Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

[derspiess]

A bit early to fully assess the impact to the election, but here's a Politico article with some initial thoughts on 7 battleground states:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76143.html

Obama's seven states of gay marriage grief
By: Charles Mahtesian
May 10, 2012 04:45 AM EDT

If there's been one constant over the course of President Barack Obama's evolution on gay marriage, it's this: The White House's keen awareness of the radioactive politics of the issue.

Obama aides fretted that delay would dent his new-breed brand, and likewise that plunging in could weigh him down in battleground states. They even hatched a plan to announce his support just prior to the Democratic National Convention — a characteristically all-in-good-time solution that acknowledged the minefield he was walking through.

And the White House is right to be concerned.

No doubt, Obama gets some political pluses out of supporting same-sex marriage Wednesday — energizing LGBT voters and donors, adding a new line to his Mitt Romney's-a-throwback brief, kick-starting college turnout or in simply reminding people that yes, he came to Washington to do big things.

But for all the polls showing movement toward greater public acceptance of gay marriage, for all the signs of increased tolerance and changing mores, there's one undeniable fact: A full embrace of gay rights has never been a winner in the political arena.

(See also: 20 gay rights milestones)

Fifteen years of ballot measures in more than 30 states from coast-to-coast show an issue that has been rejected nearly every time it's gone before the voters — often by large margins.

Here are seven states where Obama just bought himself headaches with his historic decision to back gay marriage:

North Carolina

A political rule of thumb: You don't want to be on the wrong side of an issue supported by 6-in-10 voters. But that's where the president is in North Carolina, where a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage passed Tuesday by 61 percent to 39 percent. Just seven of the state's 100 counties opposed the ballot measure.

North Carolina is no ordinary state. In 2012, it occupies a central location in the political universe — it's not only a key swing state, it's the place that will host the Democratic National Convention this summer. Obama won it in 2008, arguably his biggest reach on Election Night, and hoped accepting his re-nomination there would keep it in his column.

But the state was a pretty shaky proposition for Obama this year already, and it just got shakier. After the constitutional amendment — and the backlash against it from gay rights activists — the Democratic National Convention Committee was forced Wednesday to confirm that the convention would remain in Charlotte. That's not the convention messaging that Democrats are looking for this year.

Florida

One day, gay marriage might be enshrined in law across the map. But it won't be until after the current generation of senior citizens passes away. Not only do they oppose it by lopsided margins, they also vote in disproportionately high percentages.

Consider this fact about Florida, a state with an unusually large population of seniors. Four years ago, Obama and an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment shared the Florida ballot. Obama won the state narrowly, the amendment won by a landslide.

And the amendment won 600,000 more votes than Obama.

The president can still win reelection without Florida's treasure trove of electoral votes. But he'd prefer not to risk it, which could be the side effect of a public affirmation of support for gay marriage in a state as competitive as Florida.

Colorado

The new capital of evangelicalism? No, it's not in the South. It's Colorado Springs, according to Christianity Today magazine, which once described the city as having "more megachurches, megaseminaries, and mega-Christian activity than any other American city."

After Denver, Colorado Springs is the largest city in the most important state in the Mountain West — the city is bigger than Cleveland or Pittsburgh. Gay marriage is an issue that resonates there among Christian conservatives and it's the kind of issue that can get evangelical voters very enthusiastic about the prospect of voting for Romney.

The evidence of that came in 2006, when Colorado voters passed an amendment to outlaw gay marriage — a measure strongly supported by the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family. While the state voted in favor of the constitutional amendment, 55 percent to 45 percent, in Colorado Springs' El Paso County the numbers were far greater — 66 percent voted for the measure. More pro-amendment votes were cast there than in any other county in the state.

Colorado is the kind of place that helps Team Obama sleep a little more soundly at night because it's a hedge in case Florida flips back Republican, or Ohio or Virginia drifts back to red. Any leg up for Romney there would be bad news back in Chicago.

Nevada

Utah may be the LDS heartland but Nevada ranks among the top five states in terms of percentage of Mormon population. And the LDS church opposes gay marriage.

While Mormons aren't a significant Democratic constituency — and especially not with Romney in the race — it's best not to antagonize any constituency in a swing state like Nevada, where the presidential outcome in 2000 and 2004 was decided by less than 25,000 votes.

"Overall in Nevada, it hurts. To what degree is hard to determine," said Pete Ernaut, a former GOP state legislator and a confidant of Gov. Brian Sandoval. "The issue here is about a tossup, with voters about evenly split. But that said, there are key constituencies affected by this, most notably Mormon voters — and specifically Democratic Mormon voters — and that is going to be a difficult issue for the president."

