President Obama opposes the legalization same-sex marriage
on a federal level but he does support the recognition of a civil union between
same sex-couples, and to me I believe that this does not show consistency in
his position. Obama’s supposed position is equal rights and opportunities for
people but by supporting same sex-couples and not supporting same-sex marriage
on the federal level is a contradiction. If Obama agrees with a part of
same-sex marriage, he should agree with the baggage it comes with. I take these
actions as Obama’s attempt to have people think he is in favor of same-sex
marriage when in reality he is not. However, Nava and Dawidoff had some strong
and valid arguments because of their honesty. There was no “beating around the
bush” about their thoughts on gays and lesbians wanting to be recognized as a
heterosexual couple. Obama might argue with Nava that same-sex marriage is not
a denial of basic rights because it is not stated in the constitution about
same-sex marriage, and the term rights is always related to the U.S. Constitution.
Hey Aliana I agree with your position on the Obama situation. If he is going to support civil unions and same rights for same-sex couples then he might as well go all the way and support same-sex couples on a federal level. He needs to know where he stands and get on one side. He can't be on two sides at the same time and expect everything to be all right. Obama is a smart man so he should know better. And I like how you used the term “beating around the bush” with Nava and Dawidoff because I also thought that they were very straightforward and stern.
ReplyDelete