Like his Democratic cohort Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama released a lackluster letter supporting California’s gay marriage win. While he approves of the decision, Obama still believes that civil unions are the best road to equality. That, too, is Clinton’s position. For some reason, however, National Review journalist Rich Lowry decides to eschew the former first lady and use a recent article – “Does Obama Support Gay Marriage?” – to take on the likely Democratic nominee:
In a carefully hedged statement, Obama said he “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court.” He respects a decision that disregarded the will of the people in California, as expressed by a 2000 referendum that defined marriage as between a man and a woman; he respects a decision that excoriated his own position of support for civil unions and (theoretical) opposition to same-sex marriage; he respects a decision that rejects the sort of political compromise he extols. It’s like a professed abolitionist in 1857 saying he “respects” the Dred Scott ruling.
Hmmm… Do you think Lowry used that example because Obama’s black? We do.
As for Clinton’s omission – perhaps it’s because Lowry appreciates of her approval of repealing only some of the Defense of Marriage Act, which Obama whole-heartedly rejects. If that’s the case, Lowry should have mentioned that. Instead, Clinton’s name doesn’t even get mentioned, as if she doesn’t exist.