Editorial: Obama's laudable stance on gay marriage
Barack Obama’s evolving stance on gay marriage has finally brought the president and the nation to the bright side of history. For the first time, a U.S. president has unequivocally affirmed that same-sex couples should be able to legally marry.
In an interview with Robin Roberts of ABC News, Obama offered a well-crafted and nuanced explanation of how he transitioned from supporting legal rights short of marriage for same-sex couples to endorsing legal nuptials. The back story is more interesting than the political overtones of Obama’s announcement, because it mirrors a process familiar to many Americans.
Obama talked about working with staff members who are in committed same-sex relationships. At the family dinner table, he has listened to his young daughters speak casually about school friends who are being raised by moms or dads of the same gender. To them, it’s a non-issue.
On college campuses, young people who disagree with the president on nearly everything speak out in favor of full equality for gay and lesbian couples, Obama said. And even with his administration ending the military’s misbegotten “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” policy, the president came to believe that the gay men and lesbian women putting their lives on the line for their country should be able to stand at the altar with their partners.
As for the politics, Obama has in some ways lagged on this issue. Up until now, he has refused to endorse same-sex marriage, even as his administration made it possible for gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military and his Justice Department announced it would not defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Pundits will speculate that Vice President Joe Biden inadvertently forced Obama’s hand when Biden himself declared that he fully supports same-sex marriage. But who cares? If Biden went astray, as he sometimes does, he led the president to the correct destination.
Obama was careful to emphasize in his interview that his position was a personal one. Laws governing marriage are primarily the responsibility of the individual states. Unfortunately, 30 states, including Kansas and Missouri, have laws banning gay marriage. North Carolina joined the list on Tuesday with a public vote.
But the tide is clearly turning. And for the first time, the millions of gay and lesbian Americans who want nothing less than the full privileges of citizenship can claim the president of the United States as an ally.
Tom Ryan
Crossroads, Kansas City
1 year agoBravo, Joe Biden :-) our Headmaster Father Justin “Jed” Diny would have been proud ! http://www.premontre.org/chapter/Diny-433.html
Sam Abadir
Kansas City
1 year agoThis is kind of a dum editorial. Poorly written at best. 1. How is the tide turning when 60% of states have a ban? 2. This means nothing…Obama said it was personal. And most importantly, 3…people are talking about gay marriage and not the terrible record of Obama and the democrats…where is the mention of that?
Jon Dough
1 year ago“For the first time, a U.S. president has unequivocally affirmed that same-sex couples should be able to legally marry.”
WRONG—I heard the audio—he said FOR ME PERSONALLY—and then went on to say its up to the states. So all he said is he would be open, personally to marrying a man. Which I thought he was–I thought those were photos of him and Larry Fishburne?
From Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals “The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work”
Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky”Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year agoHow can Christian African-Americans or Hispanics vote for Obama now?
Tom Ryan
Crossroads, Kansas City
1 year agoWhen President Obama was born his parents’ marriage was illegal in 22 states.
Kevin Sheely
1 year agoChildren deserve to have a Mom AND a Dad. They deserve the security of knowing Mom and Dad are committed to each other, and to them, FOREVER. It’s in the interests of society to preserve and promote this model.
For all but 15 of the past 5,000 years this belief was simple common sense. With remarkably few exceptions marriage has meant one and only one thing in every corner of the earth, across the entire spectrum of cultures and religions.
Now, in our wonderfully enlightented, fundamentally transformed America, clinging to such beliefs means inviting baseless smears of bigotry and other similar bullying.
Thanks again for uniting the country, Mr. President. I guess you figure you’re going to lose the election anyway so might as well go down swinging.
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year agoAre u trying to make a point Tom???? OH, that’s right, this is just another facet of “civil rights”, isn’t it????
You libs are hilarious…
Mark Hastert
1 year agoRead more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/editorial-obamas-laudable-stance-gay-marriage/#storylink=cpy
… but according to the Wall Street Journal poll 50% of the citizens and growing favor it.
Patrick T. Condon
1 year ago“Obama offered a well-crafted and nuanced explanation”…Nuanced? Oh, heavily. Well-crafted? Uh-no. Grasping at straws.
Jon Dough
1 year agoWas it a wide stance?
Patrick T. Condon
1 year agoLet me add that the president comes out and makes this pronouncement on the heels of Biden’s comment. So Slow Joe is driving BHO’s need to pivot on political issues like this. Little wonder we’re adrift without national leadership.
