Wounded Syrian soldiers are evacuated following a roadside bomb attack that targeted their convoy as they escorted UN peace observers, including the Norwegian general who heads the mission, through the restive southern Syria city of Daraa on May 9, 2012. Six soldiers were wounded when the explosive device, which appeared to have been planted underground, detonated as the convoy of four vehicles was about to enter Daraa, cradle of a 14-month uprising against President Bashar al-Assad's regime. By Louai Beshara/AFP/Getty Images.
R.L.G at DiA tackles yesterday's Maggie Gallagher video on the supposed harms of same-sex marriage:
I can certainly think of hypothetical bits of evidence that might make people like me and The Economist's editors re-think support for gay marriage. Ms Gallagher was asked to provide it. But she offers no children suffering because they have two mothers. No higher divorce rates. No other social ills in the states where gays can marry. This is all that one of the country's most prominent opponents of gay marriage has to offer when given a softball question about the harm of gay marriage: no actual harm at all, except to the entry under "marriage" in Maggie Gallagher's personal lexicon. That's a social ill I can live with.
Rob Tisinai dissects Monday's video on why Maggie focuses on marriage equality rather than divorce:
Maggie tells us why she’s worried over same-sex marriage — but not why she abandoned her focus on divorce. She dodges that question. And in fact, her own reasoning suggests divorce is where she ought to direct her activism.
Maggie thinks marriage and children benefit when the "framing ideas" of marriage are also the "governing ideas." Surely one of her framing ideas is that marriage is a life-long commitment. Under current divorce law, though, it’s no longer a governing idea. So if Maggie’s sad and gentle concern is over "the enormous power of governing ideas for a social institution," we still need to learn why she’s focused on same-sex marriage rather than divorce.
[W]ith the broader shift in public opinion, Mr. Obama is not accepting the same risks by endorsing same-sex marriage that he would have even a year or two ago.
My heart sings. It does. In 1980 there was not one openly gay person in my 1600-student high school. In 1989, Denmark was the first nation to introduce civil unions (not even marriage!), and I thought, That will never, never, never happen here. I doubt 20-somethings today can even comprehend what that world was like. And twenty years from now it will boggle kids’ minds to imagine a presidential election with no serious candidate standing up for marriage equality. Because that time is over!
here’s where Obama’s shift today means everything: He went on television, with all the power and resonance of his office, to give gay marriage his clear and firm endorsement. His words will play everywhere, and everyone will understand them. That wasn’t true of Eric Holder’s lawyerly letter about DOMA, however important it has been. The positions that the government takes in court matter. But the gift President Obama gave the country today matters so much more.
The statement changes everything because it locks in place for another generation the Brand ID of Democrats as the party of cultural modernity. This Brand ID fits uneasily upon the Democrats, for they are also the party of ethnic minorities and recent immigrants. With the president's statement, however, the modernists have gained the clear upper hand. Meanwhile on the Republican side of aisle, the cultural modernists keep losing. For all that people talk about the ascendancy of the Koch Brothers within the GOP, I'd venture that Charles and David feel about same-sex marriage almost exactly as President Obama does. Yet on this one, they lose.
Frank Rich bets that today's interview will do Obama some good:
Obama looked like a phony and a coward each day he fudged this issue, and that his taking a strong and principled stand will have a halo effect on his leadership in general, including among voters who are ambivalent about gay marriage or opposed to it. Just look at Andrew Cuomo, whose approval rating remains high upstate and among Republicans, not just among liberals in New York City and its suburbs.
[T]he pressure continuously applied on Obama by some gay groups, most gay activists, and (especially) rich gay funders undoubtedly played a significant role in all of these successes. As David Sirota explained today, this demonstrates why it is so vital to always apply critical pressure even to politicians one likes and supports, and conversely, it demonstrates why it is so foolish and irresponsible to devote oneself with uncritical, blind adoration to a politician, whether in an election year or any other time (unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant).
Romney might make gains among culturally conservative opponents of same-sex marriage in Ohio and other Midwestern states, yet GOP campaigning on cultural issues might strengthen the president’s position with college-educated upper-middle-class voters. Drawing a sharp contrast on social issues reinforces the president’s claim to be the candidate of “enlightenment and progress” against “reaction, bigotry, and hate.” This is the kind of campaign — focused on broad generalities rather than detailed questions concerning the state of the economy, debt and deficits, etc. — that the president wants to run, and it is easy to see why.
