
At today’s press conference, White House spokesman Jay Carney took questions about the President’s persistent, unwavering evolution on marriage equality and there was no change, despite the growing support by fellow Dems to place a statement supporting same-sex marriage in the party platform. From the White House transcript (via email):
Q Thanks, Jay. Democrats in support of same-sex marriage are speaking more loudly on the issue. Twenty-two U.S. senators have told me they support the idea of including a marriage equality plank in a Democratic Party platform. And yesterday, Democratic National Convention Chair Antonio Villaraigosa also said he backs such language, saying, “I think it’s basic to who we are.” By being in a state of evolution now on this issue for nearly 17 months, is the President deferring leadership in his own party?
MR. CARNEY: No, Chris, I can tell you that he is not engaged in the very early stages of what I understand to be the platform development, and I would refer you simply to discussions that the folks you mentioned are having. But the President’s position hasn’t changed. I certainly have no new announcement to make on it.
Q But by being in a state of evolution, I mean, the President is missing an opportunity to lead not just the Democratic Party but for the country as a whole. So I –
MR. CARNEY: I appreciate the question. I just don’t have anything new to report to you on it.
Try #2:
Q Just to follow up on that — can you identify what is obstructing the President from completing his evolution on this issue? Is there some sort of fear of political backlash during an election year? You mentioned something before about this process involving the President’s faith.
MR. CARNEY: I’m sorry, the last part of your question?
Q You mentioned something about this process involving the President’s faith.
MR. CARNEY: Well, now, look, I would leave it to the President. Perhaps he wasn’t asked about this. Maybe the next time he gives a press conference one of you can ask him about it. It’s entirely up to you if you want to be told, which you might be, that he doesn’t have any news to make on it. But — (laughter) — I really have no update for you.
I’ll give props for the honest attempt to address the fact that there are going to be ballot initiatives around the country, including Amendment One here in North Carolina; but the question as it is posed misses an opportunity to nail the administration on its current position that it opposes ballot initiatives that would restrict or deny rights – this involves no evolution on Barack Obama’s part at all. Instead Carney is asked about it in the context of ballot initiatives legalizing same-sex marriage.
Q One last question on this. Marriage is going to be on the ballot and it’s become — it’s going to be in the ballot for voters in as many as five states this year. In North Carolina, that’s going to happen — for voters in May. Will the President announce same-sex marriage before it’s too late to help — to start conversations that help gay and lesbian couples who are seeking to get married in these states?
MR. CARNEY: That’s a circuitous way of asking the same question, and I just don’t have any updates for you on the President’s position.
My good friend Joe Sudbay has a piece up at Huffington Post about that slow evolution, “Mr. President, It’s Been 500 Days… Evolve Already!” In 2010 he asked Barack Obama about his position on marriage equality — that’s the 500 days and counting — Obama said he was:
“unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage.” But the president did make news. He said he was evolving on the issue: “I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”
During our back-and-forth, Mr. Obama added, “The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trend lines are going.”
It is pretty clear, and it gets clearer every day. The other thing that’s pretty clear: President Obama is behind the trend. Way behind.
And when it comes to political calculations — worry that even stating that he’s against Amendment One is political dynamite — it’s pathetic that purported allies, even gay folks are buying this line. There’s nothing factual to support that it will tank Barack Obama’s re-election. In my opinion (and Joe’s) this also applies to the separate issue of “coming out” for marriage equality (something even intelligent people seem to conflate with stopping a discriminatory amendment — marriage equality is not on the ballot in NC, peeps).
Over the course of the campaign, the president will be asked again and again about his stance on marriage equality. With court cases moving through the system and marriage referenda on the ballots in five states, marriage equality is an issue in 2012. There’s no way to avoid it, especially when the president finds himself in North Carolina, Maryland, Maine, Washington, and Minnesota. There’s also a serious effort underway by Freedom to Marry to have marriage equality included in the Democratic platform, which many of the president’s campaign co-chairs support.
And yes, I get that the GOP candidates are in lockstep with the anti-gay organizations and that rhetorical gay-bashing will be a regular element of their nominee’s campaign. But that doesn’t mean Obama shouldn’t evolve.
Realistically, the people who would withhold a vote for Obama because of his support for gay issues are never going to vote for him. They already think he supports gay marriage.
Who, exactly, will be driven to vote for, say, Mitt Romney over the President on this issue?





28 Comments


Time to start a “No statement Against the amendment = No vote for Obama” campaign in North Carolina.
If he won’t even make a statement supporting civil unions, I’m done with him.
Yet another example of Tammany Tiger’s Law: The more loyal a group is to the Democratic Party, the higher the probability that the party will betray that group.
More political courage from the evolver in chief.
Obysmal’s ‘evolution’ on same sex marriage should give the creationist nutjobs some food for thought, given their constant demand for a record.
Such a well written piece as we contemplate how we have victimized Blacks and Native Americans and women…and on & on. Nice tradition, Mr. President. Ignorance, esp willful, is no excuse.
Barack Obama is a homophobe.
He opposes same-sex marriage because it would somehow cheapen his own marriage. There are no other reasons.
If A == B and B == C, then A == C by induction.
If gay people are married and he is married, then he is gay by induction.
That is why he is opposed to same sex marriage. Because he doesn’t see same sex unions on par with his own; because he doesn’t truly see gays as his equals.
