This is the fourth post in a series on Obama's support for gay marriage.

Guest post by JBS -

When Obama announced his support for gay marriage, the conservative talk shows accused him of being political - they said that he only supported gay marriage because it would help him win votes in the election.

And maybe this is true?  According to a Huffington Post article, Obama expressed support for gay marriage back in 1996.  (He was for it before he was against it, and now he's for it again.)  As Joseph M. pointed out in his post, The Theory of Evolution, Obama said that he was now supporting same-sex marriage because his position has evolved.  But I disagree on this point - it seems that Obama is being disingenuous when saying this.  It seems like he has supported gay marriage all along, but in 2008, he said he only supported civil unions because gay marriage was considered unpopular.  Now as the climate changes, is it possible that Obama's support of gay marriage is because popular opinion is shifting?  Even Jon Stewart asked the question, "What happened?" and then proceeded to offer his own answer: "He became a politician."

But in this election, Obama is not usually associated with the flip-flop.  That usually is Mitt Romney.  So what about Governor Romney?  While his stance on gay marriage has been unchanging, his position on gay rights has seemed to shift overtime.  When Romney ran in Massachusetts for the Senate seat against Ted Kennedy, he did an interview with The Bay, a gay newspaper, and expressed support for gay rights.  Now in 2012, while running for president, he is trying to stay quiet on the subject.

However, because of Obama's recent announcement of support and the allegations that Romney participated in gay-bashing as a young man, the subject keeps coming up, and Romney is forced into answering questions about his position.  Check out this website for a review of Romney's positions over-time.  Interestingly, back in Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, the gay marriage issue seemed to nail the coffin shut for the Democrats - although after the election was over, Bush never said anything about the marriage amendment to the constitution again.  But now, only eight years later, support for traditional marriage doesn't seem to be a winning issue for Republicans.  (And we know that Romney doesn't take a pro-position on any issue that isn't "winning.")  However, one cannot be certain that gay marriage is a winning issue for Obama either.  If this was so cut and dry, Obama might have come out in support of gay marriage sooner - before he was pushed into it by Biden's preemptive statement of support.

Well, where does that leave me?  I support Obama because I feel like he is heading in the right direction on all major issues.  I believe he is heading in the right direction on gay marriage as well, regardless if he was for it, then against it, then for it again.  The general direction of his campaign is where I would like to see our country go.  I know that this may be a difficult issue for some Mormons, but ultimately, gay marriage will be decided by the states.  Also, with all the flip-flopping and federal inaction on this issue, why should gay marriage ever majorly factor into someone's vote for president?  Additionally, when looking at the big picture of Obama's last four years as a whole, he has consistently provided excellent leadership and has brought dignity and integrity to his office.  For this reason, he gets my vote in 2012.

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) was not directed at the poorest Americans, who already have Medicaid, but at the working poor. This includes those who work full-time, but cannot afford their own health insurance policy. In addition, low-wage jobs are far less likely to provide health insurance benefits. Thus, typical low-wage earners are left on their own to purchase prohibitively expensive private health care plans. In 2010, the average cost for a private family insurance plan was $7,102. In many locales throughout the U.S., it is mathematically impossible for a low-wage breadwinner to pay for a $7K private insurance plan while paying for all other essential family expenses. What’s worse, before ACA, if one became seriously ill and required extensive treatment and thus could not work for a long period, they would often lose their job, and with it, their health insurance. Some conservatives counter-argue that only those who work hard deserve health insurance and good health care. But this argument is a non-sequitur. Health insurance is generally unaffordable for the working poor and even parts of the working middle class, who as I pointed out in one of my last posts, work more hours on average than the wealthy.

Read more

Positive rights should not just be viewed through the lens of entitlement. Positive rights are similar to public goods in that they provide positive benefits to society as a whole (in economics, this phenomenon is called a positive externality). This is especially true with health care. If everyone has access to good health care, the chance of serious epidemic outbreaks declines. More people are thus eligible to work. American productivity increases because workers require fewer sick days. Healthier people spend more money on other things aside from health care, stimulating the economy. (For good explanations on health care as a public good, click here and here.)

Read more

This is the second post in a series of viewpoints on Obama's support for marriage equality.

Post by Eric R -

After Obama recently came out in support of gay marriage our housemate, a liberal self-identified atheist, asked my wife if we were going to take the “I’m Voting for Obama, and I’m a Mormon” bumper sticker off of our car. Apparently he assumed that any politician who supported gay marriage would be a politician we couldn’t, as Mormons, support.

While I can understand why he might have jumped to that conclusion, it is unfortunate that the image he had of us was so closely tied to the most vocally conservative of the Religious Right.