And Bob Moser hopes Obama will lead from the front:
Obama has been less of a leader than a follower on the great civil-rights issue of our time. Now he has a chance to lead—to use his bully pulpit and his eloquence to reshape the discussion over marriage equality. … Let’s hope this is the start of something, and not just the belated end of an evolution.
Prior to Obama's announcement, Electionate broke down the politics:
[G]ay marriage’s real problem is that Obama is unlikely to win any new adherents by switching his position. Are there impassioned supporters of gay marriage who would choose to oppose a liberal President, let alone support a conservative Republican nominee, if Obama doesn’t switch his position? Anyone serious enough about gay marriage to vote on it has already aligned with the Democrats.
The truth is that when you look at the numbers, there just really isn't anything to suggest that support for gay marriage would be a "killer" electoral liability for Obama. In general, Americans simply don't vote on it as a single issue, and the edges of Obama's coalition are unlikely to be trimmed because he voices support for it.
[O]pinion polling has consistently understated opposition to same-sex marriage since the issue rose to national prominence. Voters who say they support it when Gallup and other pollsters come calling can behave very differently in the privacy of the voting booth.
Among John Sides's questions on electoral consequences:
What percentage of people really make the decision about whether to vote based on the candidates’ positions on a single issue? And what percentage of voters are truly persuadable in terms of the candidate they support? Why would these voters make a decision about whom to vote based on Obama’s position on gay marriage? Are these “marginal” voters the kinds of people who are likely to follow the news closely enough to know Obama’s position?
Just prior to those comments, a reader sized up Mitt's dilemma:
Romney has to firm up his base while transitioning into a general election posture, so this is a moment of delicate balance for him. Romney wants to talk about the economy, which is what he sees as his primary strength and the biggest potential weakness for the President. As doofy and disingenuous as Romney's day-to-day presentation of himself can be, he is not dumb and he is working hard to place the campaign on favorable ground.
But Obama has just staked a lightning rod somewhere else.
Romney's primary tactic has been to reflexively attack any and every move by the President, and so the Republican base will be rabid to have him attack this. So either Romney has to stop talking about the economy, surrendering his best ground, and come off as more fire-breathing on social issues than he wants for the general, or he has to answer to his base why he's NOT attacking Obama on this, right at the moment they are maximally fired-up from getting Grenell's scalp.
I'm glad Obama's now good on this issue. But looking at the timing, I thought – he's just plain good.
More reaction from readers here. Another takes exception to one:
A "bald political calculation"? Seriously? I could see that if Amendment One went down in defeat. But it was passed. North Carolina is a state Obama wants and possibly will need to win. The convention is being held there later this year. He picks the Tar Heels every year to win the national championship. He just told a slew of voters there – black voters he'll need – that he doesn't agree with them. He hates the social issue wars.
So this was an act of political bravery. To spin it any other way is left-wing reflective bashing. I think he'll still carry NC because this was essentially a Republican primary, but, come on, "political calculation" my ass.
I am aware that there are various slice-and-dice cynical assessments one could make of the president's comments today. (Why did he take so long? Why did he back off the support he'd expressed back in the 1990s? Might this be useful as a wedge issue in the election? It doesn't have any immediate impact since it's still up to the states. And so on.) But the fact remains that five minutes before his announcement, no one could be sure that he would take the step of saying that his personal views had changed. He did — and it was important, brave, potentially risky, and right. That should be noted. It's a significant day.
So Barack Obama is for marriage equality. Personally. Because he knows some monogamous same-sex couples who are raising children. (Non-monogamous couples can't get legally married, of course, unless they're straight.) But the president also supports the "concept" of states—states like, say, North Carolina, which yesterday banned any recognition of same-sex relationships in reality, not in concept—"decding the issue on their own." So the president supports same-sex marriage but he believes that states should be able to ban same-sex marriages.
[B]efore Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery. There are 30 states in which gay men and women are currently barred from marrying one another. Obama's position is that, while he would have voted the other way, those 30 states are perfectly within their rights to arbitrarily restrict the access of certain individuals to marriage rights based solely on their sexual orientation.
Dana Goldstein doubts the president's sincerity when it comes to the federalism question:
It would have been a more historic moment if Obama hadn't also reaffirmed states' rights to decide the matter on their own. Here's hoping he can "evolve" on that, too — since I don't believe he truly believes it, just like he was never really "personally" against gay marriage.
