Democrats wonder: How should we manage Obama’s gay-marriage charade at the convention?

posted at 6:12 pm on March 15, 2012 by Allahpundit

He’s willing to make a “gutsy call” to send Navy SEALs into Pakistan after the guy who knocked down the World Trade Center, but ask him to end the transparent farce in which he pretends to be opposed to gay marriage so as not to alienate socially conservative Democrats? Before an election? C’mon.

Even Zeus isn’t that gutsy.

Interviews with more than a dozen party officials and activists reveal that despite widespread and growing support for marriage equality among Americans, the issue is still viewed as politically sensitive in the top ranks of the Democratic Party. While many high-profile figures have publicly advocated for including strong language in the platform, the Obama campaign and the allied Democratic National Committee are searching for ways to split the difference: showing support for equality but stopping short of a full-fledged endorsement…

“The DNC folks — their political shop — have been calling [gay-rights activists] and really pressuring them,” said Paul Yandura, a political and fundraising strategist at the firm Scott+Yandura who led gay and lesbian outreach on both Bill Clinton and Al Gore’s presidential campaigns. “Look, I’m not going to claim that they’re pressuring them not to be for it, but this ‘let’s wait’ thing is always what happens in politics — let’s wait so they can find a way to slow this down and maybe get a good reason not to do it.”…

This year’s [platform], according to sources familiar with early conversations, will likely emphasize the accomplishments made under the president, such as a refusal to defend DOMA, the decision to grant same-sex couples visitation rights in hospitals, and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. As for the specific issue of marriage equality, no formal meetings have taken place. Yet several variations of new language are already being envisioned, ranging from text that would underscore the need for inclusive employment, non-discrimination legislation and safer schools, to language that would emphasize the benefits of relationships regardless of sexuality, to a platform that championed marriage equality outside the religious realm…

“I find it impossible to believe that this presidential election will be completed without Barack Obama coming out strongly for marriage equality and Mitt Romney coming out strongly against it,” said Hilary Rosen, a longtime party strategist who is deeply involved in LGBT causes. “I think it would be hard for him to not say it. I think the whole thing is awkward for them, because I think everybody in the leadership of that campaign is totally comfortable with the idea of marriage equality.”

Yeah, I found it impossible to believe that O’s entire first term would pass without a serious effort to reform entitlements given the fiscal quicksand we’re in, but here we are. What would it take for him to endorse legalizing gay marriage forthrightly before the election? Well, for starters, he’d need to be worried about the youth vote. This is an issue that could get them to perk up if it looks like turnout is sagging; the question is whether it’ll cost him more votes in older demographics, where turnout is almost always higher, than it’ll earn him in younger ones. If he was emphatically federalist about his position — he supports SSM but insists on a state’s right to decide for itself — that would cushion the blow to social conservatives, but I don’t know how he could take that stance given his opposition to Prop 8 in California.

Another way to twist his arm would be if wealthy liberals threatened to cut off donations unless he changed his mind. They’d have real leverage if they tried: Your must-read of the day is Karl Rove’s piece at the Journal explaining in vivid detail why The One’s cash haul so far isn’t as impressive as it looks. They’ve got a sprawling organization to feed and a lot less grassroots green to feed it with, so if liberals started cutting him off en masse unless he ends the charade on gay marriage, he might have no choice. Of course, there’s almost no chance that’ll happen given the realities of partisan politics. The White House counterargument will be that Romney, however moderate he is deep down, will be beholden to the conservative base once elected and opposing gay marriage is an easy way to throw them a bone. Forced to choose between a guy who agrees with them but is momentarily pretending not to for electoral advantage and a guy who agrees with whatever he needs to in order to get elected, SSM supporters might as well go with door number one. There’s at least a chance that he’ll side with them on principle.

Exit question: Is O lying low on this issue because he thinks the Supreme Court will bail him out sooner rather than later?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

dare you to find a link that shows other nations that allow gay marriage, and have been battling requests from pedophiles and multiple wives because of it.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 8:02 PM
Way too easy.

northdallasthirty on March 15, 2012 at 8:26 PM

This also.. And this was 2005:

First Trio “Married” in The Netherlands

From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2005-09-26 23:08

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

melle1228 on March 15, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Not to mention, you ever read about the Stonewall riots? In those same 70′s years, it was illegal for gays to congregate in one place, like a bar…which Stonewall was. Illegal to even simply hang out with other gays. You could go to jail. So it’s not like gays have had it good in recent years, and the Stonewall riots sparked gays to finally stand up for who they are, and demand the same constitutional rights as heteros, and not be labelled a criminal, or fired from a job, or denied housing…just for being gay. In some countries even today (Iran) gay is punishable by death.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I am against gay marriage, but think that states should be allowed to decide via legislature and voters. That being said even being against SSM,if somehow gays were “jailed” for being gay or labelled criminal; you would find me marching beside you.

melle1228 on March 15, 2012 at 8:38 PM

I’m not against gay marriage for any religious reasons. I don’t Logically, gay marriage is just stupid. It’s not sought for logic, it’s sought for legitimacy. As if government’s blessing will fill some hole in your life.

