Obama Drama

Commitment Phobia or Political Prudence? Obama Can’t Avoid Marriage in Re-election Campaign

Obama’s position on gay marriage is evolving (or so he says). Now an anonymous Democrat strategist at the White House has told the New York Times that President Obama might be supporting same-sex marriage during his re-election campaign and some senior advisers “are looking at the tactics of how this might be done if the president chose to do it.”

Obviously the right and moral thing to do would be to support marriage equality for everyone (or against it for everyone–now that would be an interesting position!) But will this move be beneficial or detrimental to his political fortunes? The most recent Gallop poll reports that more than half of Americans are now in favor of gay marriage. While this may be true, it doesn’t take into account the bizarre electoral college system of counting votes, which often gives more weight to conservative swing states where voters oppose marriage equality in large numbers.

With his re-election campaign revving its engines, Obama is going to have to make a decision. On Thursday, the President is taking to New York City to host a $1,250-a-plate “Gala with the Gay Community.” With the vote for New York State’s marriage equality bill on the any-day-now horizon, and GetEqual’s organized protest just outside the gala, it will be hard for him to avoid taking a stand. At the end of the month, he is hosting a Gay Pride reception at the White House which again is likely to garner still more questions.

The hints were coming in loud and fast in our direction. “This is clearly a president who is interested in making big historical changes,” the anonymous strategist said. “I think this issue has moved into that context for him.”

Image via

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #barackobama #marriageequality stories and more

31 Comments

  • Cam

    The issue is that the people in the Administration still think it is 1980 and that gay marriage is some fringe idea.

    The fact that nationally 53% of the population support it, with that number being MUCH higher among Democrats, means that NOT being for same sex marriage is fast becoming the fringe position in the Democratic party.

  • bob

    Bah. All this theater is obscuring the recent revelation that Obama signed a statement supporting gay marriage, and then turned that contract into a lie. I know I’m showing my age here, but back in my bar days being “flexible” and “adaptable” meant “fuck me”.

  • Rainfish

    Wow! It will be just like 1996 all over again!!! I’m suddenly a giddy fifteen years younger! But you got to hand it to the ol’ flip-flopper-in-Chief, he is devolving on marriage equality with a real honest-to-goodness involuntary respect for the past.

    Always remember, in political lingo: Past Tense is Prologue.

  • christopher di spirito

    Obama’s position on marriage is evolving? How do you “evolve” backward?

    You see, before dear Barry ran for the US Senate, back in his Chicago day, he supported marriage equality. But once he decided to climb the political food chain, he changed gears and said marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Once does not not evolve backward. Sorry, you conniving, cynical, lying piece of shit.

  • Politically Incorrect Thug

    This article made the statement: “The bizarre electoral college system of counting votes, which often gives more weight to conservative swing states,” to which I respond, “Huh what?” Really? Now it’s the electoral college who’s secretly plotting against us? Based on what facts? Such typical liberal propoganda: “We, the Left, are victims, and don’t ever forget it.” So sad when any group focuses on their weaknesses rather than their strengths.

    As for Obama supporting marriage for us . . . fuggedaboudit.

  • christopher di spirito

    @Politically Incorrect Thug: The Electoral College is an antiquated system that has out-served it’s useful purpose. The U.S. is no longer a sparsely populated nation where towns and villages are separated by hundreds of miles. Plus, as technology plays a great role in our lives, I hope the day will soon come when Americans can vote on their computer or hand held device.

  • Fitz

    I plan to bitch slap any gay person within range who tells me that I HAVE to vote for Obama because he is the better of two evils. Course, my position is constantly evolving…

  • Joetx

    “Now an anonymous Democrat strategist at the White House has told the New York Times that President Obama might be supporting same-sex marriage during his re-election campaign…”

    B.S.

    Obama’s just playing our community to get our money, hard work, & votes.

    Although Obama’s a helluva lot better than a McCain, he won’t stick his neck out for us like LBJ did with the Civil Rights movement.

  • Tanner Efinger

    I know that people get annoyed at politicians when they “evolve” or “change their mind”… but to me, if they do it openly and with public communication, it seems that they are thinking about an issue, listening to the public and challenging their own opinions. It sounds more human than politician, which I like. But it also encourages others who are of a like-minded opinion to think about their stance, challenge their own opinions, and perhaps evolve as well. Perhaps, on the gay marriage front, Obama is trying to reflect a changing country and encourage people to evolve with him.

  • Elloreigh

    I don’t care what he promises. I care about how he handles issues, and I’m thus far unimpressed, to put it nicely. He can ‘evolve’ and proclaim that he now supports legal marriage for same-sex couples, but it’s unlikely to make me trust him or vote for him.

    And that’s what this admin and its apologists don’t seem to get. It’s not the lack of progress that irks me (and I suspect, many others). It’s the admin’s incoherency, its lack of commitment and its seeming willingness to roll over and play dead at the first sign of resistance – regardless of the issue.

    So if Obama thinks that coming out in support of marriage equality is going to be enough to get our money and support, he’d best think again.

  • Daeset

    @elloreigh have u seen the presidents poll numbers? He doesn’t need you either or the entire gay vote at all, so stay mad.

  • John

    I see a lot of Anti-Obama post on here because of frustration this last, year espousing distrust in his Administration. This man has granted more equality for LGBT people then any other president before. If we don’t have him standing up for us, who will we have? Michelle Bachman? Rick Santorum?

  • toto

    In 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

    In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about at least 72% of the voters- voters-in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    All the electoral votes from all the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes– 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  • Politically Incorrect Thug

    @dan4: At last, good news.

  • ewe

    Obama is a sell out.

  • ewe

    Apparently it is too much to expect a US president to honor equality for all.

