality in the United States in 2004 in the wake of a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that it was required under the equal protection clause of the state’s Constitution. Prior to 2012, same-sex marriage was also legalized in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C. Early in 2012, Washington State and Maryland both approved same-sex marriage laws, but neither took effect immediately and were subject to fall referendums.

In early May, North Carolina voted in large numbers for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, partnerships and civil unions, becoming the 30th state in the country and the last in the South to include a prohibition on gay marriage in the state constitution.

Days later, on May 9, President Obama declared for the first time that he supports same-sex marriage, putting the moral power of his presidency behind a social issue that continues to divide the country. His support ended years of public equivocating over the divisive social issue for the president, who previously said he opposed gay marriage but repeatedly said he was “evolving” on the issue because of contact with friends and others who are gay.

For more than a decade, the issue has been a flashpoint in American politics, setting off waves of competing legislation, lawsuits and ballot initiatives to either legalize or ban the practice and causing rifts within religious groups.

The legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States had been a relatively recent goal of the gay-rights movement, but in the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, gay-rights organizers have placed it at the center of their agenda, steering money and muscle into dozens of state capitals in an effort to persuade lawmakers. At the same time, conservative groups pushed hard to forestall or reverse other courts through new laws or referendums.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have long argued that the institution of marriage is a unique expression of love and commitment and that calling the unions of same-sex couples anything else is a form of second-class citizenship; they also point out that many legal rights are tied to marriage. Those opposed to same-sex marriage agree that marriage is a fundamental bond with ancient roots. But they draw the opposite conclusion, saying that allowing same-sex couples to marry would undermine the institution of marriage itself.

Marriage Equality

President Obama has made history by endorsing marriage equality for gays and lesbians. “I want everyone treated fairly in this country. We have never gone wrong when we’ve extended rights and responsibilities to everybody,” he said. “That doesn’t weaken families, that strengthens families.”

Obama’s announcement came two days after Republican rival Mitt Romney gave a commencement address at the evangelical Liberty University in Virginia, where he made social issues a main theme of his remarks and touched on the marriage storyline.

“Culture matters. As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate,” Romney said. “So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.”

While the full political implications of the president’s same-sex marriage remarks remain to be seen, Gallup released a poll showing 51% of Americans approve of Obama’s support for gay couples to marry. A further breakdown of the numbers shows a significant gender gap: Fifty-six percent of women say couples of the same gender should be legally allowed to marry, while 42% of men feel the same way.

The issue became prime political fodder, with several high-profile Republicans pouncing on the president’s remarks.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said he “wasn’t sure that (Obama’s) views on marriage could get any gayer,” sparking laughs among his audience at an event held by Iowa’s Faith and Freedom Coalition.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus also made headlines when he said that same-sex marriage was not a “matter of civil rights.”

“I think it’s just a matter of whether or not we’re going to adhere to something that’s been historical and religious and legal in this country for many, many years,” Priebus said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” I mean, marriage has to have a definition, and we just happen to believe it’s between a man and woman.”

We live in an interesting and important time. Will history be made or will we be set back and forced to wait for equality, our human rights and our freedom?