MechanicalBill on March 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

It is not about marriage, equality, legitimacy, or anything like that. It is about CONTROL. Whenever the Left is “championing for freedom and a nicer society,” it is ALWAYS a scam to take control over you.

The reason why gay marriage has all of a sudden become so important is because the Left realizes they can use it to go after our freedom of religion. So they can grab more control over people. The more the gay lifestyle becomes a protected class, the less religious freedom you have. Communists, marxists, etc. are opposed to religion, because it gets in the way of their power grabs.

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 8:47 PM

When people who try to point to the weakness of marriage in general, make the claim of “half of..blah..blah.” knowing full well that it is meant to convey the idea of “first marriages”.

Yes, totally – I agree. Sometimes it’s done out of ignorance but most often it is an attempt to mislead.

Missy on March 15, 2012 at 8:53 PM

The more the gay lifestyle becomes a protected class, the less religious freedom you have.

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Just look at England and Canada, to see the truth of this. Not just religious freedom either, but freedom of speech of any type against homosexuals is strictly forbidden.

Rebar on March 15, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Oh, and as for “separate but equal”, pretty much an extension of my gay marriage views…the “We can’t let teh gheys steal our word and definition of ‘marriage’…call it something else”. Separate but equal.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Hmmm.

I’m a hetero male, and the gay marriage issue isn’t very important to me. But, I think “marriage” is a church sacrament/blessing/covenant–whatever you want to call it.

I was surprised when I looked into civil unions and found that a lot of states don’t allow them for same-sex couples. That’s been a bit troubling to me (especially as far as the “separate but equal” issue). What about IRS rules favoring married couples, property rights and inheritance, adoption and spousal rights?

On the flip side, we now have all sorts of “hate crimes” on the books. Are they not a form of “separate but equal”? A man kills a straight man is treated differently than if he kills someone of the different sexuality or race?

But, government has a tradition of pandering to this group and that group. Of course, it’s completely for the purpose of buying votes and maintaining power. We’re bound to have some (or lots) of laws that don’t make an ounce of sense.

RedCrow on March 15, 2012 at 8:55 PM

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I have gay friends. We will just have to agree to disagree. As I do with some of them. Not all of them are for gay marriage. A couple actually like the idea of a President Sarah Palin, of all things. Of course, much like the blacks, the minority is lambasted by the majority. The few conservative gays I know are regularly called the gay equivalent of ‘oreo’ or ‘Uncle Tom’.

Lanceman on March 15, 2012 at 9:08 PM

“Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. You want your same-sex “partner” to be the beneficiary in your will? You can do that. You want to live with them? You can do that. But no, you can’t “marry” them; it’s literally impossible.

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
- Abraham Lincoln

Say you live in some hypothetical culture where legs are seen as precious and valuable while tails, eh, not-so-much. Problem is, you’ve got all these dogs with long tails and all your customers are buying the ones with strong legs instead. So, you launch a campaign, attacking the basic meaning of words, attacking honest reasoning itself, and suddenly in the space of a generation you’ve got people calling a “tail” a “leg”. Of course, not everyone will submit to this ridiculous campaign, but you’ve accounted for that, too: You’ll call these people “backward” for not moving on with the times. “We can call things whatever we want to call them. Who are you to say tails aren’t legs? Language evolves naturally anyway, and I’m just pushing it along!” Congratulations, Orwell, you’ve created a schism in the language where certain words mean different things than they did in the base language because you want them to for political reasons.

Words have meaning. Stop the newspeak.

CanofSand on March 15, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I am against gay marriage, but think that states should be allowed to decide via legislature and voters.

melle1228 on March 15, 2012 at 8:38 PM

People are too mobile today for that to work. If a married gay man in Vermont gets transferred by his employer to Oklahoma, are they no longer married? The Supreme Court will say the are and Oklahoma will be forced to recognize their marriage. Then, gays in Oklahoma will charge discrimination and Oklahoma will be forced to allow gay marriage. Gay marriage has to be stopped at the federal level or not at all.

jan3 on March 15, 2012 at 9:39 PM

The few conservative gays I know are regularly called the gay equivalent of ‘oreo’ or ‘Uncle Tom’.

Lanceman on March 15, 2012 at 9:08 PM

those sound tame. i have been much worse. or that i hate myself, or that my sheets were showing when i wouldn’t support obama in 08, like i was a member of the klan. gays can be VERY viscious when you reveal yourself not to be a zombie like the rest of them. VERY viscious.

GhoulAid on March 15, 2012 at 9:45 PM

I always assumed the only reason why Obama publicly opposes gay marriage is because so many black churches are strongly opposed to it. There’s always a balancing act for Obama on who to offend and he doesn’t seem to think he can afford to alienate the black churches on this issue.

milmom25 on March 15, 2012 at 10:21 PM

So how far back can you go and still have your marriage considered sanctified and showing the real institution?

