What Would Obama Do?
March 5, 2008 Posted by David N
During a “town hall” style meeting this past Sunday at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Senator Obama was asked to reconcile his social policies (which many evangelicals are attracted to) with his positions on same-sex unions and abortion. The questioner didn't specifically refer to those two issues by name, but called them “litmus test” issues for many Christian voters. This was Obama's response on abortion:
as possible …. But I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I
think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and
their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than
some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view. Again, I respect people
who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less
Christian. Okay.”
This sounds like a very sensible strategy, but like most liberal responses in the past decade on this issue, it completely misses the point. Obama readily admits that abortion is a “tragedy”, but he doesn't say why. Is it a tragedy because the unborn child is a human person and abortion would constitute murder? If so, what could someone's pastor or doctor possibly say to change that? In the end, Obama's answer amounts to little more than evasive rhetoric.
And his response on same-sex marriage:
that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and
respect and that the state should not discriminate against them. So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex
couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each
other. I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it
is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.
If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the
Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more
central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view.”
This is, by far, the most interesting political statement I've ever heard. A Presidential candidate engaged in bad theology.
The obvious question to ask here is what the Sermon on the Mount has to do with same-sex unions? The report at crosswalk.com suggests some possibilities: perhaps he's referring to the Golden Rule, or maybe Jesus' oft-quoted command not to judge. In any event, the better question to ask is what's so “obscure” about the passage in Romans? It's the very first chapter of what most evangelicals would consider to be Paul's most important epistle. Not only that, but the passage in question is extremely clear in its condemnation of homosexuality as unnatural and sinful.
Now, I actually find myself in agreement with Obama on a few points. C. S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity that Christians shouldn't be trying outlaw divorce by legislation. The church is clear on its position, he said, and we would know who was really a follower of Christ and who wasn't by their conduct, so there was no point in trying to force people to obey Christian morality. After all, he went on, we wouldn't like it very much if the “Mohammadans” came in and tried to outlaw alcohol!
These comments by Lewis should be, at the very least, thought provoking, if not downright controversial (he was talking about divorce, but there is an obvious application to gay marriage lurking around the corner). I'm not entirely sure I agree with him. But there is at least a ring of truth there. And the same goes for Obama. I may not support gay marriage, but there does seem to be something wrong with not allowing a gay person to visit his/her significant other in the hospital, simply because they're gay. And it will only hurt our witness to the gay community if we persist in denying them such rights.
Obama is certainly unique as a liberal candidate in his simultaneous support of same-sex “unions” and opposition to same-sex “marriage.” There is definately something seductive about this position to the evangelical community. The only question I still have is whether or not this is a distinction without a difference. What are we really protecting if the only difference is the name?
Related posts:
- Obama On Abortion At Saddleback
- Playing Politics With Same-Sex Marriage And Undermining A Free Society
- Pray For Barack Obama
- Scott Clark On Natural Law And Gay Marriage
- Obama And McCain At Saddleback Civil Forum
- Gay Marriage And The Bible
Posted in David's Posts, Main Page
content rss
March 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am
The difference is how the church would see the distiction. I see Obama just trying to satisfy both sides with his statements, not trying to solve the grand issue. The church would get thier way because the unions would not be called “marriage” and the homosexual community would get what they want because they would recieve many of the civil rights that a married couple has. The problem I now see is this. By saving the term marriage for heterosexual couples and the church, it is implied that there is something spiritual that is extra and comes along with it. We all know however, that fewer and fewer marriages are based on a christian foundation. So will this mean that the drug addict who marries thier dealer has a better spiritual basis than a couple that is “Unioned”? That is the problem the chruch faces already, so why seporate it out even further?
To end on a less religiously serious (but near equally serious) note; I have discovered that Senator Obama has plagorized his simplistic and most powerful rally cry. To properly quote Bob the Builder “Can we build it? YES WE CAN!” I will admit a felt rather foolish after I reaized I was being inspired by a phrase that had already been uniting 3 year olds for years now.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I'm disheartened that Sen. Obama has taken that stance on abortion, especially since he already does a great job of hiding behind other ambiguous notions. Yes, a woman who consults with her pastor, parents, family, and doctor will be made aware of all the options and alternatives, but that is rarely the case.
However, I have to admit that I agree with his ideas concerning same-sex unions. I agree that marriage should be kept between a man and a woman, but I also understand that for legal reasons it is imperative for a gay couple to be able to have the same rights as a married couple. I see this as a good compromise.
