As much as I wish he'd openly support full marriage rights, its not like it would actually matter much right now. It's not like we're going to see a marriage bill at the federal level anytime soon. He's not defending DOMA which is about the best that is going to happen.

With the exception of the DOMA lawsuit this is basically a state level battle for now.

Trying to get him to pay a political price for a symbolic gesture is just silly.

agree with dan and #1

Speaking of 16 years old...

That's the smart way to fight.

"The country is moving our way..." Yes, with pitchforks and battle axes. Heterobreeders know what's polite to say in public and do. But, deep down they support the latest round of conservative attacks against our community. Frankly, I expect things to get worse, much worse.

They don't mind if someone is gay - as long as it's not their kid or their kid's teacher or anyone their kid will come in contact with.

If the Briggs Initiative were put on the ballot today - I have no doubt that it would pass.

as a heterobreeder, I say fuck you, iqub. Nice of you to paint all us poor unenlightened straight folk with a very broad, biased brush. And thank you for telling me how I feel, that I don't mind if someone is gay, as long as it's not one of my kids , or one of their teachers, or anyone they might come in contact with. Wow, I was so confused before, allowing my gay brother in law and his partner of 6 years to be involved in their neices' lives. And to have vocally defended teachers' rights to living as they choose without public scrutiny or censure--how fucked up was I? Now I know better, can't tell you how grateful I am to you for telling me what I really think.

And by the way, go fuck yourself.

Look gay rights in 20-30 years is going to be looked at the same way civil rights are now? How have we not always had this?

BTW I saw this as a straight male

It's a pretty commonly held fallacy among people who don't understand science that evolution necessarily moves species forward. That isn't necessarily the case. Species adapt to their environment or die. They can and do "de-evolve" (become less intelligent and agile) if that's what their environment requires for optimal survival.

I dunno.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. There are a few questions: how much do gay rights opponents overlap with people who would consider voting for Obama? How many gay rights opponents or people on the fence might be convinced to switch if major politicians like Barack Obama, the Clintons and other Democratic establishment figures who might be willing to throw their lot in with Obama? How many Obama voters would really vote for the Republicans because of this issue? I would guess that not that many homophobic black Democrats would change their votes because of that issue, because they know the GOP doesn't have their economic interests at heart and duh, it's a black president.

And another question is: How much would the gay, liberal and youth vote be energized by Obama coming out in favor of gay marriage? Not as much as if he had passed a public option or single payer, for sure (I probably put more importance on that than on gay marriage) but it would definitely help.

If a majority of Americans truly do support marriage equality now, and the trendline continues on its current trajectory, supporters will be at 53-56% by November of next year (the trendline has been about 1% more support per year since the mid-90s, but in the past two years its jumped up by about 8 points). A lot of the people who remain in the anti-marriage minority are people who wouldn't vote for Obama, or people who are so reliably Democratic that they will not change their votes (black, socially conservative Democrats and those who place higher importance on economic issues). And if the population is more polarized than ever, it decreases the importance of appealing to swing voters (some of whom might be swayed towards Obama by him coming out in favor of marriage equality) and increases the importance of getting your voters to show up.

Basically, I don't think that the political calculation is as obvious as you do. I don't think, however, it would be good for him to come out in favor of gay marriage until closer to the election (giving the GOP less time to come out with a smear campaign against us, and allowing more time for people to change their positions naturally). And hell, there might be some people who are impressed by Obama doing something a bit risky for once.

It might be that it would be overall a neutral move. I'm sure that there are plenty of analysts on his team who are looking at the polling and looking at enthusiasm and all those things so if there's good reason to think it will help or hurt him, he'll know about it.

@6, word.

Yeh. And let's attack Iraq too. Will do wonders for improving the status of women in the world etc.

You may be right Dan, but when it comes to politics you are seriously not trustworthy.

Actually, he's been designed by a higher power to oppose gay marriage.

