From Washington Blade:
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Friday he wouldn’t rule “in or out” the possibility of President Obama endorsing same-sex marriage in the upcoming State of the Union address.
Carney made the remarks on whether Obama would announce support for marriage equality during the State of the Union address, which is set to take place Tuesday before a joint session of Congress, in response to a question from the Washington Blade.
“I will not rule anything in or out,” Carney said. “I’m just not going to talk about — beyond pointing at his words — his personal views on this. I think his administration’s policies on related issues are there for people to judge.”
Most people of reasonable intelligence and common sense have long figured that the President’s declared ambivalence about gay marriage was a crock; and I think more than a few others were, like myself, of the opinion that he’d throw his weight behind SSM if he were lucky enough to get a second term. The assumption behind that supposition and that scenario is that there’s no upside to the President publicly endorsing the normative definition of marriage of his class, and that there was considerable downside in his doing so.
None other than Dan Savage himself explained why:
While national polls show a slim majority of Americans now support marriage equality, supporters of marriage equality aren’t evenly distributed throughout all 50 states. They’re over-represented in populous blue states that Obama is going to carry, under-represented in purple states that he needs to carry, and thin in the ground in red states that he has no hope of carrying. Electoral College Goddam. And maybe I’m a pessimist… but… I don’t think Obama endorsing marriage equality would convince any Republicans who support marriage equality (all six of them) to vote for him, I don’t think it by itself would convince independents to vote for him, and I think it would convince some conservative Democrats to vote against him.
What I think we’re all forgetting — or couldn’t have known all the way back in 2011, when Savage wrote the above — is that, in an almost deliciously ironic twist, Team Obama has decided to run in 2012 a base-centric campaign the likes of which we haven’t seen since… well, the last time an embattled and divisive President was going for reelection. And that’s pretty interesting in and of itself; it used to be the absolute most ironclad conventional wisdom of American politics that one could not win the White House unless one tilted (sometimes to the point of becoming horizontal) to the median voter.
But this country’s political system has changed dramatically in the past generation, and the mushy middle has increasingly receded as voters gravitated towards one ideological pole or another. In a more or less evenly-divided country, playing towards the base — implementing the Rovian 50%+1 strategy — makes a lot of sense. Still, we’re slow to recognize the kind of sociological change this would reflect, and generally we only see it for what it is after it’s long been standing in front of our noses.
{ 12 comments }
Do you think maybe this move would be calculated to energize the Republican base? Drive the fundies nuts so that they go with Gingrich or Santorum rather than Romney — and thus serve up to Obama an easier opponent come November?
Burt gets +5 cynic points in his war with Tod as “most cynical”. This was my first thought, too.
Given that, I’d be kinda pissed at Obama if he did (if I was gay), especially given the first term’s lukewarm nonsupport.
What now?
That would be some serious 11-dimensional chess. Maybe the thought is that anyone who’d really care enough *not* to vote for him isn’t probably voting for him anyway… not to mention the fact that they know they absolutely have to get the youth vote out at least substantially if not quite to the unprecedented degree of ’08. This is a big deal issue with young people; and as Cuomo has (unfortunately) shown, being right on this one can cover up a lot of blemishes.
(All of this is a big “if” of course.)
I am ordinarily very reluctant to say “My policy preference makes for good politics,” but in this case I really believe it does.
(And not because of 11th-dimensional chess.)
It also has the advantage of highlighting the cognitive dissonance of those who who simultaneously oppose SSM and hold Newt as their champion of family values.
I also wonder if it’s calculated to help the down ticket races in the House and Senate. So not 11-dimensional chess, but at least a 3-dimensional stratagem.
I’ll believe it when I hear it. But boy, I’d sure love to hear it.
Hrmph, I’ll echo Russell but be slightly harsher. When guessing what course Obama will choose I assume minimum spine stiffness, minimum testicular fortitude and then predict from there. I could see him maybe coming out for SSM post election but I’m very skeptical that he’ll come out before.
