It is repetitive, but I want to underline a few points here in respect to the President's announcement. The points are universal though they are used here to apply to the specific issue of the day.
First, it underlines the power of the bully pulpit. This term is associated with Theodore Roosevelt, and in general, it seems to me that people understand the basic idea. The point here is not only to actually make policy, which Obama is doing too. As Wikipedia defines it, we are concerned with the power "to advocate an agenda." If the POTUS says something, it has a certain cachet. It matters. It has a certain legitimacy, even if he does not have the power to legalize same sex marriage nation-wide. The ultimate leadership here holds true even if the actual change will come state by state. And, trying to get a "gotcha" moment here really misses the point. The basic principle is equality and he is for it.
This is somewhat related to the at times ridiculed (the hosts of Gay USA sort of did that too in their show, taped right before Obama's announcement) statement by Biden of the importance of Will and Grace. There might be a chicken and egg issue here, but (and this is something I have stated concerning the paucity of fictional portrayals of abortion) popular culture is very important. This is why some are concerned about the presence of minorities on certain television shows and why what is aired on fictional television shows for years (remember Dan Quayle) is important to people. I recall some time ago being told that low brow graffiti was a key marker of how bad it was going for King Louis XVI.
Second, reality requires care when public officials do things. We have had a lot of ridicule about Obama "evolving" and Ross Douthat saying:
If same-sex marriage isn’t an issue where people can disagree in good faith, though, then the president’s evasions and obfuscations can’t be treated as ordinary political maneuverings, and excused as just so much politics-as-usual. If the debate is as black and white as many supporters of same-sex marriage argue, then they should be much harder on political leaders who pretend that it’s a gray area.I'm not a fan of Douthat and this sort of thing doesn't help. This business of him "lying" for being a politician who chooses his words carefully simply seems clueless. The "gray area" might be there but it isn't found in reprobate measures like found in North Carolina. People can disagree with things in good faith and still be wrong about them. People in "good faith" told Martin Luther King Jr. that he was going too far, that he was a divisive force. We can say that King was right, that there was clearly only one approach that made sense, even if everyone who disagreed weren't just bigots. But, the forces against him (and equality here) underlines how it was important to go carefully, including to temper your approach, even if deep down you wanted to go further.
Obama said as much, nothing "marriage" had a certain emotional meaning that led him to think civil unions would do the trick. I was not a fan of Obama stating in his autobiography that he was against same sex marriage, his religious beliefs fine enough as they went, but this is public policy here. But, even there, in 2006, he spoke of the Bible as "the Living Word" and that he "must be continuously open to new revelations" on this subject. Society is ever "evolving" here, making it almost silly when you hear that "marriage" is supposed to have one meaning set in stone, as if it is like an inherent thing akin to a rock. Changing views on divorce alone (the basic power to pull asunder what God supposedly set in stone) underline the point. So, it is really stupid to make fun of the "evolving" point, it misses the damn point of the overall meaning of his statement.
Obama is a pragmatist. I find his the title of his campaign autobiography a bit ironic -- "the audacity of hope." He seems to me to not be audacious as much as having various goals and feeling it fitting and proper (as well as necessary) to compromise to make them. This realistic approach (realistic idealism?) has a lot going for it though at times he compromises too much, isn't audacious enough, while others he accepts to much of the status quo. His foreign and fiscal policies has some of that, much to the disgust of some. Still, his heart is often generally in the right place, including as a matter of policy (so as not to make it too personal*), even if he wants more flexibility (the failure to have an absolutist position on same sex marriage fits here) than some wish.
A final word on the religious and moral matters here. We should be careful when discussing things and realize the complexity of the matter. This is often my mantra in part because I find excessive simplicity is both wrong and boring all too often. There is a ton of division on this subject and the fact that many Jews, Christians and others got married in religious ceremonies even outside churches starting with the letter "u" underlines the point. Still, one device is to point to the slew of things opposed in the Old Testament. The sentiment is okay but overdone. Same sex relationships are among the few things also denounced in the New Testament. But, so is divorce in most cases. How's that going?
Well, this will continue -- along with abortion, the health care law and a few other topics -- to be a major issue that will be talked to death. Regardless, it is of fundamental importance and it remains deeply evident that there is one political party who is on the right side of things, while the other lags behind, even if some candidates don't want to talk about it.
---
* A word on the teen Romney being an asshole story. I think those who point to his reaction (see, e.g., Chris Hayes this morning) as the problem make a good point. His reaction suggests he still is an asshole, this is the vibe that comes off the guy time and time again. As Rachel Maddow noted a few days ago, "in their heart" is less important than their policies. But, his policies are not great either. And, character does matter.