Does Barack Obama really oppose gay marriage

[Badger]

The first minority president doesn't believe that inequality is okay, he's only pretending to believe it is just to advance his own political career and win that 450270th electoral vote.

For someone who supposedly has such terrific political instincts, his political instincts sure suck.

Corrected. If we were talking about it being remotely that one sided he would've come out in favor of gay marriage long ago.

[anvi]

Corrected. If we were talking about it being remotely that one sided he would've come out in favor of gay marriage long ago.

^^^^^^^^^^^This.

Obama's instinct at the moment is that it will be a close race, and I'd bet that's right.  No politician up for reelection and facing a close race is going to take a strong position on an issue that 1.) no offense to anyone, is not the most important issue facing the whole country in the coming election, 2.) is as a matter of policy not decided by the president anyway, but by the states, and 3.) is a serious social hot-button and only polls favorably within a margin.  I'm not saying any of this because I think the issue is unimportant; I do think it's an equality issue and I fully support gay marriage.  But that's easy for me, and all of us, to say.  How many people on this forum, honestly, would otherwise vote for Obama in '12 but will decide not to vote for him only because he didn't explicitly advocate gay marriage?  How may people who otherwise wouldn't have voted for Obama would in '12 change their minds and vote for him only if he did explicitly advocate gay marriage?  If you can answer "me, I would" to either of these questions, than I'd say at least you have the right to call Obama a liar and a coward.  The rest of us really don't, and it's precisely us that justify his decision to deal with the issue in the way he is.

[Former Moderate]

The first minority president doesn't believe that inequality is okay, he's only pretending to believe it is just to advance his own political career and win that 450270th electoral vote.

For someone who supposedly has such terrific political instincts, his political instincts sure suck.

Corrected. If we were talking about it being remotely that one sided he would've come out in favor of gay marriage long ago.

Voting for gay marriage would probably sink the president's campaign in Georgia, rendering him unable to compete for those electoral votes. Probably North Carolina and Virginia too, though those states are rapidly changing. Missouri would be a tough sell too, though Obama lost the state in 2008 -- he clearly doesn't need it to win in 2012.

On the other hand, supporting gay marriage wouldn't render him unable to win Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania,  New Hampshire, New Mexico, or Colorado. Honestly, with national support for gay marriage on parity with opposition, and with that opposition so intensely concentrated in states that are GOP locks, it's almost amusing to consider gay marriage to be the albatross it was even ten years ago.

[anvi]

I don't know.  

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/08/22/weekinreview/22gay-chart.html

Here is where support for gay marriage sits in all of the states mentioned as otherwise-wins for Obama:

Minnesota               47%
Wisconsin               44%
Michigan                 46%
Pennsylvania          51%
New Hampshire      55%
New Mexico            49%
Colorado                 52%

This might at first glance look like safe territory, but the issue only polls above 50 and outside the margin in one state, and that's the one with the fewest EVs.

It's also worth noting that in other important swing states, this issue doesn't poll well at all.  In North Carolina it's at 36%, Missouri 37%, Florida 41%, Virginia 42% and Iowa 44%.

[King]

I don't know.  

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/08/22/weekinreview/22gay-chart.html

Here is where support for gay marriage sits in all of the states mentioned as otherwise-wins for Obama:

Minnesota               47%
Wisconsin               44%
Michigan                 46%
Pennsylvania          51%
New Hampshire      55%
New Mexico            49%
Colorado                 52%

This might at first glance look like safe territory, but the issue only polls above 50 and outside the margin in one state, and that's the one with the fewest EVs.

It's also worth noting that in other important swing states, this issue doesn't poll well at all.  In North Carolina it's at 36%, Missouri 37%, Florida 41%, Virginia 42% and Iowa 44%.

While it's a split issue, I don't think it's truly influential for most of the people that give an answer--yes or no--on their vote.

[anvi]

While it's a split issue, I don't think it's truly influential for most of the people that give an answer--yes or no--on their vote.

Well, perhaps.  I guess my thinking is that Obama giving forthright advocacy won't either win or lose him votes, and the goal is to win votes, so what is the motivation, beyond principle of course, for him to get off the dime if that's what he wanted to do?  Maybe unambiguous advocacy now might galvanize some otherwise lukewarm liberal turnout, but it might easily galvanize already energized conservative turnout in swing states more.  I know it's not 2004 anymore, but 2004 isn't Flintstone-era ancient history for Democrats, many still believe the issue cost them Ohio in the 2004 general.  And even without that, it's pretty hard to get any politician to jump headlong into a no-win issue with so many other difficult things on the table.  If it were me, to be honest, I think I'd wait till I got re-elected to give full and unambiguous support.  Maybe that makes me as much of a slug as everyone here thinks Obama is.  But sometimes the old saw "discretion is the better part of valor" is true.

