iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama's Opposition To Gay Marriage: Genuine Or Political Calculation?

First Posted: 08/06/10 05:45 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:15 PM ET

Gay Rights March

This story has been updated

Yesterday's ruling overturning California's ban on gay marriage and the White House's mixed response revived a question that has long frustrated gay Americans -- why doesn't President Obama support gay marriage?

Soon after the decision by District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, the White House issued a statement condemning Proposition 8 as "divisive and discriminatory" without elaborating further. On Thursday morning, presidential advisor David Axelrod told MSNBC that "the president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control."

And certainly, the president has pushed through some major reforms benefitting gay couples such as extending hospital visitation rights for same-sex partners and he has asserted his intention to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He has long expressed his opposition to the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage act, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and states that no states needs to treat as a marriage any same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. But his Department of Justice has defended DOMA in federal courts, arguing that it is appropriate and justified.

When Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, he gave statements to a Chicago paper that expressed "unequivocal support for gay marriage."

But since then, and during his later emergence on the national political stage, four words have been missing from his often-stirring rhetoric: "I support gay marriage."

With his opposition to gay marriage and support for civil unions and just about every other aspect of civil rights for gay couples, Obama joins a long line of politicians including almost all of his 2008 Democratic primary competitors such Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Bill Richardson.

Their unwillingness to support gay marriage strikes some observers as an act of political calculation that may clash with their personal tolerance for such unions. The sense is that they fear their open support will rebound politically and inspire a backlash from conservative voters.

Obama even hinted at that possibility in a 2004 interview with Tracy Baim, the publisher of Chicago's largest chain of gay and lesbian publications. He told her that he opposed gay marriage, explaining:

I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example...


What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

Some gay marriage proponents are skeptical that Obama personally opposes gay marriage.

"Every thing we know and admire about President Obama makes the claim that he doesn't support the freedom to marry very unconvincing," says Evan Wolfson, the director of the nonpartisan group, Freedom to Marry, adding that the president's public statements are more important than what's in his heart.

Wolfson says Obama is falling short of his promise because of his unwillingness to embrace what his professed support for equality requires, which he says is the equal right of gay couples to marry. Noting the president's opposition to DOMA, he asks: "If he's willing to be against 'against marriage', why can't he just be for marriage?"

Obama's deputy campaign manager during the 2008 race, Steve Hildebrand, who is openly gay, decried the tendency of prominent Democrats to support civil unions rather than gay marriage, calling it a "cop-out. Most politicians aren't going to have the courage to be that strong."

He especially decried the use of religion by Obama and others as a basis to explain their decision not to support gay marriage, blaming the media for not pursuing that line of questioning. "Where have you seen a reporter call him on that? He uses his religion to explain his views but he was a member of the United Church of Christ, which fully supports marriage for same-sex couples."

But in the end, the president's personal views (Hildebrand says Obama has "come close" to supporting gay marriage) don't matter as much as his public policy positions. And he takes issue with the administration's actions, pointing out that the president's public opposition to Prop 8 and DOMA clashes with his Justice Department's defense of DOMA in the courts. "I would love to see the president campaign vigorously against those discrimination attempts but I haven't seen it with any president yet."

Obama and other Democrats' position on the issue stands in contrast to other political figures who made the transition from gay marriage opponents to supporters.

Most prominently, Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, poignantly described in 2009 how he changed his position:

"I realized that I was over 60 years old. I grew up in a different time ... and I was hung up about it," Clinton said. "I decided I was wrong."

Of course, Clinton was long out of office at that point. Similarly, Laura Bush expressed her support for same-sex marriage this past March, over a year after her husband left office. And Cindy McCain joined the campaign to oppose Prop 8 a year after her husband lost the presidential election to Obama.

Certainly, it is possible that these conversions involve real changes of heart and not political calculation. Roberta Achtenberg, trustee of California State University who served on Obama's transition team, says that she is not of the opinion that all leaders expressing some equivocation about gay marriage are doing that out of political expedience."

