The details are from David Axelrod’s new book. Obama never privately opposed gay marriage, but Axelrod convinced him to publicly support civil unions rather than gay marriage for political reasons.
Anyone surprised? I’m not.
This should offer hope to all those who think he’s a secret atheist (I’m skeptical, but it’s possible).
Didn’t he say that his “opinion is evolving”?
It was a transparent way for him to later come to Jesus on the issue of gay marriage, when it wasn’t going to damage him politically too much.
As for his religious views, he might be a liberal Christian, a non-religious theist, pantheist, agnostic or atheist. We’ll only know when he’s been out of his job for a while and only if such revelations are useful to him.
It doesn’t really matter if he’s an atheist, he’s got the mindset where even if he were an atheist, a Christian or a Muslim, he’d be alright.
I agree, but this is the first confirmation that he definitely wasn’t being honest when he was pro-civil unions but anti-gay-marriage. And it looks like it was the correct political calculation. Like Dan Savage has said, “Obama pretended to be against gay marriage, and gays pretended to believe him”.
You could almost think he was adopting a political strategy.
It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
I’m not surprised, but I’m a little disappointed.
Doesn’t matter to me. Politicians should revise their public stances when their constituents change theirs.
Not surprised or disappointed. I wanted him to win, he’s a good man and capable leader. If he has to lie to the right wing to make himself more palatable, so be it. His accomplishments dwarf any negativity from his lying.
Back about 2000, I was against gay marriage. Over time I realized the total illogic of the position and changed my mind. Obama frequently follows me years later in his thought development.
It must be flattering to know that.
My surprise is evolving.
This could be the break the McCain campaign has been waiting for!
I think this warrants clarification. I’m not disappointed that he lied. I’m disappointed that he chose to follow rather than lead public opinion on the issue.
…and a secret Muslim, and a secret communist, and a secret alien, and…?
I said on these very boards, many years ago, that Obama was a cowardly liar who supported gay marriage but found it expedient to pretend otherwise.
I don’t pretend to have been uniquely brilliant or prophetic. I daresay MOST people believed Obama was lying baout his position on gay marriage. The only disagreement was whether people should be angry about it. Generally speaking, social conservatives were angry and social liberals were nonchalant.
And that’s understandable. MANY politicans on all sides find it prudent to clam up or mislead voters about where they stand.
What makes Obama’s deceit a little more reprehensobel, in my opinion, is that he invoked God while lying. During the 2000 campaign, when he was being interviewed by Rick Warren, Obama declared “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian…it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
That, in my opinion, makes Obama’s lie more repulsive than normal political dishonesty. NOBODY forced Obama to invoke Christian principles while opposing gay marriage. He chose, on his own, to say that he opposed gay marriage as a matter of Christian principle.
That’s more than standard operational BS. That is a lie that borders on blasphemous.
Clearly, beheading is the only just punishment. Allah demands it!
That’s what a leader does *after *getting elected. To be in that position does require a fair amount of pandering to the massive number of low-information voters, and which is something less-naive voters recognize and accept.
The Religious Right was never going to vote for Obama anyway.
So, just who ARE these “low information” (i.e. STUPID) voters Obama had to fool?
Specify, please.
You’re forgetting, or perhaps never knew, that gay marriage was an absurd concept to a substantial majority of Americans in 2008, not merely the “Religious Right” you peremptorily dismiss. That included a large number of people who wound up voting for Obama anyway, for various reasons, and certainly would have been less inclined to do so if he had pandered to what was then still pretty much the fringe.
I’m not saying it wasn’t a shrewd political decision. I’m saying it was a disappointing moral one.