The reason why political activists (of any stripe) are so lousy at political analysis is that their predictions are powerfully influenced by their emotional investment in the outcome. When things are going well, activists tend to overestimate the probability of the desired outcome; when they experience setbacks (such as today's postponement of the marriage equality vote in New York) they tend to underestimate those same probabilities.

Dan, what statistical facts did you rely on when you concluded that marriage equality is a "vote loser"? Which surveys do you base that on? Did those surveys sample all adults, or likely voters? Of which political parties? In which swing states? How have those surveys trended over time, and how did you extrapolate their results out to November 2012?

Oh, I see. You didn't actually base your analysis on data, you just pulled it out of your ass based on how you felt this particular afternoon. Well, don't take it too hard. Plenty of experienced people have been fooled by assumption drag. Jesse Jackson once famously discounted the possibility that Barack Obama could actually win the Presidency since Jesse's whole life experience told him that a black man could never be President. Until it happened, that is. Major sociopolitical shifts are notoriously difficult to predict.

Given how the issue has been polling among Independents and Democrats, I think it's possible that Barack Obama may come out in favor of marriage equality prior to Election Day 2012, particularly if he thinks he might be embarrassed on this issue the way he was on the DADT repeal. The political effect might be to reinforce an existing trend toward marriage equality, placing the Republicans at a disadvantage. Presidents are not passive spectators in American politics; they create their own weather. I don't know whether or not Obama will shift his position; but if he does, you can rest assured that his political analysis won't be as emotiona-driven and data-free as yours.

"Heterobreeders know what's polite to say in public and do. But, deep down they support the latest round of conservative attacks against our community. Frankly, I expect things to get worse, much worse"

Sorry, igub, but you have me all wrong. While I don't deny that there are fellow heterobreeders out there with that attitude, I am not one of them. My only hope for my two children is that they grow up to be compassionate adults with integrity. And, I will continue to stand for justice and equality. But, you maybe correct in thinking that the attacks will get worse, but
that is because the tide has turned and it is not uncommon for a loosing side to become exceedingly desperate as the battle comes to a close.

So, in my opinion it is okay to lash out in frustration. Just know that some of us heterobreeders do have your back. To us you are our family and friends.

I don't think we all need to pile on iqub there. There's millions of us pro-gay "hetero-breeders" out here, and I'm pretty sure he was not so eloquently speaking of a specific subset of this contingent. Moreover, I think Dan is right on here -- would love to think Barack will be able to come out full on pro-equality after he's re-elected, but the unfortunate reality is that even THEN a potential endorsement of the 2016 (hopefully, dare I say) progressive nominee could be a factor.

What's more, this current generation of youth voters is demonstrably and indisputably liberal. Biden was absolutely correct when he called gay marriage an inevitability, just hope that it happens sooner rather than later.

Um, yeah, @5...maybe I don't qualify as a heterobreeder, as I'm doing everything in my power to NOT reproduce, but I AM hetero. And I have no love for the "latest round of conservative attacks" on ANYTHING. Gay rights, women's rights, reproductive rights, voting rights, progressive economic policies...all of it. I reject the whole banana. I don't care if ANYONE is gay...my friend, my neighbor, my coworker, my kid...outside of my boyfriend (for obvious reasons), I just. don't. care. I mean, I DO care...I want everyone to be as happy as possible, but outside of increasing my property value and having the most fabulous bars (both of which are GOOD things), gay people have no effect on me and I just can't fathom why equal rights are such a tough issue. It's not like me, or my boyfriend, or anyone else I know who is straight is going to suddenly turn gay just because gay people are accepted and granted full rights. We have legal gay marriage and a huge gay population here in DC, and I've yet to see anyone turn spontaneously gay at exposure.

@6 - I never fuck heterobreeders as I have standards. But, thanks for the offer.

