Socarides: A way forward on the freedom to marry

Posted by Richard Socarides on politico.com:

"The recent sweeping federal court ruling striking down California’s marriage equality ban as unconstitutional provides President Barack Obama, a constitutional law scholar, with an important opportunity to shift his views on the freedom to marry. He can do so by reminding people that respect for the constitution, the rule of law and the courts are the principles upon which this country was founded.

"When he ran for president, Obama took the position that while he was for equal rights for gays, he favored civil unions over marriage. (Earlier, as a candidate for the Illinois state Senate in 1996, he had supported full marriage rights for same-sex couples.)

"His presidential campaign view seemed fine for most gay voters at the time (despite its apparent political expediency), and he received their overwhelming support in the general election. But that position is now untenable for several reasons.

"First, where you stand on the issue of marriage has become a kind of political litmus test for gay voters on whether you support full or partial equality. It is now seen as a proxy for whether you believe gays and lesbians are entitled to full dignity, respect and inclusion in every aspect of American society. And whether, in essence, our struggle for equality is worthy as a civil rights movement. Just saying you are for equal rights will no longer cut it.

"Chad Griffin, president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case in California, said immediately after the ruling: 'Today we begin the process of saying to the millions of people who are made to feel ostracized, besieged, bullied and ashamed of how God made them — be who you are, love who you love and marry who you wish to marry.'

"That is not someone talking about just a marriage license, and if Judge Vaughn Walker’s reasoning is upheld, it is hard to believe that any law that discriminates against gays would be constitutional.

... "The day after the California ruling, White House aide David Axelrod reiterated the president’s current position, telling MSNBC, 'The president does oppose the freedom to marry, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples in benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He supports civil unions, and that's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed.'

"That was a missed opportunity.

"Support for equal benefits, but not for equal status — a gay 'separate but equal' rule — is contrary to what Obama stands for, both as a person and as a symbol of expanding freedoms and opportunities. Continuing on this course will lose him and his fellow Democrats the support and enthusiasm of a large block of his base voters.

"But can President Obama, who once supported marriage equality, only to oppose it now, change his position again? The answer is yes — and he in fact has no choice.

"People understand that most public officials who now support marriage for same-sex couples once opposed it. It wasn’t until after they left office that Bill Clinton and Al Gore (and, most recently, Laura Bush) said that they favored marriage equality. As Nate Silver recently wrote on his blog FiveThirtyEight.com: 'Does anyone really believe, in a country that is becoming close to evenly divided on the freedom to marry, that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Kerry are among the half who oppose it? “

"The sooner Obama changes his answer on this most important equal-rights issue of the day, the better off he will be. The Perry ruling provides the right opportunity to shift his emphasis and provide real leadership, reminding people that in this country, we look to the courts for direction on what our Constitution requires."

Click to read the full post: [Link]