Original: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/02/obama_opposes_gay_marriage_ban.html

Obama Opposes Gay Marriage Ban
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Barack Obama is opposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in California, taking a liberal stand on an issue in the midst of a move to the center on others in recent weeks.

In a letter sent to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club of San Francisco this week, the Illinois senator said "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."

Conservatives in the state are pushing a constitutional amendment following a California Supreme Court decision that overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain backs the proposed amendment.

Obama aides emphasized he has opposed similar state bans in the past. They said the Illinois senator does not support gay marriage, but believes that federal and state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage can also threaten rights that couples have under civil unions and domestic partnerships, which Obama supports.

Obama quietly announced his stance in a statement in a letter to the Toklas club, a California gay rights group. His position comes as a shift for Democrats, as 2004 presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry backed amendments to ban gay marriage in some of the states in which he campaigned.

Gays are a very small minority of the Democrat party but they are vocal and contribute a lot of money. The reason they have so much influence in the party is because of their money. Obama doesn't need the gay vote to win. Their money is more important than their vote.

He's right. Its not bright to amend the constitution for every prejudice that may arise. Like smoking. Drinking alcohol. etc.

If the Supreme Court rules that polygamy is protected under the Constitution would that be worth amending the Constitution?

If its already protected then why amend it???

What about pedophilia? If the Supreme Court rules that pedophilia is a protected right should we amend the Constitution?

What about child abuse? If the Supreme Court rules that child abuse is a protected Right should we amend the Constitution?

How about child labor? Child pornography? Prostitution? Drunk driving? What if the Supreme Court gives the right to doctors to decide whether or not to shut off life support without the family's consent?

There is a sentiment out there that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document. Some people feel as if our founders were saints on the same level with Moses and the Constitution is as holy as the Ten Commandments. Thus we should refrain from amending it.

Well I don't see it that way. Our founders lived in a different world than we do today. The way for the Constitution to adapt to the present world is by amending it - not allowing activist judges to legislate from the bench. We the people have the right and responsibility to amend the Constitution as the world changes and requires clarifications and such to be made. Amending the Constitution is constitutional.

Amending the Constitution is constitutional.

si! si!

I have confidence in the American people!

... as a totality that is, I've none in individual opinions, nor sectarian dogma...

p.s. (why do you always bring up pedophilia and child-abuse when you want to argue with me?)

no me gusta

I am just participating in the exchange of ideas. Nothing I post is directed at any individual. I also brought up drunk driving and prostitution.

Gays argue that they are born that way and thus have a right to be gay.

Alcoholics can argue that they are born that way and have a right to be alcoholics.

Child abusers can use the Bible to justify their abuse and claim protection under the free-exercise clause.

Prostitutes can claim the right to privacy to justify their trade.

I am not saying I agree with any of these arguments. MBLA has been fighting to legalize pedophilia for some time. These goofy groups are out there and if they get paired up with a goofy judge - - - bad things happen.

I don't think it's up to the state to legislate and enforce morality. I have several friends who are not gay, but do struggle with the issue. Most have hormonal imbalances that contributes to their confusion. So, in some way, physiology does have something to do with it. But I give them props for not giving up and trying to live up to God's promises.

As far as gay marriages and Constitution, I surely don't think Federal Government should legislate morality. I agree that they should protect children from being raised in such environment... yet the choice to be immoral is theirs. Lying is as much immoral as being gay in God's eyes.

At the same time, I believe that ministers should have a choice to refuse officiating ceremony if they have convictions about it being immoral. Technically, they can not be considered married even if States cave in and legalize it. It's like one day passing a law pronouncing all Hispanics to be African Americans. Marriage is a spiritual issue... not a legal one. The government took over and made it a legal one, but I really don't see a difference between a couple living together and then splitting, and a couple signing a piece of paper and then doing the same thing. Without God, marriage is dysfunctional.

at least Obama knows to separate church from state on this issue