@16 & others like you - I don't give a fuck about your opinion - supportive or unsupportive But if you feel the way you do then spread your message amongst your clan. Most of you are quite content to spread your views amongst teh gays but don't speak up amongst heterosexuals. Talk to them. I'm in the goddamn choir & don't have time to pat you on the back for preaching to us. Preach to the Fucktard assholes who oppose gay adoption & gay marriage.

@6 - and as for fucking myself, well, I never fuck alone. But the advice is much appreciated.

By the way, such a lucky brother in law you have that you "allow" him to participate in the lives of your children. As for me, I feel lucky that my heterosexual siblings wanted to be a part of my children's upbringing. They are family & barring a legitimate safety concern, which their sexual orientation isn't, I never felt the need to "allow" them to be a part of our lives. They simply are. Why would I even ponder the issue given they posed no threat? perhaps I'm nit-picking your words rather than viewing them in the context of the issue to simply hunt down a reason to be angry. Sound familiar? Many heterosexuals voted against Prop 8. But, let's not forget that the fucking majority did. The issue is about the majority of heterosexuals, but your deflection & attempted redirection technique was skillfully played.

So, Obama is either a bigot or a phony. Either way, he's willing to present himself to the world as a bigot in order to get votes. I say DTMFA.

And iqub, if you honestly believe your #5 post, you're every bit as bigoted as the assholes who think being gay is a choice.

Point taken, igub. For the record, I never asked you to pat me on the back. But, I'm clear on the point that you "don't give a fuck" so I won't trouble you any further. Take care.

I'm actually really getting sick of the people over at American blog screeching up a shit storm about the president. This isn't the time to be bitching. Sure the guy's not perfect but he's loads better then the other option.

@ #20 you wanna DTMFA huh what magical world do you live in where your gonna get some one better?

Who knew there were so many Pollyanna heterosexuals floating around. It's actually quite adorable.

Get real. Marriage equality will never be achieved for one simple reason - people have not evolved from the Anita Bryant days. Sure, politeness has taught us that in general conversation we no longer say that gays are a danger to our children. But have you looked at the Prop 8 data? While it's alarming the number of straights & gays who are quite happy to blame the African American community, the reality is that they're not to blame. Opposition to marriage equality amongst that demographic was consistent throughout the campaign. Opposition to Prop 8 faltered amongst white, Bay Area, Democrats (particularly females) who had minor children living at home. When did it falter? Immediately after the "princess" commercial appeared. Now, in fairness, the No on 8 folks did a suck job of countering that message, but the fact remains that the message resonated with a group of people who should & do know that gays don't pose any more danger than straights. But, nonetheless, they bought into the idea. As long as we continue to believe that we need Anita Bryant to Save Our Children then marriage equality will never be won. And, we can't combat the fear of mixing gays & kids if we aren't honest that the fear exists. So, sure, you folks can blame me since it makes you feel better. But, the truth remains that the MAJORITY of heterosexual voters do have the feelings I described. Talk to them. Preach to them. Lecture to them. But, telling me to fuck off makes you feel better because you think I've attacked you. Get real about who is attacking whom. And, be willing to have the courage to recognize that the many, many good people (not evil, scary hard right-wing nut jobs) but good, decent folk still get scared when told that teh gays might endanger their kids. If you aren't honest about it then you can't address it and all this marriage equality talk will just be a waste of fucking time because nobody is going to vote for marriage when they think gays are a threat to kids.

Listen, et all. Everyone needs to take a step back and realize that this is a blog comment thread reverting back to a pro-gay alt paper in Seattle, Washington of all places. This whole community has everyone sides, expecially in these gay-rights fights. You might not believe it in the condos, but the kids at Cha Cha and Comet are feeling the same way. We all, straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or supporters... realize that this is the common good. We don't need to bashing "breeders" or "hardline gays". After living in other cities, and this is going forward with the premise that The Stranger is a predominately Capitol Hill newspaper, because it is in most regards. This city is for you. From Ballard to Fremont to Lake city and all the way south, the openness and visual recognition in this region is catastrophic in a strictly positive way. I read these as enemies battling enemies, but you have almost everything in common.
If you are gay, you want to have the option to get married and have completely, unequivocal rights to others.

