I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.
And:
It’s interesting, some of this is also generational. You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same sex equality or, you know, believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.
I admit, I’m a bit surprised to see him do this before the election (although perhaps he was cornered by Biden’s recent statement of support for SSM). Also, he’s still saying that this should be an issue decided by each individual state, not by the Federal government (a view I agree with, but only because I think it’s strategically the best approach for now).
Although the fight will continue mostly unchanged, this is still a landmark in the history of lgbt rights. Someone on my twitter feed (can’t find it now, so paraphrasing) wrote, “for the first time in my life, I have a President who thinks I should be fully equal.” That’s valuable.
I really had thought Biden was off-script. Now I think it was a trial balloon.
A historical day for human rights, America should be proud of their president.
I, for one, am pleased that POTUS has evolved his views on SSM to catch up with those of Dick Cheney.
Indeed, Robert! If only every powerful Republican politician had an openly gay child.
Then we could expect every powerful Republican politician to not lift a finger to support marriage equality until after they had left office, and to not actually lift a finger afterwards. Why, I remember just last month when Dick Cheney spoke out against amendment one in North Carolina… Oh wait, I don’t! That was Obama.
Has Dick Cheney ever actually done anything as a result of his supposed support for marriage equality?
I figure they assumed he couldn’t keep dodging forever; that anyone who might conceivably say “What?! Now I’m not voting for that sonofabitch after all!” is already not going to vote for him; and that it’s May, FFS, by November it won’t be an issue anymore.
Has Dick Cheney ever actually done anything as a result of his supposed support for marriage equality?
Yes.
In 2004 he took a public stance in (very polite, very deferential to his boss, but firm) opposition to DOMA. Kind of an anti-Biden moment, and it provided legitimate cover for Republicans to say that they were also opposed to DOMA, or even favored gay unions of some type, without being drummed out by the religious element.
In 2006, the Cheneys announced their daughter’s pregnancy in the fashion typical for their political position (through an official spokesperson), raising the ire of numerous ultraconservative/”pro-family” groups. They handled it as though it was nothing even slightly out of the ordinary, providing a further normalization of SS families within Republican social circles.
Probably most important of all, in 1985, when Mary Cheney was 16 years old, she came out to her parents. Their reaction was straight out of the “how to love your gay kid” handbook, with Dick Cheney telling her “You know, look, you’re my daughter and I love you and I just want you to be happy.” In 1985.
From what I can tell, the Cheneys were decades ahead of the rest of the party, and years ahead of even most “liberal” Americans, in their understanding and acceptance of homosexuality, and – without becoming hairy-nuisance-activists on the subject, which probably would have been productive but also probably would have terminated his political career – promoted that understanding through the party and were spear-carriers for a conservative movement that does not need to demonize the sexually atypical in order to exist. And they did that in a climate that was nationally pretty hostile to gays (with some liberal enclaves in honorable exception) and in a party that was almost universally pretty hostile to gays.
So yeah, I’d say he’s done “something”. No doubt, it isn’t nearly as impressive as Obama bravely agreeing to back a measure that 80% of the American people supported, but I’m gonna chalk it in as a non-null input nonetheless.
I’ll certainly chalk it up as a non-null input, particularly his opposition to DOMA and support of same-sex marriage. But I don’t think that he deserves credit for being a quiet activist unlike those liberal loudmouths, sheeez when he set that activism aside as was politically convenient for him.
Does Obama deserve credit as an activist, when he set advocating for SSM aside to run for President, then picked it up again when it was politically more expedient? Because that’s what he did. Yet, in the middle there, he ended DADT. And I mocked him for it since it was such a popular move, but nonetheless, he did it.
Robert, have you been living in a cave? Because I’ve been hearing years of shitstorm about Obama not coming out in favor of SSM, and of playing it safe by weaseling on the issue. I don’t, now, hear progressives cheering him for being an activist. Being pleased that he finally spoke out? Yes. Being pleased that the President of the United States, no matter who occupied the office, spoke out? Yes. But I don’t, really, hear sobbing about how Obama is our savior.
Rather than address the moral aspects of this, I wonder what the political fallout will be. There has been some speculation that he had been saving this for later in the campaign to boost his turnout and turn attention away from the economy, but that Biden announcement forced his hand. On that basis it might have pulled a bit of thunder from his campaign.
The question is whether there are any independents for whom this is an issue that will affect their vote. I’m thinking not – it’s no secret that he was personally thinking the same way he just announced. He just didn’t want to talk about it or be forced to take a public position. It was always kind of absurd for him to claim that he was “evolving” on this.
Then you’re not thinking!
No, Obama’s stand will come as no news to Obama supporters. It may help mildly with independents, mostly to the extent that it will enable Obama to appear more authentic and less calculated.
