Obama: On marriage equality, I’m bending arc of history in the right direction

[Ian David]

Obama: On marriage equality, I’m bending arc of history in the right direction

The other day I noted here that the White House’s position on gay marriage can best be described with a phrase Obama himself is fond of: He may not be willing to voice open support for full marriage equality, but he’s doing his part to bend the arc of history in the right direction.

I meant that in a slightly tongue-in-cheek way, but today at his press conference, Obama gave his most extended answer to date on the question, and that was essentially his point:

This administration, under my direction, has consistently said we cannot discrimate as a country against people on the basis of sexual orientation. And we have done more in the two and a half years that I’ve been in here than the previous 43 presidents to uphold that principle...

<snip>

This answer comports almost exactly with Andrew Sullivan’s view that Obama’s unwillingness to publicly voice support for marriage equality is rooted in his view of the presidency — that while he lacks the political authority to mandate this change, he can preside over it.

In his extended monologue today, Obama basically revealed that he supports gay marriage, that it will ultimately carry the day, and that this is the outcome he wants. In the context of the gay marriage discussion, he said the principle that gays “have to be treated like every other American” will “win out,” and that this is a “good thing.” But he sees no need to make news by taking this to its logical conclusion. The role he sees for his administration resides not in dictating this change but in helping create the political conditions necessary for facilitating a transition that’s already underway and is ultimately inevitable.

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama-on-marriage-equality-im-helping-to-bend-arc-of-history-in-the-right-direction/2011/03/03/AGmF7ArH_blog.html

[WillParkinson]

1. So basically...

He says it'll happen so he doesn't actually have to have a backbone and speak up?

Gotcha.

[dbackjon]

2. And will take credit for it

[polmaven]

5. Perhaps he realizes that

"helping create the political conditions necessary for facilitating a transition that’s already underway and is ultimately inevitable." means the NOT specifically speaking out is the best way for this to happen. You know as well as I do that everything endorsed by this president will be automatically and vehemently opposed by Republicans...even by those who had perhaps been favoring equality. They are much more apt to support it if they think he may not.

That is, sadly, the "political condition" of the day.

Now I, personally, would prefer to see the changes actually happen than to see the president be vocal about it and see them further delayed.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. That is one hell of a tactic.

How do those McClurkin rallies fit into that thinking? Also, the clear statements of opposition to equality based on his religious dogmas, which he has repeated many times. He says he is opposed to marriage equality, he says that freely.
The thing about this passive tactic you are promoting is that it is also self serving, in that is lets Obama off the political hook. When any of us make a decision which involves others in a way that serves ourselves, we must be very vigilant to make sure we are not simply choosing that tactic out of self interest. Assuming that the safest way for me is also the best way for those I represent is a dangerous assumption, one which holds many windows for abuse.
If I said to you that the best way for me to support Obama is to claim that I oppose him, you would say I am crazy. But when Obama says the best way for him to support us is to say he opposes us, you think that is genius. Therein lies the irony, and also the lesson.
I would prefer to see changes happen with the President vocally supporting those changes, not vocally fighting them. I do not share your assumption that his support is a negative, that if he was vocal there would be less success. That is just an assumption, based on nothing but a string of rhetoric.

[polmaven]

7. Well, you are entitled to your opinion,

but it has been shown over and over again that each time this president voices support for an issue, the Republicans automatically turn against it...even bills which THEY introduced in Congress, then voted against after the president's approval was voiced.

I doubt that your voice, or my voice in support of anything is going to turn Republicans against it. You and I do not have that kind of power. The president of the United States does, though. And it has been obvious that Republicans will not agree to anything which the president supports.

I would prefer to see the changes happen..period...and sooner, rather than later. The president's vocal support will, in my opinion, delay that.

[Tx4obama]

9. Yep.

I also believe that the president's vocal support will delay it.

The GOP blocks everything Obama wants, even some of the small things that Congress used to pass without any debate or conflict have been being blocked now by the GOP - just because Obama is president.

[Creideiki]

13. There are solutions to this

Sadly, Obama's too weak-willed to seek any solution. Even when they're freaking obvious.

What are they? Oh, I must not know because I'm in Colorado and not in DC where smart people go (provided they're self-loathing).

Here's one: any Democrat who fails to toe the line (note the appropriate use of the idiom) on any actually important plank item is stripped of committee positions--especially in the Senate.

[plantwomyn]

16. Maybe I missed it but

exactly when did ANY Republican turn out FOR marriage equality on a Federal level? How could they turn MORE against it than they already are? Are your saying that as long as Obama voices opposition to marriage equality that the Republicans will be FOR it and that they will rush the repeal of DOMA through Congress?