Iowa

In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court made history with its unanimous decision to allow same-sex marriage.

One year later, Iowa voters made history again by ousting three of the justices who handed down that ruling.

The backlash was as extreme as it sounds: their removal from the high court was the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice wasn't retained in nearly a half-century.

And the issue echoed through the 2010 governor's race as well. Republican Terry Branstad argued that the court was wrong to strike down the state law banning same-sex marriage and advocated a constitutional amendment to re-institute the ban. His Democratic opponent, Gov. Chet Culver, disagreed on the idea of putting the court decision to a vote.

Culver lost his reelection bid, though not solely because of his position on same-sex marriage. Still, it didn't help him, and that's the risk Obama takes there. Obama and Iowa go way back — he's president today because he dealt Hillary Clinton a third-place finish there in the 2008 caucuses — but it's a state where just 1 percentage point divided the presidential nominees in 2000 and 2004.

Missouri

There are many Democrats who already concede Missouri is a lost cause for Obama in 2012, even though he only lost to John McCain there by a razor-close margin in 2008.

Wednesday's announcement only makes the situation worse. In a state where there's no room for error, the president has taken a position that places him at odds with 71 percent of the state — at least that's the percentage that voted to ban gay marriage when it was on the ballot in 2004.

There's a very good chance that number has eroded since then. But not enough for it to be an asset, in a state where Obama's strength in St. Louis, Kansas City and some surrounding suburbs is counterbalanced by the parts of the state that sit squarely in the Bible Belt.

Ohio

It's often said that the 2004 gay marriage initiative that passed in Ohio played a key role in lifting George W. Bush to victory over John Kerry. Whether that's true or not — Bush strategist Matthew Dowd argued Wednesday that it's not — it's an issue that resonates outside of Democratic vote centers like Columbus and Cleveland.

In 2004, here's how state GOP Chairman Robert Bennett framed it to The New York Times. "I'd be naive if I didn't say it helped," he said. "And it helped most in what we refer to as the Bible Belt area of southeastern and southwestern Ohio, where we had the largest percentage increase in support for the president."

Recent polls continue to show that a majority in Ohio oppose gay marriage, compared with only about one-third of voters who support it. And, as POLITICO reported Wednesday, when Vice President Joe Biden privately argued for the president to refrain from expressing his support, he flagged two states where there could be a backlash — his native Pennsylvania and Ohio.

[Valmy]

Interesting.  I thought perhaps this was a sign some sort of tipping point had been reached.

Still that article assumes, in many cases, that opinions on gay marriage are exactly where they were a few years ago.

[DontSayBanana]

I think this is right. It won't matter in a decade or so.

I do wonder about those people who did get married and then it was re-outlawed. In California, I know the marriages are still valid. One of my employees in SF is legally still married under these terms.

It's based on whether the marriage was valid at the time of issue.  Part of "no ex post facto-" the example my class and I were given was that the 19-year-old whose arrest prompted the introduction of "doctor laws" (no statutory rape within a given age gap) still had to serve his prison term for a law that had been changed, because sex with a 17-year-old was illegal when he was convicted.

[derspiess]

Interesting.  I thought perhaps this was a sign some sort of tipping point had been reached.

Still that article assumes, in many cases, that opinions on gay marriage are exactly where they were a few years ago.

I don't think it assumes that-- I think it states 2004 or whatever as a reference point, and gives more current polling figures where available.  In the case of Missouri, it speculates that the 71% figure has likely eroded somewhat.

[DontSayBanana]

Frankly, I'm glad he took a stand.  It's a civil rights issue- it might not be quite the stark contrast between first- and second-class citizens that existed prior to the '60s, but we're living in a time when every penny counts, and homosexual households can't save their money the way a heterosexual household can; being able to claim that one extra deduction might mean the difference between scraping by on the mortgage and facing foreclosure.  While some insurers independently equivocate hetero- and homosexual couples for benefits, there are many more that won't, and HIPAA's not on the side of these couples, either.

Unfortunately, this is exactly why nobody wants to recognize it as a civil rights issue- it was easier to force the issue with blacks because they were being actively victimized, but most of those sitting against gay couples recognized by law successfully hide behind a "justification" that they just don't want homosexuals siphoning even more money that should be theirs.

[Faeelin]

esident Obama appears to have gone against the safest read of polling data on gay marriage, with support for legalization underwater in a handful of swing states and among key Obama constituencies like Hispanics and black voters.

