The blogosphere got all excited this weekend when Vice President Joe Biden said on Meet the Press that he’s “absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights.” But it turns out that this was much ado about nothing, as usual, as the Obama administration continues its pointless and incoherent political dance on this issue. Chris Geidner nails it:
Then, the clarifications began — and the world saw the interview through the Obama administration’s marriage equality looking-glass.
Initially, NBC News’s Chuck Todd tweeted, “VP Biden on @meetthepress indicates he’s comfortable with gay marriage. Going farther publicly than POTUS,” and then: “Biden’s office tells me he was speaking for his own evolving on marriage not for the admin.”
David Axelrod, communications director with Obama’s re-election campaign, quickly shot back: “What VP said-that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights-is precisely POTUS’s position.”
A spokesperson with the vice president’s office also tells Metro Weekly the same thing, but then went slightly further — adding in a note suggesting that the vice president has not reached a position of supporting full marriage equality.
“The Vice President was saying what the President has said previously — that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights,” the spokeserson said. “That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it.
“Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country.”
It’s there that the unworkable nature of the administration’s position is, once again, made clear…
The attempted distinction, to which the administration appears desperately to be clinging, is that there is a difference between being comfortable with marriage equality and supporting it.
It is as if the administration wants to be on record not opposing marriage equality — while at the same time not actually supporting it, either.
That’s exactly what they want to do and what they’ve been doing for the past four years. And it is easily predictable that both President Obama’s slow public “evolution” will end around the second week of November. Because none of this has anything at all to do with principle, it’s purely about being timid and risk-averse. It’s about political triangulation and political convenience. But is there any purpose to it? Is there anyone who might vote for him today who would not vote for him if he embraced marriage equality completely? Maybe, but I doubt it.
36 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
d cwilson
May 9, 2012 at 1:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t know if Obama can afford to stretch his “evolution” out until mid-November. Thanks to Biden’s remark, he’s being pressed pretty heavily. Even Ed Rendell, normally one of the president’s biggest cheerleaders, has urged him to “man up” on the issue.
Marcus Ranum
May 9, 2012 at 2:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Is there anyone who might vote for him today who would not vote for him if he embraced marriage equality completely? Maybe, but I doubt it.
Conversely, is there any indication Obama gives a shit about it, other than that it might get him some votes? Obviously, if he gave a shit, he’d be willing to support it. So the only thing we can conclude (again) is that he’s just a political opportunist who’s going to try to have his cake and eat it to, if he can.
The Lorax
May 9, 2012 at 2:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Obama has a record of “playing it safe”, often at the expense of civil liberties. It’s a political game and it’s sad, but it’s what he does, and he seems to do rather well.
However, I think it’s entirely beside the point. He has gone on record to say that he supports it, and even if his legislation does not back that up, it will not change the vote; conservatives already hate him, and liberals are not going to vote for Romney. Taking a firm stance on gay marriage is not political suicide for Obama; it will simply further entrench existing opinions… opinions that are unlikely to change anyway.
Erulóra Maikalambe
May 9, 2012 at 2:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sure he’s not opposing equality, but he is still standing in its way.
Who Knows?
May 9, 2012 at 2:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Really? North Carolina passed an amendment to their constitution yesterday defining marriage as only between one man and one woman (And God, because God likes three-somes) by 61%. That makes a majority of people in 32 of 50 states that are standing in the way of equality.
Since a majority of the U.S. seems to stand against equality, I’m ok with President Obama playing it safe on this issue. I think he is going to have a tough enough time getting reelected. Given the Mormon’s active persecution of the rights of Gays, I would hate to think what Mitt would do in office with a Republican majority in Congress.
tynk
May 9, 2012 at 3:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
apparently, within the last hour or so this all changed.
“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.”
Kaintukee Bob
May 9, 2012 at 3:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No, there likely isn’t.
That said, if he were to publicly support it, there are plenty of people who otherwise wouldn’t vote who would vote against him.
Keep in mind, there are people who legitimately support Delgaudio. These people (might) vote. If people like him could offer a direct quote from Obama (with video, of course) saying he supported gays marrying, they would flood the polls.
