(http://www.politico.com/)
California ruling puts Obama on spot
By: Josh Gerstein
August 5, 2010 04:29 AM EDT
The culture war is back.
A federal judge’s ruling Wednesday _striking down_
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40663.html) California’s ban on
same-sex marriage is a
historic and possibly pivotal legal victory for gay rights advocates, but
the decision also poses a formidable threat to President _Barack Obama_
(http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/BarackObama) ’s strategy of
relegating divisive social issues to the back burner.
U.S. District Court Judge _Vaughn Walker_
(http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/VaughnWalker) ’s decision is just
the latest in a series of
rulings and high-profile legal challenges drawing public attention to gay
rights issues in a sustained way for the first time since San Francisco Mayor
Gavin Newsom grabbed headlines in 2004 by okaying same-sex marriages in that
city.
As gay and lesbian activists celebrate what they hope is the leading edge
of a wave of momentous court rulings and legislative successes, they remain
uneasy with Obama’s nuanced position on gay marriage.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama took what many on both sides of the _gay
marriage_ (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/GayMarriage) debate
viewed as a straddle. He publicly announced his opposition to same-sex
marriage, but he also said that he opposed the California ballot measure
seeking
to ban it, Prop. 8— the same ban Walker ruled unconstitutional Wednesday.
Obama explained the seeming contradiction [ nothing " seeming" about it;
his position is a blatant contradiction / BR ] at the time by saying
that he opposes any measure singling out a group for adverse treatment by
amending the U.S. Constitution or a state constitution, as Prop 8. did, even
though legal experts said that was the only viable way to block gay
marriage in California.
Gay activists lauded Obama's stance, but remain disappointed and a tad
puzzled by his unwillingness to simply endorse gay marriage.
“His position on Prop. 8 has always been clear. What has not been clear is
how he squares his position for equality with his refusal to embrace
actual equality in marriage. That is unclear, increasingly unclear, and
there’s
no good reason to explain it,” said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry. “That
’s an unsatisfying position that does nothing but frustrate those of us
who look to him as the champion he promised to be…He’s not gaining anything
and Judge Walker just made that crystal clear.”
Same-sex marriage opponents also view Obama’s position as unsustainable in
light of Walker’s decision.
“He’s got to show his cards,” said Brian Brown of the National
Organization for Marriage. “Do you support one San Francisco judge in imposing
his
view of marriage on the rest of the country or not?... Anyone who just looks
at this from an objective point of view realizes the president’s position
is untenable.”
The White House issued a terse statement on the ruling that didn’t endorse
or reject the judge’s conclusions. [ WTH ??? ]
“The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is
divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to _promote equality_
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39560.html) for LGBT Americans,”
spokesman Ben LaBolt said.
The official statement didn’t reiterate Obama’s opposition to gay
marriage, but a spokesman said his position on that issue was unchanged.
“He supports civil unions, doesn’t personally support gay marriage though
he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and has opposed
divisive and discriminatory initiatives like Prop. 8 in other states,” said
the
Obama aide, who asked not to be named.
Walker’s ruling alone might not be enough to put the gay-marriage issue at
the forefront of the national agenda. But when combined with another
federal judge’s decision a month ago striking down the federal Defense of
Marriage Act and the possibility of yet another ruling soon against the
military’
s Don’t ask, don’t tell policy on gays, a notable judicial tilt towards
gay rights seems to be underway that can only increase the prominence of the
debate.
Coming on the eve of the midterm elections, the pro-gay-marriage rulings
are also in tension with the sustained effort Obama and his top aides have
made since the 2008 campaign to push polarizing and contentious social
issues like gay rights, abortion, race, and even gun rights into the
background.
While advocates on both sides are eager to see the same-sex marriage issue
back in the headlines, it’s far from clear just how prominent a role it
will ultimately take. With unemployment rates near 10 percent, the economy is
likely to be the driving force at the ballot box this fall. The country is
mired in a difficult war in Afghanistan, has faced a series of terrorist
attacks, and is polarized over a groundbreaking federal effort to overhaul
the health insurance system.
Same-sex marriage opponents hope their issue dovetails with a general
sense that government is ignoring the will of the people and showing little
respect for traditional American values—be they economic or social. But, so
far, the Tea Party movement has been cautious about diving into social issues
that might divide social conservatives and libertarians.
Backers of same-sex marriage see their crusade reaching a tipping point as
prominent conservative voices come on board, like former Bush Solicitor Gen
eral Ted Olson, who argued the lawsuit which produced Walker’s ruling.
They also see an element of demographic inevitability in their movement with
younger people of all political persuasions more accepting of homosexuality
and gay marriage than are older Americans.
“When President Bill Clinton -- the president who signed the Defense of
Marriage Act into law -- has now called for overturning it, and supports
freedom to marry, joined by people like Cindy McCain and Laura Bush, President
Obama needs to get on the right side of this cause of justice,” Wolfson
said.
For their part, same-sex marriage critics say that would be a politically
treacherous course for the president, particularly in the wake of Walker’s
ruling.
While federal judges are routinely denounced as judicial activists for
overturning laws passed by state legislatures and the Congress, those bodies
are held in such low esteem that most voters can’t muster a great deal of
outrage at intrusions from the courts.
But Walker’s decision actually negates a direct act of the people, the
2008 ballot measure in which California voters enshrined the one-man-one-woman
definition of marriage in the state constitution by 52 percent to 48
percent. Exit polls showed that many of those who turned out to vote for Obama
also supported the measure.
“You’re stripping 7 million people of their right to vote,” Brown said.
Brown argues that Walker’s ruling assumes those 7 million people were
driven by deep-seated bias and irrationality. “They say we’re just like the Ku
Klux Klan. What they don’t get is Americans are overwhelmingly for
traditional marriage,” Brown said. “Those of us who believe marriage is a
union
between a man and a woman are going to be treated in law as if we’re bigots
and deprived of our right to vote. That’s just not going to sit well.”
The recent immigration debate in Arizona suggests the White House may be
wary about endorsing arguments that a large number of American voters are
motivated by bigotry.
With polls showing widespread support for Arizona’s crackdown on illegal
immigration, Obama has been careful to express his disagreement with the
legislation while rejecting suggestions that it was motivated by racism.
Brown noted that Obama isn’t the only political figure who could face
pressure on the gay-marriage issue as a result of Walker’s decision. Many
Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona have said they opposed a
federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because there was no
indication that it was needed.
“Many people said they didn’t want to amend the Constitution unless it
was absolutely necessary. Now it’s becoming clear it may be absolutely
necessary,” [ Brian ] Brown said. “I don’t think folks really understand how
monumental this decision is from the perspective of what it means for
national politics.” (http://www.irides.com/)
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
FD HIDDEN DIV
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
