May 17, 2012 8:00 P.M.Obama’s Same-Sex Marriage Contradiction

Comments 63 Charles Krauthammer

No talk about rights, just human fellow feeling. Such an argument is attractive because it can be compelling without being compulsory. Many people, feeling the weight of this longing among their gay friends, are willing to redefine marriage for the sake of simple human sympathy.

At the same time, however, one can sympathize with others who feel great trepidation at the radical transformation of the most fundamental of social institutions, one that, until recently, was heterosexual in all societies in all places at all times.

The empathy argument both encourages mutual respect in the debate and lends itself to a political program of gradualism. State by state, let community norms and moral sensibilities prevail. Indeed, that is Obama’s stated position.

// Such pluralism allows for the kind of “stable settlement of the issue” that Ruth Bader Ginsburg once lamented had been “halted” by Roe v. Wade regarding abortion, an issue as morally charged and politically unbridgeable as gay marriage.

Argument B is more uncompromising: You have the right to marry anyone, regardless of gender. The right to “marriage equality” is today’s civil rights, voting rights, and women’s rights — and just as inviolable.

Argument B has extremely powerful implications. First, if same-sex marriage is a right, then there is no possible justification for letting states decide for themselves. How can you countenance even one state outlawing a fundamental right? Indeed, half a century ago, “states’ rights” was the cry of those committed to continued segregation and discrimination.

Second, if marriage equality is a civil right, then denying it on the basis of (innately felt) sexual orientation is, like discrimination on the basis of skin color, simple bigotry. California’s Proposition 8 was overturned by a 9th Circuit panel on the grounds that the referendum, reaffirming marriage as between a man and woman, was nothing but an expression of bias — “serves no purpose . . . other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians.”

1 2 Next > !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })(); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })(); Print Text You Might Also Like...

var google_adnum = 0; function google_ad_request_done(google_ads) { var ad_unit = ''; if (google_ads.length == 0) { return; } if (google_ads[0].type == "flash") { ad_unit += 'Ads by Google
' + ' ' + '' + '' + ''; } else if (google_ads[0].type == "image") { ad_unit += 'Ads by Google
'; } else if (google_ads[0].type == "html") { ad_unit += google_ads[0].snippet; } else { if (google_ads.length == 1) { ad_unit += 'Ads by Google ' + google_ads[0].line1 + '

' + google_ads[0].line2 + '
' + google_ads[0].line3 + '

' + google_ads[0].visible_url + ''; } else if (google_ads.length > 1) { ad_unit += 'Ads by Google'; for(i = 0; i < google_ads.length; ++i) { ad_unit += '' + google_ads[i].line1 + '' + google_ads[i].line2 + ' ' + google_ads[i].line3 + '' + google_ads[i].visible_url + ''; } ad_unit += ''; } } document.getElementById("ad_unit").innerHTML += ad_unit; google_adnum += google_ads.length; return; } google_ad_client = "ca-pub-7596656896688386"; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '6'; google_feedback = "on"; google_ad_type = "text"; google_adtest = "off"; google_image_size = '300x250'; google_skip = '6'; google_ad_region = 'test';

var commentsPage = 0; var commentsPerPage = 20; var nodeIDForComments = 300338; var commentCount = 63; Hardcastle 05/17/12 21:28

No wonder that Obama has been trying to get away from the issue as quickly as possible. Itâ��s not just the New York Times poll showing his new position to be a net loser. Itâ��s that he is too intelligent not to realize heâ��s embraced a logical contradiction.

I'm really not so sure about that. This is the same man who said that a Supreme Court ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional "would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.â��

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse tpitman 05/18/12 06:48

Exactly. As for distancing himself from the issue, it's more likely that the lack of support, other than the money he raked in, is behind his "moving on" to other issues, rather than any intellectual revelation of a contradiction. If it's Monday, he "feels" empathy. If it's Tuesday, it's a civil right, and if it's Thursday after poor polling on Wednesday, it's about private equity "vampires" . . .

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse George LeS 05/18/12 07:58

I agree. There is no evidence that BHO "too intelligent" for much of anything, and some evidence against. He seems the most intellectually unengaged president I've seen, in that there is no case I can think of where he has actually balanced one idea against another. Or even that he knows what ideas are like, or that they can conflict.