I can’t say I’m against Obama making smaller steps towards a goal I seek, so long as it makes it less likely he’ll lose power before that goal is achieved. Especially when the heir apparent would be Mittens.
Chiroptera
May 9, 2012 at 3:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it.
“Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country.”
What? What is there “beyond” that first statement? What more evolution can there be on the position?
Jordan Genso
May 9, 2012 at 3:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I was not expecting the President to endorse gay marriage today. What a pleasant surprise.
And the timing of it only makes it better. The LGBT community took a hit yesterday in the North Carolina vote, but the news from today is a larger boost than yesterday’s setback.
Who Knows?
May 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tynk @ 6
Did you see this?
I wonder if R. Clark Cooper has asked Mitt Romney and the Mormon Church what they had to do with this and what they have in store for him in the future?
d cwilson
May 9, 2012 at 4:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Families which your entire party doesn’t think you should have.
What’s the gay-equivalent of an Uncle Tom?
cptdoom
May 9, 2012 at 4:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
An “Aunt Mary” – coined by John Aravosis at Americablog to refer to Mary Cheney, who is in a committed lesbian relationship but still ran the Vice Presidential re-election effort in 2004, which meant she supervised the use of viciously anti-gay arguments to get fundies out to vote for Bush.
As for Mr. Cooper’s statement, referenced above, had Obama come out in favor of equality in the last couple of weeks, the Right would have claimed the vote was a referendum on his Presidency.
David C Brayton
May 9, 2012 at 5:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Must be November already.
kacyray
May 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Look at the bright side Ed. You might have erred with your “easily predictable” formulation, but at least it was your own formulation and not simply the confident, smug parroting of someone elses ideas.
Which is why I generally stick to reading the blogging and avoid the hoards of professional commenters here that seem to find endless ways to express the “Yeah, what HE said” sentiment over and over for years on end.
I confess… this time around I find myself curious to read what their excuses would be.
bigj
May 9, 2012 at 5:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
President Obama actually came out in support of gay marriage today: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
bigj
May 9, 2012 at 5:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Should have refreshed the comments before posting, sorry for the redundancy.
Michael Heath
May 9, 2012 at 6:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed predicts, with complete confidence:
Now I love and greatly respect Ed but I think this might put him in the running for Andrew Sullivan’s annual Van Hoffman Award (most wrong prediction). Sullivan was up himself last year for predicting Sarah Palin would run for president.
What happened behind the scenes to make this come about will be very interesting. Precisely because I think this announcement came either prior to when they planned to do it or no strategy at all existed on this matter. I think the paradigm shift that resulted in this announcement was the press finally did its job after the Biden “gaffe”; if it was a gaffe – that’s part of the behind the scenes stuff we need to know. But just like anti-gay bigots can not withstand the merest whiff of scrutiny, Obama’s spokespeople were literally being laughed at trying to equivocate a postion the last couple of days after the media finally grew a pair. David Axelrod was increasingly perplexed in his interview with Piers Morgan the other night, an argument which required Morgan merely to stay focused on the topic and let Axelrod talk himself into circles.
My initial reaction was of course happiness, followed by disgust the President made an argument premised on his religious beliefs. Why not stake your position on the plain reading of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause quoting the same? After all Mr. President, you took an oath to defend the Constitution and your enemies claim you trample over it. Why not exploit this opportunity to reveal the falsity of their claimed fealty to the Constitution? I’m also sick of politicians taking positions based on personal preference. It’s not about you, it’s about the country. In this case one’s position on marriage is irrelevant, in a free society we either defend others’ rights independent of our own views or we don’t – specifically in cases like this where there are no competing rights which rise to this level of importance relative to the importance for GLBTs and their families. I.e., gays’ right to marry is obviously more worthy of exercise and government protection than Christian bigots’ right to not be offended by gays existing and living their lives.
In the end I admit tearing up after considering the ramification of a U.S. president finally getting on the right side of our times’ biggest civil rights debate. President Obama’s moving from being Eisenhower to Kennedy, but still a ways from being at the heroic level of LBJ who actually made shit happen (though the repeal of DADT was a great accomplishment). Let’s hope Obama rises to LBJ’s level by the time he leaves office.
