“…The U.S. Constitution…forbids all forms of discrimination. Obama showed how clearly he understood that in his inaugural address, when he said: “The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”
It is impossible to adhere to those principles while also proposing that some citizens should have fewer rights than others for no better reason than the majority disapproves of their sexual preference. Obama claims not to support such discrimination, but his views on the issue are an embarrassing muddle; he opposed Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, yet says unequivocally that he believes “marriage” is strictly between one man and one woman.
Obama is caught up in semantics, apparently believing that gays and lesbians should be allowed to engage in civil unions with all the rights of marriage, as long as they aren’t called marriages. That’s an evasion that was rightly rejected in May by the California Supreme Court when it overturned a previous ban on same-sex marriage, because such semantic distinctions tend to cast doubt on a union’s legitimacy.
At the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, some states would not have allowed his interracial parents to marry. He, of all people, should know better.”– The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, writing today in a piece titled, “Now, About Gay Marriage
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Joe Lagana
Gay people are now, officially, the last minority group in the world which can be scapegoated and discriminated against. It was made clear yesterday, by Pastor Warren’s presence, by Obama himself, suddenly forgetting the tag line, ‘gay and straight’ in his speech, and also by Rev. Lowery. The reverend could have added one more rhyme at the end of his wonderful speech, ‘and where gay is ok’. But he didn’t.
The very last receptacle of bigotry – the homosexual.
Alex
“Sexual preference”? No offense peeps, but I’d prefer to be straight. Nothing against gay people (some of my best friends are gay), I’m just lazy, and it’s a lot more work trying to live your life when a bunch of people hate you for who you are. Props to LAT for (once again) being right on the issue, but let’s watch our language, okay folks?
RichardR
@Alex: It is curious, isn’t it Alex, that an enlightened editorial board would use the term “preference.” Particularly since one of the right’s favorite (and least relevant) objections to our having civil rights is that we choose to be gay.
And the LAT doesn’t go quite far enough when it says “Obama is caught up in semantics . . ..” Indeed,the whole debate, especially our side, is caught up in semantics and at the same time continues missing the central point — religion(s) should not have the authority to grant the civil rights conveyed in marriage. We should do it the way they do in – gasp – France and elsewhere. If you want to get married in church, fine. But you have to get married in city hall. That’s where we need to get, and for sure, O’Limbity, that’ll be re-defining marriage.
In the meantime, will we refuse civil rights absolutely equal to marriage if they’re not collectively called “marriage”? We’d be dumb to do so.
allfavourites
the debate about marriage versus civil unions is valid as the one about brand names versus generic “no-name” products. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. in fact provide civil unions to all common-law spouses, and those that are religious could opt for marriage in addition, should their church give the idea credence.
Jim
godDAMNit I’m tired of the phrase “sexual preference” being used by the media, inferring choice! As if there’s any choice WHATSOEVER about which gender one is sexually attracted to! And for the LAT to use it, in the wake of Prop 8 is inexcusable.