This will cost him votes from Hispanic and black voters, which were quite solidly in his favour during the first election. Their support of gay marriage is almost on a par with evangelical Christians.
But they don’t share the same intensity. We all have things we disagree with Obama about, but it’s not going to keep us from voting for him. The evangelicals seem to care about gay marriage a great deal, but would never vote for Obama anyway.
At this point you can set your watch to “Obama had better watch out or he’ll lose black voters” theories. He’ll get around 90 percent of the black vote and it’ll be a win for Romney if he gets 35 percent of the Hispanic vote - and given the GOP policy on immigration and other issues, I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Stay classy, Fox News:
Yes, they actually had that up there, though they changed it not too soon after. But the internet remembers.
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
This will cost him votes from Hispanic and black voters, which were quite solidly in his favour during the first election. Their support of gay marriage is almost on a par with evangelical Christians.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: Do you have a cite demonstrating this? And, more importantly, do you have a cite demonstrating that black and hispanic voters consider this a vertical, hinge issue that they would change their vote over??
-XT
Calling it now: Fox News’ headline if Obama wins reelection will read “Romney comes in second, Obama finishes next to last”.
That’s Fox Nation, which is even more insane than Fox News.
No accusations of being a flip flopper? Playing to the base?
Personally, I’m just happy he came down on the right side of the issue. Motivations be damned.
It’s not really a flip-flop. He was against legislation that banned gay marriage and supportive of laws that extended protections to gay couples through civil unions. It’s not that far a leap to support marriage. In fact, it’s a process many people work through.
I’d forgotten about this, but another poster reminded me that in 2008 he said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. He wasn’t opposed to civil union laws, but I think that’s close enough to “opposed” for this to count as a flip flop.
But when taken together with his other views, he was clearly sympathetic to same sex couples and opposed to limiting their rights. His position evolved from a narrow definition of marriage to a broader one that included views he seemed to already hold.
Can we get some kind of clarification as to what counts as a flip flop? It’s starting to be one of those terms I hate. Used to be a good thing to see a politician changing his mind. Now if he has ever stated a different view at any point in his life, he’s “flip flopped.”
At the rate we’re going, people will only be electable after brain death.
Calling this a “flip-flop” is moronic. Flip-flopping is changing your stance for the purpose of political expedience. Since gay marriage is still consistently voted down when put to a vote, this is hardly politically expedient.
Of course, it’s the people who are against gay marriage who are calling this a flip-flop, so…
Are you kidding? Biden was the finger held up to the wind.
But at this point, I’ll give Obama a pass on that and just say: Good Job, prez. Good for you taking the moral high ground and showing some leadership! This is a good day for America. And this is change I can believe in.
There’s certainly some truth in there. He supported civil unions, for example. Still, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman” is not a particularly ambiguous position.
Changing one’s position for reasons of political expediency. In November 2008, he said marriage was between a man and a woman; gays could have civil unions. Today he said he supports gay marriage. If I believed he’d just changed his mind, I would say so and I wouldn’t hold it against him beyond the fact that in the past he was wrong. But I think the bulk of the evidence says that this was always his view and he’s just moved toward expressing it gradually from the election to now. There was the ‘evolving’ comment, then his administration axed DADT, then ending his administration’s defense of DOMA, and now (after a few more SSM legalizations and Biden’s comments) this. I was not always sure of that, but it looks like the case to me. I don’t hold him solely responsible for the gradualism: a lot of people have taken stupid positions on this issue and he’s right to take care in minimizing the flack he was going to take from them. But yes, it looks like he changed his stance for political reasons. Gay rights have sometimes been a low priority since early 2009. With the way the situation has changed, the fact that Obama supporters looking for results on this issue, the fact that he needs enthusiasm from young voters, and the fact that there wasn’t really a good alternative after Biden’s comments, there were a lot of political considerations here.
So you’re a mind reader now? Four years ago constitutes a flip flop? How long should one take to change their mind, and is it regular time or geological?
Most of us are against the idea of ideological purity and inflexible minds, and then we punish politicians for changing their minds by calling them “flip floppers.”
Obama couldn’t be more full of shit. He supported them all along. He just made the political calculation to lie to help his political chances. Biden put him in a corner in that he had to deal with it. He must have been SO pissed at Biden. Biden, bless his heart, just gaffed his way into ensuring that he doesn’t get replaced on the ticket.
Obama can’t be happy about this. I can’t see how it’s going to gain him votes he doesn’t have already. But I do think it will cause him to lose some independents. So, good job, Joe!!!
He said the right thing today for the most part and I already gave him the credit for that. That doesn’t mean I have to swallow a bunch of nonsense about what his position always was. He said he was against same sex marriage in 2008 even though he had said before that he supported it. Then he said his position was “evolving,” then he took a series of actions supporting and expanding gay rights by ending DADT and stopping legal support for DOMA, and then we eventually arrived at this juncture.
And that’s no fair because only Mitt Romney is allowed to do that! 
Yesterday, Colorado’s Republican controlled House passed a civil unions bill out of committee with the help of three key Republicans. The leadership blocked it from coming to a vote, where it had the support of eight or nine Republicans in total. It would have passed a floor vote by a big margin.