The Cat From Outer Space
May 9, 2012 at 7:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Over in the antipodes, there is a great deal of reporting that Obama has changed his stance, and now publicly supports same sex marriage.
I’ve been a critic of the Obama administration over many things, including this issue. I think now, we should give the man a little kudos (although with GITMO still open)
slc1
May 9, 2012 at 7:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Michael Heath @ #17
A little nit picking here: it’s von Hoffman.
Doug Little
May 9, 2012 at 8:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And lets hope that’s not early next year… well the leaving office bit anyway. He is more than welcome to rise to LBJ’s level by early next year.
Akira MacKenzie
May 9, 2012 at 8:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ok, Barry finally found his spine. Let’s if he can hold onto it.
Nemo
May 9, 2012 at 9:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gotta admit, I’ve been disappointed in Obama (and certainly this was a belated announcement, with all his bullshit about “evolving”), and I wasn’t sure I was going to vote for him again. But today, he actually did something brave.
Dr X
May 9, 2012 at 9:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What is more important to me than the messy way these forward steps occur is that they occur. It would be really great if the best arguments could win the day, but that’s not how these things happen. Bigotry isn’t rational and the irrational don’t respond to the rational argument. So this is really about a shift in the way people feel about what is decent and what is indecent. And as discrimination against gay people comes to feel indecent to more and more people, they wrap their position in their own rationale–the 14th Amendment–their view God, whatever. I would wish the same as Michael Heath–that Obama would have had the courage to cite the 14th, but it’s just plain more important that he finally took right side with respect to basic decency.
Here’s Sullivan, bold mind:
The first thing I thought of when I read about Obama’s statement a few minutes ago was my best friend of 20 years. He was a gay black man, one of the brightest, most honest, most decent people I’ve ever known. I went through a personal nightmare back in 2001 and I don’t know if I could have made it without him because he was there for me every day, and I was not easy to be with. We were on the phone every day, emailed multiple times a day when email became big. He would come over or meet any time I needed to talk. He was another psychologist–actually an analyst–and we had worked together back in the late 80s(he was my supervisor). We knew everything about one another and we were on the same wavelength about everything.
About six or seven years ago we were out to dinner one night and he was uncharacteristically down in the dumps. This guy was so emotionally resilient and really patient with people’s flaws and faults–being a black, gay male born in 1957 in a Seventh Day Adventist family, he could have had plenty to be resentful about, but he handled everything with incredible grace.
He had seen something on the news that day related to same-sex marriage and for some reason this particular time it really got to him. It pained me to see how much pain it caused him and, I don’t even know where it came from in me, but I got choked up, and said with more conviction than I’d ever felt: “It’s over. Their side lost. Decency has won.” And I went on to say that the handwriting was on the wall, that the assholes deep down already know they lost.” I don’t know if it was the content as much as my feeling and conviction that made him feel better, but he felt better after I said that. He referred back to that conversation several times in the next couple of years, always taking reassurance from it.
He died early 2008. Being in Illinois we had just begun to talk about the chances of a black president and he didn’t want to get his hopes up, so when Obama won, it was bittersweet because I was wished he could have lived to see that. And while I know there is still a fight to wage on same-sex marriage, I feel happy, but also sad that he’s not here to enjoy this moment of an American president being on his side. I’m quite sure, he wouldn’t care about the integrity of argument. The important thing is very simply and directly feeling that we have a president who is recognizing what basic decency requires, because anyone who is gay knows all to well what it’s like to have the feeling that they are constantly dealing with utterly unjustifiable indecency.
R Johnston
May 9, 2012 at 9:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oy vey folks. Obama did not support marriage equality today. Saying that it should be left to the states is the same as saying that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. There’s really no intellectually honest way around that fact.
No one cares what the President personally feels. What matters is what he thinks the law should be and how that will affect his policy decisions, and Obama explicitly said that the law should be whatever the little bigots in the statehouses want it to be.