If you are straight, whether or not you consider yourself a supporter or not, because some stay away from that label. Every straight person you know in Seattle knows a gaggle of homosexual friends. I can say soundly that every single straight person that I know in this wonderfully "progressive town" is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT behind the gay-rights movement and ALL that it entails. We have to take a step back from this fighting and realize that we are all on the same page IN THIS FIGHT. Those who understand politics and polling can sometimes see it from a different light, when the emotional blinders are finally removed.

We are not that different, and welcome to the neighborhood. A neighborhood that has much more in common with it's neighbors that most admit.

More power to all, and keep fighting.

@23, certainly you can understand that heterosexuals who support gay equality in every way are quite justified in ignoring you when you talk about them the way you did in comment #5.

Also, expecting things to "get worse, much worse," in the face of ever increasing acceptance of homosexuality is a baselessly pessimistic and ultimately useless attitude.

@25 - The fact still remains that the MAJORITY of heterosexual voters continue to approve constitutional amendments banning gay people from getting married. Again, preach to the majority of heterosexual voters - they're the ones who need it. You need to change their minds. But, it's easier to bitch at me - which is why I don't held my breath for any improvement.

And, how do all you marriage equality folks plan to overturn all the state constitutional amendments passed over the last 10 years? Got enough voter support to repeal those?

Remember a few years ago when Jay was really cute? What the fuck happened to him?

I would rather have 4 more years of Obama than some homophobic Republican who's likely to reinstate DADT. With Obama, we know where we stand, and there IS hope that change may come. With a Republican, there's nothing at all. Nothing there, and nothing to look forward to. Once Obama is back in office for his ultimate term, he can start bringing in more controversial legislation. Until then, he needs to woo the swing voters, and I'm okay with that.

@26 we don't need to repeal state constitutional amendments, because if the federal government recognise it and the supreme court supports it then those terms within the state constitutions become themselves unconstitutional, or at best irrelevant.

Much as if a state passed a constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage or abortion.

Obama is nothing if not pragmatic.

Oh, and don't feed the troll.

"Opposition to Prop 8 faltered amongst white, Bay Area, Democrats (particularly females) who had minor children living at home. When did it falter? Immediately after the "princess" commercial appeared."

Shit, apparently I am not watching enough teevee, because I never saw the "princess" commercial. I am a white, female Bay Area democrat with a cute teenage son, and I would never vote to abridge anyone's civil rights. (I'm irreligious, maybe that is the difference.) I have a lot of white, female Bay Area progressive friends and I'll start sniffing around to see if I can figure out who the sly and treacherous ones are. Both straights and gays are welcome to chat up my son; he knows his orientation (even if I don't).

Dan's about half right--but Obama's instinct here isn't self-preservation. If gay marriage gets too closely identified with Obama, it will mobilize the tea party idiots to start campaigning against gay marriage. Obama doesn't want that--he sees how much the poll numbers are moving on their own and so he's going to let things continue to progress at the state level.

In other words, Obama thinks that his publicly endorsing SSM would actually slow SSM down. Which is true on many levels, including the supreme court.

Dan, don't hide behind polls. Tell me the name of someone who supports Barack Obama now but would desert him if he came out for marriage equality.

I agree with Dan. The point is not that Obama would lose potential voters if he came out in favor of marriage equality. The point is that it would be a major election issue, which is exactly the kind of thing the GOP wants. This way, when Obama sticks with a more conservative position that he's free to abandon later, the Republican field has to move even further to the right to make it an issue. Either their rhetoric becomes even more extremist and alienating, or we get a GOP nominee who basically agrees with Obama on this, making it a non-issue for the election. I completely agree that a second Obama term will be different on gay marriage. We've already seen the movement on DADT, but that's because many more people support that change than would support gay marriage outright.

