Obama Comes out of the Closet for Gay Marriage, but...

By the Left Coast Rebel 

Since I am an (unofficial) Barack Obama 2012 "donor", (I receive emails from a variety of leftist groups; it's a great way to get a feel for what they are really concerned about), I received a note last night from His campaign celebrating His new-found support for gay marriage.

Obama's sudden support for gay marriage is, in my opinion, a cynical ploy to rally the Democrat base because his purposeful mismanagement of the United States economy has turned most of America against him and he knows it. But where were you on gay marriage, the last 3 years, BO? Why now? Why not follow the courage of your convictions?

Answer: he didn't because he has no convictions, other than expanding the Leviathan state as much as possible.

Aside from this all-too-obvious observation, Obama's gay marriage statement also gives us a glaring glimpse into what is truly bouncing around in the man's skull...
Obama:

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

Fighting on my behalf? Excuse me? Can you say Dear Leader complex?

When was the last time a president referred to the troops (gay, straight or not) as those "fighting on his behalf"?

I'd like to know.

I know that He's the Commander in Chief but this strikes me as jarring, tasteless and disturbing. For what it's worth, here is the Oath of Enlistment that every person entering the Armed Forces of the United States must recite upon enlisting:

 I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

For me, Obama's "fighting for me" slip just confirms how dangerous this man is and how, in his eyes, he is the omnipotent philosopher-king of America.

It's just politically convenient and expedient that He is also now "for" gay marriage.

How lucky we are to have Him.

More at Memeorandum, here.

Updated: Interesting. Daniel Platt at GayPatriot has a post up showing that Yahoo readers (where the story first appeared) think that Obama's gay marriage move is all politics and no substance.

Updated x2: Longtime reader Nick from It's Just My Opinion checks in:

It may be a political move, but it's a shrewd one, in my opinion.

Obama is unlikely to offend anyone with his open support of gay marriage who would have supported him anyway: most people who are strongly opposed to gay marriage are either traditional conservatives or highly religious (or both), and people in either of those groups will not be supporting any liberal candidate. Conversely, people who are strong proponents of gay marriage are already likely Obama supporters, so you don't gain much there.

Where you do gain, however, is in the "middle" with independent voters, especially if you can contrast your position with that of Romney (ie: if Romney allows himself to be characterized as potentially or openly against gay marriage). There are a lot of independent voters who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and will struggle to choose between two parties which both represent their overall views poorly and with substantial compromises. By emphasizing the socially-liberal aspects of his positions (authentic or otherwise), Obama plays to his strengths with that voting bloc, and helps remind those voters that there are legitimate compelling reasons to support him despite his horrendous fiscal policies and socialist ideology.

It would be folly for the Republican party to ignore this strategy. If the Obama campaign can focus enough attention on the horrid and reprehensible social policies of the mainstream Republican party, they will be able to convince "middle ground" voters to discount the Democrats' horrid and reprehensible fiscal policies. Also, publicized expressions emphasizing negatives, like the NC gay marriage ban, will give the other party votes, without a doubt.


Nick makes several valid points here. Very interesting. Where will independents go?

On another thought, I'm sure I'm not the only one here that doesn't think Joe Biden's recent gay marriage gaffe was actually a gaffe. He was just tipping Obama's hand and testing the waters.

23 comments:

  1. i served in the USAF for ten years. never did I consider my self fighting on his behalf. because it's equal to serving him.

    needless to say, I am more than a little offended.

    "philosopher-king" is incredibly apt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. News flash... When in the military you are serving your nation and protecting its sovereignty. CIC's change, the oath doesn't.

      Having said this, your position on GWB and his ill advised excursion into Iraq, the associated debt, and the Patriot Act would be appreciated and instructional

      Delete
  2. It may be a political move, but it's a shrewd one, in my opinion.