She says that when President Obama says he opposes gay marriage, she takes him at his word. And she notes the real regional and generational differences on the issue, noting that while Congress is largely against gay marriage, most Democrats in California's legislature support it.

Those politicians who have taken a view on the issue out of political expedience may wind up regretting their decision, says Freedom to Marry's Wolfson: "If they are making a political calculation, it's a very costly one for them and the country because it's not appeasing any of their opponents and it's disappointing and impeding the strength of their base." He adds, "People may respect people they disagree with but not inauthenticity and pure political calculation -- that doesn't ring true... I don't think there's a single voter that Obama would lose because he openly embraced freedom to marry instead of everything but marriage."

The White House did not return a request for comment by the time of publication.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
This story has been updated Yesterday's ruling overturning California's ban on gay marriage and the White House's mixed response revived a question that has long frustrated gay Americans -- why doesn...
This story has been updated Yesterday's ruling overturning California's ban on gay marriage and the White House's mixed response revived a question that has long frustrated gay Americans -- why doesn...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 890
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (16 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dimme
06:19 AM on 09/10/2010
Of course it's calculated. It's the safest position to hold.
07:06 PM on 08/23/2010
Q: Obama's Opposition To Gay Marriage: Genuine Or Political Calculation?
A: Bigoted!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
04:24 PM on 08/14/2010
Just to put it into perspective.

Pres. Obama made 6 promises to gays and lesbians, 10% of the population. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/gays-and-lesbians/

Pres. Obama made 8 promises to women, over 50% of the population.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/women/

His promises to women did NOT include support of equal rights, such as supporting the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
04:29 AM on 08/14/2010
Either President Obama is in favor of equal human rights (as when he stood up for Muslim freedom of religion in building their Mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero), or he isn't. It's really problematic when "conviction" turns into "vacillation."

His actions and speech say that he does not profoundly support human equal rights, and that's quite an obstacle for me as a voter.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OBroadhurst
My politics do not meet guidelines.
04:44 PM on 08/09/2010
I really do not have an answer to that question.

What I do know is this: Calculated or reflecting of his true beliefs, his opposition is wrong.
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
04:30 AM on 08/14/2010
How "true" is a belief when it only holds up some of the time?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
01:04 PM on 08/09/2010
If it is a political calculation is won't pay off. Anti-gay bigots will hate him anyway because he is not overtly anti-gay, and progressives and others who care about equal rights are turned off by the equivocating. If he really believes that marriage is just between a man and a woman, then he is not the consitutional scholar he claims to be, and he is simply narrow minded.

And I wish that everyone would stop referring to "gay marriage." There is no such thing. What the issue is about is marriage, and denying it to a group of people. The more apt term, albeit it too lengthy for sound bite journalism, is marriage for every American who fulfills age requirements, one person+one person = marriage.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
03:44 PM on 08/10/2010
Given the evidence, I'd say it is pretty clear it is calculation, but for what?

He is pandering to numb skulls that will never come over to his side.

It is like the reaching out to Republicans over and over again resulting in tremendous loss w/ no gain.

I'm with you. It won't pay off.

It is like I say on the immigration issue "He could nuke Mexico and it still wouldn't be good enough b/c he'd still be black and he'd still be a Democrat."

So, if they are going to make you pay the price for being a progressive anyway, why not be one?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
04:25 PM on 08/10/2010
"So, if they are going to make you pay the price for being a progressive anyway, why not be one?"

