Thursday, May 10, 2012

Obama's "Courageous" Evolution on Gay Marriage

President Obama's personal journey on the subject of gay marriage advocacy reached a new point yesterday, which incidentally, is where he was on the subject in 1996 when he was running for a seat in the Illinois State Senate.  Heading today to the West Coast and the arms of George Clooney, the President is being hailed as a conquering hero by the echo chamber that is the Hollywood/Mainstream Media Nexus.  His "evolution" (a term the media usually frames as "flip-flop" when applied to Republicans, or when someone comes to a conclusion antithetical to their views) is not a sign of political courage, so much as it is a sign of growing desperation in the White House.

Let's face it.  No one, and I mean no one, is surprised that Barack Obama said what he did yesterday.  Most of us believed that his affirmation of straight marriage for so long was a coldly political calculation, and that he personally believed as much of his political base believes.  Now, the cat is out of the bag.

But why NOW?  Everyone's blaming it on Joe Biden, but Biden only let slip a policy change that had already been made, maybe a bit earlier than it was going to be announced.  The reason we see this now is a growing sense of desperation in the White House, which Democratic guru James Carville laid out for all of us the other day.  The President could lose this election, and they are running scared.   The bottom line here is the bottom line--and that is, Wall Street money--which was on Obama's side in 2008, isn't there after four years of pummeling from Pennsylvania Avenue.  The next best place for the President to raise money is from Hollywood, which has expressed some discomfort with the President's previously held position on the issue.  A change of mind can and will lead to more money from a newly enthused pro-gay marriage community.  That is why the President evolved--once again, a cold political calculation.

To review--my position on gay marriage is the same as my position on straight marriage.  Government should be out of it altogether.  Marriage should be a social/religious convention, and government should have no role in it.  Including collecting a disproportionate amount of tax money from the non-married.


"The Hammer" said...

It's all about the money.

Tom de Plume said...

"Most of us believed that his affirmation of straight marriage for so long was a coldly political calculation...“

Does Michelle ever wonder if his decision to marry a black woman was the same kind of cold political calculation?

Newer Post Older Post Home