Good question: Why is President Obama still “evolving” on gay marriage?
I guess the addiction to decisively voting “present” is still a tough option to let go…
“I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual – men and women marrying – are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden said on “Meet the Press”. “And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”
The idea that Biden had gone beyond the previous position staked out on the issue was quickly stamped out — with Administration sources and the Vice President’s office insisting that there was nothing new in what he said.
“The Vice President has made similar comments many times before,” said Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter in an interview Monday afternoon on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports”.
The whole kerfuffle over what Biden said (and meant) has re-opened a somewhat heated debate within Democratic circles: Why won’t President Obama simply come out in favor of gay marriage once and for all?
Obama, who supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage, has said repeatedly that the issue is very personal for him and acknowledged that he struggles with it. In an interview with liberal bloggers in the fall of 2010, Obama said he “wrestles” with the issue, adding: “I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about.”
~~~ Obama, himself, seems to be well aware of what he called the “arc of history” in that 2010 interview. “The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going,” said Obama at the time.
But rather than trailblazing and leading from the front, President Obama would rather vote “present”. He’d rather not see a show of his open support trending worldwide. That would take political cajones.
Chris Cillizza goes on to point out the trendlines that president Obama alludes to, along with chart. Blacks remain the biggest constituency that are opposed to a redefinition of traditional marriage:
On the other hand, African Americans, one of the main pillars of the President’s political coalition, remain decidedly skeptical about gay marriage. In the last year’s worth of Post-ABC data, just 42 percent said they support legalization while 55 percent oppose it.
Viewed through that lens, coming out in support of gay marriage looks like an unnecessary political risk for Obama.
Yes, it would clearly thrill a portion of his base (gays and lesbians) but it could alienate — at least in parts — another portion of his base (African Americans) that he desperately needs to win reelection this fall.
I’d recommend he take the gamble and stick his neck out. Unless of course he doesn’t have the courage of conviction and is “still evolving”….*snicker*
I really don’t see this as a great political risk, anymore than a likelihood of losing the LGBT vote:
And, it’s hard to see the LGBT community abandoning Obama — either for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney or to simply sit on the sidelines — given that the President can point to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the decision to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act as signs that he is working to address their concerns. (Cutter made mention of both moves to argue that the Obama Administration has a strong record on matters of gay rights.)
Simply put: The political upside of coming out in support of gay marriage is simply not as high as the political downside of coming out in support of gay marriage. Hence, the quick work of the Obama team to minimize Biden’s comments — and the fact that the Administration nas been decidedly low profile on a measure that would ban civil unions set to be voted on in North Carolina on Tuesday. (Make sure to read Amy Gardner’s terrific story on Obama’s delicate dance in the Tarheel State.)
“On any such issue that is not part of your game plan, the art of communications is limiting the time that it is a major issue that is moving you off your game plan or off your message,” explained Chris Lehane, a veteran Democratic communications consultant.
The other thing to consider when it comes to the politics of gay marriage is that while it might not be a slam dunk for Obama to be for it before November, it could well be just that sort of issue if he is elected to a second four-year term.
Why? Because the Post-ABC polling shows a huge generational divide — with young people overwhelmingly supportive of legalization. Fully 65 percent of people aged 18-29 say gay marriage should be legal while 61 percent of those aged 30-39 agree. And there is every indication that each younger generation feels increasingly comfortable with the idea of gay men and women being married.
Given those numbers, in even three years time — and unburdened from concerns about reelection — it’s not inconceivable (with apologies to Vizzini in “The Princess Bride”) to imagine that President Obama’s evolution on the issue will be complete.
So his “evolving beliefs” are based on political opportunism and the weathervane method of decision-making? Not in being a bold visionary and strong leader who takes calculated risks to do what he feels is right?
Nice.
On the one hand we have a candidate accused of being a flip-flopper; on the other, we have a president afraid to flip for fear of flopping.
The reason for dithering was obvious after reading the title. Obama can’t afford to lose a portion of the Black vote by compromising the Black machismo regarding Gays.
The Gays and Soviets are expected to wait until after the election; next year, he will have more maneuverability and can sell out America without fear of suffering politically.
Aren’t Mitt’s and 0-bama’s views on gay marriage the same??
Hi Skookum,
Two questions. Wordsmith notes that a continually-growing number of Americans support legal marriage of gay couples. What percent of Americans need to be in favor of it before the president’s support would not constitute “sell[ing] out America?” Also, if it was BO’s intent to sell out America during a 4 year term in office, why didn’t he do it when he won a 4-year term, rather than postponing doing so on the gamble of winning a second 4-year-term? To me, that seems like winning $10M in the lottery and running off to buy 10 million more lottery tickets in the hopes that you can win the $10 million you need to buy a dream home.