Amen. And it is beyond me why this is not the White House practice.
12:43 AM on 08/09/2010
He is on the wrong side of this issue. In the end I voted for him knowing all of this was based on religious bs. I didn't like it but that's all we had. I have absolutely no problem calling him a bigot because that's what it IS.
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
04:31 AM on 08/14/2010
As the ol' saying goes: "If the shoe fits, kick yourself with it."
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ColinStevens
06:06 PM on 08/08/2010
He plays the long game. That should be clear by now. Obama's accomplished more in terms of positive legislation for the middle class and America's future in a year and a half than Clinton and Carter were able to in their combined twelve years. He knows how to play the game, and mark my words - before his first term ends, DADT will have been repealed - and by the end of his second term (and he WILL win a second term, in a landslide), gay marriage will be legal in the United States.
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
04:33 AM on 08/14/2010
Leaving the repeal of DADT up to confirmation from military superiors means this could drag out indefinitely. Their 100,000 surveys have elicited less than 10% return, and it's past deadline. The only fair opinion is that the issue DOES NOT MATTER to 90% of military officers and their families.
02:38 PM on 08/08/2010
A couple of months before the presidential primary began, I heard a public radio report with a tape of Obama saying that he opposed Gay marriage because of his Christian beliefs. That very same tape was used in robocalls--one of which came on my home phone--in favor of Prop 8 on election day. He did nothing to stop or disavow those calls. He shares the view of those who voted for Prop 8. BTW, I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the tape.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
03:36 PM on 08/07/2010
If he delivers on his campaign promises, it should not matter if he is genuine or calculated.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/294/support-repeal-of-the-defense-of-marriage-act/
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
04:59 AM on 08/14/2010
It does matter if he is genuine or calculated. It would be nice to know if he is a leader of solid principle or a salesman given to whim and pressure.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
03:08 PM on 08/14/2010
Principled leadership in Washington. Well, I hope I live to see it.

I think it is pretty evident that it is calculated. I'd guess he would tell you that he is a pragmatist.

Look, we had a short period from 1972 to 1980 when both parties favored legal equality for women. The elder Bvsh included. Reagan told him that to be the VP he'd have to renounce his support of women's rights. Now, we're talking about HALF the population and something both parties had supported. And he did it. He stood b/4 the Republican nation convention and renounced women.

I remember thinking, but if you hold that another human being is equal, isn't that so much more than opinion? Isn't that a deeply held value? Well, evidently not for the elder Bvsh and not for many politicians.

Thanks largely the elder Bvsh's betrayal of women, the Equal Rights Amendment, 30 years later, still has not been ratified and women still do not have constitutional and legal equality in the US.

Plus Obama was getting dumb advice about it being the kiss of death from Clinton and Kerry.
03:24 PM on 08/07/2010
The only thing I like about the democrats is that they're so easy to persuade. They never defend their positions, they always end up moderates.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ColinStevens
06:08 PM on 08/08/2010
Actually, our positions are always vindicated - then we just move on to other issues.

The only thing I like about conservatives is that they're gullible. They always end up on the wrong side of history.
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
04:53 AM on 08/14/2010
When conservative voters are repeatedly promised "no abortion" and "no gay rights," and nothing happens, they continue to swallow it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SweetBabu
Don't wanna cry, so I guess I'll laugh
01:34 PM on 08/07/2010
Have any Democrats in Congress, especially those who I'd consider more liberal, come out in favor of gay marriage? Grayson, Kucinich, any of them?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
01:48 PM on 08/07/2010
Yes.

Kucinich, for example:

"Same-Sex Marriage:
Kucinich supports same-sex marriage. On his campaign website he says, "I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. For that reason I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice.""

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/workschool/p/DennisKucinich.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SweetBabu
Don't wanna cry, so I guess I'll laugh
02:30 PM on 08/07/2010
Ah Dennis, how I love him!!! He wasn't on the ballot for me to vote for in the Dem primary in 2008 (he had already dropped out by the time the primaries came to my state), but some day I do hope to vote for him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
01:22 PM on 08/09/2010
Besides Kucinich:
Barbara Boxer
Russ Feingold
Bernie Sanders
Ron Wyden
Patrick Leahy
Nancy Pelosi (although her reference to this as a state by state issue is troubling because it is a 14th Amendment of the US Consititution issue)
. ..
Barney Frank

And the more accurate term is not "gay marriage," it's marriage equality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SweetBabu
Don't wanna cry, so I guess I'll laugh
04:18 PM on 08/09/2010
Thanks for the info, both about the congresspersons and about the correct terminology. I'll remember that. But how sad is it that of over 400 congresspeople and 100 senators, these are the only ones who've gone on record in support of equality? Shameful, absolutely shameful.
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
04:40 AM on 08/14/2010
Thanks for straightening out the terminology. "Marriage Equality" is truer and includes everyone, and I believe more people would support it. "Gay Marriage" is a divisive term and indicates "them, over there."
01:15 PM on 08/07/2010
Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is also opposed to same sex marriage.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
01:49 PM on 08/07/2010
And everyone else says that is a lie.
09:52 AM on 08/08/2010
"...that is a lie."

