Original: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/02/obama_opposes_gay_marriage_ban.html

Obama Opposes Gay Marriage Ban
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Barack Obama is opposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in California, taking a liberal stand on an issue in the midst of a move to the center on others in recent weeks.

In a letter sent to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club of San Francisco this week, the Illinois senator said "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."

Conservatives in the state are pushing a constitutional amendment following a California Supreme Court decision that overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain backs the proposed amendment.

Obama aides emphasized he has opposed similar state bans in the past. They said the Illinois senator does not support gay marriage, but believes that federal and state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage can also threaten rights that couples have under civil unions and domestic partnerships, which Obama supports.

Obama quietly announced his stance in a statement in a letter to the Toklas club, a California gay rights group. His position comes as a shift for Democrats, as 2004 presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry backed amendments to ban gay marriage in some of the states in which he campaigned.

Gays are a very small minority of the Democrat party but they are vocal and contribute a lot of money. The reason they have so much influence in the party is because of their money. Obama doesn't need the gay vote to win. Their money is more important than their vote.

He's right. Its not bright to amend the constitution for every prejudice that may arise. Like smoking. Drinking alcohol. etc.

If the Supreme Court rules that polygamy is protected under the Constitution would that be worth amending the Constitution?

If its already protected then why amend it???

What about pedophilia? If the Supreme Court rules that pedophilia is a protected right should we amend the Constitution?

What about child abuse? If the Supreme Court rules that child abuse is a protected Right should we amend the Constitution?

How about child labor? Child pornography? Prostitution? Drunk driving? What if the Supreme Court gives the right to doctors to decide whether or not to shut off life support without the family's consent?

There is a sentiment out there that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document. Some people feel as if our founders were saints on the same level with Moses and the Constitution is as holy as the Ten Commandments. Thus we should refrain from amending it.

Well I don't see it that way. Our founders lived in a different world than we do today. The way for the Constitution to adapt to the present world is by amending it - not allowing activist judges to legislate from the bench. We the people have the right and responsibility to amend the Constitution as the world changes and requires clarifications and such to be made. Amending the Constitution is constitutional.

Amending the Constitution is constitutional.

si! si!

I have confidence in the American people!

... as a totality that is, I've none in individual opinions, nor sectarian dogma...

p.s. (why do you always bring up pedophilia and child-abuse when you want to argue with me?)

no me gusta

I am just participating in the exchange of ideas. Nothing I post is directed at any individual. I also brought up drunk driving and prostitution.

Gays argue that they are born that way and thus have a right to be gay.

Alcoholics can argue that they are born that way and have a right to be alcoholics.

Child abusers can use the Bible to justify their abuse and claim protection under the free-exercise clause.

Prostitutes can claim the right to privacy to justify their trade.

I am not saying I agree with any of these arguments. MBLA has been fighting to legalize pedophilia for some time. These goofy groups are out there and if they get paired up with a goofy judge - - - bad things happen.

I don't think it's up to the state to legislate and enforce morality. I have several friends who are not gay, but do struggle with the issue. Most have hormonal imbalances that contributes to their confusion. So, in some way, physiology does have something to do with it. But I give them props for not giving up and trying to live up to God's promises.

As far as gay marriages and Constitution, I surely don't think Federal Government should legislate morality. I agree that they should protect children from being raised in such environment... yet the choice to be immoral is theirs. Lying is as much immoral as being gay in God's eyes.

At the same time, I believe that ministers should have a choice to refuse officiating ceremony if they have convictions about it being immoral. Technically, they can not be considered married even if States cave in and legalize it. It's like one day passing a law pronouncing all Hispanics to be African Americans. Marriage is a spiritual issue... not a legal one. The government took over and made it a legal one, but I really don't see a difference between a couple living together and then splitting, and a couple signing a piece of paper and then doing the same thing. Without God, marriage is dysfunctional.

at least Obama knows to separate church from state on this issue

The state has laws against stealing, killing, lying, and adultery (especially in the military). Those are all moral laws.

