I was thinking specifically about that Obama interview just a couple (or a few) months before his re election where he said his “Feelings had evolved” and he is now in favor of SSMs.
To me, it seems like that one little interview sure did put a whole lot of momentum behind the issue. It makes me wonder if Obama had kept quiet on the subject, would SSM be legal today?
How much credit does Obama deserve for making SSMs legal?
Today? Maybe not, but soon anyway. Public sentiment has turned around very quickly on this issue, and not solely, or even primarily, because of Obama’s conversion. The Supreme Court’s Windsor decision really opened the floodgates that made their Obergerdemobburgerfelid (sp?) decision inevitable.
I don’t think Obama expressing support for marriage equality was the deciding factor. However, I do believe that if McCain had won the 2008 election, we would not have marriage equality today. Obama’s statement did add momentum to the movement, but I think having a liberal president in general and the country having a counterpoint to conservative ideas to rally around made the difference. It also didn’t hurt that Obama appointed two of the justices who supported marriage equality.
Last Friday I thought, “This is the hope and change that I voted for.”
Obama’s biggest effect on legalizing gay marriage is through the two justices he nominated for the bench. If we’d had a Republican these last two terms, it would not be legal today. But if we’d had a different Democrat, or if Obama has not come out in favor of SSM, I don’t think anything would have changed. I don’t think Obama’s personal support for SSM was particularly significant in changing public opinion. It had already passed the tipping point by that time.
Politicians of Obama’s ilk are generally followers in social change, rather than leaders. That’s how they get and stay in office.
On the other hand, if he had said he was still firmly opposed, that might have influenced popular opinion to some detectable extent, maybe especially among black people (a group which statistically was already opposed). I don’t think it would have made much difference to the outcome in the Supreme Court.
But I think Obama made the calculation that expressing his honest feelings would not hurt him in the election. I wish, as a rationalist, that he had said something about having thought about it further and thereby changed his opinion.
Lets not forget how Obama activity supported the SSM movement instead of just coming out in favor of SSM. Obama decided that the Justice Department would argue in favor of SSM and against a federal law in front of the Supreme Court and in Appellate Courts across the country.
I agree. If Obama had not come out in favor of SSM, I think the justices would have still ruled as they did. But if McCain were president, it would be different justices.
Of course the guy writing the majority opinions through the rulings that brought us to this point was appointed by that noted champion of socially liberal policy, Ronald Reagan. Justice Kagan who also sided with the majority was a relatively centrist nomination that didn’t get a lot of love from the far left at the time.
Obama’s personal position did play a role in Windsor coming out the way it did, which in turn affected the outcome in Obergefell. I don’t know that it was a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton would have refused to defend DOMA–the messaging would have been much harder for her.
But that’s arguably distinct from his public support for SSM.
Seen properly, the arc of achieving the recognition of the right to marriage equality is decades long. If you remove Evan Wolfson or Andrew Sullivan? Delay for sure. Make the ACLU decide not to take the dozens of cases that laid the groundwork for Obergefell (and take Obergefell)? Even longer delay probably. Remove Obama’s public support? Meh. Not on the top twenty list of historically contingent moments for marriage equality, I don’t think.
Obama was dragged into supporting SSM, he did not lead the charge. He was a bandwagon jumper, not a trend setter. No change at all.
No. Individual states started it. Other states had to recognize it; the SC went with it because it was unconstitutional to deny what states had allowed.
This is incorrect. The big decision (Obergefell) did not rely on the fact that some states had allowed same-sex marriage. It found that there is a fundamental right to marry that cannot be unequally granted based on sexual orientation. It did not matter whether it was recognized by the states yet.
(It also found that it was unconstitutional to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, but that point was largely moot because now everyone can get married everywhere regardless of sexual orientation.)
Come on now, love him or hate him, you have to admit speaking out on the issue two months before the election was a ballsy move. He had nothing to gain from it and everything to lose.
Incorrect. the “full faith and credit” clause in the Constitution means that no state can make a law disallowing a law passed in another state.
So what? It’s likely McCain would have appointed 2 justices, and unlikely that both would have sided with Kennedy.
Someone is centrist because they don’t get a lot of love from the far left?
This is both internally wrong (the clause applies to some laws and not others) and wrong as applied to our discussion (it was not the principal holding of Obergefell).
The piece you have correct is that Obergefell held that full faith and credit requires recognition of SSM. But that holding is independent from and largely mooted by the major holding of Obergefell which is that all states are obligated by the due process and equal protection clauses to recognize same-sex marriages in their own states. Even if Obergefell had come out the other way on recognition, same-sex marriage would still be legal everywhere.
Kennedy is anything but liberal, and his conservative views often have him siding with the four staunch conservatives in the court. When he sides with the liberals, as on this occasion, it’s usually on the grounds of some individual-freedom libertarian – not liberal – principle.