@32 - you might consider reading the research. It's all there. But, hey, sure blame me.

@32 - here's an excerpt. Seriously, read the study. If you can find time to dismount from your high horse, that is...

·         Finding 1: Which Voters Changed Their Minds: A significant number of voters are persuadable on the issue of same-sex marriage. In the Prop 8 campaign, a minimum of 5% of all voters—a minimum of 687,000—changed their views on same-sex marriage in the final six weeks of the campaign. Almost all identifiable demographic groups moved toward the anti-gay position, most notably parents with children under eighteen living at home. Other groups that moved significantly in favor of the ban on same-sex marriage included white Democrats (by 24 points), voters in the greater Bay Area (31 points), voters age 30-39 (29 points), and Independent voters (26 points).

·         Finding 2: The Yes on 8 Ads That Worked: The Yes on 8 “Princes” & “Newsom” ads were effective at exploiting voters’ anti-gay prejudice and moving voters away from same-sex marriage.

Dan's right. It's not that complicated. Obama is a politician. His people have figured out exactly what changing his position (even back to the original one of years ago!) would do. He would lose a per centage of potential Obama voters. Maybe not a huge number, but maybe enough to make the difference.

If the R's nominate one of their many crazy fundies, a lot of rightish people may decide to go for the intelligent sane guy. Like they did the last time. These same rightish people might run right back to the R candidate or not vote if O endorses gay marriage. And as someone pointed out above, imagine the energising of Fox News/Rush/Fundie etc. crowd if he did.

The liberal O voters will vote for him one way or the other, except for the unfortunate zealots over at the otherwise exemplary AmericaBlog. It's the same thing for O on a LOT of issues, as you may have noticed.

It's not very satisfying that O (and his press person) is weaseling out on this. But for progress on this issue, probably actually best for him to sit it out and let the trends continue. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if O does some more evolving on the issue after he's safely reelected. Particularly if NY has gone for gay marriage. (One vote now, goddammit).

I think Obama will continue to try to ignore this issue, hope it will go away, and keep going to HRC cocktail parties. But it will be interesting to see what happens to his positions on other issues when the R's figure out who's running against him. O and his peeps will be recalculating (that's what they do) EVERYTHING based on that.

I was going to say "sane Mormon or insane/pandering to the Teaps" choice, but then I realised that Mormon is just a completely different kind of insane. Even if Harry Reid is one.

@iqup, if you think that pro-gay straight people don't talk to other straights about the issue and don't defend equality in all circumstances, then you really haven't been paying attention to them, which is I suppose to be expected, since you're "in the choir" so you don't reallly have to look.

See, that's the kind of attitude that creates animosity and resentment among people who actually have the same ideas and ideals as you, and who fight for the same cause. I'll bet the homophobes would compliment you for creating hard feelings among their enemies.

And, @igup, note this. You may be right and the situation may be worse for marriage equality than it seems to the 'Pollyanna' people you so sadly despise (despite the fact they're the ones actually changing the situation -- if I were you I'd hope their numbers would go on increasing...).

But if you look over the long run -- at what it was like 50, 100, 200 years ago -- and compare it to now, and you don't see an improvement, and an improvement in the right direction... then I'd say you don't want to.

Maybe you won't get marriage equality in 5, 10, 20 or 50 years, and maybe you will -- the future will tell. But it is coming, sooner or later. Our society would have to get seriously sidetracked (say, another major war) for this to revert.

@42/43 - We should repeal civil rights legislation & tell blacks the same shitard story you're spewing. Do you have an extra chromosome?

@41: the Mormons aren't any more insane than any other type of Christian, just less mainstream.

Well, looks like you were wrong, Dan! And I bet you're happy about it! As am I. =D