It's not clear to me that ideas exist in Obamaworld. He built up a persona which impressed everyone he dealt with, until now, by simulating the style of intelligence. That doesn't mean he actually achieved it; in fact, it seems that this style replaced the real thing. Remember, we are dealing with the first Postmodern President. He really is that, with its concomitants of solipsism and anti-rationality.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse Bob Fowler 05/18/12 12:40

I agree. We've had pundits right and left who either fawn over his so called intelligence or, like the good Dr. here, accede to his superior intelligence. I just haven't seen it. Gaffe after gaffe....57 states...corpseman,,etc, etc. put the lie to the most intelligent man meme. While I don't accept that school performance translates necessarily into intelligence, we still have no college transcripts or any publications or other intellectual work from this person. He's a complete empty suit. Even Bill Clinton reportedly calls him an amateur.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse sinz54 05/18/12 17:59

For a guy who is supposed to be so "brilliant," Obama never came up with one idea or one policy that you couldn't have found in any Democratic Party platform of the last 30 years. For all his vaunted intelligence, all his policies are standard liberal Democrat boilerplate.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse blsdaniel 05/18/12 11:01

I don't think that the problem is that he didn't think through the contradiction, but that there isn't any contradiction to think through.

I can believe that there is a RIGHT for gays to be able to marry without thinking that those who oppose this are bigots. Hell, if I really thought that SSM would destroy the family, I'd drop support in a heart beat.

Furthermore, I can believe that gays have a right to marry and still think that it should be left up to the states as a matter of tactics (i.e., victory at the federal level is currently impossible).

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse chrisboltssr 05/18/12 11:25

A right is a right. If there is a right to something the state can't bar you from having it.

It's a contradiction through and through. Changing attitudes to accept your position is one thing; claiming your position is a "right" forces all others to either accept your position as right or be branded as a bigot or intolerant for being against it. Those positions cannot possibly be reconciled.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse blsdaniel 05/18/12 12:34

On the contrary, the reconciliation is easy: I think that marriage is a right for gays, and some of my friends really think that gay marriage would very badly damage the institution of marriage for everyone, so they don't support it.

Again, if I thought that they were right, I'd be against gay marriage, but that wouldn't make me a bigot. It would just make me someone who believes that equal rights isn't a suicide pact.

Why is this so hard to see?

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse chrisboltssr 05/18/12 13:14

That is not a reconciliation. That is your personal feeling about the issue. If there is a "right" to marry then the state cannot deny said right. If you believe marriage can be done out of compassion, then the state can deny it and define it for whomever it wishes.

What you are confusing here are the motives of people with the motives of the state. What Dr. Krauthammer is addressing is the responsibility of the state to the people. You can't prossibly hold that gay marriage is a right but that it can be banned because the state cannot ban rights, but it can ban "feelings".

As for whether it'd make you a bigot, let me ask you a question. Do you think that people who believe that civil rights should be denied to blacks are bigots? Now replace "civil rights" with "marriage rights" and "blacks" with "gays" and tell me if it still follows that a person who believes that "marriage rights" should be denied to gays are bigots.

I appreciate that you're trying to be fair, blsdaniel, but I don't think your position is tenable.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse blsdaniel 05/18/12 13:50

Chris, the more I think about it, the more I think that our disagreement is a issue of semantics. I use the term "right" prior to determining whether or not there are countervailing issues that might require us to violate that right. I think that you use the term "right" after you do your weighing. So, where I see a right that needs to be overridden, you see no right BECAUSE it had to be overridden.

Therefore, I could see someone who wanted to bar interracial marriage because, to take an absurd example, letting whites and blacks marry will push the Earth off its axis. You, on the other hand, would say that people didn't have the right to marry interracially, because it would push the Earth off of its axis.

Still, I just don't see your way (assuming I have it right) really working. Just because I've made the determination that interracial marriage won't hurl the Earth into the sun doesn't mean that you have. OK, the issue with Earth's axis is silly. Let's take the claim that gay marriage will harm marriage for everyone. Even though I've rejected that notion doesn't mean others have. And unless I'm ready to say that the theory is so specious that it's a sure sign of bigotry in and of itself (and I'm not), then I have to accept that fact that some people oppose gay marriage for non-bigoted reasons.

Don't get me wrong, I think that bigotry is a major issue here. And on no few occassions I've spoken with people who claimed to not be bigot who, over time, it became clear that they were. I'm not one inch about calling bigotry when I see it. But I don't think that that picture can be painted with a fire hose.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse RobL 05/18/12 15:28

"Don't get me wrong, I think that bigotry is a major issue here."

Bigotry is not the issue. You are putting your feelings before your thinking.

What feels is right and what is self evident are universes apart, you need to separate the emotive from the intellectual in order to avoid statements like that. A statement declaring those who disagree with you as bigots is frankly either irrational or bigoted itself.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse blsdaniel 05/18/12 16:02

" A statement declaring those who disagree with you as bigots is frankly either irrational or bigoted itself."