Alyssa Rosenberg is amazed at how fast progress has been made:
This is so far from done. But this is so much more than I believed was possible in 2003. And it’s a lot of why I believe in the power of stories to change things. Whether it’s Joe Biden’s conversion via Will & Grace, or the courage of everyone who’s told their personal story to family, friends, or their boss, the President of the United States, the lives of gay Americans are undeniably real, and loving, and worth honoring.
You could look at this and think that the campaign's roll-out — it started on Saturday! — was undone by Joe Biden's loose talk. An alternate theory: The old, phony Obama position, useful as long as gay marriage was unpopular, had stopped being useful.
[T]he most solid analysis of how Obama's decision will impact the election is likely this: who knows? Democratic sources close to the White House and the Obama campaign tell me that this certainly wasn't a carefully planned endeavor on the president's part.
I used to ask whether anyone seriously believes O opposes gay marriage. Now I have to start asking whether anyone seriously believes O would have stopped feigning opposition if it was still a clear political winner for him to keep it up. His “courage” here, as in all things, is about his own reelection chances.
Cillizza points out that the announcement could boost Obama's fundraising:
I think this is unlikely to change a single vote. The vast number of Americans opposed to gay marriage are either committed conservatives who will never vote for him or African American Democrats who will vote for him no matter what. The only implication may be that Christian conservatives’ enthusiasm for Romney increases and his base-turnout problems become a non-concern.
Last December, I wrote a post in which I predicted that Obama would, before the election, make the announcement we heard today. At that time, I wrote, "having the President publicly endorse marriage equality will be an important symbolic and substantive turning point. It would likely accelerate the pro-equality shift in public opinion, including in minority communities. It will make it easier for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to rule in favor of gay rights in the face of arguments that doing so is out of the mainstream of American political thought. And it might just help get President Obama reëlected." All of this is still true today.
It’s only because of Biden, Duncan, and a White House Press Corps that knew it had an issue that it could keep pressing the Administration on until it got a straight answer, that we came to this day. I am glad to see the President getting to this position, but I guess the question is what took you so long?
There are two extraordinarily beautiful things happening in this iPhone video by Patrick Colpron. The first is a spectacular six-sail kite designed and flown by Steve Polansky, and second is a heart-achingly wonderful song called Lighthouse by Patrick Watson. What a perfect moment in time, sort of an impromptu video poem.
"Obama Flip Flops, Declares War On Marriage," – Fox Nation. Update: The editors subsequently changed the headline to "Obama Flip Flops On Gay Marriage". But a reader sends a screenshot for posterity:
Well, that only took a couple of hours for me to be proven wrong in my prediction that he would continue to waffle. I've never been so happy to be wrong in my life.
Another writes:
You know, I wasn't sure if it mattered either, but here I sit, crying into my laptop. What really got me was the part about his girls, how they have friends with same-sex parents, and treating them any differently just wouldn't make any sense to his kids. I have kids too – one of them a black boy being raised by white lesbian moms – and dammit, YES, this matters! It will make his world make more sense. Symbols DO matter, and this one is huge.
Another agrees:
Obama isn't just some guy. That the President of the United States believes in marriage equality is a big deal because it's a position he now believes is politically tenable. Of course his "evolving" attitude about SSM was always a little contrived, but that's just how politics is.
Another waxes:
Barack Obama becomes the Abraham Lincoln of gay rights. Poetic that an African American president should do so.
Another is less romantic:
I’m by no means suggesting that the interview today makes ANY DIFFERENCE whatsoever in the larger, and more important, picture of equality. It doesn’t. It’s an interview. In an election year. However, anyone who thinks Biden spoke off the cuff this past Sunday, and this is some sort of damage control, is yet again underestimating this White House. It is far from accidental. It doesn’t appear anything "accidental" happens with this administration. Everything is calculated. And I can’t help but be turned on by that.
Another much less so:
While I am still thrilled to have a President on record for gay marriage, I have to say I despise the bald political calculation in this. By waiting until today to make this revelation, he avoids taking a position that would then be repudiated in a public vote, saving him the loss-by-assocation. He manages to sop up the gratitude of angry, disenfranchised gays. Somehow Obama has managed to take what should feel like an affirmation and made it feel like an utter pander.
Another is more forgiving:
I am not gay but this issue is important to me and many of my friends. This was one of several issues that had convinced me that Obama was a political coward and kept me from donating time or money to his campaign. I am happy to be proven wrong. I just sent the Obama team $15 with a note explaining why. Everyone who cares about civil rights should donate something NOW. Let's show the President that we will have his back when he does the right thing.
The Dish 