Okay, so if this is something you can do, if this sort of thing is actually politically viable, how’s about Obama openly campaign on a constitutional amendment mandating that gay marriages be legal nationwide?
Hell, let’s say he makes a constitutional amendment that says that the decision about what entities can enter into what contracts and whether those contracts would be legal nationwide, is a federal level decision. That way if they go on to put a law on the books saying that the contract called “marriage” is between two mutually consenting human beings of any gender or race or creed or denomination, and these people get married, it’s legal nationwide.
If Mitt can be politically “brave” by staking his campaign on keeping gays (and women for that matter) from achieving or maintaining basic human rights, then Obama can certainly be truly brave and advocate for real progress by doing the exact opposite, rather than triangulating to appear the centrist pragmatist.
Whether you like all the other nonsense he couched the whole announcement in, Obama did something relatively brave by being the first president to support gay marriage. Maybe he can do gays one better by turning this election into a national referendum, while the public largely supports gay marriage. I’m sure it would motivate voters who favor equality over religiously-motivated bigotry.
Of course, it’s also a good possibility that this strategy would backfire and gay rights would falter as a result of Willard gaining momentum on this platform of unmitigated bigotry. It’s never a good idea to leave human rights up to the general populace, because they tend to squelch minority rights.