A Question For Obama Supporters:
Obama and McCain recently met with mega-church pastor and author Rick Warren and fielded a number of questions. At this event Obama stated that he would not support a constitution amendment banning gay marriage as he believes it’s an issue for state government to decide. I, for one, happen to agree with him on this one. However, something he said later has me puzzled.
Obama stated he’s pro-choice, and he believed in the “Roe vs. Wade” Supreme Court decision supporting it.
So, here’s my question:
Why is gay marriage a state government decision but abortion isn’t?
In my mind it would seem both are issues for state government to decide but Obama doesn’t agree. What’s so special about the abortion issue that it must be taken out of the hands of the state, whereas gay marriage is something to be left to the state alone?
And do I honestly believe Obama supports states rights on the issue of gay marriage? Of course not. But he can appeal to the center by opposing such a ban on the federal level while supporting it on the state. When banning gay marriage is attacked as unConstitutional (and it will be) can we expect an Obama Administration to say Washington should be mute on the issue?
Don’t hold your breath.
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
8 comments
I’ll spectulate… Gay marriages don’t kill anyone. Abortions, some argue, does. Maybe ( again I don’t know ) Mr. Obama is as uncomfortable with the " you just can’t win this one" aspect of the abortion issue. By stating it would be up to state law makers, he is able to wash his hands of it. Or more like keep his hands out of it lest some accuse them of being blood stained.
If the tax laws in the states are anything like ours in Canada, you are taxed more as a couple then as two individuals. This is starting to change with the political pendulum swinging to the right. At the time of the Province of British Columbia legalizing gay marrage ( state level? I question mark the aside; as the population of states like California are the same as our whole country ) it was not a tax savings to get married. So, effective means of increased tax revenue. Also, parteners would be covering each other via pension sharing, health employment benefits ect. Less cost for those whos’ care would have fallen to the govenment.
That was the arguement up here. It helps one accept it if it makes sense. Not that I like it. Remember, democracy dosen’t work because the majority rules, but because the minority are willing to accept what the majority wants….sometimes I hate that part.
I can cede giving the abortion argument over to Washington if what was being decided was an issue of murder. As the Supreme Court made abortion legal, the issue can’t be about murder. From their point of view anyway.
So, what we have is the abortion issue being handed over to Washington on a point of law that doesn’t include murder.
So, again, my question still stands: Why can Washington override the state on the abortion issue (as abortion was illegal in most states at the time) but should remain silent on the issue of gay marriage? If Washington can interject its way on one, I cannot see a logical reason why it shouldn’t on the other - as Mr. Obama seems to think.
maybe because the supreme court has already decided roe v. wade, while it has not (yet) been asked to weigh in on the issue of gay marriage.
The reason, as you suppose, is not logical but political. Logic does not always trump politics, which is the logic of force, according to George Washington who said, “Government is force.” No one has ever improved on the definition. Obama, and nearly everyone else, favors the preeminence of state’s rights when it is in their interests to do so. There are occasions, to be sure, when constitutional rights should trump state’s rights, but it is, or should be, very difficult for politicians to favor state’s rights in one instance and discount them in another when, in both instances, logic would dictate a similar course in both cases.
Don Pesci’s last blog post..The Weekend Wrapper
The fastest way for any Presidential candidate to get out of a jam on a controversial domestic issue is to support states’ rights on the matter. Basically, it’s the equivalent of punting.
Zach, now that’s a punt if I ever saw one!
Ron Coleman’s last blog post..How’d I do that?
Uh… there is the little matter, Kevin, of the fact that marriage is something in which the federal government is involved with day to day: marriages are recongized not only by states but also the IRS and all manner of federal agencies and operations. So we can’t simply "leave it up to the states" alone: the federal government cannot help but pick either recognizing gay unions in some fashion or not.
Bad’s last blog post..Public Support for ?Fairness? Doctrine Disgusting
ron,
i don’t see anything wrong with conceding something to precedent, nor do i think it’s particularly a punt to do so.
You must log in to post a comment.