Although I think Obama actually has no problem with gay marriage and just doesn't want to admit this, he can reasonably take the position that he does not think that a state should not have gay marriage but to constitutionalize this issue is wrong.  There are two slightly differents arguments here: (1) that there is something troubling about putting discriminatory language in a constitution (whether state or federal) even if one agrees with the policy underlying the proposed amendment and (2) that he (like many) see which way the wind is blowing and that to in the future require supermajorities (or in the case of CA, another referendum) to allow gay marriage is wrong.  The basic argument would be that if a legislature asked to approve a law allowing gay marriage, he would vote no, but he would also not approve of constitutionalizing this opposition. I believe Obama has opposed other anti-gay marriage initiatives (is this right?), and if he has, this would be consistent with his CA position.

Actually I think Josh's suggestion is a pretty good reconcilliation of his positions -- if you take what he said while running for senator at its word, he does have a personal problem with gay marriage based on his religious beliefs (he endorsed civil unions though).

My position is superficially similar to Obama's so I'll explain it.  Marriage is both a cultural and a legal institution.  I think there is a reasonable argument for a linguistic distinction between a union of two men or two women or a man and a woman.  To the extent that the Court ruling creates a disconnect between the cultural and legal understanding of gay marriage (redefining a cultural institution by fiat), I am against gay marriage.

However I am also against the amendment because it is designed to exclude gays from the legal (as opposed to cultural) institution of marriage.  If Prop 8 said "Unions between: M+F=Marriage, M+M=Gairriage and F+F=Grrliage" I would object less.

As I have heard him tell it, Obama's major concern is the affording of rights and privileges available to heterosexual couples, while avoiding the battle of calling it "Marriage". Its not that he "opposes" same-sex marriage so much as he "opposes" going for the gold and declaring it "marriage" over the endless objections of most Christian denominations and others.

Try this link on for size: www.youtube.com/watch

perhaps a link to video that may shed some light (I love YouTube!): www.youtube.com/watch

F+F=Grrliage

I'm rather surprised this particular equation has not found more board support in congress given M and F proclivity towards F.

Look at the issue in terms of momentum.  Supporting gay marriage is a proposal for change -- a proposal most people disagree with (even as they are becoming more open to civil unions and more accepting of gays generally).  Given that disagreement, it's hardly surprising that gay marriage would not be part of the platform of a politician who seeks to claim broad support.  So, why oppose the California amendment?  Because it too is a proposal for change, a proposal to *do* something, except that its purpose and effect is to enshrine into law official hostility toward gays.  Existing marriage laws are old.  Unlike miscegenation laws, they do not express official exclusion from the political community.  They are not mean-spirited.  They are merely artifacts of a time when the issue hadn't come up yet.  The California amendment, by contrast, would be a slap in the face to the gay community.  It would signal that gays are not now, nor will be, accepted as equal citizens.  On a practical level, it would reverse a recent advance in the direction of gay civil rights and foreclose future advance (at least until the next amendment).  On a symbolic level -- which is important too, maybe more important, given that California already had the comprehensive civil union option -- it would represent the outcome of anti-gay agitation, and sully the supreme law of the land with bigotry.

My take on Obama's attitude is that his opposition to gay marriage, while genuine, is not deep.  He's a smart guy.  He can see the arc of history bending toward gay civil rights.  Which is why he strongly supports gay civil rights as a general matter, including civil unions.  He might also imagine that gay marriage is a concept which will gain broad acceptance in the future.  But he recognizes that our society is not quite there yet.  It's an idea whose time hasn't quite come.  Perhaps the experience of California and Massachusetts will hasten that time.  In any event, he has made the judgment that *he* will not attempt to hasten that time, at least not in the near term.  Perhaps his religious views make him ambivalent on the subject.  Perhaps not.  I don't really know.  Perhaps he is inclined to defer, at least for now, to the judgment of the American people, something he is not quick to dismiss, both as a matter of principle and as a matter of pragmatic reality.  Politicians, after all, do not have the luxury of being able to take on the role of a parochial activist.  Even Martin Luther King would not have been elected to office in his day, and perhaps not even in our own.  (He had his Rev. Wright-esque moments, after all.)  Declining to fight every fight, including the impossible ones, right now isn't pandering nor is it unprincipled.  It is but a recognition that we live in the world, and not just in our our own hearts and minds.  It seems to me that that's a healthy attitude for a president to have.

I don't think that his position is any different than that of most Democratic leaders. Few elected Democrats openly support gay marriage. Most "prefer" fundamentally similar civil unions. And, with the exception of some hard-core conservative Democrats, none of them support enshrining in the federal or any state constitution a disgusting and discriminatory measure that would limit both the substantive and procedural due process rights of a class of people.

Now, does that make the entire Democratic party hypocritical on the issue? If you are as equally as hard-line as the pro-Amendment types, then, yes. If you are willing to recognize practical truths about the term "marriage" in this country, then civil unions is a fine compromise.

What matters most here is that Barack is right on the issue of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. Extending federal benefits to all couples and requiring states to recognize basic marriage rights from other states will provide much more equality in the long-term than a victory in a fight over semantics.

So Ramesh must be equally as confused by the governator's stance on the issue....

Three points to consider:

1) It seems to me progressives/liberals (like myself) ought to take the positon that constitutional amendments should always be used to expand, rather than restrict fundamental rights.  I think the founders would have taken this view.  Check out the 9th Amendment.....it seems to imply that society evolves over time, that the original constitution cannot forsee all the possible changes that may occur, and leaves the door open for expanding individual rights, not those of the government.

2) The historical nature of marriage goes way back into antiquity.  It was created as a contractual way to protect wealth and property in families and to assure that offspring were adequately supported by their fathers.  it wasn't until the middle ages that the church-states co-opted the marriage authority from the people to forward their own wealth and power over the population.

3)  The parties involved in a marriage actually marry themselves.  if you examine most religious or civil ceremonis carefully, you will see that the state/religion only plays a role in witnessing and enforcing the promises the couple make to each other.  No "permission" to make that commitment from the church or the state is necessary or, I would argue, desired.  Now, of course, the state does have a social and public safety interest in making sure that the parties are consenting adults and can therefore legally enter into contracts that the state must enforce and as a way to protect the fundamental rights of the parties, i.e., prohibition of underage polygamy.

And after Dem leaders already called for slashing the military budget by 25%? Surprise! A phalanx of liberal think tanks and interest groups - anticipating a Democratic victory on Tuesday - are mobilizing to push Sen. Barack Obama to...

Wait. Let me get this straight. No repeal of DOMA for at least four years. No repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell for at least two years. And no policy push on gay marriage ever. But yes on amnesty...