# Would a pro-gay marriage stance cost Obama the election? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 8, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313 "2012-05-08T19:22:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/61 "2012-05-10T04:40:42Z")
From a purely political perspective, the evolution occurred four years too early. Obama is getting out a little ahead of history, which Presidents usually prefer to do as little as possible. It was a gutsy move. I extend my congratulations. As to whether he should have done this years ago… politics is the art of the possible. Slow, steady, no-drama Obama provides lasting change. Whatever happens with gay marriage, nobody will be able to put Don’t Ask Don’t Tell back into the military. Yes, this could cost him the election. No, the election is not a sure thing, though I think intrade underestimates Obama’s strength when they give him 60% odds. For the moment, [Romney gets irritated](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-gets-testy-after-questions-on-gay-marriage?ref=fpblg) when reporters ask him about gay marriage, medical marijuana or in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants: “Aren’t there issues of significance you’d like to talk about?” But I suspect that Rove’s Super Pac will have a more politically adept take on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/62 "2012-05-10T04:45:51Z")
It just now occurred to me, Biden’s statement last week was not a gaffe, it was a trial balloon! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/63 "2012-05-10T06:31:56Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > From a purely political perspective, the evolution occurred four years too early. Obama is getting out a little ahead of history, which Presidents usually prefer to do as little as possible. It was a gutsy move. I extend my congratulations. As to whether he should have done this years ago… politics is the art of the possible. Slow, steady, no-drama Obama provides lasting change. Whatever happens with gay marriage, nobody will be able to put Don’t Ask Don’t Tell back into the military. Maybe. But sometimes when Presidents get out ahead of history, it becomes a lasting and defining moment of their careers. LBJ would be remembered very negatively for getting us into Vietnam, but he rightly gets a lot of credit for pushing through Civil Rights legislation, to the point where he’s frequently remembered positively. This issue may not be quite as big as the Civil Rights movement in the '60s (or it may; we’re probably too close to judge it accurately) but Obama would do well to be on the right side of it if he’s got his eyes on the history books. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/64 "2012-05-10T10:58:25Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Allow me to rephrase: > > And efforts to make an admirable decision look merely politically expedient (and therefore somehow tawdry) make Romney (and President Obama’s detractors) look better? I got no skin in Romney’s game, either, dude. But the guy I will be voting for … well, he engages in the occasional BS, too. It’s all in the game, every grown-up realizes it, and plenty of very good policy decisions have come from politicians doing what was politically expedient. Hell, Clinton didn’t have a sincere bone in his body and he did a pretty good job. But if it gets you all inspired to see a guy respond to years of political pressure by, in 2012, bravely, admirably, nay _heroically_ adopting the same position Dick Cheney held in 1999, feel free. Just ignore those of us laughing at you. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/65 "2012-05-10T11:02:43Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > LBJ would be remembered very negatively for getting us into Vietnam Which history books? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/66 "2012-05-10T11:25:35Z")
Romney’s [ringing affirmation](http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/mitt-romney-im-consistent-on-gay-marriagesince-running-for-office.php) of the opposite stance: “I have the same views I’ve had _since running for office_”. (emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/67 "2012-05-10T11:30:33Z")
> [@furt](#): > > But if it gets you all inspired to see a guy respond to years of political pressure by, in 2012, bravely, admirably, nay _heroically_ adopting the same position Dick Cheney held in 1999, feel free. Just ignore those of us laughing at you. OK. Sounds like a fair deal to me. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/68 "2012-05-10T11:43:00Z")
This Dutch woman says kudos’ to Obama. I would have thougth you guys in the US would have gone the same route we did in [the Netherlands, in 2001, as the first country in the world.](http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands). First same-sex civil unions, “registered partnerships” were allowed; when that went okay, marriage followed about five years later. But apparently, Obama goes straight to marriage. > [@](#): > > Parliament decided in 1995 to create a special commission, which was to investigate the possibility of same-sex marriages. At that moment, the Christian Democrats (Christian Democratic Appeal) were not part of the ruling coalition for the first time since the introduction of full democracy. The special commission finished its work in 1997 and concluded that civil marriage should be extended to include same-sex couples. After the election of 1998, the government promised to tackle the issue. In September 2000 the final legislation draft was debated in the Dutch Parliament. > > The marriage bill passed the House of Representatives by 109 votes to 33. The Senate approved the bill on 19 December 2000. Only the Christian parties, which held 26 of the 75 seats at the time, voted against the bill. Though, after 2006, the Christian Democratic Appeal Party became the largest party in the coalition, it did not indicate any intention to repeal the law. > [@](#): > > On 1 January 1998, registered partnerships were introduced in Dutch law. The partnerships were meant for same-sex couples as an alternative to marriage, though they can also be entered into by opposite-sex couples, and in fact about one third of the registered partnerships between 1998 and 2001 were of opposite-sex couples. In law, registered partnerships and marriage convey the same rights and duties, especially after some laws were changed to remedy inequalities with respect to inheritance and some other issues. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/69 "2012-05-10T12:19:59Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > _Wow!_ Who knew Obama read The Straight Dope! Yes, [he does](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1336651245-tCJ63k+wLv/bHp2DwJvOfQ). [QUOTE=The New York Times, May 10, 2012] Editorialists, columnists and bloggers criticized Mr. Obama as appearing calculating by his continued ambivalence. [/QUOTE] You were authoritatively right, **Eve**. Although I am midly concerned with your use of [weasel words](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word). > [@Eve](#): > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/opinion/bruni-why-obama-isnt-saying-i-do-to-same-sex-marriage.html?\_r=1&ref=opinion](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/opinion/bruni-why-obama-isnt-saying-i-do-to-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) > > That’s pretty much what some people are saying: that he only is fudging on the issue because he’s afraid that gay-hating Obama-lovers will flee rightward. However, it’s the exception that proves the rule because, “some people”, i.e. “editoralists, columnists and bloggers”, namely, **Eve** are saying _that_. Congratulations, **Eve** - you’ve influenced the 24-hour news cycle. I want our **Eve** to write articles like [this](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/fashion/michelle-obama-has-a-girls-night-out-in-washington.html?ref=todayspaper). ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/70 "2012-05-10T12:39:12Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Congratulations, **Eve** - you’ve influenced the 24-hour news cycle. Now if I can just get people to stop wearing gray with beige . . . I enjoyed how Obama used the same words about same-sex marriage that Lincoln used about slavery: he’s in favor of same-sex marriage, but it should be a state’s-rights issue. I hope it works out better than it did back in 1860 . . . ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/71 "2012-05-10T12:51:46Z")