It is in the state's or society's best interest to see that certain moral standards are met. Some could also argue that it is in our society's best interest to keep marriage reserved for the partnership of males with females.

I do favor the state allowing gays to enter into legal contracts for the purpose of visitation, wills, property, etc. I also believe gays should have the same rights and privileges in our society as anyone else, except for marriage.

Please explain what you mean when you say that "technically" two men "cannot be considered married" to each other even if the state legally recognizes it. Do you mean "spiritually" rather than technically? What matters to most gay people is that the state legally recognize their relationship. They generally don't care if Christians recognize it spiritually or not, because they don't believe Christians who oppose gay marriage are right anyway.

What I mean is that marriage is NOT a legal matter. The state made it a legal matter to "protect it", but you can not call white black, just like you can not call two man to be a married couple. It's our understanding of marriage that is screwed up and thus allows for such possibility. Then the reasoning is... only those people who STATE calls married are really married. In actuality... state has no spiritual say in who are married and who are not. It's God's say through the consent of the parents of the couple. This was always the case until very resent history.

Can you consider a couple in soviet Union for example to partake in a spiritual marriage when God is left out? What is the difference between them simply cohabitating with commitment to each other and calling themselves "married"? I guess that's my point. I'm wondering if there were any gay married couples before State took over the marriage... probably not... because you had to go through Church to earn that title.

PS. there are many moral laws that State ignores. Yes lying is punishable under oath, but it's not in reality... just like adultery is not legally punishable (only through a divorce attorney). Yes, state could contractually (when we agree so) rightfully take part in defending our lives... but it should not have any part in legislating morality. Then it becomes morality out of fear... and morality dictated by state. I.E. state says what's moral and what's not. It's my personal opinion I guess.

Well, the state cannot possibly enforce honesty in every instance. It naturally has to choose when it is in the state's interest to enforce it. Such as in cases of fraud and lying when under oath. It would drain the state's resources if it tried to enforce the issue of lying in all instances, especially when it comes to the politicians, sad to say.

Here is one such enforcement from today's news: EDGARTOWN, Mass. - A 60-year-old man was charged Friday with disorderly conduct for allegedly lying about seeing two great white sharks off a Martha Vineyard's beach, authorities said.

I agree with much of the rest of your post.

Can you imagine the State following the likes of Bill Clinton around as a requirement of his probation of Federal Charges.

If lying would be illegal, then it would be illegal to be a politician :)... so it's a self preservation interest . j/k but I'm sure there's truth in there somewhere.

Not that state can't legislate morality... it certainly does and it can. The problem with it is not the danger of the Mark of the Beast, but the fact that the State now dictates what is moral and what is not. Moral becomes legal, and immoral becomes what is illegal. Thus it creates wrong view of morality in minds of people. Thus many view and worship state as a god, with flag for a cross, pledge for prayer, anthem for a hymn and constitution for the Bible. It's something for them to believe in.
The truth of the matter is that a state is imaginary construct... it's not something that naturally exists or was created by God. It's something men created for idea of "security" and "comfort"... an emergency exits on the air place flying 30k feet in the air. That's why the borders are drawn along the rivers and oceans. This is not the way the world was created and not the way it's supposed to be. Yes, we are indoctrinated that this is the way the things are ought to be, but they will not be this way on the new Earth. So, when approaching the issue of state, I share the views of the people who founded this one.... The government is the best one, which governs the least. Yet somehow we just abandoned the principle and accept by default that people really have no choice in the matter. Nobody asks you whether you'd like the things the way these are, the state assumes that you enter into contract (agreement) with it by being born, and thus you are automatically a subject. The choice is to submit, or to expatriate to a country with same or worse order (once you get permission to do so of course)... or suffer the consequences. What exactly is free in such freedom? Freedom to refuse?