In his first pass through the first primary state, New Hampshire, since formally announcing his candidacy, Barack Obama said he was fine with civil unions, but would not support equality of marriage, claiming it is a "religious bond" that warrented protection. He attempted to balance this by re-iterating his belief that all Americans have basic rights which need to be respected.
Interestingly, when pressed on the issues, he acknowledged that his own parents' marriage was likely illegal when they wed (and in many states remained so for quite a while after). Obama's mother is white and his father is black. In the sixties, when they wed, many states had laws banning interracial marriages. (Hawaii, where they wed, did not).
One might expect the spawn of an illegal (and therefore irreligious?) marriage to have a bit more understanding...
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
Obama, given his parentage, should be aware of this. If his parents had traveled to Washington DC from Hawaii, they could have been jailed for their marriage. Essentially jailed for their religious beliefs that a white woman and a black man could, indeed, have a holy union.
Just becuase your beliefs and the government's coincide in this case does not mean that they always will. How do you feel about the proposal in Washington state that would limit marriages to couples that have children within three years of marriage? If that were to pass, would a childless Catholic marriage be less holy in the eyes of God? Do you really want laws dictating what religions can and can't do?
I agree with you, that if the government were to get out of the business of marriages entirely, and instead conferred the rights associated with partnering to all couples as a civil matter, I would be thrilled. This was not what he was proposing, however.
First you argue that "marriage" is by religious definition between a man and woman."
Legal civil marriage and religious marriage are entirely distinct from one another. A marriage license issued by the Clerk of the Court's office unlocks the door to more than 1,000 securities, benefits, rights and obligations that enable two people to properly care for each other and their family. A couple does not need to comply with any religious requirement to obtain a marriage license, nor does the license confer any religious approval.
To be valid, the couple must be legally married in a ceremony performed by anyone who has been authorized by the state to solemnize the marriage. In most states this includes any clerk of the court, or any official of a religious body authorized by the rule and customs of that body to perform a marriage ceremony. Even where marriage is a legal option for same-sex couples, churches will always decide for themselves whether to perform or recognize any marriage just as your own church has refused to marry interfaith couples and those who have been divorced.
As a Harvard trained lawyer Senator Obama knows this all too well and is playing the political gamesmanship that is the politics of the past—something that in our view is inconsistent with his message of the "politics of hope."
Second, Cat rationalizes that "A man can never be a "wife" nor can a woman ever be a "husband". That is just how it is." This of course is a needless repetition of an idea without imparting additional force or clearness. For sure, one definition of a husband is a married man and it is commonly used when considered in relation to a wife. But that definition is outdated since there are married men living in Massachusetts who are legally married to anther man making them both husbands.
The separation of church and state stands to prevent proponents of any religion from utilizing the government as a tool of tyranny over believers of a different faith. While every faith community must make its own decisions regarding morality and marriage, there should also be respect for the legal arguments brought forth by gay Americans.
Mr. Obama can and should do better.
In theory your suggestions makes sense; however, in practical terms we would have a fight on our hands because we would be asking mixed gender couples to give up marriage unless they were willing to have a religious ceremony. I for one think that seems fair but doubt that it would fly.
Moreover, what do we do about all of the current "marriages" that are really civil ceremonies?
Currently in the states which allow civil unions there are separate registries for these unions and of course there is no reciprocal recognition between states.
Would mixed gender couples who have civil unions not be consider to be married? Would they be on the register with same gender couples? How would the state track religious marriages? Would there be some a marriage registry or would everyone have a civil union and only those who are religious be married?
Finally, it seem ridiculous to me that we would contort ourselves so and create "two sets of books" to account for who is married and who is not just to keep gay Americans from claiming our rightful place as full citizens.
Anyone already legally married would automatically be given the civil union status. But from that point on the two would be divorced (so to speak) from each other. You could have a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony or both, if you only have the religious, no tax breaks for you.
Lynn, I really like the way you've framed that. I don't think I've really heard (read) anyone articulate that way. Thank you.
As for the comments above, I, too, wonder how it would work if America decides that "civil unions" are appropriate for non-religious ceremonies. Some of my gay friends have had or would have a religious ceremony. Would that make them married? How to avoid that "problem?" Other gays may choose to have a civil ceremony; as noted above, so do many heterosexual couples. Does that mean those heterosexual couples cannot use the word "married?" Or, are we just really trying to say that only heterosexual couples can use the word, really for no other reason than semantics. That is how it seems to me.
I am not gay, so I do not feel I have a place to say whether providing the "civil union" option is a viable solution. In my mind, however, I think it is just giving an inch when we should give a yard.
Although Kucinich is unconditionally supportive of GLBT rights: http://www.clubnui.net/dkdemo/positionpapers/lgbtqrights2006.pdf
My guess is that's the point that was trying to be made. That he should be able to see through the silliness of the religious stance. After all, folks used the Bible to justify laws against interracial marriages and many churches were against them as well.
" "I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided." "
I posted an article that discusses Obama's stance on civil rights and gay marriage you may want to check out:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977250033
John
John