GLBT rights is one of the key movements of my generation and like abortion rights, I find it very important for various reasons. The basics are that we are dealing with people being wrongly discriminated against for bad reasons, based on various things that are interesting to look at overall (religious beliefs, gender relations etc.). There also is a romantic angle and who doesn't like lesbians? And, the striking business of being in the midst of a shift. Pretty busy few decades.
All of this pops up in respect to Obama's announcement last night, along with the whole politics angle. We have the "tears, hugs" angle. The "good job there" angle from those who at times oppose him. The rather tepid response from some in his coalition. And, various negative responses (see, various on threads like these*). I'm in the positive camp, realizing the limitations of any announcement, but (like Rachel Maddow) also knowing that given his very good record on this issue (some belittle it, which takes a bit of denying reality), it is something of gravy. Likewise, I realize the guy is a politician with some political machinations. Why this should be surprising or even something to sneer at is a bit unclear.
Digby, e.g., ends with praise, but starts with "eh":
So president Obama finally admitted what we all pretty much assumed which is that he is in favor of same-sex marriage. It's a mainstream Democratic position and his reluctance always seemed fairly inauthentic. This is a very good thing, especially in light of the vote last night in North Carolina. Leadership is important and it was long past time he spoke out. It's a historical moment and one worth savoring.If same sex marriage is the "mainstream Democratic position," what exactly is the left position on the subject? As Michelle Goldberg noted, not going too far ahead of the public (who even now polls suggest that nation-wide barely over 50% in support SSM ... we don't vote nation-wide and voters can be different from the population at large) is sensible politics. Obama isn't just some Joe Smoe out there. He is the freaking POTUS. FDR might have shared the causes of his wife, but he wasn't out there taking those more liberal positions. A senator doesn't support the exact same thing as a local representative. And, the fact some local legislator said something before SSM was legal anywhere and then changed his public position once he became a national figure is only shocking to the uninformed. But, somehow this is all supposed to be cynical and distasteful. Why exactly?
And, okay, what is this "spoke out" business? He "spoke out" against DOMA years ago. The video underlines his support for gays and lesbians as is his support for civil unions with equal rights -- if that was actually the law of the land, it would improve the lives of gays and lesbians (and their family, friends, neighbors etc.) nation-wide. Let's try, even for laughs, to take his comments in the interview at face value. He thought civil unions would be satisfactory, particularly given that many (even some who accept civil unions) give special weight to the word "marriage," even (I'll add) if this is more emotional than a principled position. This is nature to his pragmatist nature. But, in time, he saw that the weight of the situation made marriage necessary, including the emotional value involved. He might have "deep in his heart" supported SSM, but as Rachel Maddow noted last night, on some level, who cares?
I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.Some of this might be for affect, as a sort of expression of public will (the President is the representative of the people at large), but it can very well be his honest belief on the matter. So, even with the politics and so forth, some line had to be drawn. Back when the Massachusetts Supreme Court recognized a state right to same sex unions, I suggested that civil unions might be an appropriate measure given how far that went at the time. The court in fact rejected that as not enough. This was almost a decade ago, but I'm not the POTUS, and I thought a compromise position was possible. Things has changed since then.
So, I'll stick with the latter part of Digby's quote. The nation has "evolved" a lot on this issue and Obama is a milestone there. Too much can be focused upon regarding the politics of the whole situation. Did Biden's comments push him somewhat? Maybe. Perhaps, it just goes to show that the personal here did force his hand some here. How will it affect the election? Probably not a lot and Romney really shouldn't think gleefully that the matter can help like was done in 2004. Things have changed and he isn't a sitting President, someone who couldn't even keep a gay foreign policy adviser from swinging in the wind. He might get bitten if he focused too much on this issue and to the degree it might excite some, it might do so on both sides to some extent.
Some hook on his comment that he would still leave this to the states. Obama's opposition to Prop 8 (no matter if its defenders pretended he was on their side -- he didn't want a state amendment or the prejudice promoted there) and Amendment One in North Carolina underlines a big qualifier there. Realistically, change will come state by state with a bit of federal action helping. He also is for nationally getting rid of DOMA (at least, the part that refuses to recognize SSM where they exist) and a stronger protection for gays and lesbians generally, which will help things along there. The federal courts are starting to go along. He made a personal sentiment known here -- that matters (see, e.g., Reagan being criticized for not mentioned "AIDS" for years) -- but also is making policy.
And, the bit that "this is Cheney's position" is petty. Fine, Cheney was like a stopped watch on this issue. Obama is actually making federal policy. Unlike torture and the like, don't recall "President" Cheney pushing Bush here. This is a real moment that is obviously not completely pure. Such is life. It does at times get better.
---
* Two later posts more seriously supported his statement, one from someone whom in particular opposes him on various matters. I admit to having a knee-jerk response akin to a few comments on that thread to be annoyed at his flippancy, though he strongly denies any lack of respect for the actual issue.
I say this in part since I repeatedly have seen his snarky comments that suggest that though he is more reasonable than some conservatives, he leaves something to be desired. And, yes, it does seem to be a trivialization of a key moment. His inability to understand where one critic is coming from in particular is annoying, even if he honestly disagrees with the person.