Wouldn’t the next logical question for Obama be, “OK, Mr. President, so what are you going to do about it?” If over time he fails to outline any pertinent legislation he plans on introducing, and fails to issue any relevant executive orders*, then I wonder if gay marriage advocates might end up feeling a tad patronized and used.
*For example, will he order the State Department to now allow fiance and marriage based immigration visas for same sex couples? If not, why not?
Maybe I missed something but he isn’t endorsing this on a Federal level. Isn’t he saying that he approves of it personally but thinks it’s a State issue? He’s sitting on the fence politically which will allow him to play up either side of the issue depending which state he’s stumping in.
Those are all relevant questions, and yes, over time people are going to expect more than this statement even though the DADT repeal and the end of the DOMA defenses also represented progress on this front. But that wouldn’t come until his second term if he’s re-elected and I think most of his supporters understand that getting any pro-gay rights laws passed will continue to be difficult. They’ve had to do a fair amount of pushing and agitating on these issues and it’ll take a while before the glow from this announcement wears off.
I think the idea is that the President is expressing a personal opinion, not a change in policy. He said he still thinks this is a matter for the individual states, so I don’t think he is committing to trying to overturn DOMA or rescind any executive orders.
He did much the same sort of thing before, where he announced his opposition to DOMA but did not do much beyond that.
I am honestly not sure if this is a calculated political decision, or something that Biden’s big mouth forced out of the closet (heh) prematurely.
FWIW I agree with his position almost in toto - although I have no problem with gay marriage, it is a matter for the states to decide.
Regards,
Shodan
Maaaybe. I strongly suspect he’s set up a trap for himself, though, driven by the expediency of the Hollywood fundraiser he was attending the very next day. Meanwhile, though, he’s given Romney a potential edge in several swing states, worked at cross purposes with efforts to encourage turnout among Hispanics and Blacks, and (seems to me) undercut forthcoming attempts to characterize Romney as a flip-flopper. And if gay marriage proponents do start asking tough questions, then looks to me like he’s once again kicked himself in the balls in exchange for diddly-squat.
I know the view isn’t appreciated in these parts, but really, Obama’s biggest problem is simply that he’s such a bad politician.
If you feel the president is a bad politician, I have to wonder who you think is a good politician. At this point it looks like this announcement was going to happen sooner or later and it just happened earlier than expected because of the Biden interview a few days ago. He’d been shading in this direction over time, and the “evolution” thing was obviously intended to pave the way. I don’t know if it will work out for Obama on the balance, but if it doesn’t, it won’t be because he and his advisers didn’t consider the potential costs as well as the benefits.
he got a huge spike in donations announcing this so if it’s a calculated move it worked in this respect. He’s already done away with DODT so he’s on record of having done something substantive in regards to SSM. The numbers are in his favor for independents and I don’t think the black vote will change even though there is less support for SSM within that vote.
So all in all I think it was a politically good move for him even though it was something of a fence sitting position. I don’t think Biden played any part in this because he has a history of “saying stuff”.
are you suggesting this was going to be a lame-duck project that got pushed forward? Many people expressed the opinion that his earlier position of support for traditional marriage was a wink-and-a-nod political statement to be ignored once elected. And his removal of DODT would indicate that.
No. He was apparently going to announce that he supported same-sex marriage this summer, some time before the Democratic convention.
The evolution of President Obama’s views on gay marriage. Notice his positions vary depending on his circumstance. His latest position really isnt a role that’s active in doing anything.
While mainstream reporters get more tingles and celebrities cheer his bravery, it’s important to point out he hasnt said anything he hasnt said before (see below) - and he basically punted this to the states to decide the issue.
Here’s the relevent parts of the politico timeline:
1996 - “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,”(while running in 1996 for Illinois senate)
1998 - “Undecided” When asked during re-election to the Illinois Senate
2004 - "I am not a supporter of gay marriage (but "I am “fierce supporter of civil unions”)
2006 - It is possible “my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,” In his book Audacity of Hope
2007 - Repeats in a convoluted fashion he is for civil unions but distances himself from marriage.
2008 - “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” at at a Presidential forum.
2008 - “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” MTV interview
2009 - “I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination” At LGBT (gay) Pride Month reception.
2010 - Says he’s been unable to sign on to gay marriage but that attitudes may have evolve. At interview with liberal bloggers.
2011 - “American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of our society. It’s a pretty simple proposition.” He says it’s “simple” after taking years to make the conclusion. This at a Human Rights Campaign.
2012 - “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” but then adds he believes states have the right to choose. LOL. Interview with ABC.
In the end he’s made a feel good statement that does little if anything for gays, and it probably wont matter come election time regardless what his evolved position is at that time. Gays only make up a sliver of the population, there is nothing but downside for him or any other politician who tries dancing through this when it gets thrust upon them.
I know a recent poll says half of Americans are for gay marriage, but that doesnt gel with all the states (30 was it?) who voted no when it was brought to ballot. If I had to pick, I’d go with the actual voting instead of a poll.
Personally I dont get all the pretzel twisting he’s done. It seems a no brainer to compromise and actively do something to further civil union rights while defending traditional marriage. Both sides in the end (no pun) sort of get something they want. It would be a step in the right direction and also show he is a compromiser instead of a weasel.
Whereas other people would call that weaseling of the highest degree.
An endorsement from the president does have some consequence on its own. It’s not that long ago that another Democratic president signed a law that barred federal recognition of the same marriages. As far as “gays only make up a tiny sliver of the population”… you’ve managed to overlook the views of straight people who support gay marriage. There are far more of them than there are gay people who are looking to get married.
Many of those voters were eight years ago, and things have changed a lot on this issue since then.
You gave away the store here when you said “defending traditional marriage.”
Why? In it’s current form nothing has changed yet he’s getting accolades as if he’s the second coming. Gays still are not getting civil union rights nor marriage under federal mandate.
Giving them the same benefits while protecting “marriage” should make everyone happy I’d think. Balance and compromise is far from empty speechifying imo.
The civil union position wouldn’t work - it wouldn’t satisfy supporters and wouldn’t pass Congress - and Obama can’t wave a wand and legalize same sex marriage. There’s a federal law barring the recognition of same sex marriages that is being challenged in court.
A fact-based assessment of Obama is that he is not all that progressive a politician; he is very much a centrist Democrat little different than those near-extinct moderate Republicans in values. His eventual endorsement of the concept of same sex marriage is just a reflection of the migration of thought around the issue in his broader constituency.
The fact that so many states have passed anti-gay marriage laws, I think, reflects that this is an issue which energizes the religious right enormously, while apart from gays and the far left, most other people have no galvanizing opinion about though the trend is toward acceptance.
Wouldn’t DOMA have to be repealed first? I thought that DOMA forbids the federal executive from recognising same-sex marriage, which he can’t overturn by executive order.
No, he can’t - but my inner-cynic (perched this time on my left shoulder by the way) suspects if gays made up a large percentage of the population (thus providing more votes) he’d be actively suing the states for it.
Wouldn’t that make sense? Wouldn’t the degree of wrongness of a discriminatory policy increase with the number of people so discriminated against?
And it hasn’t occurred to you that (1) not all states have the same population and (2) not everyone, even of those who are eligible, votes?
He might do something like that if there was enough support for it, yes. It has more to do with support from the public at large than the actual number of gay people out there.