(Weekly Column)
While the world waits to see whether President Barack Obama’s position will “evolve” on gay marriage before Election Day, one thing is certain: His party’s evolution has already taken place.
Obama is probably the last Democratic presidential candidate who can win the nomination without voicing full-throated support for marriage equality. For the past two presidential cycles, LGBT voters have swallowed their pride and openedtheir wallets while the Democratic contenders dissembled. On one hand, they claimed to be for full equality, while on the other they demeaned our relationships and damned them to second-class status.
Implicit in this humiliating deal was that the Republican challenger was so awful that gay voters had nowhere else to go. There was also the underlying fear that turning critical elections into referendums on same-sex marriage might backfire and place an ogre in the White House.
This trepidation was exacerbated by the candidacy of Ralph Nader, who elevated (with the help of the Supreme Court) George W. Bush into the Oval Office. This historic debacle underscored that elections can have severe consequences and that victory in this divided nation often comes by a razor thin margin. In truth, many LGBT voters were concerned about being cast in the role of Nader and blamed for sabotaging a close election.
In terms of Barack Obama, the activist side of me wants him to embrace marriage equality today. As someone who is legally married, I personally feel the sting of not having access to the same federal rights and benefits as my heterosexual peers. Because I travel often for my job, it seems that half of the month I’m in a recognized marriage in Vermont, while the other half I find myself in states where I am officially single and have no legal protection. Such disparate treatment is disgraceful, humiliating, and un-American.
Nevertheless, the pragmatic part of me wonders whether Obama embracing gay marriage will harm his chances in the nine swing states that will decide this election. Clearly, these states are not all bastions of tolerance: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
There is also concern over how embracing marriage for same sex couples would impact the four states that lean in favor of the Democrats (Minnesota, Michigan, New Mexico, and Maine) and the states that teeter towards the GOP (Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina).
The argument in favor of Obama evolving now is that most voters believe he already supports gay marriage and those who would vote against him because of this issue were never voting for him anyway. Meanwhile, coming out in favor of marriage equality would energize the progressive base and open the floodgates of gay volunteers and money. It would also show true leadership and restore the idea that Obama’s presidency stands for hope and change.
I wrestle mightily with the ramifications, if any, the President might face if he supports gay marriage. LGBT advocates can be mostly correct about the decision having few consequences. But a bad outcome in one or two of the seventeen swing or tilting states could still cost Obama his reelection. Thus, I remain deeply ambivalent about him coming out in favor of marriage equality prior to the election.
What I do know is that Obama being reelected is significantly more important than him supporting gay marriage today. A victory means four more years of Americans becoming comfortable with the idea of their LGBT friends and family members marrying. It means fair-minded Supreme Court justices, who may well have more impact on this issue than any president. It results in almost half a decade of unbridled and irreversible cultural change, while watching polls in support of same-sex marriage approach sixty percent.
I also know that this is the last time we will ever have this debate. Vice President Joe Biden’s comments in favor of marriage on Meet the Press, combined with Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s seal of approval, signals that the debate is over in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party. This is even more apparent when one considers that party elders, such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, have endorsed gay marriage. Both are not only former presidents, but committed Christians, which essentially gives Democrats of faith permission to vote their consciences.
It is simply unfathomable that a serious Democratic candidate in 2016 would split hairs and disingenuously claim they believe in full equality, while denying loving same-sex couples the right to marry. That dismissive strategy may have worked when only candidates with little chance of winning, such as Dennis Kucinich, championed the cause. But the equation is changed when leading Democratic contenders, such as Joe Biden, have embraced genuine equality.
After November, any Democrat with presidential ambitions who claims he or she is still evolving will be an unelectable dinosaur.
Great article, Wayne. Remember that “pastor” from NC who, just a week ago, called for beating gay children? If Obama came out for gay marriage before the election, thousands of people like that monster would rise up, get on their sanctimonious soapboxes and tell their communities that this election is a battle between good and evil. They would believe it, reflexively, as they always do. It would be an unmitigated disaster.
