ScrappleFace: News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher  

Top ScrappleFace Stories...

Obama Backs Traditional Constitutional Gay Marriage

by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace · 21 Comments · · Print This Story Print This Story

(2008-11-03) — In an effort to build upon his remarks during an MTV interview in which he opposed both homosexual marriage and a California ballot initiative that would ban the practice, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama today said he has always supported “traditional constitutional gay marriage.”

In an interview set to play Monday night, when asked about California’s Proposition 8, which would use the so-called “will of the people” to overturn a state supreme court ruling, Sen. Obama tells MTV viewers: “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.”

Today, in response to reporters’ compliments on the diplomacy of his statement, Sen. Obama provided more details about his position on the issue.

The Illinois Democrat, whose wife is a woman, said that if he were ever widowed or divorced, “I wouldn’t want Big Brother telling me that I couldn’t marry…you know…a brother — although I would never do that, because I think it’s wrong.”

“My Christian faith compels me to acknowledge that marriage was instituted by God as an exclusively heterosexual covenant,” Sen. Obama said. “In fact, the California constitution’s preamble actually affirms God’s sovereignty saying, “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

“However,” he said, “when the courts determine that a constitution, under God, permits something God forbids, the Harvard law school grad in me has to respect that. I believe the people pushing Proposition 8 are wrong to try to ban a practice, that I also think is wrong, by changing a constitution that acknowledges God’s in charge in order to prevent something God opposes.”

The Illinois Democrat noted that, “If you want to start playing around with a document, California voters should try to amend the one that clearly prohibits gay marriage — the Bible. That’s the one that restricts liberties with all its ‘thou shalt nots’ and its branding of homosexuality as sin, just like murder, lying, adultery and the rest.”

“As a Constitutional law scholar and a man who will soon appoint judges to the federal bench,” Sen. Obama said, “I have to admire those California Supreme Court justices who discovered the right to gay marriage in their constitution that had been cleverly hidden for 129 years. It makes you wonder what the U.S. Supreme Court would find if it would just stop seeing the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties and protections, and start using it to force the government to proactively do things for people…you know, to kind of redistribute the love.”

Asked how he reconciles his biblical faith with his “strict revisionist view of constitutions,” Sen. Obama said, “If you care about another person, who God made the same sex as you, and you’re lucky enough to live in California, Massachusetts or Connecticut, then God lets you choose whether you want to follow court rulings or the Bible. If you live anywhere else in the country, you’re still stuck with the Bible — at least until the Lord taketh away some of those strict constructionist Supreme Court justices.”

Similar ScrappleFace News:

Tags: Culture · Law · Politics

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

21 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Ms RightWing, Ink // Nov 3, 2008 at 9:04 am

    The only faults in California that people should worry about is not the constitution but those that lie below the ground.

    Kaboom-no more gay marriage chapels. Glad I left the Left Coast in 1998

  • 2 upnorthlurkin // Nov 3, 2008 at 9:33 am

    Good morning, Ms. Rightwing, all bright-eyed and bushy tailed. Are you healing from your forray into interpretive dance then?! I just blame my trips and tumbles to my age…..and my trick knee…
    An older gentleman used to tell me whenever he woke up and didn’t smell flowers and candles he knew it was gonna be a good day…..and the other day, I heard if you’re over fifty and you wake up and every bone in your body doesn’t ache, you’re dead….Yipee!! I’m alive!!
    captcha floral day…NOT!

  • 3 camojack // Nov 3, 2008 at 9:45 am

    I’m all for traditional, Constitutional gay “marriage” too…on account of there ain’t no such animal. ;-)

  • 4 Ms RightWing, Ink // Nov 3, 2008 at 9:48 am

    Yes, I am doing better. I am going down to the Y this morning for a “little light exercise”. Sounds Minnesotan does it not.

    Tomorrow I have to report to work at 5:30 a.m. as a poll greeter-love them poll cats! Trouble is I will have to work until 7:30 p.m. unless Obama’s lawyers make the polling places stay open longer so the last minute attack workers from Acorn flood the polls.

  • 5 Ms RightWing, Ink // Nov 3, 2008 at 9:49 am


    so the last minute attack workers from Acorn CAN flood the polls.

  • 6 Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Monday Highlights // Nov 3, 2008 at 9:56 am

    [...] marriage, hmm … I do like the line “strict [...]

  • 7 NeaL // Nov 3, 2008 at 10:40 am

    I’ve posted a new blog entry:

    Many of the discussions by the commenters of this site have helped me in sculpting this latest blog entry, so I hope you’ll visit it, give it a read, and feel free to comment. Share the love or hate. I can take it. ;-)

    Someone once said that, “The Republicans are the party of fear. The Democrats are the party of hate.”

    I have little use for hate. A little fear, though, can be a healthy thing.

  • 8 BlackLion31U // Nov 3, 2008 at 11:49 am

    Here’s a good article from “The Christian Science Monitor”

  • 9 Maggie // Nov 3, 2008 at 11:58 am

    Note to editor: So far so good .
    Thanks for your assistance.

