Rhetorical posturing only. He still supports civil unions and opposes any effort to make SSM illegal at a federal level.
He needs Congress for that.
There is nothing religious about this. Do you actually know anything FBCI? Do you know what it actually does? I think there’s a great deal of misunderstanding about it. It does not fund religious activities (and I defended it under Bush).
Irrelevant.
Bush supported an anti-gay amendment. Obama does not. Bush thought “the jury was still out” on evolution. Bush thought Jesus told him to invade Iraq. The comparison is bullshit.
Obama opposes legislation against SSM. Bush supported that it. That’s a huge difference. So is the fact that Obama supports civil unions. Their positions are not comparable. Saying that “Obama is against same-sex marriage” shows a very superficial knowledge of his position. Essemtially his position is like those politicians who say that they’re personally opposed to abortion, but think it should be a choice. Obama is “pro choice” on SSM. He presents his positiopn as a personal opinion, not as a legislative one. We also know that he doesn’t really mean even that much of it. He couldn’t have gotten elected if he said he supported SSM. Bush not only meant it, but wanted to deface the Constitution with an Amendment against it.
As for partisan lenses, I defended FBCI under Bush. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s not a good example to raise if you’re trying to say that Obama is theocratic.