Rare case of Obama waffling

[JeffL]

One thing I admire about Obama is that he, rather than McCain, has been a pretty straight shooter, even when the stand isn't the most politically expedient.

But his stand on same sex marriage is a bit wishy washy, IMO.

He stated several times during the primary that he opposed same sex marriage and said "marriage is something for a man and a woman." He's also said he felt that same sex marriage is something that should be left to each state to decide. And now he says he opposes Proposition 8.

Sure, as an Obama supporter I can turn it around and say oh, what he really means is this or that. But just listening to his comments, he comes across on this issue absolutely "politician" - try to be all things to all people.

By the way, before you all start calling names, accusing me of being a right wing homophobe, etc. - one of my wife's best friends in high school emails her frequently, and has invited us to his wedding, and so beautifully expressed his feelings on the issue, made it so easy to see from a personal point of view, that I support same sex marriage. I don't support forcing churches to marry same sex couples if it is against their beliefs, but I do support such couples being able to be married and having the rights.

Edit: wife's friend is gay, in case that isn't clear.

[Machfive]

I lambasted Obama about this during the primaries. I can't be bothered to dig it up right now, but regardless, it's probably one of my biggest complaints and one thing that gets in the way of him being truly 'perfect' as a candidate.

[charmtrap]

This is one of those issues that has no winning side for a politician who's trying to appeal to a national audience. And Obama is nothing if not a consummate politician. I think he's taken about the only possible position that a Democratic candidate for president can take in 2008 (i'm "against" it personally, but it's not up to me).

[Jason McCullough]

The candidates who have the opinion we prefer tend to lose terribly. I'll take what I can get.

[JeffL]

I lambasted Obama about this during the primaries. I can't be bothered to dig it up right now, but regardless, it's probably one of my biggest complaints and one thing that gets in the way of him being truly 'perfect' as a candidate.

But his answer doesn't satisfy anyone. He ticks off people like our friend by saying he opposes gay marriage, he ticks off those who are against gay marriage by saying that he thinks states shouldn't be able to ban it, etc.

[Moggraider]

In my mind, Kerry would've won in '04 if not for gay marriage. I think Obama, like many others, knows this, hence the position. I don't like it either, but you know he's probably got the better true stance on it than McCain does.

[Machfive]

But his answer doesn't satisfy anyone. He ticks off people like our friend by saying he opposes gay marriage, he ticks off those who are against gay marriage by saying that he thinks states shouldn't be able to ban it, etc.

This is an issue where you have to tick the fewest number of people off the least. His position ticks a lot of people off a little, but any other position would tick slightly less poeple off, but to a far greater degree.

[JeffL]

In my mind, Kerry would've won in '04 if not for gay marriage. I think Obama, like many others, knows this, hence the position. I don't like it either, but you know he's probably got the better true stance on it than McCain does.

Really? I don't even remember this as an issue at all during that election, nor Kerry's position. I'd be shocked if that was the issue that lost Kerry the election.

Do people really think that there are social conservatives who would vote for Obama because he says he's against gay marriage? I.e. significant numbers of people who would vote for Obama because he says he's against gay marriage who wouldn't vote for him otherwise?

[Machfive]

Really? I don't even remember this as an issue at all during that election, nor Kerry's position. I'd be shocked if that was the issue that lost Kerry the election.

Do people really think that there are social conservatives who would vote for Obama because he says he's against gay marriage? I.e. significant numbers of people who would vote for Obama because he says he's against gay marriage who wouldn't vote for him otherwise?

The anti-gay-marriage proposals that hit in 2004 mobilized a large number of single-issue bigots to get to the polls and tip the favor with their straight tickets.

[AndrewM]

The Democrat position (at a national level) seems to be that they are opposed to "gay marriage", but okay with something that is exactly the same as marriage in every way, except that it isn't actually called marriage. I don't quite remember what the word is.

[Quaro]

Really? I don't even remember this as an issue at all during that election, nor Kerry's position. I'd be shocked if that was the issue that lost Kerry the election.

