Separate but Equal?

Obama recently gave a speech in support of same-sex civil unions, which has drawn some criticism of his reference to the Sermon on the Mount to defend his stance.

"I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other," he said, referring to unions that grant all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name. "I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that."

Let me just be frank, from a political standpoint, this is a boneheaded move. The people most passionate about the semantic argument between gay marriage and same-sex civil unions are evangelical Christians and the gay lobby.

With the oncoming GOP nomination of John McCain, Evangelicals are probably not going to turn out in large numbers this election, because of his somewhat moderate stance on social issues, including gay marriage.

However, he just marginalized a significant bloc of the Democratic base by suggesting the "separate but equal" concept of civil unions, but not the title of marriage. Furthermore, as a presidential candidate, he could have easily remained mute on this issue, and it wouldn't have been of much consequence, as this is an issue likely to be decided by preferably the legislative branch, but potentially the judicial branch. Not the executive.

In the past couple of weeks, the Obama campaign has made some questionable moves, and as a result, his momentum is seeming to reverse. This is just one example of this. It was an unnecessary risk that wouldn't entail much, if any, reward had it been successfully employed.