But the real advantage comes from the flip-side. What will the Republicans do with this news? Plenty of fundamentalists will burst into a fury of vile. “Behold, the Spawn of Satan has revealed his true colors at last!” yadda, yadda. Sure, Obama’s news will push his losses deeper in the Deep South – where he wasn’t going to win anyway. But the disgusting sight of fundamentalists bearing their fangs to devour this new red meat will cause swing voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania to flee for the exits. And poor Romney can’t distance himself from all this, because he knows his followers already suspect that he’s not a True Conservative. So Romney is facing another “contraceptive” moment all over again: he’s going to have to publicly embrace the nuttiest wing of the Republican Party.
Even people who are iffy about same-sex marriage can be alarmed by religious extremism. Obama is going to wear the first issue. Now Romney is going to be forced to wear the second.
Hmmm, you might be right, Nobody.
Mythago, I am not hypervalorizing Obama or suggesting that progs should or do. I’m answering your question about what kind of credit Cheney deserves for being a calculating good guy rather than a crusading idealist good guy, by saying that Obama did a similar thing and so whatever was sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Obama is getting some limited provisional cookies for “changing his mind”, and I think Cheney deserves limited provisional cookies for being on the side of the angels, to a degree, from early days.
Sure. I suspect the reason those cookies are so limited and provisional in Cheney’s case is not only because he’s The Penguin, but because there was a sense of “I can afford to vacillate because I’ve got enough power and money to protect my kid from oppression”. Obama gets far more cookies for abolishing DADT and opposing DOMA than for saying ‘well, shit, now that Biden went off-message now’s as good a time as any.’
nobody.really:
“it will enable Obama to appear more authentic and less calculated.”
Well, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but my own opinion is that it makes him look just the opposite. My viewpoint is that a) he always felt this way, especially based on his record and his statements while he was an Illinois State Senator and a Federal Senator, b) he tried to equivocate on the subject when his ambitions directed him towards the White House, and then c) finally confessed the truth when Biden’s big mouth backed him into a corner. It basically confirms just how unauthentic he really is, as it’s pretty obvious that if Biden hadn’t said anything he would never have made this announcement at this time.
“Now Romney is going to be forced to wear the second.”
Romney pretty quickly came out with a statement reaffirming his support of not changing the meaning of the word “marriage”. It didn’t get much play in the media. It wasn’t publicized as an example of religious extremism. It certainly didn’t surprise anyone. And the fact that Obama’s stance didn’t really surprise anyone mitigates against seeing what we in fact have not seen; “the disgusting sight of fundamentalists bearing their fangs to devour this new red meat”.
The more I think about this the more I figure that people who are on the fence about this election are going to be voting on the basis of the status of the economy and not on the basis of social issues.
People who vote on the basis of the status of the economy usually mean their own personal part of the economy.
Marriage de-regulation is only a purely social issue for people whom it doesn’t affect. There are many financial advantages to marriage. For people who want to marry but are barred from doing so, it is very much a personal economic issue.
Grace
I don’t expect that it’ll have any great effect on the election, since nearly everyone who’d vote for Obama because of this would have voted for him anyway, and ditto for Romney. If Romney ends up being pushed to publicly debate the less popular parts of his position (i.e., taking equal marriage away from the folks in Massachusetts even though the large majority there doesn’t want it taken away, and banning civil unions), I guess that could have a marginal difference among independent voters, which in a really close election could matter. Of course, in a really close election, everything matters.
Here’s some interesting speculation I ran across since my previous comment — although all it is is speculation, of course.
Do you really see strategy here? It looks a whole lot more like Biden shot his mouth off and Obama was forced into scrambling and making the best of a bad situation. I don’t think this was particularly planned.
There’s also been much speculation that it was also related to some major fundraisers holding out until he made a public commitment. But I’d have to do more research before calling that out as fact.
I don’t really buy the idea that Biden forced Obama into a corner. RonF, when you first brought up the Biden comment in the other thread, you seemed to be suggesting it meant something or was planned. I dismissed the idea at the time because I wasn’t expecting the president to publicly “change” his position, but now that he has, I think it was planned. I think Biden was a trial balloon. It’s possible they weren’t expecting to make the announcement exactly when they did, but I would not be surprised at all if they were timing it to the NC vote.
It’s also interesting that Biden’s comment were treated as a big political problem for the president, but now, supporting gay marriage is the obvious politically advantageous thing to do. What a difference a week makes.
I think the timing is smart, though, in that it wins Obama good will with donors and volunteers that he’ll need in November, but he does it far enough in advance of the election that this will barely be in the news at all when voters are actually voting.
Thats it I am voting for Romney. I was leaning towards Barrack, but he just told me what I wan’t is less important than partying with George Clooney at his mansion.
Also don’t be naive. Joe Biden purposefully tested the waters for Barrack and then when it was embraced positively after a week of looking at blogs and polls Barrack Obama magically embraces it with a prapred speech.
I could have voted for someone who said they were conflicted on the issue since I used to be conflicted on the issue as well, but now I can’t rationalize voting for him especially now that this has embarassed us across the ocean. Yes California might be pro gay marriage, but Asia, Africa, and Latin America(all of our current or emerging trade partners) aren’t.
You can say that he gained more votes than he lost on this and maybe he did, but he did lose mine.