—In Ohio, a forthcoming PPP survey exclusively shared with POLITICO, shows 35 percent of voters support same sex marriage according, with 52 percent opposed. Those numbers are similar to an October 2011 poll from the same firm showing 32 percent support, 55 percent opposed.

—In Pennsylvania, a March PPP poll put opposition to gay marriage at 50 percent, with only 38 percent approval. But a 2011 Franklin and Marshall poll showed that 50 percent of voters supported a constitutional amendment allowing gays to get marriage.

—Same-sex marriage is also opposed by a plurality of voters in Iowa and Virginia in PPP polls — both battleground states. In Iowa, however, a 2012 Des Moines Register poll showed that 56 percent of voters opposed overturning gay marriage in the state via a constitutional amendment. Same-sex marriage polls above water in New Hampshire and Colorado, according to both PPP and a 2012 WMUR poll.

—And in Florida, a fall survey shows gay marriage support at 38 percent approval, 48 percent disapproval. That's in line with a number of other polls of the Sunshine state.

—Among African-Americans, 55 percent remained opposed to gay marriage in a yearlong composite of ABC/Washington Post polling data. That's down significantly from earlier in the decade, where two-in-three black voters opposed gay marriage — but still a large chunck of the president's most enthusiastic supporters.

—A fall poll put Hispanic Catholic support of same-sex marriage at 42 approve, 42 disapprove. Hispanics as a whole haven't been polled on the question recently, but a 2009 Pew poll had the Latino community fairly evenly divided on the question of same-sex marriage, with 45 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed. And an April survey showed that 59 percent of Latinos said homosexuality should be accepted by society, but it did not ask about gay marriage specifically.

—In the opening months of Obama's presidency, only 40 percent of Americans backed gay marriage, Gallup reported in May, 2009. A majority of independents opposed gay marriage - only 45 percent supported it — and the concept won backing from only a narrow majority of Democrats. Half of all Americans backed gay marriage in the 2012 Gallup's 2012 gay marriage poll, released Tuesday. Democrats and independents drove the increase, with 65 percent of Democrats backing the practice and 57 percent of independents throwing their support behind it.

Ultimately, the question is will Obama's stand hurt him — or could it even help him? Polls show young voters voters are among the most enthusiastic about legalized same-sex marriage — and their enthusiasm for Obama has waned slightly from 2008.

"I don't think Obama's running much of a risk because most voters who are really anti-gay already think Obama supports gay marriage. I'm sure it will cost him a few votes but it could also reinvigorate young people who might not be as enthusiastic as they were in 2008," said Tom Jensen, polling director for PPP.

Still, social conservatives remain convinced that black voters and Hispanic voters will be demoralized by Obama's flop.

"There's a heck of a lot of socially conservative minorities that are part of the Democratic coalition — his coalition — that will jump ship," said Thomas Peters, the cultural director for the National Organization for Marriage.

"It seems that in my experience that marriage is absolutely an issue" for the black and Latino communities, Peters said.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/polls-show-a-mixed-picture-for-legalizing-gay-marriage-122984.html

I gotta say, I find it hard to imagine the black community ditching Obama over this.  He's still got astonishing support despite doing nothing for them in a recession that's hit them far worse than whites...

[Sheilbh]

It has long been a Dem vs. Repub issue. To suggest otherwise is to feign ignorance. Only change I see is that whereas in the last 20 years Repubs whipped up a frenzy over the issue and Dems were lukewarm, now Dens support and Repubs often dodge the issue.

There's a difference between it being an issue that Democrats support and Republicans generally oppose and being a policy identified with one party.  Right now I think there's a gay marriage campaign at local and state level which Democrats are more likely to support, but that some libertarian-ish Republicans and many independents are likely to back.  That's better than the Democrats campaigning for gay marriage because it'll turn off those Republicans - though Faelin does those 4 votes down, they were essential - and independents because it becomes just another partisan issue, rather than an issue with some partisan overlay.

[CountDeMoney]

Frankly, I'm glad he took a stand.

Yes, it's all very nice.  Matthew 16:26, and all that.

Enjoy Thurston Romney the 3rd's presidency.

[Faeelin]

Intrade plunges:

[Admiral Yi]

Intrade plunges:

  Obama is down two cents today.

[derspiess]

Frankly, I'm glad he took a stand.

Yes, it's all very nice.  Matthew 16:26, and all that.

Enjoy Thurston Romney the 3rd's presidency.

You will address him as Willard, and you'll like it.

[garbon]

It has long been a Dem vs. Repub issue. To suggest otherwise is to feign ignorance. Only change I see is that whereas in the last 20 years Repubs whipped up a frenzy over the issue and Dems were lukewarm, now Dens support and Repubs often dodge the issue.

