Before, racism and women’s rights seemed to be the most controversial issues. Now, legalizing gay marriage has been one of the most heated arguments
within the society and the government. Nowadays more homosexuals are comfortable
being public about their sexuality. But as more people become aware of the
issue, more people also partake in the division between supporting and opposing
it. President Obama’s stance on same-sex marriage also seems to be divided
since he supports civil unions yet opposes same-sex marriage on a federal
level. Morally, this does not reflect his true beliefs of everybody having the
same marriage rights. Most people who have strong opinions about this issue
will only either support it or oppose it completely. Thus, his stance is inconsistent with his beliefs. As for Nava and Dawidoff’s
argument that not implementing equal marriage rights is hypocritical, Obama
would probably argue that by taking a side, he’s not representing the citizens
as a whole as this is a country of various beliefs. Same sex-marriage is such
an “either/or” issue that it can then be really difficult to represent
every citizen.
I understand your stance regarding Obama's possible response to Nava and Dawidoff's argument, but officials are elected to make decisions. I think that as a politician, you can't please everyone all the time. If Obama truly feels that all people should have equal rights, then he should be able to stand in solidarity with all marginalized populations. I think that as the text described, he is taking the approach of "making everyone happy" which I find unfair and non-inclusive to the LGBT community. I completely agree with you in the fact that his statement does not reflect his beliefs.
ReplyDelete-CesarCOMM41