Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

[Faeelin]

Ed Anger's Predictortron(tm) sez:

If re-elected, Obama won't do shit for gays.

He's already got a hate crimes bill, lets gays serve openly with Siegey, and has the DOJ arguing in court that the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the federal government from recognizing states' marriages, is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure what else he should do?

[Sheilbh]

Ed Anger's Predictortron(tm) sez:

If re-elected, Obama won't do shit for gays.

Good.  It's a state issue.

It's odd while I'm happy Obama's done this I'm also slightly worried that this'll make gay marriage a partisan political issue far more, which would be a shame.

[Valmy]

It's odd while I'm happy Obama's done this I'm also slightly worried that this'll make gay marriage a partisan political issue far more, which would be a shame.

Not necessarily.  Obama is in favor of lots of things Republicans also support.  They suddenly did not become anti-terrorist suspect killing just because Obama loves his drones of death.

The fact that Democrats favor gay marriage and Republicans oppose it is already well established and one of the reasons it was a good idea for him to do this.  It is a wedge issue that can swing independents to the Democratic cause this election.  I had resolved to vote third party this election in protest to most of his policies but this has me at least considering otherwise...I mean not that it matters since I live in Texas and therefore my vote does not really count (which turns out to be just fine I do not want to be bombarded like Ed Anger is over in Swing State USA).

[Faeelin]

It's odd while I'm happy Obama's done this I'm also slightly worried that this'll make gay marriage a partisan political issue far more, which would be a shame.

Romney, the moderate candidate, rushed to go on the record affirming he was opposed to civil unions and has already signed a pledge to ban gay marriage. In New York, only four out of the thirty-two republicans in the state senate voted for gay marriage.

So, it's pretty clearly already a partisan issue.

[Sheilbh]

But I'm looking at it from a gay marriage point of view.  It could be a useful wedge issue for him, but I actually think one of the successes of gay marriage - such as in NY and, I think, Washington - is that it was terribly political but it wasn't a partisan issue in a national campaign during this hyper-polarised period. 

Now, I think, it is.  Which I think could be harmful for the movement for gay marriage.

[derspiess]

It's odd while I'm happy Obama's done this I'm also slightly worried that this'll make gay marriage a partisan political issue far more, which would be a shame.

Not necessarily.  Obama is in favor of lots of things Republicans also support.  They suddenly did not become anti-terrorist suspect killing just because Obama loves his drones of death.

The fact that Democrats favor gay marriage and Republicans oppose it is already well established and one of the reasons it was a good idea for him to do this.  It is a wedge issue that can swing independents to the Democratic cause this election.  I had resolved to vote third party this election in protest to most of his policies but this has me at least considering otherwise...I mean not that it matters since I live in Texas and therefore my vote does not really count (which turns out to be just fine I do not want to be bombarded like Ed Anger is over in Swing State USA).

It can also push independents away.  Don't fall into the Languish trap & assume all independent voters are like you.  I think this actually hurts Obama in many of the swing/battleground states.

[Faeelin]

Are there that many moderates who:

a) believe Obama didn't support gay marriage  all along;


and:

b) will go out there and change their vote because he says "I think gay marriage is a states' issue, like Cheney, and support it?"

The other point which occurs to me is that even  if you don't agree with gay marriage, civil unions aren't a moderate issue. Romney's response was to state that he's opposed to them as well. So if gay marriage will turn away moderates, so will that.

[Valmy]

It can also push independents away.  Don't fall into the Languish trap & assume all independent voters are like you.  I think this actually hurts Obama in many of the swing/battleground states.

I assume nothing of the sort.  It will of course divide independents but the poll-fu and election calculus suggests it will help him.  That is the purpose of wedge issues: to split the electorate in a fashion that will aid you.

And you make it sound like this is some sort of heroic and principalled stand by Obama.  Are you telling me I should admire and look up to him as a man of courage? 

[Faeelin]

But I'm looking at it from a gay marriage point of view.  It could be a useful wedge issue for him, but I actually think one of the successes of gay marriage - such as in NY and, I think, Washington - is that it was terribly political but it wasn't a partisan issue in a national campaign during this hyper-polarised period. 

My point is your depiction of what happened in NY has little relation to  what actually happened. You had some rich NYC republicans throwing money to persuade four republicans to change their votes, along with 28 democrats.

That's... not a bipartisan consensus.

[derspiess]

It can also push independents away.  Don't fall into the Languish trap & assume all independent voters are like you.  I think this actually hurts Obama in many of the swing/battleground states.

I assume nothing of the sort.  It will of course divide independents but the poll-fu and election calculus suggests it will help him.

I'm not convinced of that.

That is the purpose of wedge issues: to split the electorate in a fashion that will aid you.

And you make it sound like this is some sort of heroic and principalled stand by Obama.  Are you telling me I should admire and look up to him as a man of courage? 

Not sure how you caught that vibe.

[Valmy]

Not sure how you caught that vibe.

I just assumed he was doing it for crass political self interest.  You are trying to convince me he did it despite political hardship.  Politicians generally do not spend political capital unless it is an issue they actually feel is important.  Therefore I have a hard time seeing how you are not trying to convince me  I should admire his principled stand and perhaps compare it to the moral cowardice of the Republican nominee.

[Malthus]

Not sure how you caught that vibe.

He's saying, if the stance won't win him votes, the only logical inference is it was made on principle and against self-interest.

Of course, that presumes Obama reasoned correctly ...

[Valmy]

He's saying, if the stance won't win him votes, the only logical inference is it was made on principle and against self-interest.

Of course, that presumes Obama reasoned correctly ...

True but the Democrats have few redeeming qualities or areas of competence beyond mastering polls and blowing with the wind of public opinion.  I am sure his political advisors studied this issue to death and obsessed on it for months before he and Biden went in this direction.

[derspiess]

[I just assumed he was doing it for crass political self interest.  You are trying to convince me he did it despite political hardship. 

I'm not 100% sure why he did it myself.  My best guess is that he was backed into a corner & had to, as I mentioned before, shit or get off the pot.  It's also possible that it was a miscalculated political move.  It's also possible that you're right and that he made a smart political move.

Politicians generally do not spend political capital unless it is an issue they actually feel is important.  Therefore I have a hard time seeing how you are not trying to convince me  I should admire his principled stand

I'm not trying to convince you of that, I can assure you.

and perhaps compare it to the moral cowardice of the Republican nominee.

  Explain plz.

[Sheilbh]

My point is your depiction of what happened in NY has little relation to  what actually happened. You had some rich NYC republicans throwing money to persuade four republicans to change their votes, along with 28 democrats.

That's... not a bipartisan consensus.

My depiction of what happened in New York was that gay activists and, even wealthy class traitor gays, worked hard to make this  very political issue not a massive partisan one - so did Cuomo.  The votes at the end of that are irrelevant it was about making gay marriage the issue which Democrats came to and some Republicans did too.  The worry I have with this is that gay marriage becomes a 'Democrat issue' like climate change, for example, which I think would be counter-productive.

So it's not a bipartisan consensus - I think consensus is dead.  But it's better than this issue becoming a campaign prop for one party.