Do people really think that there are social conservatives who would vote for Obama because he says he's against gay marriage? I.e. significant numbers of people who would vote for Obama because he says he's against gay marriage who wouldn't vote for him otherwise?

Not people that would vote for Obama, but people that otherwise wouldn't bother to vote would vote against him.

This year the economy is voter's most important issue but, IIRC, "moral values" was pretty high on the list in 2004. Marriage amendments were on ballots in 11 states in 2004, and turnout was higher in those states, particularly christian conservative turnout. I wouldn't go so far as to say Kerry would have won, but it certainly cost him votes.

[Quaro]

I don't support forcing churches to marry same sex couples if it is against their beliefs,

Has anyone ever advocated this position? I find it weird that people even bother to say they don't agree with it -- it seems too obvious that nobody would force churches to marry people they don't want to. Churches choose not to marry straight couples right now based on any criteria they want. Nothing proposed has any effect on churches, it only has to do with the legal benefits of marriage from the state.

[Machfive]

Has anyone ever advocated this position? I find it weird that people even bother to say they don't agree with it -- it seems too obvious that nobody would force churches to marry people they don't want to. Churches choose not to marry straight couples right now based on any criteria they want. Nothing proposed has any effect on churches, it only has to do with the legal benefits of marriage from the state.

Yeah. Forcing churches to marry gay people is the first bogeyman that right-wing pundits trot out in their endless line of strawmen and slippery slopes.

[jerri blank]

I haven't gotten too worked up over the campaign's opposition to same-sex marriage, although I got annoyed at how emphatic Biden was recently when he expressed that opposition. I can't remember the occasion.

I'm also not too worked up over Prop. 8, because ultimately I think this will get decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, I hope after a Dem administration has had a chance to make a couple of appointments. I don't see how a more centrist Court could come down against same-sex marriage given their decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and the Loving decision in 1967, holding that marriage is a fundamental right.

The only thing that worries me is an amendment to the U.S. constitution, but I just don't think there's enough political momentum for that. Would a Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage create such momentum? I don't know. I think the tide is changing.

For now, I'm sticking with my li'l Vermont civil union, even though it's meaningless in Tennessee except to us.

[Jason McCullough]

Do people really think that there are social conservatives who would vote for Obama because he says he's against gay marriage? I.e. significant numbers of people who would vote for Obama because he says he's against gay marriage who wouldn't vote for him otherwise?

Yes and yes. This is why:

Not people that would vote for Obama, but people that otherwise wouldn't bother to vote would vote against him.

This year the economy is voter's most important issue but, IIRC, "moral values" was pretty high on the list in 2004. Marriage amendments were on ballots in 11 states in 2004, and turnout was higher in those states, particularly christian conservative turnout. I wouldn't go so far as to say Kerry would have won, but it certainly cost him votes.

I would. Ohio was one of the gay marriage ban states in 2004; Bush won it by 2%, or about 120,000 (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/) votes. If Kerry had got Ohio he would have (hilariously) won a electoral college victory with a -2.5% popular vote margin.

Don't take my word for it, check out this paper (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/7/5/0/p87506_index.html).

But what about the decisive state of Ohio, where Bush’s margin of victory was less than 119,000 votes? Our surveys found that 29% of Ohio respondents supported the marriage ban and said they were very motivated by it to turnout. Turnout in Ohio increased nearly 10% in 2004, second only to the increase in South Dakota spurred by a US Senate contest. CNN exit polls show Bush enjoyed above average increases in support over his 2000 Ohio performance among the same voters we found to support the gay marriage ban there (see Table A5): those with low education, the elderly, and non-whites. Although whites were still far more likely to vote Bush, we find non-whites consistently more likely to support the gay marriage ban. The magnitude of the effect is largest in Ohio, and exit polls show Bush’s increase in support among African American in Ohio – up 7% - was nearly four times the rate of his increased support nationally among African Americans. Likewise, Bush increased his support among Ohio’s over age 60 voters by 10%, his support among Ohio voters without a high school degree increased
by 12%, and among frequent church goers by 17%, far above his national average (nationally, he increased his support among these voters by 7%, 10%, and 1%, respectively).

