Obama's Surprise on Gay Marriage

Of all the minor issues that occupy national campaigns, gay marriage is number one on items that are a waste of time to discuss. Marriage is a state issue. It has always been a state issue. It will remain a state issue. The federal government has no power to move the issue one way or the other.

Despite all this, gay marriage has become like abortion; it is a big deal in federal campaigns. By the way, I mention abortion since it, like gay marriage, is nearly entirely beyond the control of Congress. The Supreme Court has already held that there is a constitutional right to abortion during the first trimester of a pregnancy. That is an absolute right, so Congress and the president cannot do anything to take that right away short of amending the Constitution. (And that will not happen.)

So, today it is big news that president Obama has "evolved" in his position on gay marriage that he now supports it. The only proper response to this "big" announcement is "YAWN!" Maybe I should say "OMG, BFD!"

The point here is simple. Various federal laws can cover the right of gays to the same privileges and obligations for their unions that are given to marriages. Should gays in a union be able to file their taxes jointly with their partners? Sure. Should gays who survive their partners be able to collect social security on the basis of their partners contributions in the same way that surviving spouses do? Again, sure. There are a few other areas where federal law can step in where it now differentiates between married and single individuals. But federal law cannot define what marriage is; that is up to the states. That is why yesterday the voters of North Carolina passed an amendment to the state constitution doing just that: describing what constitutes "marriage".

Obama's act today in "evolving" into support for gay marriage has much more to do with the recent stories about gay supporters of Obama withholding campaign contibutions until such time as Obama came out publicly to support the gay marriage cause. The calculus was not "what is fair" or "what is best for the country". No, it was, as usual, "what is best for the re-election effort."