Political Cowardice: Chris Christie Edition

What is Obama's stance on same sex marriage? I've honestly lost track and am too lazy to research.

 

You seem to be making the case that the legal framework as it currently stands is sufficient to allow for gay marriage, which is the route via which court-ordered legalization of gay marriage occurs. That has typically been decried by the Christies of the world as judicial activism, so I find it a bit odd that you seem to be advocating it.

Should interracial marriage have been put to a vote? There were plenty who felt that it threatened the fabric of society, etc.

 

When the president has the balls to support it, then we can criticize those who don't.

 

This makes no sense.

Repeal DOMA and I am betting the President will sign the bill.

Otherwise, what kind of bill are they going to pass that isn't going to immediately get thrown out by the courts? You don't have a commerce clause argument. Maybe full faith and credit, but that's got to go through the courts, too. I suppose you could tie it to highway funding like they do with the drinking age. But there would have to be political will for it in the Senate.

The President got a full repeal of DADT done and the Justice Department just announced it will no longer defend the law banning military benefits for same-sex partners. I think that shows pretty clearly what this administration does over what it controls outside the Congress.

 

I'm for gay marriage. I think it's fucking absurd that it's not legal. But I think it speaks volumes that politicians who are very likely tor it (Christie, Obama) are scared of it.

 

Give Obama time. If he's re-elected, I have a feeling he'll come out for it.

Right now, he's playing the four-corners offense until Election Day with this issue, figuring that since he's already getting ripped on for attacking religious freedom with the birth control issue, why give the Bible-thumpers another reason to screech?

 

That's not why.

It's because he doesn't want to alienate black voters.

 

1. You won't find me complaining about "judicial activism." I view the judiciary as the third line of defense of individual liberty in our constitutional system. The legislature can repeal infringing laws, the executive can refuse to enforce them, or the judiciary can strike them.*

2. The court should decide whether same-sex marriage is constitutionally mandated when heterosexual marriage is provided for (i.e., whether the current laws violate "civil rights" — the 14th Amendment). If not, then it should be put up for a vote. (Even if it's not mandated, that doesn't mean that the people can't add it themselves.) If it is constitutionally mandated, the court should strike the current marriage laws unless the legislature is wiling to include same-sex marriage.

*I think your statement about finding it "odd" that <b>I</b> seem to be OK with "judicial activism" goes back to a too-simple R/D distinction. Things aren't that simple.

 

Hence, this is why he's waiting.

He comes out for it, the right-wing shriekosphere goes nuts, and black voters who don't agree with him decide to stay home.

 

Good thing he's a "different kind of politician."