Newt Gingrich/Sarah Palin will be the result of this, if it is true, which I’m not saying it is. You mark my words! The Obamaites are cowards, first and foremost, as we all know. Followers, not leaders, in every sense. But what if that match-up wins?! they’re playing with some fearsome fire.
Is this based on anything more than your own animosity to Obama?
Mr. Brooks, Senator Smith learned some things in the last year and now is more consistent with our American Constitution in casting his vote for same-sex marriage. He now understands all good Americans deserve equal treatment. He may not know that there is a huge trove of scientific evidence that supports his contention because we in the scientific community have been silent. And I am going to be honest, too. This comment underscores the grievous and longstanding failure of the medical community to share with the general public the evidence that proves that sexual orientation and gender identity are determined well before birth and deserve accommodation in public law. That is why good-hearted people like you clearly are, are not yet in favor of same-sex marriage.
Truth is, sexuality and gender identity are biological and unchangeable, as congenital as handedness, height, hair color or shoe size. Following are some of the findings from more than 70 years (since you were born!) of published scientific research that explain why:
In the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the developing baby is exposed to variable levels of hormones that confer numerous traits, called “sexually dimorphic” traits. These include bone structure (men are usually taller, women have longer index fingers), certain brain structures, and certain physical and cognitive skills (men have better low-pitched hearing, better throwing skills; women better at linguistics). Along with this array of traits comes a sense of orientation (most prefer the opposite sex) and gender (most identify with their genital anatomy).
However, nature does not confer these traits in binary fashion. Instead they are expressed across a broad spectrum, with thousands of variations. More than fifty published research studies in the National Library of Medicine conclude that transgender people and homosexual men and women are born with traits closer to the center or opposite-gender end of that spectrum. They are born with a mix of stereotypically male and female orientation and identity, as well as cognitive and physiologic skills, bone anatomy and brain circuitry that are also more similar to the skills or features of the opposite sex. In fact, over 450 species have been documented to show homosexual activity or life-long pairings as evidence of their own spectrum of natural behavior.
Research confirms the link between early hormone exposure and sexually dimorphic traits. When a girl baby develops with a missing adrenal enzyme, the male hormone androgen accumulates in the baby’s blood. Most of these female infants will have boy-like play activity levels, bone structure, and up to half of the girls will later identify as lesbian. A few will be transgender. Furthermore, research shows that girls who had a boy co-twin in their mothers’ wombs have more male-like bone structure, and are more likely to identify as lesbian later in life. This is because the baby girl’s brain received some of her co-twin’s male hormones through their shared amniotic fluid membranes.
For baby boys, any subtle decrease in the usual level of androgens during the first part of pregnancy can increase his chance of becoming a gay male or transsexual. Seventeen published research reports have concluded that boys with many older brothers are more likely to be gay than boys with fewer older brothers. Why? Because every pregnant mother receives proteins from her baby boy’s blood that her body perceives as foreign, causing her to develop blocking antibodies to neutralize and remove them. With each successive boy pregnancy, the mother makes more blocking antibodies, progressively reducing the level of androgen exposure to each subsequent male child. In recognition of the scientific evidence, both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association have issued policy statements confirming that sexual orientation and gender identity are biologically conferred.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation; homosexual relationships are normal relationships. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage and adoption for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors. Research confirms that the children develop perfectly normally. Visit their websites to confirm these heavily evidence-based policies.
If America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality, then any other objection is personal bigotry or personal religiosity.
Social responsibility is one of the core tenets of medicine, but we don’t speak out. AMA Principles of Medical Ethics require physicians to “…recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.” Accordingly, when the medical community possesses scientific information that is relevant to public debate and affects the health and welfare of certain societal groups, the leaders of the medical community have an obligation to disseminate this information to the public. It makes a difference for the community to know these facts. Now that you know that LGBT’s are born that way, truly, don’t you also favor same sex marriage?
Kate O’Hanlan,
Thank you for words
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 3 trackbacks }