Do you believe that President Obama's sudden support of gay marriage is the culmination of a personal evolution? That he has agonized over this decision on moral and ethical grounds and May 8th, 2012 happened to be the day he finally "evolved" to a position of supporting it?
I hope not. Because that is not what happened. Not even 1%.
Elliott Abrams, in his latest piece for weeklystandard.com, chronicles The Obama "evolution" very well:
The debate over same sex “marriage” has engaged the heartfelt feelings and convictions of millions of Americans. Then there is Barack Obama.
In his ABC interview, the president pretended that his much touted “evolution” had now led him, ineluctably, to speak out now, today; he simply could longer stay silent. ABC let him off the hook, but this is not a credible account. In March, the Washington Post was reporting the debate among his advisers on whether the issue would help or hurt the reelection campaign and what, therefore, Obama should say: “Obama’s top political advisers have held serious discussions with leading Democrats about the upsides and downsides of coming out for gay marriage before the fall election.”
In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.
Reality check: I do not know how President Obama personally feels about gay marriage. I did not know before yesterday's pronouncement and I do not know now, the day after.
What I do know is that a combination of Jackass Joe Biden's big mouth (with characteristic lack of political acumen, Biden forgot a Vice President's job includes deference to the President, and conversationally offered his support this past weekend), along with the overwhelmingly anti-gay marriage vote in North Carolina (where the Democrats' national convention is scheduled to be held) forced him to stop playing games, decide which of two politically dangerous positions would be more beneficial to him as a Democrat, and immediately put it out there.
And even in doing so, Mr. Obama is playing a cynical political game. His position, if you can call it one, is that he personally favors gay marriage, but that it is a states' rights issue so every state is free to do what it pleases on the issue.
Er, I can't find any part of the constitution which defines health care as a province of federal government. Isn't that a states' rights issue too? Ditto for abortion, and - despite how many people who have never read the first amendment think otherwise - ditto for separation of church and state. How convenient to invoke it here.
Mr. Obama also invoked Jesus - so help me you-know-who - in his evolution to support of gay marriage. Two points: 1) I admit not being very knowledgeable about the New Testament, but I don't recall anyone ever citing chapter and verse of Jesus's statement in support of gay marriage, and 2) this is another of the many, many times President Obama uses religion as a prop for his political strategies, and I never remember our wonderful "neutra:" media - the media that ridiculed President Bush's obviously sincere religious beliefs - for doing so. Why do you suppose.....
Ok, now that I've brought in media, let's talk about that part of it a bit more.
Elliott Abrams alluded to the fact that ABC "let him off the hook" by not questioning either Mr. Obama's zig-zagging on gay marriage over the years or the timing of his current change of position. But ABC is not the only one.
Last night I watched the late news on NBC's New York station. Not surprisingly, it did a feature on President Obama's gay marriage statement. NBC did not deal with Mr. Obama's various "evolutions" over the years any more than ABC did. However, the report was done from The Stonewall Inn, which is generally thought of as where the gay movement started over 40 years ago. The reporter indicated that reaction to Mr. Obama's revelation was "tepid". That seemed very logical to me, given the conflict between gay people wanting Mr. Obama to support this cause, but understanding that it was little more than a political ploy.
This morning, however, I watched the early news on NBC. And, just as the night before, it reported from the Stonewall Inn. But this time the reporter assured me that reaction to Mr. Obama was "enthusiastic".
How did "tepid" become "enthusiastic" in a matter of hours? Maybe NBC rehired the producer and editor who doctored the Trayvon Martin tape....
I'm confident that you will find most other mainstream venues also falling into line and downplaying, or not at all mentioning, how obviously political Barack Obama's "evolution" is.
Not for nothing do I call them his Accomplice Media.