People like Pat Robertson would go on their TV programs and would declare that this is “the most pivotal election of our lifetime,” and that if we don’t vote the right way, this country would “forever be in the hands of the Evil One.”
Money would pour into the unholy coffers of fundamentalist religious organizations. Phones would start ringing off the hook, and they would act as dogs do when they are thrown a piece of red meat. The weak-minded would have their passions inflamed. Even some of them who claim to support marriage equality might switch their votes when an appeal is made to their faith and traditional moral codes.
You could kiss North Carolina, and perhaps a few other swing states, good-bye.
There is no legislative reason for Obama to take such a foolish risk right now. He has supported us on almost every piece of pro-gay legislation that has come before his desk. He even condemned Amendment One in North Carolina.
Some of our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community want this because they yearn for his approval and support, much like we want the support and acceptance of our mothers and fathers. I want that, too, but the time is not right.
We are approaching a truly historic moment. After years of fighting and battling against what often seemed to be insurmountable odds, the gay rights movement is reaching its finest hour. A sitting President of the United States will publicly state that gay men and lesbian women should be allowed to marry.
It will be an incredible, wonderful, fantastic moment, but it won’t happen if we allow the Republican Party to nationalize this issue and make the election a referendum on same-sex marriage. A Gallup poll issued in the last 24 hours found the nation split, 50%-48% in favor. The country is divided straight down the middle. Make no mistake, it is a truly divisive issue, and not everyone who gives a pollster an answer is telling the truth, especially when it comes to polling controversial issues.
Today, former NY governor George Pataki, a big Romney supporter, publicly issued a challenge to Obama, asking him to clarify if he supports same-sex marriage. They are salivating at the prospect of being given this election-season gift. We must deny it to them, and victory will be ours.
did Obama speak out against the NC amendment?
Whether President Obama believes gay marriage is right or wrong should not matter. President Obama is the leader who signs legislation or puts forth bills to ensure that people have a right to choose and not be denied benefits or rights according to our Constitution.
His personal belief is his. Personally, I don’t think it is right based on my Biblical beliefs but it is not up to me to determine what is right or wrong for other people. What people do with their lives is their business as long as it does not interfere with my rights or freedom.
I voted against amendment one not because I believe in gay marriages but I believe in the right for people to choose and not be denied their rights.
If Christians truly follow Jesus’ examples, we would not be forcing people to live a certain way. We as Christians would be loving people instead of hating them for the way they choose to live.
Thank you Mr. Besen for a pragmatic and well-balanced article. We can only keep our fingers crossed, hoping that Obama stays in the White House in 2013. I’m a US citizen living in Germany, where the mayor of Berlin, the well-loved Klaus Wowereit, AND the Secretary of State (who is with the moderate-right Liberal party, not with the moderate-left Socialists) Guido Westerwelle are both openly gay and partnered with rather photogenic mates, no less. (Westerwelle is less popular, but for his political stances, not so much his sexuality.)
I must say, sometimes i feel the dramatic distance between the two sides of the Atlantic and wonder how this is such a non-issue here in Germany. Not to mention the lesbian Prime Minister of Iceland, the gay mayor of Paris Bertrand de la Noe, and the approval of gay marriage rights in Spain (a culturally deeply Catholic but also modern secular society) at least a decade ago…
although i dont doubt Obama’s sincerity at all, i wonder if he is not also putting America to the test. Are the USA closer in thought to modern secular Europe, or could it split along this issue into an ideological alliance with the 2nd World half-democracies or the Arab theocracies, where gays have no rights to speak of? Hmmm.
in an ideal scenario – and this is better than pessimism that islamists and christian fundamentalists will now bomb gay bars as well as airplanes and Danish cartoon press offices – Obama’s stand will, in the long term, solidify support for gay causes in other parts of the world too. We also mean East Asia, where the debates are not so extreme, and Latin America, which in some ways looks north for direction too.
Mr. Besen’s article discusses so well precisely the fear of backlash when the big election comes. But then, if negative backlash decided everything, then one should never take any action in a positive direction at all :-)