Comments on: What Would Obama Do?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:12:34 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:54:24 +0000

Another approach to the debate
http://www.slate.com/id/2440/

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:44:29 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:25:54 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:51:03 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:24:24 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:59:11 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:19:22 +0000

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.