While gay marriage is a moral/social issue that I do have feelings about, it is certainly not the only moral/social issue I take into consideration when deciding how to vote. I also believe that how candidates address questions of war, poverty, equality, capital punishment, social programs aimed at supporting our nation’s most vulnerable and the environment as important moral indicators as well. And with respect to each of these moral questions, it is clear to me that Obama, and the Democratic party generally, more closely represents what I believe would be Christ’s position on such issues.

I am not single-issue voter, as no person who is concerned with the bigger picture could be. That said, looking specifically at the issue of gay marriage I see some elements of Obama’s stance that I can support. And it isn’t just me, but the Church as well.

Back in late 2009 the Salt Lake City council was debating a series of non-discrimination ordinances designed to make explicit certain rights for same-sex couples. Weighing in on the controversial topic, the First Presidency released a statement that reads, in part, that the Church "does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights or probate rights." The Church also said that it is “not anti-gay”, but rather “pro-marriage between a man and a woman. And there is a huge difference between those two points.”

I spend enough time with non-Mormon lefties to know that many of them have a very hard time distinguishing between those two points, and I would be lying if I said that this issue does not cause some friction between many of my friends and me. That said, it is clear to me that a), God wants us to, first and foremost, treat all of our brothers and sisters with love, and b), that it is completely appropriate to push for equal rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples that heterosexual couples currently enjoy and are subject to – even if we don’t call it marriage.

So while I may not be on the same page with Obama concerning all aspects of his support for gay marriage, I would have to say that our views are compatible on about two-thirds of the issue. While that isn’t 100%, it is a great deal better than the Right’s alternative of continued disenfranchisement and denial of reality.

In the last post, I illustrated how the positive right to an education is essential to a modern economy. Most Americans do not question the right to a public education, perhaps because it has been a fact of American life for over a century. Other positive rights adopted to some extent by American society, which are unfortunately more controversial, include the right of the disabled to a dignified existence, the right to food and shelter, and the right to life-saving emergency care. Most recently, through the 2010 Affordable Care Act, we adopted in principle the right to adequate comprehensive health care.

Read more

The next several posts on Mormons for Obama will address President Obama's support for marriage equality.  This is the first in the series.

Post by Joseph M -

Two weeks ago, President Obama stated his support for marriage equality while conducting an interview with Robin Roberts of ABC, and he described his position on the matter as having undergone an evolution over time. Of course, many have speculated that he has supported for gay marriage for a while now, and President Obama admitted that his announcement of support was spurred by VP Joe Biden's comments several days before that he supported gay marriage.

And while this allows many the opportunity to shout out an "Amen," others might find themselves in the midst of a Mormon conundrum (as Cynthia L of By Common Consent so aptly pointed out.) The Church's stance on gay marriage is pretty clear, and it's laid out in The Proclamation on the Family, (any guesses when this will be canonized?) and further affirmed through the Church's campaign for Proposition 8 in California in 2008.

However, this is where things get a bit murky - because while the Church's position on gay marriage is very clear, many were surprised by the aftermath that followed Proposition 8: a movie, protests, and a trail of disaffected Mormons who were confused as to why the Church chose to get involved in the issue in the first place.  The protests even reached Seattle, where about 40 people lined up outside the Stake Center in the U District at 8 am to protest; it was Stake Conference that day, so they had to wait two hours before anyone showed up, but their point was not misunderstood.  Like a blind-sided contestant on CBS's Survivor, they were shocked and outraged that a church would organize a campaign effort of this sort.

Although the Church was not the one that began the campaign for Prop 8, the Church has been actively opposing gay marriage for some time and has participated in past campaigns in Hawaii and Alaska.  The "story" is that the Church was courted to participate by Catholics and conservative inter-faith groups.  (Apparently, this is the only time these Christians have need for Latter-day Saints; Mormons are excellent at organizing: think of moves by the Elder's Quorum, casseroles for new mothers, and visiting teaching.  Otherwise the Church is kept at a safe distance seeing that it is a cult.)  But after having been invited to the party, Mormons ended up providing the cake, ice cream, and crepe paper decorations, and ultimately they were left to clean up the whole mess after all the party-goers left for home - and this included more than a few broken windows, lost jobs, death threats, and incidents of vandalism.  (However, I should point out that these interfaith groups did take out a full page ad in the NY Times to ask the gay rights groups to be nicer to the Mormons.)

But this did not signal an end to the issue for Californians or the Church.  The Prop 8 court battle continues, and other states (North Carolina) are amending constitutions, passing laws, and seeking signatures for referendums for ballot measures.  Currently Washington State and Maryland are both facing possible referendums, and Washington State's anti-gay marriage contingent have almost enough signatures (121,000) to get its Referendum 74 on the November ballot.  (Ref 74 essentially is Senate Bill 6239, that was passed by the Washington State Senate and Legislature, and signed by Governor Christine Gregoire on February 13th, making marriage available to all in Washington State. Ref 74 will put this bill to the people for approval or rejection.)

