President Obama announced yesterday on ABC News that he now affirmatively supports legalizing gay marriage. He mentioned that his Christian faith and the golden rule lie at the foundation of his decision. In my opinion, the interviewer, Robin Roberts, failed to ask him the obvious tough follow up questions. I watched an hour of coverage of the issue on CNN and they had not one commentator on the other side of the issue except for one blurb from an AME reverend who, in essence, said that although he disagrees with the President's decision everyone should still vote for him. Anyway, that is an aside. This assertion implies that the President buys in to one of four beliefs that would justify his new found support for gay marriage: (1) gay marriage is a moral issue and same-sex marriage is moral, (2) gay marriage is a moral issue and regardless of his own personal view, government endorsement of same-sex marriage is fine, (3) gay marriage is not a moral issue, or (4), the most cynical, that he believes it is a good political bet and that making insincere statements to get reelected is ok.
If the President accepts (1) or (3) his ideology becomes even more masked than before. He used his religious beliefs, Christianity, to justify his decision. That invites skepticism. Doesn't the Bible condemn sex outside of opposite-gender marriage across the board? Isn't sex outside of traditional marriage a moral issue in all of the major monotheistic religions? How could defining marriage not be moral? If it is moral were Moses, Paul, and other prophets wrong when they implicitly and explicitly denounced gay marriage and sex outside of opposite-sex marriage? Shopping cart Christians and fearful believers efforts to reconcile the growing popular support for gay marriage with doctrine have, in my view, failed. I have heard reporters say that Christian churches are behind the times; but, what they don't understand is that the doctrine and principles of Christianity are neither behind nor ahead of the times-- they transcend time. However, they find little historical support and are controversial at least. While supporting (1) might not be totally out of left field, I hope some commentator will push him to really say why he believes that.
The second assertion (2) bugs me because it takes moral debate out of the public policy. It endorses moral relativism and libertinism. It invites market theory to control things within the moral realm. Although money may not be involved, believing (2) says "I think we should keep our conversation shallow and never address the moral and religious foundations of our beliefs. Popularity and not wisdom should drive our policy."
Finally, (4) is, in my view, corrupt. 'Nuff said.
Defining marriage is clearly a moral issue. Although individuals might be unable to entirely control their feelings, they can control their actions. We are all born with trials. Policy should reflect the ideal of children being raised by their biological parents who are committed to a forever relationship and teamwork. Marriage as a legal sanctioning of personal commitment or of love is only part of the equation.