All of this is consistent with our issue mobilization thesis: key groups of voters opposed to gay marriage were mobilized to turnout in Ohio and they swung toward Bush. We can get a sense of how the issue may have tilted the outcome in Ohio to Bush by projecting Bush’s increased support among these key groups (measured in exit polls) into raw numbers of voters. These (crude) estimates illustrate that the increase in Bush support among African Americans could have delivered a maximum of 39,000 votes to Bush in 2004, while the increase in support among those with no high school education could have produced a maximum of 27,000 votes for Bush. Increased support among frequent church goers and the elderly could have produced a maximum of 133,000, and 112,000 of Bush’s votes in Ohio, respectively. Of course, we have no way of knowing, definitively, how many of these voters were motivated to turnout and vote Bush because of the effects of the gay marriage issue.

Rove had an open strategy to put gay marriage bans on the ballot in as many states as possible. He knew what he was doing; it's electoral poison for Democrats.

[Hugin]

Also, don't forget a lot of African American folks are, sadly, relatively socially conservative and homophobic. I honestly don't think Obama (or Clinton, or McCain, or Bush) really care, but it's still tricky.

SO glad I live in Massachusetts where we finally got this settled properly.

[Dirt]

Back in 2004, Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to affirm that marriage should be between a man and woman. Kerry refused. I think Obama has taken that advice (Kerry is an advisor to Obama) to heart.

[Hanacker]

Yes and yes. This is why:

I'm not sure Kerry could have taken a stronger position against gay marriage than Bush without alienating a lot of his base. And unless he somehow convincingly took a stronger position against it, gay marriage opponents would probably vote Republican on the issue by default. The issue got people out to vote, but I don't think there was any realistic way Kerry could have gotten those people to vote for him.

[Dirt]

I haven't decided whom to vote for yet. However, I hope that those of you who do vote for Obama, will keep him accountable for the promises that he's made.

[jerri blank]

I haven't decided whom to vote for yet. However, I hope that those of you who do vote for Obama, will keep him accountable for the promises that he's made.

Dirt, for the sake of the country just STAY THE FUCK HOME. If you're really such a moron that you can't decide, the right to vote is wasted on you.

[Dirt]

Dirt, for the sake of the country just STAY THE FUCK HOME. If you're really such a moron that you can't decide, the right to vote is wasted on you.

Sorry jblank. Why don't you drive over to CA in your Jetta and vote for me? I'm sure you'll pass the test they give here for people who are too poorly educated and couldn't possibly know better and have the right of every United States citizen to vote.

[NoWayJose]

The anti-gay-marriage proposals that hit in 2004 mobilized a large number of single-issue bigots to get to the polls and tip the favor with their straight tickets.
Yeah, but that had nothing to do with Kerry's stance on gay marriage (as I recall, he was also against it, or at least said he was).

I'm not sure that stating he is in favor of gay marriage would cost Obama that many votes. The people who care enough to vote against any candidate who endorses gay marriage would already be turned off by the socialist, sex ed for kindergartners, etc., stuff that he's been plastered with. I have to assume he truly is not in favor of the federal government mandating that all states perform and recognize gay marriage, which is disappointing.

Political expediency aside (again, I question whether it's even expedient for a candidate like Obama), I would love to see his intellect and charisma wedded to a stand on an issue that perhaps while not popular, is courageous.

[jerri blank]

Sorry jblank. Why don't you drive over to CA in your Jetta and vote for me? I'm sure you'll pass the test they give here for people who are too poorly educated and couldn't possibly know better and have the right of every United States citizen to vote.

What?

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not sure Kerry could have taken a stronger position against gay marriage than Bush without alienating a lot of his base. And unless he somehow convincingly took a stronger position against it, gay marriage opponents would probably vote Republican on the issue by default. The issue got people out to vote, but I don't think there was any realistic way Kerry could have gotten those people to vote for him.