  • Matt

    There is an alternative! Jon Huntsman For President! Supported Civil Unions, Workplace protections, etc. as Governor of Utah, said he would not overturn the states rights to determine marriage like all the other Republican’s in the race. Huntsman is just as progressive on gay rights as this President and can transform the fight for our rights by making them something both parties are fighting for.

  • christopher di spirito

    @Daeset: I have seen Barry’s poll numbers. Only 30 percent of respondents said they are certain to vote for Obama and 36 percent said they definitely won’t. Among likely independent voters (the largest block of voters), only 23 percent said they will back his re-election, while 36 percent said they definitely won’t. Obama’s up shit creek without a paddle.

  • Rainfish

    So what do we get from Obama, even when all of the major public polls demand an end to discrimination — NOTHING! Such first-class leadership from our current “fearless” President — even when the polls are FOR ending discrimination. Obama is not a paragon of justice and virtue. It is all packaging. It is all hype. Even the Kool-Aid drinkers are beginning to see that he is no portrait in courage. He is no agent of “change you can believe in“. It is all an illusion created by a parasitic mass media dining on mass gullibility.

    Obama is no man of vision and courage. He is nothing but a self-serving bigot and a moral coward of the vilest kind. He is NO different than the Dixie-crats in the Democratic party of the Deep South, in the 1960s, who made all kinds of promises to Black people about ending discrimination just to harvest their votes, and then did absolutely nothing after elected to office. Instead, they used the same familiar language, such as: It’s just not the right time for it…we have a war going on (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.)….White people aren’t ready for it…there are other more important matters you know…don’t be selfish…don’t rock the boat…blah…blah…bs…bs…blah.

    We shall see if the tens of millions of voters in the GLBT community give this homophobic assh*le a pass again in 2012. And please don’t give us that hackneyed old crap about how Republicans would treat us sooooo much worst. Any comparison is like saying: Well, after all, the Republicans beat the Queers up and Democrats don’t — they just either turn their heads the other way or watch with indifference, unless, of course they are Southern Democrats (DINO — Democrats in Name Only) who join gleefully in on the bashing with the Republicans.

    Don’t forget who gave us DADT and DOMA in the first place. If it was just the Republicans it would not have passed with a veto proof majority. Democrats were in control of the Congress in the first half of Clinton’s first term when DADT was passed, and significant numbers of Democrats were still in Congress, in the second half of Clinton’s first term, who gave their unqualified support to DOMA. And even if both bills passed without his signature and Congress overrode his veto, Clinton could have still vetoed those noxious discriminatory laws as a matter of principle. History would have honored him for it.

    A plague on both their houses — both Republicans and Democrats. When you have to choose between the lesser of two evils, guess what, you still end up with EVIL. That is not acceptable to anyone with a modicum of human decency.

    Likewise, if Obama thinks that we in the GLBT community should fight our battle for equality all on our own (unlike the support that Blacks got from President Johnson and the liberals in his party)…then fine, let him and the majority of Democrats get elected WITHOUT our help. F*ck them all!

    But that doesn’t have to leave us without representation. If a liberal Third Party could capture at least ten percent of the seats in the House, and even a few seats in the Senate, they could be powerbrokers and control the agenda; keeping both major parties in check. It is far past time to start thinking about THAT option seriously. No more free rides from the GLBT community.

    Earn our votes or do without them. It is a simple equation.

    ~ Bud Evans

  • the crustybastard

    Oh boy! Obama might possibly maybe dangle another carrot just for ME?

    No, thanks.

    Have grown bored and annoyed by Obama’s equivocation and faux republican shit.

  • TMikel

    I guess the issue is whom he is more afraid to offend, those who want marriage equality or the right wingnuts who have him running scared. Given that he is a black man and it used to be illegal for blacks and whites to marry, one would think he would know where his beliefs should lie. He SAYS he is for many things but then he does not ACT. If he loses the election it will be because he has not done the things he promised to do.

  • iDavid

    If the economy doesn’t turn around on his watch, history shows he’ll be dumped regardless of his stance in social issues. Stay tuned.

  • Jeffree

    And HRC has already come out to support Obama’s 2012 run without a promise he’ll lift another finger for LGBTs…..because? ? ?

    [that was a rhetorical semi-question / semi-statement. No need to answer unless you got something we haven’t heard yet!]

  • Politically Incorrect Thug

    @Jeffree: . . . BECAUSE the HRC tows the democratic line no matter what.

  • Rainfish

    @Politically Incorrect Thug: That’s why my spouse and I personally wouldn’t even let those sickening HRC sycophants lick the sweat off our scrotums if they were all dying of thirst. They’re Obama’s personal fluffers. Useful fools and gAyTMs for their puppet-masters at the DNC. They don’t know how to demand…hell, they don’t even know how to beg for something their community desperately needs…they just toss their collective legs in the air like Femme Fatales and hope someone will love them in morning.

  • iDavid

    I presume you guys will be voting for Romney. Is it that you prefer to lick Mormon balls?

  • Jeffree

    @iDavid: Dare I presume you believe Romney’s still running?

  • idavid

    @Jeffree

    Dare I presume you didn’t get the memo announcing his presidential bid on June 2? At this point he is expected to outdo all other proposed candidates in fundraising. Is there something you missed?

  • Jeffree

    @iDavid: Aaack! I got punk’d! My neighbor was yelling for the last 20″ that he dropped out. She’s wrong….and I’m an idjit for believing her. *Sorry.*

    (She’s very anti-Mormon anti Repub. so she prob was celebrating with a sixpack & um, a bowl.)

  • idavid

    @Jeffree,

    Ah-hah! There really needs to be a comedy show called The Neighbors. Endless fodor I suspect. ;) If Romney does drop out, well, one can only hope!

Comments are closed.