[Torie]

It still puzzles me that folks freak more over the term "marriage" than the basket of rights and duties that attend marriage, with respect to which civil unions are essentially the equivalent. It is as if there is desire to give gays a second class labeling status as to their legal bond.  Rather an ugly sentiment actually.

[anvi]

It is an ugly sentiment, yes.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Ask benconstine, he used to be the primary advocate of that position here. No clue if he still adheres to it, he made a comment that sort of implies he's moved away.

[bgwah]

On the other hand, maybe a social wedge issue is just the distraction Obama needs in 2012 to shift the discussion away from the economy...

[anvi]

On the other hand, maybe a social wedge issue is just the distraction Obama needs in 2012 to shift the discussion away from the economy...

In that case, he would have to make sure it was a wedge that broke for him in the right places, not one that split or went against him where he needed votes.  But wedge issues don't tend to work well with high unemployment, or even in just a generally sluggish economy.  I remember Bush 41 raised lots of wedge issues against Clinton in '92 that might have worked in 2000, but that year, they all flopped.   

[Reaganfan]

I think he does, to be honest. I think he realizes that marriage is an institution that has been around for a long, long time, and that homosexual rights are also very important, but that gay marriage in and of itself is a temporary fad. Civil Unions, however, are a different story.

[Torie]

I think he does, to be honest. I think he realizes that marriage is an institution that has been around for a long, long time, and that homosexual rights are also very important, but that gay marriage in and of itself is a temporary fad. Civil Unions, however, are a different story.

You honestly think Obama believes that gay marriage is a "temporary fad?"  Heck I give Obama more credit than that, and I am down on the man these days.  I am very disappointed in him.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

On the other hand, maybe a social wedge issue is just the distraction Obama needs in 2012 to shift the discussion away from the economy...

I've noticed that those who invoke the term 'wedge issue' when talking about gay marriage don't hesitate to use said issues themselves.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I think he does, to be honest. I think he realizes that marriage is an institution that has been around for a long, long time, and that homosexual rights are also very important, but that gay marriage in and of itself is a temporary fad. Civil Unions, however, are a different story.

And here's a good example of what I'm talking about as to why I'd rather have someone I support be a liar than buy into the mind-numbingly idiotic "logic" on display in this post.

[ChairmanSanchez]

Obama believes in gay marridge, he just has way bigger fish to fry, then to waste his time on a trivial issue. Its a states right, and New York did it right.

[Alaska Thunderfvck]

Obama believes in gay marridge, he just has way bigger fish to fry, then to waste his time on a trivial issue. Its a states right, and New York did it right.

Truth.

[Meeker]

Of course he doesn't. Hardly any mainstream Democratic elected official does in private. They mostly view it as a tricky political issue that they're still trying to figure out how to deal with. Several smart ones - such as Cuomo and Jay Inslee here in Washington - have figured out that publicly supporting it is a wise move. More will figure it out as time goes on.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I'm actually pretty proud of the fact that not only does Mark Dayton support it, he always had and did when he was in the Senate before it was "cool" to do so.

[Former Moderate]

I appreciate it when conservatives here use the term "homosexual rights" or "homosexual marriage." It's a terrific signal that the rest of the post generally isn't worth reading. A real time saver.

[Keystone Phil]

Several smart ones - such as Cuomo and Jay Inslee here in Washington - have figured out that publicly supporting it is a wise move.

Word on the street is that Cuomo and Inslee also realized that they are from New York and Washington respectively and this really isn't toxic at all in those states.

[Meeker]

Several smart ones - such as Cuomo and Jay Inslee here in Washington - have figured out that publicly supporting it is a wise move.

Word on the street is that Cuomo and Inslee also realized that they are from New York and Washington respectively and this really isn't toxic at all in those states.

I should clarify - that comment is directed at the numerous Democrats who being in favor of marriage equality is now more political expedient than being opposed but haven't figured it out because of outdated thinking. Pretty much any Democrat in a state or district won by John Kerry should be in favor of marriage equality at this point.

There are of course, as you snidely imply, a number of Democrats where the political backlash would still be harmful. Though that number is rapidly shrinking.

[The Mikado]

There are of course, as you snidely imply, a number of Democrats where the political backlash would still be harmful. Though that number is rapidly shrinking.

In large part due to most of those Democrats losing in 2010. 

[Meeker]

There are of course, as you snidely imply, a number of Democrats where the political backlash would still be harmful. Though that number is rapidly shrinking.

In large part due to most of those Democrats losing in 2010. 

That did "help", yes.

[N.i.K.]

No, of course not. He used to support it before he became prominent. What I do not get is why he feels that he cannot endorse it, when a growing majority of Americans support it.