It's a combination. As the study points out, they project that Bush "overperformed" in the black vote due to the gay marriage ban to the tune of 20k votes, for example - there's a set of convertibles. GOP voters that otherwise would have stayed home are the other drive.

[Talisker]

I haven't decided whom to vote for yet.
http://s4.tinypic.com/8wjj93.jpg

[Euri]

I don't support forcing churches to marry same sex couples if it is against their beliefs, but I do support such couples being able to be married and having the rights.

Not to pick on you, but this statement presents a huge problem in your thinking, and the thinking of many people at the federal level. That you said this indicates that you believe that somebody out there thinks any church should be forced to perform any marriage. This isn't true now, and never has been, and never will be. A church can turn away ANY COUPLE for ANY REASON.

[Funkula]

Who would even want to be married in a church that doesn't welcome them?

Also, Talisker's graphic does not apply to Dirt, because he fits every category except Chronically Insecure.

[NoWayJose]

Who would even want to be married in a church that doesn't welcome them?

Also, Talisker's graphic does not apply to Dirt, because he fits every category except Chronically Insecure.
WHOSE graphic?

[MattKeil]

Who would even want to be married in a church that doesn't welcome them?

Exactly. When choosing a site for one's wedding, the term "enemy territory" rarely comes up. It's just another fairy tale trotted out to scare tiny-minded people who are proven to readily believe fairy tales.

Also, Talisker's graphic does not apply to Dirt, because he fits every category except Chronically Insecure.

What exactly exempts Dirt from that category?

[Anders Hallin]

Exactly. When choosing a site for one's wedding, the term "enemy territory" rarely comes up. It's just another fairy tale trotted out to scare tiny-minded people who are proven to readily believe fairy tales.

That's actually one of the first items on my list. Number 6 is teabagging the priest after kissing the groom.

[Destarius]

How many gays or lesbians would oppose a 'legal union' which isn't called 'marriage'? I wonder if just fixing the semantics would cool the Christians yet provide gay/lesbians the right to celebrate their partnerships.

[Robert Sharp]

It would for some, but the problem is twofold. First, many gays and lesbians want the same status as hetero-couples. That means they do NOT want a separate category for them. So you'd have to make it a legal union for everyone. This leads to the second problem. Many hetero-couples do NOT want a civil union instead of a marriage. They want the state to recognize their religious union.

Now I think it IS just semantics, as long as the rights are the same. I'm just pointing out that some people disagree. Of course, political compromises aren't meant to please both sides. They are meant to settle issues in the most fair way possible.

[Destarius]

Now I think it IS just semantics, as long as the rights are the same. I'm just pointing out that some people disagree. Of course, political compromises aren't meant to please both sides. They are meant to settle issues in the most fair way possible.

While I have plenty of gay friends, I'm not sympathetic to gays/lesbians who want everything. They can learn to compromise. They can make up their own religion where being homosexual is clearly a-ok instead of trying to force churches to marry them etc.

[Marged]

If marriage is a religious institution, then government should get out of the business of marriage. Let everyone, straight or gay, get civil unions that convey the legal rights and let churches declare someone "married."

[salwon]

I'm getting married in May - think I can get the Rabbi to give us a Civil Union?

This is one of those issues where every time I hear someone against it, they preface with, "I'm not a homophobe BUT..." and then proceed to say something unbelievably homophobic.

One of my uncles married his partner in Vermont a few years ago. They were having a lot of problems, and probably should've broken up, but they decided to get married to save the relationship. What's good for the heterosexual goose (and gander) is good for the homosexual geese (or ganders).

[jerri blank]

While I have plenty of gay friends, I'm not sympathetic to gays/lesbians who want everything. They can learn to compromise. They can make up their own religion where being homosexual is clearly a-ok instead of trying to force churches to marry them etc.

I look forward to seeing your list of examples of gays and lesbians trying to "force churches to marry them etc."

What an unbelievably ill-informed statement.

