Obama Politicizes Gay Marriage
Same-sex marriage. As if the issue wasn’t “hot button” enough, President Obama finally admitted publically what most insiders already knew, he’s now in favor of it, setting aside his 2008 campaign public allegiance to traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
Another sudden enlightenment just in time for election 2012.
Same-sex marriage is a highly charged political issue, which most things seem to be nowadays. But when it comes to winning the White House, the gay and lesbian vote is but one more demographic to be exploited, another voting block to check off.
Expert pollsters are paid fortunes to mine the minds of potential voters. Polling is a science used by campaign managers to choreograph every next move.
So for those who believe that out of the blue Vice President Joe Biden, without consulting Obama, his boss, decided to wax sentimental with news folks on his pro same-sex marriage stance, I have a condo to sell you in Iran. This whole Biden-first, Obama-next confession drama was carefully staged for a managed outcome.
No matter your sentiment on the subject, at least understand that Obama’s “gosh, this idea just came to me” admission was a calculated tactic. Please.
But why this tactic now?
In a mid-April Pew Research poll, the topic of gay marriage ranked 18th on a list of important voter issues: 1) economy, 2) jobs, 3) budget deficit, 4) health care, 5) education, 6) medicare, 7) energy, 8) taxes, 9) terrorism, 10) foreign policy, 11) environment, 12) Iran, 13) gun control, 14) Afghanistan, 15) immigration, 16) abortion, 17) birth control, 18) gay marriage.
Obama doesn’t score high marks on the majority of top critical voter issues, with polls showing him losing ground. So doesn’t it make sense to create a camera-ready buzz – an invented controversy, if you will?
If a sitting president has a “sincere” bare-his-conscience moment, invoking Christ, no less, on a national news show, it will indeed impact voters. It’s a farce, but in a country where Kim Kardashian and Snooki are held up as role models, it apparently works.
Yes, it’s a desperation move for Obama, but if by using the considerable power of the presidency he plants a seed that “president” Mitt Romney might somehow crush certain civil rights, votes could turn.
And sometimes – remember 2000 Gore vs. Bush? – it only takes a precious few. Fear drives people to the polls.
And notice, the president’s words were carefully chosen so as to not to alienate independent voters who, through polling, are known to dislike Washington, D.C.-concentrated power.
Cleverly, he gave the gay community what they want, public support for their agenda, but stopped short of an all-out campaign promise, leaving the states to decide this delicate, emotional issue.
Regardless, it is a priceless benefit whenever a president uses his political capital on behalf of any cause.
For many years, gay and lesbian organizations have advanced an effective strategy using advertising boycotts and pressure on entertainment media in an effort to change sentiment regarding same sex-marriage and homosexuality.
The sitcom Will and Grace had a profound effect on a generation. Including a same-sex couple in almost every major network comedy and drama, has, over time, “normalized” homosexuality in the under-40 generations.
Patience and persistence have paid off. But this development is disturbing to many who believe deeply that maintaining traditional family values is fundamental to our nation’s success.
Changing the definition of marriage, which has been in place throughout history, is not a decision made lightly – especially for the thousands who adhere to Biblical scripture.
Those on both sides of the debate feel passionately about their positions, each side believing the issue speaks to the very foundational principles of our country – only for different reasons.
The question is, should the definition of marriage be decided during a heated presidential campaign? I say no.
For me, this charade of peddling out such an important issue as part of a divide-and-conquer political scheme insults earnest, thoughtful citizens. Voters deserve an honest debate, setting politically motivated rhetoric aside and keeping cheap shots out of the mix. It’s hard to achieve understanding in a three-ring circus.