There's a difference between it being an issue that Democrats support and Republicans generally oppose and being a policy identified with one party.  Right now I think there's a gay marriage campaign at local and state level which Democrats are more likely to support, but that some libertarian-ish Republicans and many independents are likely to back.  That's better than the Democrats campaigning for gay marriage because it'll turn off those Republicans - though Faelin does those 4 votes down, they were essential - and independents because it becomes just another partisan issue, rather than an issue with some partisan overlay.

Except that there was/has only been a very brief time in between when it was a rally cry for Republicans and now an increasingly rally cry for Democrats.  Given the history, I'm not really sure it is an issue that can stay partisan-neutral until it gets resolved.

[Sheilbh]

Again there's a difference between partisan taking a position on or using gay marriage and it becoming a partisan issue. Ross Douthat explains what I think made the movement for gay marriage successful:

The Success of the Gay Marriage Movement

In my Campaign Stops column this week, which came out just before President Obama's official reversal on gay marriage, I made the following point about why his position was becoming so untenable:

Supporters of same-sex marriage have worked very hard to frame their issue, not as an ordinary political conflict, but as an all-or-nothing question that pits enlightenment and progress against reaction, bigotry and hate. I don't accept that framing, but I accept that its architects genuinely believe in it, and see the conflict over same-sex unions as a clear-cut struggle between good and evil, with no possibility of middle ground.

If same-sex marriage isn't an issue where people can disagree in good faith, though, then the president's evasions and obfuscations can't be treated as ordinary political maneuverings, and excused as just so much politics-as-usual. If the debate is as black and white as many supporters of same-sex marriage argue, then they should be much harder on political leaders who pretend that it's a gray area.

Indeed, if you accept the framing of the debate that many liberals (and many journalists) embrace, then you have to acknowledge that President Obama has spent the last four years lying to the American people about his convictions on one of the defining civil rights issues of our time, and giving aid and comfort to pure bigotry in the service of his other political priorities.

As it turned out, that framing and its implications were powerful enough (and potentially damaging enough, especially within circles that matter a great deal to him) to force the president's hand on the issue. And that forcing of his hand is a testament, I think, to the power of moral absolutism in politics. This power isn't always visible in the day-to-day: Our constitutional system requires compromise to grease the wheels of policymaking, unbending politicians are usually unsuccessful ones, and gridlock rules when lawmakers can't muddle their principles a little. But over a longer time horizon, the most enduring victories are often won by movements and factions that succeed in branding opposing views as not only mistaken but unthinkable, not only foolish but immoral, and that use stigma as well as suasion to cement the gains that they've achieved. This is what's been happening in the gay marriage debate these last 10 years and more: At the popular level, the country is still divided (and perhaps more divided than polling suggests), but at the elite level and within the Democratic Party's upper reaches, especially, what was a consensus understanding of marriage just two decades ago has become so associated with bigotry and reaction that a sitting president facing a difficult re-election campaign has been forced to abandon the politically-safer "civil unions yes, but marriage not just yet" position for the uncertain consequences of being for marriage, period. Given the landscape of the 2012 election (and the results yesterday in North Carolina), Obama's prior attempts to finesse the issue made a lot of sense. But the moral ground had shifted underneath him — to the point where even his own cabinet wouldn't risk the taint of bigotry in order to give him cover on the issue — and such finesse was no longer an acceptable option.

As a gay marriage skeptic, I'm obviously on what's likely to be the losing end of this shift. But as an observer of politics and culture —and someone who thinks that moral absolutisms have an important place in both — I can't help but be impressed by the gay marriage movement's ability to transform the terms of the marriage debate so completely and comprehensively. Politics is mostly the art of fighting over a muddled middle ground, but this is the way the world gets well and truly changed: Not through conciliation, but through conquest.

As I say my worry is that it ceases to be that sort of moral fight that can win over some Republicans, independents and Democrats because it's right and becomes a part of Democrat orthodoxy with all the negatives that come with that - such as climate change, or, I think, some issues that are generally supported by African Americans.  Now it's associated with Obama I think it's more likely that those libertarian Republicans or ambivalent independents will change their view on whether they want to give the Democrats a win or not.

[CountDeMoney]

Frankly, I'm glad he took a stand.

Yes, it's all very nice.  Matthew 16:26, and all that.

Enjoy Thurston Romney the 3rd's presidency.

You will address him as Willard, and you'll like it.

I do so adore The Good Reverend.

[11B4V]

I think in the end this move will prove brilliant by Obama.