Which part? That she is Dr. King's niece or that she supports marriage? Or both?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
01:59 PM on 08/07/2010
The NAACP and Julian Bond support marriage equality and opposed Prop. 8.
09:54 AM on 08/08/2010
I am very sorry to hear that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
01:31 PM on 08/09/2010
Speaking at last October's National Equality Rally, Bond frames the issue eloquently and accurately:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMZQEXTMM1g
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiHxMhVA5GA
09:59 AM on 08/07/2010
It makes no sense for gay groups to ask the President to comitt suicide on behalf of the gay community. President Obama has taken it as far as he could, any further he will get a backlash from his own base and with good reason:

No society in the history of humanity has ever allowed gay marriage and to try and do it all in one generation is destructive to the fabric of the society overall and adds nothing of essence (only appearance) to gay existance. Changes of this magnitude should always be slow. Sure, those who have a stake in the issue will be frustrated but for the society as a whole we need to be slow and sure.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
juzcuz
10:10 AM on 08/07/2010
You say, "Changes of this magnitude should always be slow and sure"??? How slow can we go? Gays have been waiting for equal rights for a long time. And the fact that you said 'Obama shouldn't 'commit suicide' over this matter' and 'adds nothing of essence'... ruffles my feathers too.
Now that we know where you stand, we'll know to ignore the rest of your comments for a long long time.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
FlamingLibrul
10:12 AM on 08/07/2010
No society in the history of humanity has ever allowed gay marriage

You might want to do a little research before making blanket statements like that. When gay marriage resumes in America, the fabric of society and the foundations of your life will not crumble. Gay people mingle with the rest of society, out in the open (gasp!), and the sky has yet to fall.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
SPQR1052
10:16 AM on 08/07/2010
ignorance aint purtty. lol

fanned 1275
09:01 PM on 08/07/2010
No society in the history of humanity has ever allowed gay marriage
09:53 AM on 08/07/2010
Many of the comments I read here are utterly horrifying...and homophobic. Of course marriage can be legislated by federal law, just as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed unequal application of voter registration requirements or of racial segregation in public schools, in the workplace and in public facilities. Moreover, marriage has been regulated by the government in many moments of our country's history: the 1862 Morrill Bigamy Act and the odious Defense of Marriage Act which set up marriage as "being" between a man and a woman in 1996. Imagine if Loving v. Virginia (1967) had resulted in supporting Virginia's anti-miscegination statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924"? In the end 1967 was the year the federal government supported marriage by overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883), ending all "race"-based restrictions on marriage?

That people still do not question DOMA or robotically repeat the discriminatory clichés against same-sex couples is astonishing. Why not revert back to questioning the validity of the "mixed-race" marriage? This is the precise spirit of any discriminatory definition of marriage.
09:54 AM on 08/07/2010
Nota bene: To those who write "They have the same rights as every one else they really want special rights but don't realize it" and "I support civil unions, but do not support calling it marriage", I really want to simultaneously laugh and cry. The use of the words "they" and "it" demonstrate your homophobia front and center. For when I speak of our rights as Americans, I cannot start to create an apartheid directory of rights where "they" and "we" become signifiers of equality. The very moment we separate "them" from "us" we have long traipsed over that slippery slope of hypocrisy and are well into the spoils of segregation. In short, we cannot speak of democracy without eliminating seperate pronouns and engaging in a discussion of marriage across ethnic and sexed boundaries. Once and for all.
12:07 PM on 08/07/2010
Beautifully expressed, disfasia, and absolutely true.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
SPQR1052
10:02 AM on 08/07/2010
point. only one race and its called human... excluding 'baggers which no scientific term has been established for that breed/spieces... yet.