Who Knows?
May 9, 2012 at 10:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I do, because I think how the President personally feels probably has a lot to do with what policy eventually looks like.
Yes, it is too bad that he had to add that bit about leaving it up to the states. I guess he had to throw a bone to the small government types, there seems to be quite a few of them these days. I guess he had to let them know he wasn’t going to use the power of the federal government to change state constitutions.
tomh
May 9, 2012 at 10:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ #24
Well, marriage laws in the United States are almost exclusively governed by state law. Of course, there are federal statutes that determine benefits, and the Supreme Court can review the constitutionality of the state laws, but there’s no way around it, marriage laws are made by the states. You think Obama could change that? So, sure, his personal endorsement of same-sex marriage is symbolic, but it’s a big symbol.
R Johnston
May 9, 2012 at 11:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Who knows why Who knows? edited out the rest of my post that directly responds to his inane contention?
Obama said what policy he wants: leave it to the states.
What he feels doesn’t matter even the tiniest bit except for how it’s reflected in the policies he supports and fights for.
democommie
May 10, 2012 at 7:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Those compounds that the feds have been secretly building everywhere, they’re not FEMA deathcamps, they’re teh GAY BRIDAL SALONZ!!!!
d cwilson
May 10, 2012 at 9:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
R Johnston:
What Obama actually said was that he believes gay marriage should be legally recognized and that it should be done by the states. As tomh pointed out, that’s where marriage laws have been traditionally passed and it’s why the federal DOMA should be considered unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment alone. You’re confusing his policy endorsement with the path that he thinks should be followed in order to achieve the policy.
Anri
May 10, 2012 at 10:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, essentially, he’s saying that we should wait until we’ve got a supporter of equal rights into a position with some power, and then try to change things.
…what position would that be again?
Erulóra Maikalambe
May 10, 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Way to not read me. Also, I’ve got some semantic quibbles with this. I distinguished between opposing and just being in the way, and I did that for a reason. I’ll clarify this further, since you seem to have trouble with it. It’s related to the quibble. You said “a majority of people in 32 of 50 states that are standing in the way of equality.” What you should have said is “a majority of voters in 32 of 50 states that are opposing equality.” Anybody eligible to vote in those elections who were not opposed to equality but didn’t vote for equality, stood in the way of equality.
He is in a position to get something done about it, but chooses not to because he thinks it should be left to the states. Civil rights should not be up to the states to vote on. His inaction is getting in the way of equality.
tomh
May 10, 2012 at 11:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That would be the federal court system. DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in federal District Court and is currently being appealed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston – defended by House Republicans, not the administration – which will likely uphold the ruling.
As for the 30+ states that have passed constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, these can’t be struck down by fiat, by the president or anyone else, they have to be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Whether the current Court would do that is questionable.
Erulóra Maikalambe
May 10, 2012 at 11:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s what scares me. I really don’t like some of the stuff coming out of SCOTUS these days. I could easily see them taking the wrong side.
Anri
May 10, 2012 at 11:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tomh:
So, can we agree that – at very least – he should have said “This is a Constitutional matter and should therefore be settled in federal court,” yes?
I mean, if he wanted to do nothing whatsoever to advance the issue, but at least not actually pander to the anti-gay bigots, this would have been a more correct course, yes?
Rather than saying, as he did, that civil rights are a state-by-state issue, and shouldn’t be the purview of the federal government.
tomh
May 10, 2012 at 11:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ #34
Oh, I agree, but I don’t think he had to bring any of that into it at all. I think the huge majority of people won’t see past the “I support gay marriage” part of it anyway. And I don’t think it will help him win the election.
The interesting thing will be when DOMA is struck down, will the federal government extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples that are legally married in the six states that allow it. After all, there are over 1000 federal benefits that married couples enjoy, and, once DOMA is gone, there is no legal reason that any legally married couple shouldn’t receive them. That’s where the administration can make a difference, IMO.
Who Knows?
May 10, 2012 at 11:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
R Johnston @ 27
Because your post is directly above mine and your statement, “No one cares what the President personally feels” is what I wanted to address.