Here’s the Nonsense: After a careful thought process and examination of the issue, President Obama’s view on gay marriage has evolved over the past few years to where he now endorses it.
Here’s the Horse Sense: President Obama does nothing without a political motive. This isn’t about his beliefs as much as it is about winning.
He knows that America is predominately conservative and overall opposes gay marriage. Thirty-one states have passed amendments on marriage. That’s why he said he was against gay marriage in 2008. His change in position now has little or nothing to do with what he truly believes. Rather, it has to do with winning the election.
When he ran for the Illinois Senate Obama endorsed gay marriage. In 2004, however, he was running for U. S. Senate and changed his view saying, “What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman.… What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting.”
Obama also knows that his largest constituency, the black community, are primarily opposed to gay marriage and he didn’t want to take a stand that would alienate them. That was the politically expedient thing to do at the time he was running for the Senate.
Now he is in another entirely different situation. He knows that the majority of the black community will not abandon him so he can stick his neck out, endorse gay marriage, and hope to accomplish two things:
1.) He will solidify his support with the LGBT community and potentially pick up a few more votes and some added donations.
2.) He will once again create a division among people over social issues in order to avoid talking about the primary issue on voters minds, which is the economy. He wants to avoid talk of his failed record as president.
But leave it to the mainstream media to run cover for him as they usually do. They are now claiming his position on gay marriage has evolved, making him out to be a deep-thinking, caring leader who wants fairness above all for Americans. But yet that same media claim that when Republican Mitt Romney changes his position on an issue that he is flip-flopping. Obama is always portrayed in a positive light where change means he’s “grown” while Romney is portrayed in negative terms where change means he’s unstable and political. The hypocrisy of the mainstream media is, as usual, overwhelming.
Obama is not new to changes in position. Let’s refresh our memories and name a few of them:
Probably the one that jumps to the forefront in most people’s minds is Obama’s flip-flop from closing Guantanamo to leaving it open.
Another one of his reversals came when he ordered military action in Libya. He did not get authorization from Congress when he did it even though when he was a senator he condemned President Bush saying a president did not have constitutional authority to order a military attack without a direct threat on the U.S.
And we can’t forget how Obama abandoned President Mubarak of Egypt even though he’d said he viewed Mubarak as a “stalwart ally” and that he’d been good for stability in that area of the world.
Don’t forget that when Obama ran for the presidency he was against military tribunals but since then has changed his position and rescinded his order that halted military charges against military detainees in Guantanamo and now permits the resumption of tribunals.
There was also the promise Obama made a few months after his inauguration that he would continue the Bush plans to develop missile defenses in the Czech Republic and Poland but shortly thereafter he stopped the plans so he could appease Russian demands.
Obama also claimed during his presidential campaign in 2008 that he’d make the NASA space program a priority again but then just two years later he pulled the plug the rug out from under them by cancelling the plan to get America back on the moon by 2020.
And the list goes on and on. Were all these “evolution” for the president like his views on gay marriage? What assurance do those who support gay marriage have that he won’t once again flip-flop on the issue? Obviously support today does not mean support tomorrow.
Political expedience is the key for why this president makes his decisions. If you’re in a group seeking his support for an issue yours had better be politically expedient now and tomorrow or it may not remain an issue that will be supported by him. It’s much the same as the person who marries someone only to reach the altar in the marriage ceremony and hear the person you are marrying give their vows and say “I am committed to you as long as it remains the expedient thing for me to do.”