He did go on to say that it should be left to the states to decide their
own policies concerning the legalities of such unions, but the die was
cast; the mold was formed: A sitting president took a positive, personal, public
stand on the issue of gay marriage.
As might have been expected, the fundie leaders in the Right Wing Religiousphere
took it hard. Tony Perkins of the
Family Research Council
was all over the airwaves protesting the president's comments. (Kudos
to CNN's Soledad O'Brien, the product of mixed-race parents who married
when most states outlawed such marriages, for
turning an interview into a real debate, thus punching bloody holes in Perkins' many lame arguments.)
Small-government advocate and current Republican presidential candidate
Mitt Romney
came forward like the good soldier he is and said, no ifs, ands, or
buts (for now) -- no, no, no to gay marriage, or even civil unions, or
anything else that might require Big Government (
that would be him if he
wins) to step in and make more rules disregarding civil rights.
Leaders of states that probably weren't going to go Obama's way in
November anyway jumped in to remind him that he was committing political
suicide over this.
Some Black church leaders
voiced their opposition to Obama's views, sending a message that might possibly still resonate in November.
So, yes, even though his comments to Robin Roberts won't amount to a
hill of beans in the legal world and won't change a thing in the states
that are rabid about banning gay marriage (Two days ago, North Carolina
became the
30th state to ban same-sex unions), Obama's admission
of his own personal feelings is the stuff dreams are made of. Both
sides will see it as a world class political haymaker.
But what made the president's comments so memorable was the fact that,
while he would have preferred to sidestep this particular bombshell of
an issue forever if need be, it appears it was his wife and his
daughters who ultimately convinced him that, while he might be president
of these United States -- an all-powerful position requiring the wisdom
of Solomon and the unbiased judgment of, say,
the theoretical Supreme Court, his earlier published views on the subject were about as wrongheaded as it gets.
They talked to him about love and how it works in mysterious ways, and
his daughters let him know how much it hurt them that, by his own
admission, the best he could come up with was that he was still
'evolving' on that particular issue.
There were many juicy quote-bites one could pull out of
that interview, but this one got me right where my heart beats loudest:
"You know, Malia and Sasha, they've got friends whose parents are
same-sex couples. And I-- you know, there have been times where
Michelle and I have been sittin' around the dinner table. And we've
been talkin' and-- about their friends and their parents. And Malia and
Sasha would-- it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends'
parents would be treated differently. It doesn't make sense to them.
And-- and frankly-- that's the kind of thing that prompts-- a change of
perspective. You know, not wanting to somehow explain to your child why
somebody should be treated-- differently, when it comes to-- the eyes
of the law."
Okay, I'm a sucker for a good dad, no matter what kind of house he
lives in, so it's understandable why I might latch onto that one
particular part of the conversation. But I watched the entire
interview; I watched the body language and listened to the tone of
voice. I saw an everyman wrestling with his ethos, not a politician
striving to convince, and I rejoiced.
But--I'll grant you--it didn't hurt that Joe Biden, our beloved, wacky
veep, got to gushing about his own feelings on gay marriage on Sunday's
"Meet the Press". The next day the Washington Post's
Dana Milbank called it a "gaffe" (a word that seems to cling to Biden as tightly as his own shadow) and the press took off running. (
Note to Joe: It's far better to be gaffe-prone than to be mean-prone. So far, you're okay, man.)
The vice president said he is “absolutely comfortable”
with same-sex marriage, committing the classic Washington gaffe of
accidentally speaking the truth. This bit of straight talk made Obama’s
position — neither for nor against such unions but in an evolutionary
state, not unlike the Galapagos finch — all the more untenable. On
Monday, Biden took off for a campaign event in Tennessee, leaving Carney
on cleanup duty. But the more Carney swabbed the mess, the more it
spread.
I frankly don't get it. How exactly did Joe Biden's own personal views
on gay marriage conflict with anything the president might have said
about that same issue? There is no actual blending of the pair, simply
because they're Leaders One and Two. They aren't contractually
obligated to agree personally on all issues. I didn't see it as
"one-upping" the president, I saw it as Biden being Biden. Especially
when he got to the part about "Will and Grace". (
Debra Messing ("Grace") says it's right up there in the top five moments of her life, so you see, it's striking chords everywhere. )
Well, apparently even the president felt that Joe had overstepped "his
skis" or some such. But publicly he's okay with it, and I get the
feeling that he, like me, loves old Joe, gaffes and all. (And who
wouldn't?)
Immediately after the Sunday news hours, it was out there, people were
talking, and the entire White House had to grind to a halt and address
the elephant in the room. Does the president support gay marriage or
doesn't he? So on Wednesday, President Obama sat down with Good Morning
America's Robin Roberts and talked at length about the issue he had so
studiously worked to avoid.
Yes, it was calculated and ultimately political, but the essence of it,
the way the president chose to address it, was as much heaven to me as
it had to be hellish for his political opponents, those so intent on
ousting Barack Obama they have no problem casting him as evil
incarnate--the devil himself
I saw a man who might finally understand that there are times when it's
not only essential but soul-satisfying to separate the thoughts of the
person from the decisions of the presidency. And that "evolution"
doesn't work as a handy substitute for equivocation. And that sometimes
political expedience isn't all it's cracked up to be.
My mother was Finnish-Lutheran and my father was Italian-Catholic. They
celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary just nine months before my
mom died, and they loved each other to the end. What if the
powers-that-be had arbitrarily decided that Finns and Italians couldn't
marry? Or that Lutherans and Catholics couldn't marry? How different
is that from deciding that blacks and whites couldn't marry or that
same-sex partners couldn't marry? They're all consenting adults with
the capacity to love one another, and if marriage is the desired tie
that binds, it's a sad and sorry law that seeks to outlaw fidelity
instead of celebrating it.
I think the president always got that. He only just now, thanks in part to the women in his life, found the
cojones to say it out loud.
ked in the mirror to confirm this, but I suspect I'm looking a lot like Popeye but without the pipe. (I yam what I yam and that's what I yam.)
