Well, he came out and said it.
posted at 10:40 pm on May 9, 2012 by Mike Rathbone
Thank you Mr. President for doing what I asked. If now he would only throw a shout out to Farrakhan at the Convention, I’ll be a happy camper.
Karl has already done a great job writing about the politics of the President’s announcement, so I’ll just add a few stray thoughts of my own. From my earlier post, I posited four different scenarios concerning how Obama deals with the gay marriage issue:
1.) Obama is actually against gay marriage, but doesn’t want to tick off his Hollywood supporters and more importantly, he doesn’t want to lose their contributions. Those contributions matter, a lot. But who are we kidding, Obama’s for gay marriage. People actually opposed to gay marriage (like me) don’t say they are “evolving” on the issue.
2.) Obama WILL announce he is for gay marriage some time this year, but he wants to save it for a special occasion. I anticipate this occurs either a.) the day after the Republican National Convention to change the subject (the media will happily oblige) b.) during his speech at the Democratic National Convention (sets SOME sort of second term agenda) c.) during one of the debates (anything to change the subject and/or to catch Romney flat-footed. He’ll aim to have a “The American President” or “The West Wing” moment).
3.) Obama announces he’s for gay marriage after the election. He’ll have more “flexibility” and he won’t have to worry about the fallout from his fully evolved position.
4.) Obama doesn’t change his position at all, he continues with what he has been doing, never coming out in favor of gay marriage, but opposing any pro-traditional marriage initiatives that might come up.
Of those four, I said 2&3 were the most likely. I also urged Team Romney to put pressure on the President so that he would announce in May or June and not September or October. Now that that has happened (more thanks to the MSM than Team Romney, but a win’s a win), this issue plays itself out over the next month (what else is the MSM going to talk about). If Romney doesn’t get drawn into a back-and-forth over this issue, it will be pretty much dead by June, especially when the May unemployment rate comes out. Then we can all (try to) focus on Wreckovery Bummer: With A Vengeance.
In regards to Allahpundit’s questions from Romney’s interview, let me proffer some answers. In regards to AP question 1, domestic partnerships probably can be construed to include anybody and everybody. I don’t know this for a fact, but I’m pretty sure a man can form a domestic partnership with his mother if he wanted to, probably not the case with civil unions. Civil unions are marriages without the word “marriage” in it. Classic case of distinction without a difference being applied here and it wouldn’t take a liberal activist judge to declare prohibitions against “gay marriage” unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause. There would probably be a lot more wiggle room for “domestic partnerships”. Not even a circuit judge in San Francisco would declare a partnership between a man and his mother the equivalent of traditional marriage (not yet at least).
In regards to Question 2, Romney is right, marriage IS a state issue (or at least it SHOULD be), but when you get activist judges federalizing state matters, then it forces things like the Federal Marriage Amendment to be considered. If the courts behaved themselves, a lot of conservatives (even the Socons-like me) would rediscover their inner federalist.
P.S. I got in a Twitter debate with Jodi Picoult about the merits (or lack thereof) of gay marriage. She seems like a nice lady, I think I won. Goes to show why we’re typically shouted down by the left.
P.P.S.-Evan Rachel Wood of “Thirteen” fame blocked me on Twitter for saying “Imagine” is a horrible song. She says she was left speechless by my comment. I just want to say, “Imagine” IS a horrible song. Listen to the lyrics, it’s the Communist Manifesto put to song. Don’t take my word for it, Lennon admits it. If that upsets a young Hollywood starlet, so be it, I’m still right.