I think that Obama’s choice of Rick Warren is at best a tone-deaf selection for inclusion at his inauguration. Like many, I also profoundly disagree with Obama’s position that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” And I learned from you about his citing of religion when discussing marriage.

So I looked that one up. I think you are referring to this quote: “For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Now I don’t know what he was getting at with this one. And I don’t like it much…but perhaps he meant to say that he feels that marriage is a religious institution and therefore as a politician his job is not to insert himself in that debate. Based on the context, and all his other comments on the subject, I’m inclined to believe he meant it this way.

If the government wasn’t deep in the marriage business that argument would hold more water. I think that government should be in the business of certifying civil unions for all (with all rights and benefits)—and relegate marriage to religious institutions. But the government is in the biz, and that’s why this is muddy.

Not to excuse him entirely, but I think it should be noted that Obama made this comment only once (as far as I know), and it was at that Rick Warren evangelical forum with him and McCain. So they were supposed to get all religulous, and I guess Obama overreached a little there! But I wouldn’t cite his comment in this forum as anything more than a glimpse into his personal views on the subject—not necessarily a formal policy position. The distinction is important.

In fact, he has been quite clear about his position on gay marriage and part of it is his conviction that he will not support a ban on gay marriage (he opposed Prop. Eight) nor will he be a proponent. But he is committed to guaranteeing civil rights, including all of the rights afforded by legal marriage. It is long overdue that a president focuses on these issues. No other politician who has come so close to the White House has offered more—it’s a good start.

Which brings me to your comment about Sarah Palin, which I thought was misleading.

You say that unlike Obama, she hasn’t brought religion into her comments on gay marriage. It’s important to note that she brings religion into almost everything she talks about. Also, she barely has any utterances on the subject of gay rights at all (”on the issues” has nothing in this category for her—lots for Obama). Obama’s positions are well-documented. The only clip I have come across where Palin discusses gay marriage (link below) is more notable, not because she doesn’t mention god in this clip (but it’s there between the lines) but rather because she says that though she won’t stand in judgment of anyone, she still would do everything she could as a legislator to ban gay marriage (my wording, her inference).

So, she has no problem with the idea of a federal ban on gay marriage (without judgments, of course), while Obama clearly says he would not support a ban while vigorously supporting all rights of marriage for same-sex couples. Meanwhile Sarah Palin has a murky record when it comes to supporting benefits for same sex couples.

To say that Obama “cites religion as the reason he opposes gay marriage” kind of makes it sound like he wants to ban gay marriage, which he doesn’t. And to say the Sarah Palin hasn’t gone this far, ignores the fact that her stance is to outright ban gay marriage. And ignores that her religion seems to inform all of her policy. The real distinction here is who wants to ban gay marriage and who doesn’t. In this respect it is Sarah Palin who goes too far!

And a tangential question: Where is this gay best friend of Palin’s?

Here are two videos, one of Obama and one of Sarah Palin, on gay marriage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29VTtakNl5M

Best,

Stella Chance