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 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.
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.
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.
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.. 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.
[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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.