On: Obama and gay marriage – Too soon?

LGBT activists, who for decades have been building support for gay marriage, must surely know what social theorist Max Weber meant when he wrote that “[p]olitics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards…” (i.e., it is difficult, frustrating and thankless work). Likewise, President Obama, who is on record as supporting same-sex marriage as recently as 1996, but only advocated civil unions in 2008, must understand Mr. Weber’s conclusion to that sentence: “… [and] anyone who seeks to do it must risk his own soul.”

Consider Mr. Obama’s crisis of soul averted. Last Wednesday, the president made clear what many knew to be true: Our Commander-in-Chief supports the rights of same-sex couples to marry. It is the most provocative old news fit to print.

President Obama endorses same-sex marriage.

In one sense, Mr. Obama’s “shift” is the beginnings of yet another vindication of James Madison, who wrote that “[j]ustice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” While Mr. Obama’s endorsement does not entail the legalization of same-sex marriage in a possible second term, there seems little doubt that justice is, in fact, coming. Even though the president (wrongly) believes that this is an issue best handled by the states, it paves the way for same-sex marriage to be adopted into the Democratic platform, and lends the issue legitimacy in media and over-the-coffee table discussions.

In another sense, it is the alleviation of a political paradox ossified by the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: How can a country simultaneously affirm the strength, faithfulness, courage and dignity of homosexuals in the military (whose sole aim is to protect the shores, and, subsequently, American families) and disallow these men and women recognized families of their own? President Obama – and, perhaps, Democrats to follow – say “no more!”

Still, cynics have proffered, as cynics do, that this is pure political pandering – a way of assuring reelection for the president. It is a view not entirely borne out by evidence: Dig into the polls and one realizes that being pro-same-sex marriage is more burden than benefit.

States colored dark brown have banned same-sex marriage in their constitutions

First, popular support in national elections takes a backseat to electoral votes. If, as is likely, the vast majority of supporters are in liberal safe havens like New York and California (states President Obama will no doubt win) it gives the man no benefit come November. States up for grabs this election – and whose turn of red or blue are the focus of candidates and media alike – include Ohio, Florida and North Carolina, who together will contribute 62 electoral votes to the race. President Obama faces struggles in these states not merely because of the economy, but because all three have inculcated bans on gay marriage into their constitutions.

Second, the upswing in popularity is intrinsically tied to the rise of the Millennial generation. While this suggests (if not proves) that same-sex couples will be able to marry within the next 30 or so years, the young are notoriously fickle when it comes to voting. President Obama’s "change of heart" might energize the young, but as any parent or teacher will note: Apathy is a safer bet

Third, there is the strong potential for political backlash. America has seen a precipitous rise in the percentage of those who support same-sex marriage, but the energy remains on the Christian right. Though many Evangelicals were wary of Mr. Romney because of his Mormon faith, this distinction between policies may spur them to the voting booths regardless.

Meanwhile, the president faces a problem sans a clear remedy: Black and Latino voters – who predominately vote to ban same-sex marriage – certainly won’t stay home solely because of this issue. But if any were wary of voting for the president twice, this may be too much.

Games of chess
All this leads back to political analogies. If politics is to be considered a “slow boring of hard boards,” it is also a game of chess – a glacial test of skill which necessitates calculated moves and, ultimately, patience.

One-in-six of the president’s campaign bundlers is openly gay, a fact which no doubt had an impact on the White House’s change of tone. But come the election, they might find themselves overextended, and having wished they hadn’t pulled the trigger just yet.

Much like in chess, one can’t take back moves.

Note from the editor: A subsequent editorial (available here) expatiated on the benefits of Mr. Obama’s position, a subject only briefly mentioned here.


Those who enjoyed this editorial might also enjoy: Presidential authority - Obama, Romney and bin Laden