The criticism I get: Progressives want the president of the
United States to take a firm stand in favor of 100 percent equal marriage
rights for all Americans. Period. I would love that, but while I absolutely
believe that Obama supports gay marriage in his heart, I also understand why
he’s been reluctant to say so. The political system in which our national
politicians operate does not make it easy to take such a stand.
The criticism I can’t fathom: The message from Obama’s team
on same-sex marriage is inconsistent, and it shows a lack of discipline. That’s
garbage. It more likely shows a nuanced political approach to an issue that
shouldn’t be so politicized, but unfortunately, it is.
Like most progressives, I support equal marriage rights with
as much enthusiasm as I support anything. Nothing frustrates me more than a
bunch of straight people casting ballots that say gays and lesbians shouldn’t
have the same rights as them, especially those straight people who supposedly
get their direction from book that’s thousands of years old. I would like a
constitutional amendment that prohibits any state from preventing gay marriage.
I’m pretty sure I won’t see that in my lifetime.
Nevertheless, it’s kind of understandable why Obama has
handled gay rights the way he has. Every so often he does something that
indicates he’s on the side of progressives and gay activists. He verbally
supports repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; his administration decides it won’t
enforce DOMA; he claims his position on the subject is “evolving”; he signs the
repeal of DADT; he sends his aides and VP out to declare their support of gay
rights, in varying degrees.
Meanwhile, he won’t say something that hurts him in a swing
state where voters may like his economic policies but are socially
conservative. And therein lies the problem with our system. A small majority of Americans are fine with gay marriage,
but the majority of Americans won’t count during November’s election. The
majority of registered voters in a handful of swing states will make all the
difference, and many of these voters base their decision on cultural issues
that will never impact their lives (i.e., abortion, gun rights, Catholics and
contraception, gay marriage). These are the people Obama must appeal to if he
wants a second term.
We have a foolish system for electing the president. Not
only are most states winner-take-all contests, but electoral votes are granted
based on a state’s total of representatives + senators; in other words, it’s the
number that it should be, plus two, which makes it disproportionate and gives
small states more influence than they deserve. If you vote in California, New
York or Texas, large states where the outcome is a given, then you are, for all
intents and purposes, disenfranchised. If you live in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana
or Florida, for example, your vote matters. For the record, gay marriage is
legal in none of those states.
My regret here is that if Obama loses in November, we can
all forget about our leader openly supporting gay rights for at least another
four years, and that would be a terrible blow to the cause. What would it mean
to have the president stand up and say, “I support gay marriage,” rather than,
“I support civil unions, and I believe gay marriage should be decided by the
states”? I’d hate to see the president wait for a day that never comes.
That said, Abraham Lincoln, the “Great Emancipator,” drove
radicals so crazy with his plodding pace on the slavery issue that many wanted
to see him defeated for the 1864 Republican nomination. But Lincoln sought to
gently guide public opinion without taking any drastic steps (remember, the
Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free the South’s slaves since he had
no say over the South at the time).
If Obama proclaimed his support for full marriage equality
in a speech next week, I’d be thrilled. But I don’t think he will, and
unfortunately, I understand why.
Posts