Kevin
Kevin, the reason Obama can considered to “selling out” the American people is defined in his open mic conversation with the Russian, any decision that has to be made after an election, when he has more maneuverability, should be considered a sellout. This seems to be a rhetorical definition, but part of the Gay question has been of Obama’s own creation. If he wants to appease the Gay demographic, he compromises a percentage of the Black demographic, in effect selling out the American people because he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. Any decision affecting the entire country that must be delayed because of political considerations is in effect selling out the country.
I have no idea of percentages of acceptance, Obama Care was forced on the American people with the majority of Americans disapproving the law. Now we are involved in an election based primarily on whether that law should be repealed.
The question of dithering itself because of such issues can be seen as a sell out. Obama has made an obscure word “Dithering” and brought it to the forefront of the American lexicon. Whether you see dithering as a legitimate political ploy or as a technique of selling out the public for time or to keep from making a decision “too early” is a personal prejudicial perception.
Common Sense In Cal BIG Mormon money has led the fight AGAINST gay marriage.
Obama has not as yet come out in support of gay marraige.
@Skookum:
You win the prize, Skookum!
Remember California had Prop 8 on the ballot at the same time that Obama ran.
Blacks were the one demographic that cost gay activists their ”right to marriage,” here.
Blacks came out to vote in record numbers for Obama…..but they used their time in the polling place to also vote AGAINST gay marriage!
Obama might be a ditherer, but he dithers for a good (if self-serving) reason in this case.
Un-Named POLITICIAN: What I believe is, that, marriage is between a man and a woman. But what I also believe is that we have an obligation to make sure that gays and lesbians have the rights of citizenship that afford them visitations to hospitals, that allow them to be, to transfer property between partners, to make certain that they’re not discriminated on the job. I think that bundle of rights…
MODERATOR: But as far as why, what in your religious faith calls you to be against gay marriage?
Un-Named POLITICIAN: What I believe, in my faith, is that, a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God. And it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting. But that doesn’t mean that that necessarily translates into a position on public policy, or with respect to civil unions.
WOW!
What if Obama had said that instead of some Republican?!?!
Look it up to learn which politician said it.
Nan I believe those statements would be supported by the majority of American voters. Don’t you?
Obama should have done the honorable thing and married Reggie Love.
Obama has not evolved as much as received a new revelation that Jesus died on the cross so men could commit sodomy and the golden rule. (I agree it is gnomic; but further revelations will come.) He is now Prophet of the American Patriotic Christian Association and politics and religion were always hand in hand. He is collaborating with Jimmy Carter on a new Bible featuring a whole different list of sins.
I’m sure that OBAMA lost a lot of decent BLACKS PEOPLE AS FOR NOW, AND MORE WILL COME,
FROM HIS LAST COMMENT. MANY BLACKS ARE MORE CONSERVATIVES THAN DEMOCRATS,
THEY JUST DON’T WANT TO CHANGE PARTY BECAUSE HE IS BLACK, BUT NOW THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE OBAMA CHANGE OF HEART,
the GAY COUPLE SHOULD BE CAREFUL OF TAKING PROMISES OBAMA CHANGE
DEPENDING ON HIS POLLS DOWN OR UP.
A PRESIDENT IS FOR THE PEOPLE, AND ROMNEY IS WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE FOR ALL PEOPLE
TO BE TREATED WITH RESPECT AND JUSTICE IF THEY ARE GOOD AMERICANS AND PAYING THEIR TAXES LIKE ALL THE OTHER, AND HAVE THEIR RIGHTS AS REGULAR AMERICANS HAVE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, THE GAY COUPLE CAN LIVE THEIR UNIONS PRIVATELY,
AND IT’S FOR THE STATES TO DECIDE MORE OF WHAT THEY WANT, NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO DEAL WITH IT, HE IS BUSY RUNNING THE TOTAL AFFAIRS HE SHOULD RUN WHICH NOT CONCERN JUST A GROUP BUT ALL ONE NATION’S AFFAIRS, AND ROMNEY WILL DO IT WELL,
AND HE WILL NOT INTERFERE IN WHAT THE STATE ARE DECIDING TO DO FOR THEIR CITIZENS
LIVING IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES, AND THE WHITE HOUSE WITH ROMNEY IN THE PRESIDENT CHAIR WILL BE AN UMBRELLA TO SUPPORT THE DIFFERENT STATES NOT AN OBSTACLE LIKE OBAMA AND HIS AGENCIES ARE DOING TO SCREW UP THE STATES AND THEIR CITIZENS,
THE JOB OF THE PRESIDENT IS TO SEEK HARMONY AND FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE ,NOT DIVISION, AND HATE FROM THE RACIST CARD AMONG THE PEOPLE
ROMNEY IS THE MAN
@Timothy Capps: TC, that’s a very interesting point.
I would look at Obama’s ”us VS them” class warfare garbage and conclude that ENVY* would not only not be a sin in his ”church” but more likely a virtue.
*Envy is referred to in the OLD commandments as covetousness.