Obama and gay marriage

Lots of talk in the last few days about Obama, his administration, and their opinion on gay marriage. I want to come at this from a slightly different direction.

Let’s assume that Obama really is pro-gay marriage, but is pretending he’s not for political reasons. I think most people believe this to be the case. Let’s further assume something more controversial: that Obama failing to take a stand on this issue makes it easier for him to pursue some pro-gay measures slightly more under the radar (the repeal of DADT, refusing to defend DOMA, etc.). I realize that people might not believe this to be true, but I’m curious about the hypothetical. My question is: would that be a worthwhile trade?

The whole ‘evolving’ viewpoint of Obama is, of course, annoying. And since this is an issue that I care rather deeply about, it’s certainly frustrating. But I am also strongly of the opinion that people are overly obsessed with this sort of thing. The bully pulpit is severely overrated. And frankly, there are plenty of studies from recent years that in the incredibly polarized party structure we’ve got right now the president taking a stand on an issue actually drives away the potentially persuadable on the other side. It raises the profile of the matter and turns it into a singular national question.

Now, I’m no fan of federalism (and I may write up something longer about gay marriage and federalism soon), but given the state of affairs, the realm in which gay marriage fights will take place over the next few years will be the states. So I can see the potential argument here: by avoiding the question, Obama isn’t really doing any harm to the struggle for gay marriage, and might make it slightly easier to accomplish the things that can be done at the national level.

I’m not saying I agree with this, but I do think it makes a modest amount of sense. But I haven’t really seen people discussing it this way. Everyone seems to agree that Obama is selling out the gay community and the only question is whether the external benefits he gets are worth it.  Is the argument made here totally implausible?

Update: I see that Scott Lemieux says something pretty similar to this.  As per usual, I agree with him.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Obama and gay marriage

  1. David says:

    This is an interesting point. I suspect that, deep down, most people who are mad at Obama on this aren’t thinking that policies would improve or opinions change if he crusaded for gay marriage. For some people, it’s probably part of a broader frustration that Obama isn’t the great liberal crusader they imagined. But for a lot of other people, there’s a legitimate frustration that gay marriage isn’t a “moderate” position. Yes, there’s lots of gay activists who are liberal. But this should not be a liberal position. Gay rights are increasingly the position of everyone except the far right. Gays are legitimately outraged that their rights are considered anything other than the presumptive status quo. Yes, it should not be surprising that a President takes more moderate views. But a lot of the anger isn’t necessarily at the President per se, but at the idea that gay rights aren’t considered the “moderate” or “safe” position yet.

    Frankly, this is the time when Obama should be a leader. I obviously love 90% of Obama’s policies and actions as President. I valiantly defend his record on gay rights, including through DADT. But now is time to step up. His speeches about rich people have started to become misleading, unfair and a means to excuse broader problems in American culture. But this issue requires no unfairness. It does not require simplifying complicated issues about financial regulation, taxes or the economy. It’s about love.

    There’s an opportunity here to reverse the bizarre Reagan alliance between economic and social conservatives. Obama is uniquely poised to redefine the moderate liberal agenda: hard-nosed foreign policy, fact-driven economic policy, and freedom-based social policy. Reframe unemployment insurance, food stamps and health care as economic policies — which they are as a practical and constitutional matter. Force Romney to confront the contradiction between federal interference with gay marriage and health care. Retake the freedom agenda. Attack the GOP for its fear of gays, fear of state rights, fear of women’s individual responsibility, fear of facts.

  2. Charles says:

    LOL at the timing of this post.

    And for all that I attempted to explain his non-action up until now, I am obviously ecstatic that he finally has taken sides on a matter that (you are absolutely right) should really not even have a legitimate ‘other side.’

    Well stated, BTW.

  3. Charles says:

    Also, the fact that I’m as happy about this as I am just kind of demonstrates that it really DOES matter. Even if it doesn’t actually ‘matter.’ If you know what I mean.

  4. David says:

    Holy shit!

  5. Scott says:

    …and I started today very depressed and angry about North Carolina.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *