In a short video released today, possible Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley slammed Hillary Clinton for flip-flopping on same sex marriage. "History celebrates profiles in courage, not profiles in convenience," O'Malley says, taking aim at Clinton.
"The dignity of every person tells us that the right to marry is not a state right, it is a human right," O'Malley says in the video.
The former Maryland governor might not have mentioned Clinton by name, but it's clear who it's aimed at. Today a Clinton spokeswoman told the press, "Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right."
But in 2014, Clinton insisted that same sex marriage should be a decision left to the states. “Still, despite her exchange with Gross, Clinton managed not to clearly state her position on same-sex marriage. Repeatedly throughout the interview, Clinton referred to marriage as a 'state' issue, saying, 'for me, marriage has always been a matter left to the states' and 'I fully endorse the efforts by activists to work state-by-state.' What’s happening state by state, though, is that LGBT rights activists are arguing that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, especially because of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed by President Bill Clinton," MSNBC reported just last year.
O'Malley's position, on the other hand, that same sex marriage is a human right, has been long-held.
In case you haven’t noticed, the Constitution is being amended—though not according to the process our supreme law actually provides for. Which is, first, that two-thirds of both houses propose the amendment and, second, that the amendment then be ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states. None of that has happened with the amendment we speak of: Neither house has even considered it, much less voted overwhelmingly to send it to the states for ratification.
Let us now praise famous men, or at least one good federal judge, as some recent work of his demonstrates. Jeffrey Sutton is this judge, and he sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Earlier this month he announced an opinion for his court in DeBoer v.
The American Military Partner Association (AMPA) held its first National Gala Dinner in Washington Sunday, and the Department of Defense used the opportunity to tout the rapid advances the military is making in erasing gender distinctions in policies regarding military spouses and partners.
Whenever the topic is broached, proponents of same-sex marriage assert that people who have reservations about redefining the primary building block of civilization are simply on the “wrong side of history.” Now, no one would deny that the political crusade for same-sex marriage is on the march. But it must not actually be historically inevitable. If it were, its advocates could relax and enjoy watching the grand chronological process unfold, like waves eating away at a barrier island. That’s hardly what we’re seeing.
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as being between couples of the opposite sex. Today they’re hearing them on the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman at the federal level. Like Roe v. Wade, the high court’s decision on these cases is likely to fuel the culture war for a generation or two, at least. Unlike with Roe, the Court seems to understand that it’s been handed an issue of enormous consequence.
Last week, at the beach with my family, I deliberately ignored all newspapers. Not for the reason most people do—because print is dead. But because whenever I’m surrounded by salt -water, steamed crabs, and even mediocre fishing, I tend to hold that true happiness is having no idea what chronically bothered people are talking about.
In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has told Chick-fil-A that the fast-food company is not welcome in his town because "Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values." In other words, because Chick-fil-A ownership believes in traditional marriage, it shouldn't bother opening up shop in Chicago.
Last Friday, Gallup released a poll showing the country almost evenly divided on Obama's gay marriage endorsement, but 26% of Americans said Obama's move made them more likely to vote against him while 13% said it made them more likely to vote for him. By a 12-point margin, independents said they were more likely to vote against Obama because of his endorsement of gay marriage.
When President Obama came out last week in favor of redefining marriage, he couched his opinion in the context of federalism, saying, “I think it is a mistake to — try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue.” During that same interview, however, he declared that a bipartisan law designed to protect states from judges who redefine marriage in other states, is “unconstitutional.” It’s very hard to square these two statements.
Now that President Obama has announced that, having been for gay marriage (in 1996) before he was against it (in 2004 and 2008), he’s now for it again (in 2012), the Wall Street Journal editorial board comes perilously close to suggesting that Mitt Romney should change his position on the issue.
Vice President Joe Biden is at least part of the reason President Barack Obama came out in favor of same sex marriage yesterday, the president admitted in the interview on the issue with ABC's Robin Roberts: