Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, December 20, 2011
LGBTQITSLFA Will Obama Endorse Marriage Equality In 2012?
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:06 PM
Richard Socarides thinks he should and thinks he will. Andrew Sullivan says, "It won't happen."
I'm going to go an inch farther (further?) than Andrew and say that not only don't I think it will happen, I don't think it should happen.
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.
Don't get me wrong: I want to see Obama evolve devolve on marriage equality. I want see him to return to his circa-1996 position on marriage equality. And I want to see a pro-marriage-equality president in the White House. But I think our best chance of seeing a pro-marriage-equality president in the White House is to re-elect the president we've got now.
Then we start raising holy evolutionary hell on January 21, 2013.
1
Yep! I wholeheartedly agree.
But I think our best chance of seeing a pro-marriage-equality president in the White House is to re-elect the president we've got now and then start raising holy hell on January 21, 2013.
2
You know, Dan, I always admire your willingness to look at long-term strategy and long-term effects or slow, gradual progression. It's an attitude which seems lacking when people talk policy these days.
3
"But I think our best chance of seeing a pro-marriage-equality president in the White House is to re-elect the president we've got now".
Dan 'let's attack Iraq' Savage: Stupid, or liar?
Dan 'let's attack Iraq' Savage: Stupid, or liar?
4
Absofuckinglutely right. Get him reelected first, then watch how fast he becomes enlightened enough to back marriage equality. Especially if we hold his feet to the fire.
5
I'm looking forward to being a thorn, well more than I already am, in 2013. But that does not mean that I'm going to be quiet in 2012, though.
6
APPROVED! Dan has been reading my brain waves. The last thing Obama needs is a culture war issue in the forefront. I think the devolution will occur within hours of Obama's second oath of office. Lord help him if he doesn't.
7
"Evolutionary hell" sounds like using fucking as a means of civil disobedience/protest. I love it...
9
Wait, why Jan 21st? He will be a sitting Presedent the day after the election... Either way actually.
11
what? is that really Dan Savage thinking ahead and realizing there might be some strategy involved in when and how things happen in politics?
12
@10 - I think he's a good man as well. Of course, the tediously unavoidable truth is, that's not enough. To be effective, a president has to have the arm-twisting and favor-trading skills of an FDR or LBJ. Obama doesn't have that. And it would also help if Obama had the unswerving moral vision of a Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. He doesn't quite have that either - he's a little too easily persuaded by security hawks and Wall Street panderers in his cabinet.
All that said - yeah, basically good guy. Better than the alternatives! And BTW, Dan, are you saying that Obama shouldn't endorse marriage equality in 2012 before the general election? Or are you saying he shouldn't at all because state-by-state progression is the better way to go?
All that said - yeah, basically good guy. Better than the alternatives! And BTW, Dan, are you saying that Obama shouldn't endorse marriage equality in 2012 before the general election? Or are you saying he shouldn't at all because state-by-state progression is the better way to go?
13
Oh Dan, you're falling for Obama's tricks, playing right into his hands. I can't believe you of all people are espousing this rhetoric, "I won't demand civil rights equality, because our best chance at achieving it is being silent and waiting". Your lack of integrity on this issue is sad.
15
Obama is a Christian and probably struggles with the fact that he really does believe that marriage is between man/woman, but politically he's aligned himself with the LGBT community. But honestly, if people don't force his hand in the 2012 elections, I don't see why he will have to follow through on any commitments in his 2nd term.
16
@13/14. Dan has said nothing about maintaining silence and not applying pressure. He has taken Andrew Sullivan's cue on that because Sullivan points out that silence was the tactic of "The Country's Largest LGBT Rights Organization" - HRC, who had the chance to hammer Obama twice on his positions but instead sat with their legs crossed and lifted champagne glasses to his honor when he come into their turf to speak.
Remember: SILENCE = DEATH
It's as true in the struggle for our rights and dignity as it is for the fight against AIDS. Nobody is saying, "Keep your mouth shut." It's a political reality we all must face that to bring the struggle for equality to the forefront of an election when we have a president who gives us the most hope we've ever had being on the virge to no longer having the need to use an expression like, "I'm evolving." Obama doesn't have the LGBT community in his pocket. We can make his life miserable in the 2nd go-around but to killing his promise before he even has a change is suicidal.
