Same-sex marriage: Empathy or right?

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: May 17

There are two ways to defend gay marriage. Argument A is empathy: One is influenced by gay friends in committed relationships yearning for the fulfillment and acceptance that marriage conveys upon heterosexuals. That’s essentially the case President Obama made when he first announced his change of views.

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 yesterday, 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.”

Pretty strong stuff. Which is why it was so surprising that Obama, after first advancing Argument A, went on five days later to adopt Argument B, calling gay marriage a great example of “expand[ing] rights” and today’s successor to civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights.

Problem is: It’s a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right. And beyond being intellectually untenable, Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry. Not a good place for a president to be in an evenly divided national debate that requires both sides to offer each other a modicum of respect.

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

Moreover, there is the problem of the obvious cynicism of his conversion. Two-thirds of Americans see his “evolution” as a matter not of principle but of politics. In fact, the change is not at all an evolution — a teleological term cleverly chosen to suggest movement toward a higher state of being — given that Obama came out for gay marriage 16 years ago. And then flip-flopped.

He was pro when running for the Illinois Legislature from ultra-liberal Hyde Park. He became anti when running eight years later for the U.S. Senate and had to appeal to a decidedly more conservative statewide constituency. And now he’s pro again.

When a Republican engages in such finger-to-the-wind political calculation (on abortion, for example), he’s condemned as a flip-flopper. When a liberal goes through a similar gyration, he’s said to have “evolved” into some more highly realized creature, deserving of a halo on the cover of a national newsmagazine.

Notwithstanding a comically fawning press, Obama knows he has boxed himself in. His “rights” argument compels him to nationalize same-sex marriage and sharpen hostility toward proponents of traditional marriage — a place he is loath to go.

True, he was rushed into it by his loquacious vice president. But surely he could have thought this through.

I'm not sure I'd grant Krauthammer the status of "thinker" based on this article Illy. HIs sin of omission is considerable. Really a lousy analysis. I expect better from thinkers even when I disagree with them.

I wouldn't be so sure.

It's kinda funny that you can slam another's analysys of a political
premise and yet have no cognizant commentary on the situation.

Beware Salmo g., you are falling into the usual liberal loo of
much criticism of an issue but no original thought.

Expected better of you.

He ignores Argument C which is the granting of the same legal rights as heterosexual couples which are all state issues. For instance community property, inheritance, living will, the right to make decisions for another, etc.

In other words marriage itself is a state, not federal, issue.

Well then, if it is just a State's Rights issue, why is the Executive
Branch messing with it?

I personally believe that the issue is a personal one. Call it a union, if you will, with a pre-union property agreement. If the relationship
is legally documented it should be as valid as any Marriage license.

All those benefits that accrue to a Marriage by Caesar or a Religious
entity should be available to the sexually confused.

Just don't call it a Marriage, that word is already defined.

As in Medal of Honor, everyone know that the term doesn't
describe a Good Conduct Medal.

Illy,

I have a thoughtful and more thorough analysis, but why bother? I'm not interested in wasting my time trying to persuade the haters.

Do you live next door to 4Salt? That hater bit is part of his line.
Surely you can do better that beg off cause your time is so valuable?
Why Bother just doesn' cut it. Cop out.

How is "the Executive Branch messing with it"?

You mean Websters definition of marriage?

Definition of MARRIAGE
1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
See marriage defined for English-language learners »
See marriage defined for kids »
Examples of MARRIAGE
It was his second marriage.
They have a very happy marriage.
Her first two marriages ended in divorce.
She has old-fashioned ideas about marriage.
couples living together before marriage
Many friends and relatives were present at their marriage.
a priest who has performed many marriages
a marriage of sweet and spicy flavors
a marriage of science and art
a marriage between form and function
Origin of MARRIAGE
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
First Known Use: 14th century

Since anything the O guy says makes the media his expressions
on or about damn near anything is in a sense using the media to
foist his personal or political opinions on us all.
That's messing with it.

the marriage of the P51 Apache and the Rolls Merlin was a
grand union. The result was greater than the sum of the parts.

So he's the most powerful president ever. Doesn't have to seek votes in congress or the senate. Doesn't have to sign anything. Doesn't even have to wave his hand. He simply speaks and it is so.

"I think it was in the Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic wand -- but the president doesn't have a magic wand. You just can't say, 'low gas.'" --George W. Bush, Washington D.C., July 15, 2008

No, you got it wrong. He, the O guy, is one of the worst presidents
ever. But the media loves to be his organ of misinformation. and
unfortunately there are those that pretend or maybe do, gobble their
ordure.

Doesn't jive with your pre-conceived notions eh?
That Fox News will rot your brain.

Actually I watch msnbc most of the time. They do Fox news here
locally. But it doesn't really matter. They all have a penchant for
getting it wrong.