I see Obama just trying to satisfy both sides with his statements, not trying to solve the grand issue. The church would get thier way because the unions would not be called “marriage” and the homosexual community would get what they want because they would recieve many of the civil rights that a married couple has. The problem I now see is this. By saving the term marriage for heterosexual couples and the church, it is implied that there is something spiritual that is extra and comes along with it. We all know however, that fewer and fewer marriages are based on a christian foundation. So will this mean that the drug addict who marries thier dealer has a better spiritual basis than a couple that is “Unioned”? That is the problem the chruch faces already, so why seporate it out even further?
I'm not versed with the ideals held by the gay community, but I think they just want the rights associated with marriage. They shouldn't be denied those rights just because straight couples have high divorce rates.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Thanks for your thoughtful post. You write, “A Presidential candidate engaged in bad theology.”
It's true… Most (if not all) candidates and politicians engage in bad theology. The very nature of politics (at least American politics) requires the art of compromise. We can't do good theology through compromise.
I'm intrigued by Obama and may end up voting for him (if he were to secure the nomination), regardless of his theological views.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Hey Brandon!
I completely agree that it would be wrong to deny them those rights. I hope I made that somewhat clear in my post. But I find myself conflicted regarding Obama's actual proposal.
My question was meant to be something like, “if the only difference is the name, is that really a difference at all?” But after more reflection I'm starting to think that it's a pretty big difference after all (at least theologically).
But making this distinction will create a huge problem for the church. People outside of the church will not see or understand the distinction. For non-Christians, it will simply look as though the state will marry gay people, but Christian pastors won't. Differences of language (between “marriage” and “civil union”) will become less and less important and the debate will get fogged in a cloud of rhetoric aimed at showing how Christians are just bigots. Already in some European countries, pastors are being arrested for preaching against homosexulaity as a lifestyle. I don't have much doubt that similar things will start happening here.
Also, in my own discussions with people on this issue, it isn't just about having the rights that one could get with a civil union. That's always the starting issue. So someone will say, “Why can't gay people visit their loved ones in the hospital?” I will respond that that is wrong and that they should be allowed to do so, but that need have nothing to do with changing the (primarily religious) institution of marriage. At this point, several people have switched up arguments, talking about how the idea of “marriage” is a cultural rite and a sign of social status. Thus, even by giving gay and lesbian couples the right to civil unions, but denying them the right of the “religious” marriage ceremony, we are treating them as second class citizens, or worse, less than human.
Now, obviously that is just more rhetoric tied to an unwarranted presupposition that our very humanity is somehow determined, in part, by our sexuality, but you see where the debate is going. The “they can have civil unions but not marriage” argument will not go over for very long. In fact, if a Republican candidate had said the very same thing, he'd have been called a bigot already.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
From http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm
On the Issues:
Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?
A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word “marriage,” which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.
Q: The laws banning interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?
A: We've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples. Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.
—
The example in your article concerning C.S. Lewis' hypothetical role-reversal where Muslim law is applied, constricting rights that we presently have, is probably the best way of explaining why I feel this is a good compromise. While the furthering of laws that coincide with my own personal religious views is undoubtedly a great thing, the importance of civil rights and the separation of church/state is supposed to be the reason we originally came to make colonies here.
I think its still a step in the right direction. The existence of hate groups like the Oregon Citizens Alliance under the guise of Christianity is something that should be extinguished anyway.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Notice what's implicit in the second question. The questioner doesn't see any difference between marriage laws based on race as those based on sexual orientation. Obama dodged the question nicely, but he's a very unique case.
Or look at it another way, imagine if there were churches today that refused to marry interracial couples. Do you really think they could get away with saying, “Well, interracial couples can get civil unions that afford them all the rights they're entitled to as Americans, but we don't believe that God approves of such unions in the church.” To most people who support same-sex marriage (and notice, that is still what the issue is being called), there is no difference between race and sexual orientation. Obama's answer to the first question (about “disentangling” the word marriage) was good, but that's simply not enough anymore. He's going to to have to convince the American people that sexual orientation is not a fundamental feature of our humanity. I don't see him being able/willing to do that.
Again, though, I'm completely for affording these civil rights to gay couples, so in the end I support his position. I simply see the dangers and realize what we may be facing in the near future.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Another approach to the debate
http://www.slate.com/id/2440/
June 21st, 2008 at 2:12 am
Thought trying to rekindle this was important given the upcoming California Vote. Obama's position smacks of Seperate but Equal era mindset. Check out my post here…
http://www.scottoverpeck.com/2008/06/marriage-in-california.html