I believe it was I who spent the last few posts rigorously defending the idea that I don't think that all who disagree with me are bigots.

I do, however, think that there is a fair amount of bigotry out there, in no small part because I've seen people express it, starting with boot camp 25 years ago, continuing through college, and right up to current times. Can you see the difference between the two?

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse JPMulhern 05/20/12 07:48

You didn't spend the last several posts doing anything rigorously. You spent them blathering pointlessly.

You don't seem to realize that the premise for any argument that there is a right to same sex marriage is the the proposition that only a bigot could object to it. If you believe that homosexuals are entitled to marry each other it is because you have already concluded that anyone who objects must be motivated by blind, irrational hatred. If the social effects of redefining marriage are something reasonable people can differ about, there can be no right to gay marriage.

Gay marriage could, on balance be desireable even if there were legitimate considerations arguing against it, but it can only be a right if the traditional moral objection to homosexual conduct is utterly indefensible.

Krauthammer is clearly correct that Obama is straddling a direct contradiction and only someone who fails utterly to understand the debate could take issue with him.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse blsdaniel 05/20/12 21:20

"You didn't spend the last several posts doing anything rigorously. You spent them blathering pointlessly."

No, there was very much a point. Whether you think it right or wrong is irrelevant. The FACT of the matter is that I have, in the last few posts, stated repeatedly that I think that some people oppose gay marriage for non-bigoted reasons. Full stop. Therefore, to imply that I am saying that all who oppose gay marriage are bigoted is just willful blindness.

"You don't seem to realize that the premise for any argument that there is a right to same sex marriage is the the proposition that only a bigot could object to it."

Again, that is simply false. Some, I myself being one, believe that some rights may need to be violated because of the great harms that might arise should they not be. Again, hypothetically, if I thought that gay marriage really would greatly undermine the institution of marriage in general, that it would cause husbands to abandon their wives, parents to seriously neglect their children, etc. then I would not support gay marriage.

I suppose that others might say that, if gay marriage would have all these problems, then there is no right to gay marriage BECAUSE of exactly those results. Such people would then define a right as existing only if there were no good reason to oppose gay marriage, meaning that those opposed were bigots. Fine. But people who use the word "right" that way, need to realize that some use the word "right" as I do. And under that use, there is no contradiction.

Finally, one needs to be honest enough to see that, if someone uses the word "right" in such a way that would create a contradiction if used one way and wouldn't create a contradiction if used another way, then, all other things being equal, the latter interpretation is to be preferred.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse JPMulhern 05/21/12 10:27

You have not the slightest concept what you're talking about.

There can be a "right" to gay marriage if, and only if, maintaining the traditional definition of marriage draws a constitutionally impermissible distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples. The "right" we are talking about is the right to equal protection of the laws. That right does not require that the government treat everyone exactly like everyone else. It can treat citizens differently when they are differently situated. To make a claim that the right to equal protection has been violated you have to show that the state drew a distinction to your detriment for no good reason. If you want to establish a right to gay marriage you have to prove that the traditional definition of marriage excludes homosexuals for no rational reason. You have to prove, in other words, that there is no reason to require both a bride and a groom for a wedding other than blind bigotry.

Again, you can argue that gay marriage is a good idea without damning those who disagree. You cannot, however claim that gay marriage is a right (or for that matter that DOMA is unconstitutional) without doing so.

To say that there is a right to gay marriage is to say that those who refuse to accept that right are bigots. It's as simple as that. You can't get around that problem by adopting an idiosyncratic definition of the word "right." If you want to engage in a meaningful debate you have to use words the way every other party to the debate is using them. Otherwise, you're just mimsey with the Borogoves.

Why waste your time writing about things you don't begin to understand? Read more. Think more. Write less.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse blsdaniel 05/21/12 12:03

Thinking more doesn't mean thinking like you. I'm sorry, it doesn't. I'm not the only person who believes that gay marriage should be protected under the equal protection clause who says that, were it shown that actual gay marriage would destroy the family, they would not support it.

Even if I accepted your definion of a right ("...To make a claim that the right to equal protection has been violated you have to show that the state drew a distinction to your detriment for no good reason"), your conclusion that holding something to be a right means that those who oppose it are bigots. They might just be people who aren't convinced that the reasons given for oppsing gay marriage aren't good reasons. Once again, if I try to support the idea of gay marriage, in part, with arguments about why it won't damage the institution of marriage overall but fail to convince some people, then they aren't bigots, because their motivation is to protect marriage.

Frankly, as I've said before, this is a lot of gay opponents wanting to pretend that supporters of gay marriage think everyone (especially blacks) who don't support gay marriage are bigots. As the leaked National Organization of Marriage memo shows (see: External Link ), the goal is:

"'Find, equip, energize and connect African-American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots.'"

Fine. But don't expect me to be hectored into playing along.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse JPMulhern 05/21/12 22:31

Thinking more wouldn't necessarily mean thinking like me, but it might permit you to work your way out of the hopeless muddle you find yourself in.

Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you. The only argument that there is a right to same sex marriage goes like this -- There is no rational reason for the state to draw a distinction between same sex and opposite sex couples. The law only draws such a distinction because it is reflecting the blind hatred of a bygone age. To discriminate against homosexuals out of animus in this fashion violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment.

If you accept that reasonable people may oppose gay marriage for reasons other than bigotry, this argument falls apart. Notice that you can't get to a constitutional right for persons of the same sex to marry each other by arguing that proponents of gay marriage have a better case than its opponents. You have to argue that opponents have no case at all. A misguided distinction passes constitutional muster. Only an irrational and hostile distinction fails.

This is why every opinion finding a right to gay marriage and the opinion finding DOMA constitutional are all explicitly grounded in the premise that there is no rational basis for drawing any distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Judges don't take such a ridiculous position out of choice. They do it because there is no other way to find a right to gay marriage and they're willing to spout drivel for the sake of reaching their desired result.

The moment you start talking about a "right" for homosexuals to marry you have checked out of a civil discussion and descended into mindless name calling. The entire argument outlined above is implicit in every reference to such a right, including the premise that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot.
If you truly believe that reasonable people can differ on this subject you'll stop talking about a right to gay marriage, and that is essentially Dr. K's point. Obama claims to want an open debate about the merits of gay marriage. Then he turns around and argues that distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual couples violate the former's rights.

He can't have it both ways and neither can you.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse blsdaniel 05/22/12 00:47

You needn't "make it easy for me". It was easy to understand you the first time (and second, and now third). But mere endless repetition of an argument does not lend it more force. But it is still just truth by assertion. How should I know for an absolute certainty that gay marriage will not harm the institution of marriage? That's an argument about what will happen in the future. Do I have a crystal ball? I need only believe myself that there is no harm (whatever my minor doubts). If I believe that there is no harm, if I cannot name a countervailing need for suppressing gay marriage (e.g., preservation of marriage), and thus no grounds for denying gay access to the legal forms of marriage.

Did the abolitionists know for a certainty that there would be no major social upheaval from freeing the slaves? I don't see how they could. The numbers of ex-slaves, quite possibly embittered against the race that formerly enslaved them and violent, was not something that could be laughed off. Prior to emancipation, if someone said that they didn't want to free the slaves, as that would bring on an orgy of violence that would overthrow civilization, how, save by hindsight, could I assure them it would not. But if I did not believe it myself, how could I deny that the slaves have a moral right to be freed?

I know I'll never get you to see this, but people can actually disagree on this matter (i.e., under what conditions you can say that there is a constitutional right on a matter). And your mere assertions aren't enough by a long shot to prove that Obama is reasoning as you claim he is.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse George LeS 05/18/12 13:27

You're missing the point. There are 2 ways we use the word "right". If you believe something is "a right", in the sense Krauthammer is using it, you are saying more than that it is good. You are saying this right is something people always possess, and that it is injustice to deny them. There is another usage which refers only to those "rights" created and defined by the law. As in "I think felons should have the right to vote, after they've served their time," or "I think 15 year olds should have the right to vote."

This is a different test, for a law, than simply whether its aim is good or bad. The latter is an instrumental question, the former is moral. Thus, the question of how many aircraft carriers we need is in the latter category. The question of affirmative action is, too, in that it is a question of whether we need to make up for past wrongs, and how best to so so. But that's a very different matter from denying a fundamental right.

It is also different from civilly defined "rights". Those who support both free speech and campaign finance reform, see this as a matter of defining the limits, not as denying the fundamental right. In the same way, adult citizens have a fundamental right to vote, but not to vote whenever and wherever they want. Thus, in regulating marriage, states can do things like defining the age limits, and tests of voluntariness, etc, but cannot outlaw marriages between an adult unmarried man & an adult unmarried woman.

So there is a big difference between saying that you believe that there should be legal right to SSM, and saying that it is a fundamental right. The article is referring to the latter. It's not clear from your posts which you think it is, but your argument is based on the merely legal standard.

Krathammer's point is that there is a contradiction between what he sees as BHO's position (that SSM is a fundamental right) and the statement that he thinks it should be up to the states.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse blsdaniel 05/18/12 14:14

George,

If Krauthammer is, indeed, using the definition of "right" that you suggest, then this argument becomes a tautology. If "right" means something that can never rightfully be taken away, that there is no cost benefit analysis that might overrule it, then, yes, it probably is, of necessity, something that only bigotry can deny, as there is, again by definition, no rational, neutral cost that can override thing.

So, yes, if you use a definition of "right" that says (or implies) that there can be no non-bigoted grounds for denying, then opposing gay rights is something that only bigots do. But now you've got a definition by which even I don't think that gays have the right to be married. If that's the definition you want to go with, that is certainly your...,well, I was going to say "right". But hope you will agree that I can still say that it's a right without thinking everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot.

And frankly, that is what I think that this Krauthammer post is about: trying to show that those of us who think that gay marriage is a right thinks ALL of you who disagree with us is an evil person. I mean, haven't we already seen this in the National Organization for Marriage strategy memo:

Don't get me wrong: I don't think that such things are off limits in elections. Just don't expect me to play along.

Reply to this comment Link Report Abuse $('#edit-order').val(('ASC' == 'ASC' ? 'Oldest First' : 'Newest First')); $('#comments').hide(); Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.

Your Name *
Your E-mail * The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Your Comment *

* Designates a required field. $.getJSON('http://nr-media-01.nationalreview.com/outloudopinion/author/200446/latest?jsoncallback=?', function(data){ if (data.audio) { AudioPlayer.embed("outloudaudio", { soundFile: data.audio, titles: "Obamaâ��s Same-Sex Marriage Contradiction" }); } }); © National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved. Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact $(document).ready(function() { $('#search-nro-form').submit(function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var val = $('#search-nro-form input:first').val(); var url = 'http://' + location.hostname + '/search/apachesolr_search/' + val; document.location.href = url; }); }); NRO Articles | Article RSS | Author Directory

//

//

var google_adnum = 0; function google_ad_request_done(google_ads) { var ad_unit2 = ''; if (google_ads.length == 0) { return; } if (google_ads[0].type == "flash") { ad_unit2 += 'Ads by Google
' + ' ' + '' + '' + ''; } else if (google_ads[0].type == "image") { ad_unit2 += 'Ads by Google
'; } else if (google_ads[0].type == "html") { ad_unit2 += google_ads[0].snippet; } else { if (google_ads.length == 1) { ad_unit2 += 'Ads by Google ' + google_ads[0].line1 + '

' + google_ads[0].line2 + '
' + google_ads[0].line3 + '

' + google_ads[0].visible_url + ''; } else if (google_ads.length > 1) { ad_unit2 += 'Ads by Google'; for(i = 0; i < google_ads.length; ++i) { ad_unit2 += '' + google_ads[i].line1 + '' + google_ads[i].line2 + ' ' + google_ads[i].line3 + '' + google_ads[i].visible_url + ''; } ad_unit2 += ''; } } document.getElementById("ad_unit2").innerHTML += ad_unit2; google_adnum += google_ads.length; return; } google_ad_client = "ca-pub-7596656896688386"; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '6'; google_feedback = "on"; google_ad_type = "text"; google_adtest = "off"; google_image_size = '300x250'; google_skip = '6'; google_ad_region = 'test';
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-1167326-1"); pageTracker._setDomainName(".nationalreview.com"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview(); © National Review Online 2012. All Rights Reserved.

Home | Search | NR / Digital | Donate | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Log In _qoptions={ qacct:"p-cdKqrewDOys1A" }; var _sf_async_config={uid:22270,domain:"nationalreview.com"}; (function(){ function loadChartbeat() { window._sf_endpt=(new Date()).getTime(); var e = document.createElement('script'); e.setAttribute('language', 'javascript'); e.setAttribute('type', 'text/javascript'); e.setAttribute('src', (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://a248.e.akamai.net/chartbeat.download.akamai.com/102508/" : "http://static.chartbeat.com/") + "js/chartbeat.js"); document.body.appendChild(e); } var oldonload = window.onload; window.onload = (typeof window.onload != 'function') ? loadChartbeat : function() { oldonload(); loadChartbeat(); }; })(); var dc_AdLinkColor = '#216221' ; var dc_PublisherID = 186678 ;

Charles Krauthammer Column

May 17, 2012 8:00 P.M.Obama’s Same-Sex Marriage Contradiction