Remember: SILENCE = DEATH
It's as true in the struggle for our rights and dignity as it is for the fight against AIDS. Nobody is saying, "Keep your mouth shut." It's a political reality we all must face that to bring the struggle for equality to the forefront of an election when we have a president who gives us the most hope we've ever had being on the virge to no longer having the need to use an expression like, "I'm evolving." Obama doesn't have the LGBT community in his pocket. We can make his life miserable in the 2nd go-around but to killing his promise before he even has a change is suicidal.
18
@5, @14: I'm with Kim: I don't think we should be quite — we should be noisy and make demands and insist on our full equality.
And we should be realistic about what's possible, what's wise, and what's in our short- and long-term best interests.
But, yeah, we should be noisy. It's how we got DADT repealed and it's how we'll get marriage equality. But we have to be strategic.
And we should be realistic about what's possible, what's wise, and what's in our short- and long-term best interests.
But, yeah, we should be noisy. It's how we got DADT repealed and it's how we'll get marriage equality. But we have to be strategic.
19
@15. I have my doubts about Obama's embrace of religion and he pretty much makes it clear in his book "The Audacity of Hope" that he sought a religious connection just to give him some political cred. He's a guy whose parent's marriage was illegal in Alabama when he was born so he knows from experience what base prejudice is at play with same-sex marriage.
21
The President needs to carry states such as North Carolina and perhaps Florida if he hopes to win reelection. Dan's right - if he comes out in favor of marriage equality before the election, his chances of doing so go down significantly. I think he's always had a two-term philosophy on this and other issues. Be patient, have a little faith, give him your support - and then scream and holler after the election.
22
@19 Well if he's a fake Christian he's pretty convincing. Wright and Warren are good picks to align yourself with.
23
As a gay man who's been advocating for marriage equality for more than two decades (I was even on CNN leading a same sex marriage rally in the 80s), I totally agree with Dan 100% on this one.
There is no one else running for president (with a chance to win) who is more gay friendly than Obama. And if we try to make a point by sitting out the election or voting for a protest candidate, it will be worse than four years of inaction (which won't be the case -- we had lots of action the last 4 years and plenty more to come in the next 4). If a homophobe is elected president, we'll squander precious resources fighting homophobic policies just to stay even.
Let's fight like hell in 2013.
There is no one else running for president (with a chance to win) who is more gay friendly than Obama. And if we try to make a point by sitting out the election or voting for a protest candidate, it will be worse than four years of inaction (which won't be the case -- we had lots of action the last 4 years and plenty more to come in the next 4). If a homophobe is elected president, we'll squander precious resources fighting homophobic policies just to stay even.
Let's fight like hell in 2013.
24
I dunno, Dan, maybe "I'll totally vote for you even if you won't stand up for us" isn't the message that you, or any other minority voter, should be sending to Obama, or to Democratic candidates generally.
25
Read about Lincoln and slavery sometimes. It takes a master politician, often speaking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously, to move forward an agenda that truly divides people. You don't keep score day by day. You look back and marvel when it's done at the patience, dedication, and political mastery it took to pull it off.
26
I agree, Dan. Obama most likely will not include marriage equality in his campaign. As you pointed out on Monday, railing against same sex marriage doesn't generate the same political capital it used to. On the other side of that coin, support for marriage equality will not usher in an election-deciding groundswell of support. Voters don't want to hear rants about gays demanding special rights, but they aren't enthused about rectifying this injustice either. Obama sticking to his 1996 position is indeed his best bet.
However, taking off my strategist cap; Obama should not be exempt, at any point between now and the time he leaves office, from the righteous anger of equality supporters. This includes the threat of withdrawing support, financial and otherwise. He and his team need to understand that we are an integral part of his voting coalition.
However, taking off my strategist cap; Obama should not be exempt, at any point between now and the time he leaves office, from the righteous anger of equality supporters. This includes the threat of withdrawing support, financial and otherwise. He and his team need to understand that we are an integral part of his voting coalition.
27
@25. That's an interesting observation. Sort of like LBJ and the civil rights bill of '64, which almost certainly would not have passed had he not insisted on it, and used his decades of procedural knowledge of the Senate to ram that legislation through from the White House. I agree, however, that right now is not the time for Obama to do something like that.
