Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peter Worthington

GET UPDATES FROM Peter Worthington
 

Obama's "Evolution" on Gay Marriage Won't Cost Him Votes

Posted: 05/18/2012 11:54 am

By his conversion to supporting gay marriage, U.S. President Barack Obama may have neutralized any Democratic plans in the presidential campaign of accusing Mitt Romney of flip-flopping on issues.

Up to now, Obama has repeatedly said that he believed "marriage" was between a man and woman, and not same sexes, although he's always insisted that gays, lesbians, people in same-sex unions, should have the same rights as everyone else.

Most Americans (and Canadians) would agree with that, though most probably believe that marriage should apply to opposite sex couples. If so, the debate is over the word "marriage," not the fact of same-sex couple pledging their lives to each other.

Obama doesn't acknowledge that he's flip-flopped on the "marriage" aspect; he says he's "evolved" to that belief, encouraged by his wife and daughters.

Speculation now is whether his conversion was politically motivated, and whether it will hurt or help him in the November election -- which now consume his every waking hour. Apparently, Obama is involved in more fundraisers than all the presidents combined since Richard Nixon.

A Fox News poll puts Obama seven points ahead of Romney, while Political guru Dick Morris says Romney leads Obama by 10 points. By supporting gay marriages, Obama may have lost the Evangelical vote -- assuming he ever had it, which is doubtful.

I suspect most people (like me) don't give a damn who marries whom.

On this issue, Romney remains constant and immovable: Marriage is between a man and woman. Period. And he doesn't like same-sex "unions" either.

So lines of distinction are clear and un-blurred.

That said, Romney also makes it clear that the issue of sexual preference has nothing to do with being treated fairly, decently, equally. It's hard to argue against that, and perhaps puts the whole matter into perspective.

Those who suggest the die-hard, anti-gay-marriage faction won't like Obama's evolution to gay enlightenment miss a key point. They probably wouldn't vote for him anyway. On balance, he'll likely lose more votes than he gains, since most probably disapprove of same sex marriage.

The president's personal views on gay marriages may carry some influence, but have no legal clout. Seven states have legalized gay marriages, over 30 have ruled that "marriage" is an institution that applies only to the union of a man and a woman.

Doubtless, more states will start legalizing same-sex marriages. It's the future, just as homosexuals being welcomed -- well, being accepted -- in the military has become routine. The "Don't ask, don't tell" dictum in the military that seemed reasonable and sensible to some, has been ruled discriminatory, unjustified and unnecessary.

Right now there's a problem about how a legally married gay couple can get a divorce in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriages.

One wonders if Obama's flip-flop was dictated at this precise moment by conviction, or politics. Clearly he sees it as a vote-getter, otherwise he'd have shut up and let the issue lie.

Same-sex marriages are more a case of national curiosity than national importance. Those who think the economy is moving, recovering even, might look at unemployment figures -- which recently, showed a slight drop. What this means is not more jobs, but more people giving up looking for work, who have surrendered to welfare and no longer figure on unemployment roles. One-third of America isn't working.

That's not hopeful, but it's a reality that befuddles the Obama administration.

 
FOLLOW CANADA
By his conversion to supporting gay marriage, U.S. President Barack Obama may have neutralized any Democratic plans in the presidential campaign of accusing Mitt Romney of flip-flopping on issues. ...
By his conversion to supporting gay marriage, U.S. President Barack Obama may have neutralized any Democratic plans in the presidential campaign of accusing Mitt Romney of flip-flopping on issues. ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:44 PM on 05/20/2012
Judging by his sitting in the Pew listening to Rev Wright for 20 years, I'd say it was purely political. Reminds me of Mayor Millers stand on the bridge to the Island. Sure takes the heat off real world issues.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
YankeeCanuck
dog
02:08 PM on 05/20/2012
Neocons can;t stand Obama. He's a thinking President.
03:23 PM on 05/19/2012
Hopefully, every thinking person changes his or her mind, sometimes overnight and sometimes slowly, during a lifetime. That is what leads to societal progress and civil rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
foogie
The Credible Hulk
11:17 PM on 05/18/2012
The term 'flip-flop', with its negative connotations, is remarkably overused. Every time a politician changes his or her position on an issue it is considered a 'flip-flop' and s/he is raked over the coals for it.

Don't we want leaders who occasionally listen to the facts (and even the electorate!) and change their minds? Isn't that better than politicians who blindly and stubbornly conform to a narrow worldview and refuse to reconsider their positions even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence and/or public opinion?

True, if a politician changes positions as a matter of course and with far too little pressure, that is a bad thing as s/he is demonstrating little conviction or independent thought.

But isn't there a sizeable grey area in between those two extremes? Personally, that's where I'd like my leaders to be.

Let's save the 'flip-flop'per label for those habitual offenders, not just someone who changes his or her mind every once in a while. Otherwise it become diluted and, eventually, meaningless.