Why now, one might ask--at least I do. It is not at all clear that Obama's endorsement of marriage equality will help him in the election. African-American churchgoers are opposed. True, most will overlook this issue by the time of the election, and reassert their overwhelming support. But some, having heard many sermons demonizing gays, just might stay home--no, I can't see them voting for Romney! And in this election, every vote counts. True, Obama has already lost those in a red-state state of mind, but his support for same sex marriage might galvanize them and increase their turnout come November. Independents seem to me to be a somewhat conservative lot--the difference between them and Red Staters is that they are not radically conservative. So I don't see any gain for him there.
Therefore, I conclude, that this was an act of courage. To do the right thing when it is politically risky is indeed courageous. Especially for a politician. I expected him to endorse gay marriage after the election. It still would have been right for him to do so, of course, but it would have been much less courageous.
The reason I am writing this essay is to discuss two aspects of this issue that, to my knowledge, have not been adequately addressed. First--Was the president's assertion that his opinion regarding gay marriage had been evolving a matter of sincerity or a matter of political expediency? Second, how can gay marriage be defended religiously?
Let's tackle the first issue. The commentators on the right assert that Obama has been hedging on this issue for political reasons only. According to them, he has always supported gay marriage and he was just waiting to promulgate his "radical left agenda" (Hannity) when the time was right. They view his long hesitation with complete cynicism. Since this is an ambiguous time for him to do so--who knows if this will help or hurt him--his decision to endorse gay marriage now does not seem to justify this cynicism. Why did he not act earlier? I have no inside knowledge, but I would like to propose a reason for this. Obama was raised by a white mother. Just like my son who is half black, he had to find his black identity--society, after all, offers mixed race people no other choice. And, the choice is, of course, a good one. He married an African-American woman and attended an African-American church. This church culture does not look at gay marriage favorably. And, I, for one, do believe that Obama is a sincere Christian. He is a decent man and perhaps thought like this--"I support civil rights for everyone, but perhaps gay marriage, as opposed to civil unions, flouts tradition too much." In his announcement today, Obama was very cognizant of the fact that many good people oppose gay marriage. He has respect for religious tradition, and was hesitant to repudiate it in this regard. Finally--perhaps with the help of his vice president, whose recent remarks on this issue might have served as a catalyst--he could be silent no longer. It was not only a courageous act, but also, as I very much believe, it was the right thing to do. In any case, the use of the bully pulpit to help stop bullying is extremely significant and will help foster gay civil rights around the world. Once again, I'm not sure that Obama "evolved" the way I indicated, but is indeed a possibility, perhaps even likely; I'm surprised no one has written about the possibility previously.
Now, to the second issue--Can gay marriage be justified on religious grounds? I am absolutely convinced that it can. Let me briefly state why. The great thinker Simone Weil interpreted the greatest commandment--that we should love our neighbor as ourselves--in the following manner. This entails, she wrote, loving our neighbor's desire. By this she meant that we must not only love those who are similar to us, but those who are different from us. The belief that we must love the homosexual but hate the sin is completely unjustified. Gay marriage is not about murder, it's about love. If anyone doubts that gays can love each other, learn about the Aids quilt project--open your eyes! We should love the sinner yet hate the sin only when the sin is destructive. Love is never destructive--this should be no news to religious people who profess that God is love. If God is mouthing our prejudices we have been using Him as a ventriloquist's dummy. What are we left with when we put the dummy back in its case? A silence that frequently makes us uncomfortable; a silence which makes us humble; a silence which "sings" and commands us to do the right thing.
Needless to say, I was very proud of our president today. Mr. Obama, when you were elected I literally danced in the street outside my home; I'm ready to do it again.
Therefore, I conclude, that this was an act of courage. To do the right thing when it is politically risky is indeed courageous. Especially for a politician. I expected him to endorse gay marriage after the election. It still would have been right for him to do so, of course, but it would have been much less courageous.
The reason I am writing this essay is to discuss two aspects of this issue that, to my knowledge, have not been adequately addressed. First--Was the president's assertion that his opinion regarding gay marriage had been evolving a matter of sincerity or a matter of political expediency? Second, how can gay marriage be defended religiously?
Let's tackle the first issue. The commentators on the right assert that Obama has been hedging on this issue for political reasons only. According to them, he has always supported gay marriage and he was just waiting to promulgate his "radical left agenda" (Hannity) when the time was right. They view his long hesitation with complete cynicism. Since this is an ambiguous time for him to do so--who knows if this will help or hurt him--his decision to endorse gay marriage now does not seem to justify this cynicism. Why did he not act earlier? I have no inside knowledge, but I would like to propose a reason for this. Obama was raised by a white mother. Just like my son who is half black, he had to find his black identity--society, after all, offers mixed race people no other choice. And, the choice is, of course, a good one. He married an African-American woman and attended an African-American church. This church culture does not look at gay marriage favorably. And, I, for one, do believe that Obama is a sincere Christian. He is a decent man and perhaps thought like this--"I support civil rights for everyone, but perhaps gay marriage, as opposed to civil unions, flouts tradition too much." In his announcement today, Obama was very cognizant of the fact that many good people oppose gay marriage. He has respect for religious tradition, and was hesitant to repudiate it in this regard. Finally--perhaps with the help of his vice president, whose recent remarks on this issue might have served as a catalyst--he could be silent no longer. It was not only a courageous act, but also, as I very much believe, it was the right thing to do. In any case, the use of the bully pulpit to help stop bullying is extremely significant and will help foster gay civil rights around the world. Once again, I'm not sure that Obama "evolved" the way I indicated, but is indeed a possibility, perhaps even likely; I'm surprised no one has written about the possibility previously.
Now, to the second issue--Can gay marriage be justified on religious grounds? I am absolutely convinced that it can. Let me briefly state why. The great thinker Simone Weil interpreted the greatest commandment--that we should love our neighbor as ourselves--in the following manner. This entails, she wrote, loving our neighbor's desire. By this she meant that we must not only love those who are similar to us, but those who are different from us. The belief that we must love the homosexual but hate the sin is completely unjustified. Gay marriage is not about murder, it's about love. If anyone doubts that gays can love each other, learn about the Aids quilt project--open your eyes! We should love the sinner yet hate the sin only when the sin is destructive. Love is never destructive--this should be no news to religious people who profess that God is love. If God is mouthing our prejudices we have been using Him as a ventriloquist's dummy. What are we left with when we put the dummy back in its case? A silence that frequently makes us uncomfortable; a silence which makes us humble; a silence which "sings" and commands us to do the right thing.
Needless to say, I was very proud of our president today. Mr. Obama, when you were elected I literally danced in the street outside my home; I'm ready to do it again.