Addendum: When same-sex marriage passed in Canada my dad was all up in arms about it. So I asked for his reasons. One by one he gave lame reasons like they can’t procreate (neither can old people but we let them get married) etc. Eventually he ran out of bullshit reasons and blurted out “well if I tell someone I’m married they might think I’m gay!” and I had an epiphany. This is the true reason, the only reason. Everything else is dodging.
………about this process involving the President’s faith.
The only ‘faith’ Obysmal cares for is the one surrounding his re-election and becoming part of the pantheon that is ‘those presidents re-elected for a second term, therefore truly manly, and worthy of history for all time’.
Actually, I guess he’s not a homophobe, but a bigot.
Just a quick drive by here, and a few things folks should know.
I had to go into town today and turned on the radio to see what insanity Rush was spouting today. Well, he bellowed and threw GMC and Chevrolet to the DOGS! Especially over the Chevy Volt. I’m sure the auto makers and all those companies that manufacture for them are gonna love that./s
Oh, and here is a little more of that President and Administration protective decision making:
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/exclusive-why-cant-you-smoke-pot-because-lobbyists-are-getting-rich-off-of-the-war-on-drugs/
For dancing, it’s not even good dancing. Blergh.
Love that fierce audacity.
Ain’t that something to behold? The audacity of waffle…
Nice to see the multiple questions/pressure. If he won’t evolve to decency, how ’bout we just drag his timid ass there for him, kicking and screaming?
Hey prez, who you wanna be – dinosaur Chris Christie or sex bomb Martin O’Malley?
Bob Lutz GM Conservadunce was bragging on Bill Maher’s show last week about waht a great Conservative Global Warming Denying Republican he is.
In spite of attending UC Berkley. He boasted that he was the resident Corporatist.
His buddy Rush has no respect.
The Audacity of Waffles…
I’m stealing that, if you don’t mind. That’s awesome.
Obama leads on nothing except imprecision drone attacks, targeted assasinations and deflecting criticism for Geithner, Blankfein, Immelt, and Dimon, Bush and Cheney, et al.
Ted Olson is to the left of Barack Obama on this for crying out loud.
Maybe Obama thinks some of those evangelicals who don’t like Romney will vote for him instead because he doesn’t like gays just like they do. Evangelicals don’t like black Dems very much either.
Or he doesn’t like the gay. Obama has a serious problem with gay people.
Sounds about right.
I want to vote for the President, but his stance now is the same as all the Republican candidates; he opposes marriage equality. Obama needs to resolve the issue and be done with it. He wins no votes with his position at present. The President needs to decide.
There are candidates out there who agree with us on gay marriage — and are anti-war, pro-woman, anti-drug-war, pro-immigration, anti-1%, pro-poor, anti-surveillance-state, pro-civil-liberties.
Jill Stein (Green Party), Rocky Anderson (Justice Party), and Stewart Alexander (Socialist Party) spring to mind, all pretty much on the same page, with minor variations.
Yet so many folks here want to vote for right-wing Democrats. It boggles the mind.
Supporting same-sex marriage is riskier than supporting the status quo. That is why Obama is such a fraud. He can never be an agent of change because he ALWAYS takes the path of least resistance.
No, he is an unprincipled, risk-averse politician. He decides his position based on a carefully calculated, political cost-benefit analysis.
I would instead use the term “pro-middle class.” The problem is not that some people are richer than others. It’s that the game has been unfairly rigged to transfer wealth upward. This has been achieved through a combination of tax policy (removing estate taxes, lowering capital gains taxes, corporate loopholes, etc.), deregulation of the financial sector and–most importantly–destroying collective bargaining with right-to-work-for-less laws and other anti-union attacks.
I won’t vote for Mitt Romney, but I can say with certainty that I will not vote for a President that would foolishly imperil the rest of the agenda at the altar of gay marriage. That just shows poor judgement on his part. I simply will not vote. For me that is a HUGE step to take. As a black American I consider voting a sacred responsibility that those that came before me bled and died for. I don’t like trashing their legacy by failing to use that right.
At the same time I cannot support a reckless and irresponsible President. Fortunately I have enough faith in the President to know that he wont squander his reelection chances on this. He should keep focusing on the economy and pushing his populist message. I know that alot of black Americans feel the same way.
The term you are looking for is SMART POLITICIAN. Any politican that actually wants to get reelected takes into consideration how their actions will be viewed by the voters.
No, he is a bigot. If he were a SMART POLITICIAN he would look at the polls and see that support for same sex marriage is on the rise and stake out his position accordingly.
But he doesn’t.
His job is to make the right decision, to be on the right side of history, and bring the people along with him. He has chosen to be on the wrong side of history.
The President has “evolved” to a candidate up for re-election. Nothing controversial unless it may strategically improve his standing, such as the Birth Control controversy, where the Catholic bishops did the Democratic party an incredible favour by overreaching in their demands.
Pretty much agree that it’s craven political opportunism on the President’s part.
Frankly, I don’t think that supporting marriage equality would hurt his reelection chances nowadays; this is no longer 2004 or 2008.
I just don’t think that supporting marriage equality helps his reelection chances in 2012. That’s what it would take for him to support it at this point.
And I believe that Barack Obama will be the last Democratic candidate for President that does not run on a marriage equality platform