Mark Robertson
1 year agoAnother dark day during the nightmarish Obama reign. Marriage has been and always be between one man and one woman. There can be no such thing as something called same sex marriage. It would be like having square circles. This is the case no matter what a radical leftist “leader” says, or any government official or body, including any court or judge, or even the popular vote of the people. “But the tide is clearly turning?” Familiar liberal tactic, overstate something in a way hoping that the uninformed will fall for it. As mentioned, on Tuesday, North Carolina overwhelmingly voted for a constitutional amendment to state that marriage is between a man and a woman. They passed an amendment so that another lunatic judge couldn’t come along and reverse the voice of the people, as has happened in California, Iowa and elsewhere. A U.S. Constitutional amendment is needed to defend the fact that marriage is between one man and a woman. President Obama’s spokesman said earlier this week something along the lines that the Obama Administration has always supported equality for the LGBT community. A question. I understand that the “B” in LGBT means something called bisexual or bisexuality. Does this mean that Obama also supports the right for someone to marry a man ande a woman? If not, why not? And what about two men and three women or vice-versa? If not, why not? This is the problem that arises when the definition of marriage is tampered with. If marriage can mean anything, then is means nothing, the ultimate goal of most of the radical left. The principle of right and wrong continues to be under attack. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year agoI am waiting for the demand for a marriage to a person’s favorite dog or horse….
I think some judge will surely see this as a constitutional “right”….
Chip Chipperson
1 year ago“I am waiting for the demand for a marriage to a person’s favorite dog or horse….”
Nobody is saying this except for the anti-gay crowd. Just because marriage is between a man and a woman currently does that mean “traditional marriage” folks are in support of a man marrying a young girl? It surely must. Problem with traditional marriage with me is everyone who pretends to be holy stand before god and says till death do you part, then get divorced a year later cause they find someone they like better. I can get married and divorced an infinite amount of times and it’s somehow godly. Also this is about equal rights, gay couples should have the same rights as straight couple. It’s not a popularity issue, but equal treatment.
Chip Chipperson
1 year ago“This is the problem that arises when the definition of marriage is tampered with. If marriage can mean anything, then is means nothing, the ultimate goal of most of the radical left.”
The right has done it’s fair share of destroying traditional marriage. Look at who ran for president on your ticket. A pig who got married three times before god. Wow, nice morals there. Unlimited marriages before god=ok only if it’s between a man and a woman. Otherwise it ludicrous.
George Hunsucker
Northland
1 year agoCan you say John Edwards Chip? Or how about Slick Willey, aka “I did not have sex with that woman”?
Chip Chipperson
1 year ago“Can you say John Edwards Chip? Or how about Slick Willey, aka “I did not have sex with that woman”?”
Yet you will defend their right to marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce as being “godly” or “natural”. Thanks for proving a point I was trying to make.
Chip Chipperson
1 year agoRush Limbaugh charges Obama has declared war on marriage. Limbaugh’s first, second, and third wives could not be reached for comment.
Charles Purvis
1 year agoChip, do you think there will be no such thing as gay divorce? You sound as if you believe that once a gay couple marries, they will stay with each other ‘until death do they part.’
The primary beneficiary in gay marriage has to be divorce lawyers.
Chip Chipperson
1 year agoI really don’t care if people get divorced. I’m just tired of people using religion as the reason why gays shouldn’t get married, when divorce is so high. When you marry you stand before god and say till death do you part. So people who are divorcing are just being dishonest with god, then they pretend that they are holier than they really are.
Charles Purvis
1 year agoWell, it’s the primary reason why most people are against it. Since virtually all of mankind’s laws have some basis in religeous principles, it should come to you as no surprise that people reference the Bible when expressing their opposition to gay marriage. It is one of several behaviors referenced in the Old Testament which are expressly forbidden. It ranks right up there with beastiality. Are you ready to say that’s OK, too?
Chip Chipperson
1 year agoThe old testament also talks about stoning kids to death who disobeys their parents. Dumb is dumb.
Chip Chipperson
1 year agoHere’s another great Bible verse for all those concerning marriage. Deuteronomy 25:5 : If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.
Chip Chipperson
1 year agoDeuteronomy 22:13:-20: ‘If a man marries a woman and has sex with her and then turns on her and publicly accuses her, saying, “I married this woman, and when I had sex with her, I found no evidence of virginity,the girl’s father and mother must take the evidence of her viginity and show it to the elders of the town, saying, “Here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.The elders will then have the man arrested and flogged, and fine him 100 silver pieces, giving this money to the girl’s father.The woman will remain the man’s wife as long as he lives, and he may not divorce her.’But if the accusation is true and no evidence of the woman’s virginity is shown, the woman must be taken to the door of her fathers house and stoned to death by the men of the town.’
Charles Purvis
1 year agoSo what you’re saying is that since you can find passages which seem completely contrary to modern living, that everything in the Bible can be disregarded? How about Thou Shalt Not Kill, or Thou Shalt Not Steal? Should we reject those priciples as well?
Chip Chipperson
1 year agoNo but it shouldn’t be for you to pick and choose which ones to live by for other people either. Our laws should be different from the Bible, only God can judge. Not you.
Patrick T. Condon
1 year agoCivil union - sure. Marriage - nope. Specific words have specific meanings and marriage relates to a man and a woman.
Marek Kociolek
1 year agoAhem…not to labour the point, but if ya don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get get gay married. In Canada, gay marriage has been enshrined into the Charter of Rights. The sky has not fallen, no one really cares one way or another. For all of you “Str8” folks who cling to close minded attitudes, perhaps you should focus on getting better health care and education for Americans overall, not to mention staying out of overwhelming personal debt before you come after the gays. Better yet, stop cherry picking rights for minorities outright. Just sayin’.