That's actually one of the first items on my list. Number 6 is teabagging the priest after kissing the groom.

Your priest must be a really good sport.

[Anders Hallin]

While I have plenty of gay friends, I'm not sympathetic to gays/lesbians who want everything. They can learn to compromise. They can make up their own religion where being homosexual is clearly a-ok instead of trying to force churches to marry them etc.
What? There are plenty of churches willing to marry them. The churches in most of the world do not have the legal right to give them marriage licences, however.

[Anders Hallin]

Your priest must be a really good sport.
It's no fun if you're not forcing the priest to do it!

[Machfive]

I don't support forcing churches to marry same sex couples if it is against their beliefs...

Has anyone ever advocated this position? I find it weird that people even bother to say they don't agree with it -- it seems too obvious that nobody would force churches to marry people they don't want to. Churches choose not to marry straight couples right now based on any criteria they want. Nothing proposed has any effect on churches, it only has to do with the legal benefits of marriage from the state.

Yeah. Forcing churches to marry gay people is the first bogeyman that right-wing pundits trot out in their endless line of strawmen and slippery slopes.

While I have plenty of gay friends, I'm not sympathetic to gays/lesbians who want everything. They can learn to compromise. They can make up their own religion where being homosexual is clearly a-ok instead of trying to force churches to marry them etc.

Can you read? Or are you just fucking retarded?

[Dirt]

http://s4.tinypic.com/8wjj93.jpg

*YAWN*

If that pic were from a Conservative, it'd have, "obstructionist", "unpatriotic", "unamerican" and "godless".

[Funkula]

WHOSE graphic?

Talisker's graphic

What exactly exempts Dirt from that category?

It's quite likely, but the other four can be verified objectively from his posts, while that one requires more speculation.

[Talisker]

The only undecided category I remembered from that bit was the Stupid (which is why I dug it up), but I was pleasantly surprised to see that John Oliver apparently had Dirt in mind.

[Joe M.]

Really? I don't even remember this as an issue at all during that election, nor Kerry's position. I'd be shocked if that was the issue that lost Kerry the election.

Do people really think that there are social conservatives who would vote for Obama because he says he's against gay marriage? I.e. significant numbers of people who would vote for Obama because he says he's against gay marriage who wouldn't vote for him otherwise?

Yes, Republicans typically drive their base to the polls based on divisive issues like gay marriage. If they can actually get a measure on the ballot that will make it legal, so much the better. They'll come out in droves to vote it down but -- more importantly to those in power -- also vote for the Republican candidate.

[JeffL]

Not to pick on you, but this statement presents a huge problem in your thinking, and the thinking of many people at the federal level. That you said this indicates that you believe that somebody out there thinks any church should be forced to perform any marriage. This isn't true now, and never has been, and never will be. A church can turn away ANY COUPLE for ANY REASON.

Sigh. I knew somehow I'd get jumped on for something, even after clearly stating that I was in support of same sex marriages and why. I worded that poorly in my hasty typing. Obviously, a Catholic Church can refuse to marry a couple who don't meet their requirements, etc. A better way to say what I meant was, churches should not worry about having to perform or even approve of gay weddings, they won't be forced to perform them so it's none of their business.

[JeffL]

Yes, Republicans typically drive their base to the polls based on divisive issues like gay marriage. If they can actually get a measure on the ballot that will make it legal, so much the better. They'll come out in droves to vote it down but -- more importantly to those in power -- also vote for the Republican candidate.

I just don't believe, even after reading the paper's hypothesis that Jason quoted, that gay marriage is what lost Ohio to Kerry. As others have noted, Kerry said he was against gay marriage. From Washington Post, May 2004:

"Kerry Again Opposes Same-Sex Marriage"
"With his home state set to begin marrying same-sex couples on Monday, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) reiterated his opposition to the idea yesterday"

"The presumptive Democratic nominee has long opposed gay marriage, favoring instead state-sanctioned civil unions that extend legal protections to gay couples."
" I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman"