Another copout
Remember Barack Obama’s remark in 2008 about when human rights begin, before or after birth? He said the question was “above my pay grade.” We all know this was a copout and that Obama doesn’t believe human rights begin before birth. Then the man who won the 2008 presidential election said his views on gay marriage were “evolving.” Another copout. Either he was for it or against it. A day after the landslide victory in North Carolina of an amendment banning gay marriage, Obama said he likes gay marriage. This tale of two stances is typical of liberal Democrats who want to appear sympathetic without expressing outright support for an unpopular position. That’s what Bill Clinton did. He was among those campaigning against the North Carolina initiative. Obama was a no-show. At least Obama was consistently consistent in his opposition to the war in Iraq — unlike the previous Democratic nominee, who was for it until he was against it.
(May 8, 2012 AP File Photo)
Thank you for joining our conversation on ScissorTales. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
I know this is an op/ed piece, but two of the facts presented aren’t accurate. First, marriage equality is not an unpopular position nationwide. In fact, it’s more popular than not, by nine percentage points, according a recent public opinion poll by NBC and The Wall Street Journal. (See: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/top-gop-pollster-to-gop-reverse-on-gay-issues.html). Second, Bill Clinton has already stated his support for gay marriage; the ballot issue concerned whether or not to ban gay couples from marrying (even though it was already banned in North Carolina by statute) or entering into any type of similar government-sanction union by enshrining the ban in the state constitution. Why would Clinton be going around N.C. touting his support for gay marriage when the issue at hand concerned banning the practice?
I agree with the writer that President Obama’s statement in ’08 concerning “when human rights begin” and his “evolving” position on marriage rights were likely cop-outs, but what about Mitt Romney’s back-and-forth position? Now, he’s for gay adoption but against gay marriage or civil unions. (The earnestness of such a position strains credulity, since it’s an inherently contradictory stand.) But back when he was running for Senate in Massachusetts, he claimed he’d be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy! The liberal lion of the Senate. At least, on the marriage front, Obama’s dilatory tactics finally gave way to allow him to move forward on the issue. Romney just moved back.
This editorial is disingenuous. Just because you disagree, however vehemently, with the “evolving” positions of a politician, doesn’t mean you should ignore the devolving positions of his competitor whom you presumably support.
By the way, human rights would begin when the human being is, you know, actually a human. Otherwise, it would be pre-human rights. Just sayin’.