I've heard from several Mormons in Washington who are concerned that the Church might organize around this referendum as they did with Prop 8 in California.  Clearly the Church is still watching the Prop 8 battle play out and has periodically issued statements like check point markers along the way.  The heart of the Church's argument against gay marriage is the doctrine of the eternal nature of families.  However, the Church and other conservative groups have justified their opposition to gay marriage because of fears that their religious organizations will be required to provide same-sex marriages and adoption services to gay couples; (see this article on NPR for examples.) The WA state marriage equality bill has provisions that will not allow this.

But as far as Washington goes, the Church may be sitting this one out.  There are some reports that letters have been read over pulpits of some wards in WA and Maryland, and that (once again) the coalition to disapprove Ref 74 has reached out to local LDS leaders.   However, the broader Church leadership seems to be staying silent.  Considering the time, money, and energy invested in passing Prop 8 by the local and Salt Lake leadership of the Church, some people expected to see a similar thing happen here in Washington as well.  But alas, the Church seems to have evolved in its thinking in regard to its political participation in this issue.

Some may say that this might mean that the Church is realizing it was wrong in its approach to Prop 8, but I wouldn't go that far.  All of its statements regarding the campaign in California are on LDS.org, and Elder Oaks defended the campaign in a speech in 2009 at BYU-Idaho that further stoked the fires of discontent for civil rights activists.  However, in a Time magazine article, Elder Quentin Cook is quoted as saying, "talking about what may or may not happen in (future campaigns) would be speculation, and I  wouldn't want to do that."  The article goes on to quote David Campbell, a Mormon University of Notre Dame political scientist: "If it appeared that the  church sat out next time because it was criticized this time, there might be a credibility question. (But) does the church want the public to identify it primarily as a political body opposing an issue that comes back again and again?"  Read full article here.

Regardless of what the Church decides to do, this evolution is happening all over.  While, some Mormons have been rallying around this issue for some time, (see MormonsforMarriage.com,) others are changing more slowly. (Side note: some Mormons are even participating in Seattle's Gay Pride Parade to show support for WA's equality law. See article here.)

Jim, a commenter on Joanna Brook's article on religiondispacthes.org, wrote: "...At first I was nervous because I thought my views were moving me out of line with the church's teachings. I worried a lot about reconciling what I felt led and inspired to believe with the teachings of leaders of the church, but as my heart changed, I kept finding other faithful members of the church growing in the same way I was. They were Sunday school teachers, young women leaders, bishops and stake presidents."

The evolution of thought around this issue is happening slowly in some arenas and quickly in others.  Even Jay-Z (a rapper!) came out in support of marriage equality.  President Obama's position has evolved, and Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State describes "the evolution of her personal views" to explain her support and promotion of the bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington State.

The Mormon position is evolving as well - and maybe this is happening more individually than collectively.  How this plays out this summer in Washington and Maryland, is anybody's guess, but I imagine that most of the meeting house pulpits will stay silent on gay marriage. (And many in the congregation will breath a sign of relief and wipe the anxious sweat of dread off their brow.)  And hopefully, all of this evolving Mormon good will towards and in behalf of the rights of others will have a pleasing effect on the church collectively, if not just individually.

In my last post, I mentioned certain “positive rights” that Americans have come to assume are part of the social contract. Public education is perhaps the least controversial example of a positive right in America. As a society, we generally believe that every child has a right to a high school education, regardless of his or her parents’ income level. However, with the recent upswing of right-wing extremism, some (generally Ron Paul supporters) question the right to a public education because it requires redistribution of wealth throughout a community. Many extreme libertarians view government taxation for any kind of social program, including public education, as theft, and advocate a system of government where any redistributive program do not exist.

Read more

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, in an oft-seen video clip, describes how a thriving industrialized economy is dependent on government taxation and redistribution for the creation of key institutions, infrastructure, and social programs:

She notes, “there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.” She mentions factory owners who “move [their] goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for,” and “hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.” She adds that police and fire services, that “the rest of us paid for” kept them safe and prevented them from having to hire their own security and fire defense forces. She ends by saying, “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Read more

As some of you may know, I was raised on Chicago's South Side and attended a multiracial Mormon ward (congregation) for 15 years where many of my leaders and teachers were black. Our ward was also full of people across the political spectrum so I guess it is about time the NY Times caught up with the racial and political diversity among the LDS population. After all, it has been a reality in my faith and in my life for decades now. I see this attention as a very healthy development in the Mormon moment of 2012. (I would also note that a majority of those interviewed are planning, like me, to vote for President Obama.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/us/for-black-mormons-a-political-choice-like-no-other.html