  • 10 camojack // Nov 3, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    While we’re posting articles, try this ‘un:

    “Talking the Talk” vs. “Walking the Walk”

  • 11 upnorthlurkin // Nov 3, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Ah yes, those pesky Ten Suggestions again…Say, how ’bout all the trolls and their most holey 1 can just take over Californicate and secede from the union…

  • 12 conserve-a-tip // Nov 3, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    BlackLion, first, I need to remind you that the CSM is going under and hasn’t proved to be much of a newspaper for some time. Second, in response to this man’s totally flawed assertion, the only young people who have lost hope or elderly who think that they have “been forgotten”, are those who have placed all of their hopes and dreams into a government and into a man, whether Dem. or Repub. A government is nothing but a system and cannot meet the hopes and dreams of anyone. And people are just people and I don’t care how high they are in the government system, they are not saviors or gods or supermen. They are just people. People are fallible and wrong all of the time. People even let themselves down, so why would anyone depend on others to be the answer to all of their problems??

    And so, now that we find that Obama has been lying to all of us about his real agenda for this nation, none of us, who don’t depend on others and a government for our well-being, are surprised.

    If this man becomes our president, there will be no room for blame against a long gone GWB, but there WILL be a very difficult time for those of us who told you so, not to say, “I told you so.”

  • 13 gafisher // Nov 3, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Obama’s hugely conflicted on the gay marriage issue because it doesn’t result in abortions.

  • 14 everthink // Nov 3, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    “If this man becomes our president, there will be no room for blame against a long gone GWB, but there WILL be a very difficult time for those of us who told you so, not to say, ?I told you so.?”

    Really? Many here still blame Clinton for the mess Dumbyah has made.

    Remember though, “George W. Bush is not running” in 2008!


  • 15 Fred Sinclair // Nov 3, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Just in from MIG:
    Very funny!

  • 16 Fred Sinclair // Nov 3, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    Part if an e-mail I received and part of my return answer (slightly modified)

    “According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is:
    The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal…. the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??”

    Scrapplers are a well read, highly intelligent, group of Conservatives. I’m sure they already disagree with the statement. The book of Revelations, from what I’ve read, was written by a man who identifies himself as “John”. He states that he was in exile on the Island of Patmos. From Wiki I get the dates that the book was written around 95 or 96 A.D. although others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter.

    Muhamad was born around 570 of the common era - around the year of 610 CE he answered a “call” to be a prophet, but did not begin preaching until 613 C.E. His work ended with his death in 632. So unless there was an extraneous “special” revelation dealing with Muhamad, which John fails to mention. There is no way that “,,,a man, in his 40’s, of MUSLIM descent…” was something that John could possibly known about.

    The word “anti-Christ” does not appear anywhere in the Bible (KJV). According to [Accordance 6.1.1] there are a total of four times in the entire Bible where the word antichrist is found. The word antichrists is used only once, in 1 Jn. 2:18. When taken in context it is evident that John is identifying a great number of antichrists who were already on hand - up till today there are and have been multiple millions perhaps and probably billions who have denied and are denying the Father and the Son. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 Jn. 1: 10,11) I do not believe for a moment that Obama is THE antichrist, but I have no doubt that he is ONE of the antichrists. The same as Mao - Chavez - Ahmadinejad members of Hezbollah - Hamas - all terrorists, etc. are antichrists.

    The current horror is that not only into their house but about 50% of those voting tomorrow will vote to receive ‘one of the antichrists into the Presidency of the United States!

    1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

    1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

    1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

    2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

  • 17 mindknumbed kid // Nov 3, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    Most couples are extremely gay when they are first married, but from the divorce statistics I gather that being gay doesn’t seem to last long in marriages.

  • 18 mig // Nov 3, 2008 at 7:41 pm

    From Tim Kelleher
    … the constitutional philosophy of the forty-eight-year-old scholar, with no paper trail and two memoirs, finally got some exposure to sunlight. In a 2001 radio interview he expressed frustration that the Supreme Court had failed to “break free of the restraints of the Founders.” In fairness, he was referring to the issue of wealth redistribution (a topic I wouldn’t touch here for all the tea in Mao’s China). But what does seem exceedingly pertinent is his apparent ease in breaking with those Founders.

  • 19 MajorDomo // Nov 3, 2008 at 9:07 pm

    “…Many here still blame Clinton for the mess Dumbyah has made.

    Like those half-flush toilets the sleazebag administration gave us? Like the faulty intelligence that administration left? Like the taxation of my social security benefits? Like being impeached for lying under oath? Explain whose fault those were, wiseacre.

  • 20 Grogg // Nov 3, 2008 at 9:12 pm

    And while we are bringing God’s law to earth let’s include divorce.

    The vow “til death do us part” is clear and unequivocal therefore the act of divorce is an act against a solemn and voluntary oath.

    In keeping with this clear and unambiguous sin, the act of “divorce” shall immediately be removed for the Statute Books of all Federal and State Courts and bring an end to this abomination.

    It is time that the faithful took a stand and reversed the changes that have diluted even the Church of Rome.



  • 21 mindknumbed kid // Nov 3, 2008 at 9:49 pm

    God’s law made a provision for divorce, however he is not pleased when the wedding vows are broken. Honestly, people in general these days are too self centered and selfish, along with many other flaws to be capable of keeping such vows. Sad, but true. They also neglect to seek God in their choice of spouse, and marry for the wrong reasons. The short of it is, we need a complete overhaul of our concept of what marriage means before we could attempt to enforce it as a permanent institution, God said that our hearts were hard. Speaking of what marriage means, isn’t that why we have this thread? Talk about us messin’ things up, homosexual marriage isn’t even a place God would have us to go!

You must log in to post a comment.