> [@furt](#): > > But if it gets you all inspired to see a guy respond to years of political pressure by, in 2012, bravely, admirably, nay _heroically_ adopting the same position Dick Cheney held in 1999, feel free. Just ignore those of us laughing at you. I’d be more impressed with Cheney if he took that postion without having a gay daughter, or if he had used his influence to stop Bush from proposing an amendment to ban gay marriage. For a sitting president to adopt a position that could cost him dearly in an election year is courageous. I wouldn’t say it’s as brave as LBJ pushing for the Civil Rights Act, knowing it would give the south to the Republicans for generations, but it was a courageous move nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/72 "2012-05-10T12:54:22Z")
If Obama is really doing this because he feels a moral conviction then good for him. As a Republican I almost hope that we campaign heavily on this issue and have it bite us at the polling booth–the best thing that could happen to the Republican party is for the leadership to recognize the culture war that won elections for 20 years is no longer a profitable battleground long term _and_ detracts from the core issues that have historically defined the party. That being said, Obama is a politician’s politician–I sincerely doubt he would take this stand if his strategists didn’t find that it would be to his benefit in the electoral college. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but the Obama I’ve seen the past 5 years just wouldn’t take a moral stand on something unless it benefited him politically. My personal (and very non-mainstream) opinion on the issue is that up until the late 19th century the State had very little to do with marriage. It was a religious ceremony and ritual, since divorce was rare the legal system rarely had to deal with the legal ramifications of marriages. I personally think that’s the right way, I don’t see why marriage needs to be an issue for government at all. I’m adamantly opposed to any tax advantages of marriage, or any government preference for married couples. I think for purposes of insurance (health, life, etc.) people should be able to generally define their “family” however they wish for the purposes of the policy. (With some reasonable limitations, for example you can include any dependent children and one adult who you designate as a “domestic partner” or whatever you want to call it.) I wouldn’t be opposed to a system where you could file something with the local county court naming someone as your “designated beneficiary” meaning they would basically have primary inheritance rights to anything of yours when you died wherein you hadn’t specifically named anyone else (i.e. 401k plans where you hadn’t filled out beneficiary documents or etc.) To me the gay marriage issue is only really important _because_ we’ve let the State and other entities get too involved in marriage and too many important legal and financial agreements are heavily tied into marriage. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/73 "2012-05-10T13:23:01Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > This Dutch woman says kudos’ to Obama. > > I would have thougth you guys in the US would have gone the same route we did in [the Netherlands, in 2001, as the first country in the world.](http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands). First same-sex civil unions, “registered partnerships” were allowed; when that went okay, marriage followed about five years later. But apparently, Obama goes straight to marriage. The state of California enacted same sex domestic partnerships in 1999. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/74 "2012-05-10T14:06:59Z")
Well, we now have two identical threads in this forum, since someone started one in Great Debates and it got moved over here–why don’t we merge them or just close mine? ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/75 "2012-05-10T14:08:17Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > The state of California enacted same sex domestic partnerships in 1999. The state of California is not a country. Yet. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/76 "2012-05-10T14:16:41Z")
I have been loath to compare the situation to antimiscegination laws in the 1960s, mainly because people then didn’t have the luxury of living together (they could, but it was strongly frowned upon) that people do today. Of course, many such laws forbade that, too. But, how many people saying that Obama acted too soon would have said that of a politician in 1966 saying he wanted to reserve marriage for people of the same race? The polling numbers for pro-interacial marriage were much worse then than they are today for pro-SSM. I think this will either help Obama or be neutral for him. It might hurt some Democrats running for Congress since now every national politician is going to be ask to take a stand on the issue. The Republicans are probably safe in that respect, although they have their own problems what with TPers forcing their purity tests on Senate candidates. You’d think they would have learned a thing or two from the Christine O’Donnell fiasco, but maybe that’s asking too much. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/77 "2012-05-10T14:17:48Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > The state of California is not a country. > > Yet. It’s still larger than the Netherlands buy at least a factor of 2, and is larger than most European countries. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/78 "2012-05-10T14:21:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s still larger than the Netherlands buy at least a factor of 2, and is larger than most European countries. Yes, so if **Maastricht** had claimed that the Netherlands was the largest geographical area to legalize gay marriage, she’d have been wrong. But she said that it was the first country to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313/79 "2012-05-10T14:35:38Z")
Since we now have two threads on this topic (the other was started in Great Debates) and with the OP’s agreement, I’m closing this thread. [The discussion continues here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=651232) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-pro-gay-marriage-stance-cost-obama-the-election/621313.md?page=3)