Get serious. Either he is a leader or he is not and he has the courage of his convictions or he does not. Pick one.

[polmaven]

20. What I'm saying is

that it doesn't necessarily have to be on a Federal level. There are still state issues pending, which are much closer to passage than are the Federal ones. DOMA will, in any circumstance, be decided by SCOTUS before going to Congress. Congress will just not take it up until then. But...I do think there would have been a great possibility that NY would not have gone the way it did if the president had voiced his support.

The POTUS has influence on more than just Federal laws. No legal status, of course, but political influence none-the-less.

[Tx4obama]

8. I agree 100%. n/t

[Creideiki]

12. Hey, Polmaven, this is the clearest evidence anyone should ever need

that you're 100% wrong.

[Creideiki]

11. More like "anything the President 'supports' is the first thing on the cutting block

during negotiations with haters."

Sadly, looking at the Republican Clown Car, we need to support another 4 years of failed presidency (from a progressive standpoint--it's a rollicking success for conservatism).

Here's to hoping that in 2016, the Democrats actually vet their nominee.

[plantwomyn]

17. Let's hope that DU does too.

[mitchtv]

19. +1

good one

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. I hope you're right. It makes some sense.

He may very well recognize he's toxic in some positions and is more helpful by remaining out of the fray. ie. Wisconsin labor??

I honestly don't know. It would be nice to have a president vocal about his or her support. But I agree. I'd rather see equal rights on the books than fifty thousand people express support but nothing get done.

[yardwork]

3. Didn't Martin Luther King, Jr. say something about the arc of history bending?

[Pacifist Patriot]

15. You may be thinking of this statement....

Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.

King repeatedly referenced the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice, which for the record came from a 19th century Unitarian. Theodore Parker

[Bluenorthwest]

4. The Sullivan silence is golden argument might fit if it were not

for the counter balancing statements of clear opposition that the President has voiced consistently. He actually says, very clearly, that he thinks marriage is only for one man and one woman, sanctified by God each of them, he says that as a Christian, that is his belief. So once a person has said all of that the chance to play coy is long past. And that is all he's doing, playing coy in an utterly cynical fashion. He intends to do nothing, and take all credit for the work of others.
Obama says clearly that he is opposed to equality in marriage rights. So 'basically revealed that he supports it' is nonsensical talk. His opposition has been broadcast, he can not then telegraph 'support' in code and call it balanced.
Add to that the fact that Sully was not just a cheerleader for the Iraq invasion and for Bush/Cheney, for whom he voted, but that he also launched verbose criticisms of those who protested the war, he came near to accusations of treason against those who were in fact, correct. Later he had a day where he feigned contrition, but he still does the same thing. He can not merely state his own opinion, he has to go off on those he does not agree with, as he did to those who wanted to stop the invasion of Iraq. Sully said that on 9-11 he was vastly comforted to know Dick Cheney was on the scene. So that is the grain of salt required when taking a does of Andy Sullivan, Iraq War Cheerleader. A man who has been more wrong than most, more often than most, about life and death situations.

[Unvanguard]

10. This is a too idealized characterization of an essentially correct observation.

The simpler, and accurate, characterization is that Obama is engaging in a politically-motivated attempt to support same-sex marriage while not supporting it in any way he can be held politically accountable for.

This is bad for us, because it means his voice is never clear enough to make a strong difference. It's probably not even good for him; at this point, he might well have more to gain than to lose from taking a clearer stand on this issue. But it's not real opposition either. Genuine opponents don't clue you in to the fact that they're going to change their minds eventually ("I'm evolving").

[joeybee12]

18. This is funny...he's so full of himself it's laughable...he's behind the arc...nt

[RetiredTrotskyite]

21. I Firmly And Consistently...

point out to others that Obama did very little except to sign a couple of bills into law and one, DADT repeal, has yet to be implimented, and it is my understanding that there have been no indictments, let alone prosecutions, under the Matthew Shepard Act. At best, this clown makes some amorphuous statements and expects the GLBT communited to be all wowed. Bending the arc of history in the right direction? No, Mr President, you do that by actually advocating strenuously for something. Martin Luther King and his associates in the civil rights movement bent the arc of history in the right direction by getting out there, marching, standing for something and not sitting down or shutting up until they got what they wanted--justice and full civil rights.

Frankly I am insulted by this allegation on the part of Mr Obama. I do not have full civil rights as a law-abiding US citizen. So since you can't, for whatever reasons, have the BALLS to say something concrete, I am not shutting up or sitting down until I have the same rights that you do--and that includes the right to have my marriage federally recognised.