28
The important number here is not the number of Americans who support marriage equality. Even the statistic that a slim majority are on the right side of the equation is misleading. What really matters is the number of Americans who both support marriage equality and also vote.
60% of seniors aged 65+ vote, while 20% of 18-24 year olds show up at the polling places. Overall, voter turnout is typically less than 50%. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo…
What really matters is getting the majority out to vote.
60% of seniors aged 65+ vote, while 20% of 18-24 year olds show up at the polling places. Overall, voter turnout is typically less than 50%. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo…
What really matters is getting the majority out to vote.
29
Given the considerable energy and political capital he did NOT expend on getting DADT repealed, I don't think Obama endorsing marriage equality would convince many gay Democrats of his commitment to the cause anyway, so he might as well stay in the closet.
30
Mr Savage, you are not a pessimist. A real pessimist would be preparing to emigrate the instant the 270th electoral vote goes into the red column, or, if unable to get out, bracing against the backlash.
I must have read at least half a dozen novels in the last thirty years set in a future US theocracy. If they can figure out a legal way to give corporations tax breaks for undiversifying themselves and aggressively leading the charge back in time, we could all be divorced, unemployed, homeless and disenfranchised just in time for 2016. Or would a true pessimist insist on adding imprisoned to that last sentence?
I must have read at least half a dozen novels in the last thirty years set in a future US theocracy. If they can figure out a legal way to give corporations tax breaks for undiversifying themselves and aggressively leading the charge back in time, we could all be divorced, unemployed, homeless and disenfranchised just in time for 2016. Or would a true pessimist insist on adding imprisoned to that last sentence?
31
Pleased to see the political pragmatism (and hopefully many of your readers will follow your lead). I take it this means you wont yell "Fuck You" at the White House (like you did on October 11 of 2010)--at least until January of 2013?
32
@14, they became "negotiable" the moment strategy began to play a role in winning the war. If you want purity without results, OK; but I'm more in favor of results without purity.
If doing something makes it more likely that equal rights will be achieved, then it is worth doing, even if it looks "impure." If doing something makes it less likely that equal rights will be achieved, then it is worth avoiding, even if it looks "pure."
If doing something makes it more likely that equal rights will be achieved, then it is worth doing, even if it looks "impure." If doing something makes it less likely that equal rights will be achieved, then it is worth avoiding, even if it looks "pure."
33
Out of principle, President O should come out and support marriage equality, regardless of its impact on his electability. This is our generation's civil rights issue.
34
Why is being a two-term president the most important thing? Wouldn't it be better to have a president who just acted on what he knew was right instead trying to stay in everyone's good graces while putting civil rights issues on the back burner?
35
Why on earth does anyone want to re-elect Obama?
Like, yes, he has done more good than McCain would have done, but also possibly more bad, since we weren't expecting it from him, I won't go into numbers, but there have been more drone attacks, he just backed down on his veto threat for that indefinite detention thing mixed into the latest military spending bill. I for one will not EVER vote for a man who has betrayed his oath to protect our constitution (flawed though it is, it's still something). I hope that Ron Paul is nominated to run against him, since then we will have 2 options instead of one, and the debates alone might transform this country for the better. Do I agree with everything that Ron Paul stands for? no. Almost none of it, I am a socialist not a libertarian, but I trust the man to do his best to cut military spending. Yes, his environmental policies might destroy the world, but did you see Obama attending COP-17? do you hear him calling for the cuts we need to stop the planet, and more importantly us from dying? NO. Therefor there is no difference between them on that front.
Like, yes, he has done more good than McCain would have done, but also possibly more bad, since we weren't expecting it from him, I won't go into numbers, but there have been more drone attacks, he just backed down on his veto threat for that indefinite detention thing mixed into the latest military spending bill. I for one will not EVER vote for a man who has betrayed his oath to protect our constitution (flawed though it is, it's still something). I hope that Ron Paul is nominated to run against him, since then we will have 2 options instead of one, and the debates alone might transform this country for the better. Do I agree with everything that Ron Paul stands for? no. Almost none of it, I am a socialist not a libertarian, but I trust the man to do his best to cut military spending. Yes, his environmental policies might destroy the world, but did you see Obama attending COP-17? do you hear him calling for the cuts we need to stop the planet, and more importantly us from dying? NO. Therefor there is no difference between them on that front.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (35) RSS