The New York Times wrote an editorial today basically saying that Obama can’t support equal rights for LGBT Americans and still regard marriage equality as a states’ issue:
Fundamental equality, however, is hardly the equivalent of a liquor law that can vary on opposite sides of a state line. Why is Mr. Obama so reluctant to say the words that could lend strength to a national effort now backed by a majority of Americans?
We may have a good answer to that question.
Even though a recent Gallup poll said that a majority of Americans support marriage equality, over 36 states have adopted ballot measures against it. In fact, it’s a favorite talking point for the National Organization for Marriage and other so-called supporters of “traditional marriage.”
Is it possible that Obama has not yet come out in favor of full-on federal marriage equality because if he does, his opponents can say that he opposes the will of the majority?
Even LGBT organizers agree that they’d rather pass marriage equality by legislature than at the ballot because at the ballot WE ALWAYS LOSE.
People who oppose the ballot also like saying that if America voted on interracial marriage in the 60s, that still might be illegal too. But is that really our only defense against the ballot argument? If so, it’s no wonder that Obama hasn’t articulated a reason to support marriage that doesn’t fly in the face of the democratic process that had denied us our rights.
Thoughts? Questions? We’ll be over here drinking coffee.