What exactly should I thank the progressives for? For the most part they go way too far, arguing more for “special” rights than equality. Liberal progressive tick me off as much as they do you, maybe more since they claim to speak for all gays…which ain’t true.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Perhaps you could explain why not one single “great society” of antiquity had “gay” marriage? Not the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Persians, Hittites. For some reason, despite evidence that they had very open sexuality in their societies, still no “gay” marriage.

Basic rules for marriage:
1. one man and one woman
2. both 18 or over (or given parental consent)
3. neither currently married
4. neither of close blood relation

So if we’re going to get rid of #1, why do the other three have to stay?

Nutstuyu on March 15, 2012 at 11:35 PM

I always assumed the only reason why Obama publicly opposes gay marriage is because so many black churches are strongly opposed to it. There’s always a balancing act for Obama on who to offend and he doesn’t seem to think he can afford to alienate the black churches on this issue.

milmom25 on March 15, 2012 at 10:21 PM

DING-DING-DING, we have a winner!

Obama knows that “coming out of the closet” to support gay marriage will turn off blacks and other minority voters, and Obama cannot get reelected without the black/minority vote.

Thus far, Obama has been able to take the vote of the gay agenda folks for granted with a simple wink and a nod, and he will likely be able to continue to do so through this coming election. Where else are the gay agenda folks gonna go? They know perfectly well that Obama will “come completely out of the closet” for the gay agenda when/if he wins reelection.

IcedTea on March 16, 2012 at 1:43 AM

those sound tame. i have been much worse. or that i hate myself, or that my sheets were showing when i wouldn’t support obama in 08, like i was a member of the klan. gays can be VERY viscious when you reveal yourself not to be a zombie like the rest of them. VERY viscious.

It’s weird, but I actually get more abuse from straight liberals than the gay ones. I don’t talk politics with most of my friends but the few gay ones I’ve mentioned being a Republican to seem to be more eager to change the subject than go on hateful “self hating” BS rants. The (very few) straight liberals I know (in my defense I never knew they were liberals until that fateful first accidental political conversation) acted like I said I like to smash puppies into brick walls in my free time. Totally nuts.

Cyhort on March 16, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Not to mention, you ever read about the Stonewall riots? In those same 70′s years, it was illegal for gays to congregate in one place, like a bar…which Stonewall was. Illegal to even simply hang out with other gays. You could go to jail. So it’s not like gays have had it good in recent years, and the Stonewall riots sparked gays to finally stand up for who they are, and demand the same constitutional rights as heteros, and not be labelled a criminal, or fired from a job, or denied housing…just for being gay. In some countries even today (Iran) gay is punishable by death.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I’m not necessarily in agreement with that, but the pendulum has sure swung the other way, like with some homosexuals putting on those vulgar “gay pride” parades where they dance around half nude and engage in sex acts in public. Maybe those laws were meant to make sure stuff like that didn’t happen in the first place.

In some cases, how would people (such as landlords) even know if a man were homosexual or not, unless he makes a big show of it, or informs people of it?

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 2:04 AM

To add to my March 16, 2012 at 2:04 AM comment.

Sometimes the militant homosexuals threaten, harass, or beat up people who disagree with them.

Sparks fly as ‘gay’ activist mob swarms Christians. Residents of homosexual district: ‘We’re going to kill you. We know who you are’

Homosexuals In Michigan Attack Church

Now it’s EX-’gays’ getting pummeled

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Gay Marriage Explained

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 2:25 AM

I think ObaMao is afraid of pissing off older voters, black voters and Latino voters.

cicerone on March 16, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Obama go federalist? How could the self-anointed one tolerate himself if he gave away any power whatsoever? His opposition to Prop 8 in CA is based on a self-serving “I will make all decisions” mentality.

Obama’s opposition to a SSM plank is probably, more-than-not, rooted in his muslim religion… we know how “they” deal with that!

It’s a NO-brainer! No hope = Nope! In NOvember it is NObama.

Michael73501 on March 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Perhaps you could explain why not one single “great society” of antiquity had “gay” marriage? Not the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Persians, Hittites. For some reason, despite evidence that they had very open sexuality in their societies, still no “gay” marriage.

Easy… back then, marriage had nothing to do with love or some big romantic covenant. Marriage was the vehicle for transfer and inheritance of property or titles of nobility – and a good many of them were prearranged with no input from the actual two people involved – and sexual trysts were a byproduct of marriage if the two happened to actually like each other. Otherwise, extramarital affairs (even gay ones) were discreet yet commonplace.

It wasn’t until marriage became all romaniticized, and social mores became strictly enforced, that love and marriage DID go together like a horse and carriage. And nobody challenged that social order until, of course, the 1960s. Thus the predicament we have today.

TMOverbeck on March 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2