    Obama is unlikely to offend anyone with his open support of gay marriage who would have supported him anyway: most people who are strongly opposed to gay marriage are either traditional conservatives or highly religious (or both), and people in either of those groups will not be supporting any liberal candidate. Conversely, people who are strong proponents of gay marriage are already likely Obama supporters, so you don't gain much there.

    Where you do gain, however, is in the "middle" with independent voters, especially if you can contrast your position with that of Romney (ie: if Romney allows himself to be characterized as potentially or openly against gay marriage). There are a lot of independent voters who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and will struggle to choose between two parties which both represent their overall views poorly and with substantial compromises. By emphasizing the socially-liberal aspects of his positions (authentic or otherwise), Obama plays to his strengths with that voting bloc, and helps remind those voters that there are legitimate compelling reasons to support him despite his horrendous fiscal policies and socialist ideology.

    It would be folly for the Republican party to ignore this strategy. If the Obama campaign can focus enough attention on the horrid and reprehensible social policies of the mainstream Republican party, they will be able to convince "middle ground" voters to discount the Democrats' horrid and reprehensible fiscal policies. Also, publicized expressions emphasizing negatives, like the NC gay marriage ban, will give the other party votes, without a doubt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great comment Nick, this goes in the post.

      Delete
    2. Thanks. :)

      That's very interesting follow-up speculation, too. It might be giving Biden too much credit (after all, this is a guy who is well-known for verbal gaffes), but it would be a very safe way to "test the waters"; if there was any unexpected backlash complications, it would be trivial to write off the ramblings of "crazy Joe". The Obama administration/campaign (and really, is there much difference?) may be many things, but they are certainly not politically naive.

      Delete
    3. Totally agree; I think they sent Joe out to see what happened. They weighed the backlash vs. the Democrat base reaction and... decided to go with the base. I guarantee this is how it went down in the Obama campaign war room.

      Delete
    4. No problem on the link too, nice to see you are still here after all this time :)

      Delete
    5. Biden was totally orchestrated. David Gregory asked him the completely random same-sex marriage question after consulting his notes. It didn't fit the flow of the interview at all.

      Delete
    6. That may be. But the timing seems strange, coming shortly after NC's marriage amendment.

      Delete
  3. Observation, perhaps wrong but... Don' these soldiers fight on the behalf ar ALL of us? Including the President, no mater who that president may be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes but that doesn't negate that he said "fighting on my behalf" -- soldiers are fighting (or should be) on the the behalf of the Constitution of the United States.

      Delete
    2. ...and following the orders of commanding officers and the Commander in Chief.

      Delete
    3. Fighting on "our" behalf would have been much more appropriate language. But the O admin thinks of BO as a ruler, as this Freudian slip emphasizes.

      Delete
  4. Based on literally hundreds of troops out there I've spoken with across all branches in the past 3 years...the military despises Obama. Just throwing that out there.

    As for how the independents take this announcement, that's a good question and a crucial one. Something I haven't heard much through is the reaction from Hispanics. That could be huge.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Homosexual marriage is hanging at about 50/50 in the polls among the entire adult population. It's probably a bit underwater among likely voters. Coming out of the closet was very risky for BO, but Gaffe O'Biden forced his hand. Obama may be handling this issue shrewdly, but this wasn't a carefully orchestrated political move.

    It remains to be seen whether this issue can be used to help Obama with uncommitted voters in swing states while the sour economy weighs heavily in everyone's minds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all about focusing and framing the discussion appropriately. I don't think Obama can win if the focus is on the economy: Republicans traditionally do better on economic issues, Obama's record on fiscal matters is terrible at best, and the "blame my predecessor" excuse is wearing very thin. On the other hand, if the Obama campaign (assisted by the media, of course) can manage to shift the focus to social issues and gay rights, they stand to do much better. Gay marriage may be around 50/50, but more people support gay relationships and equal rights for gay couples in general (around 75% currently), and a large part of the difference is just tied up in the differentiation between a marriage and a civil union. Moreover, among the more educated and independent-minded people in the "middle", I'd guess the percentage viewing gay marriage favorably is also considerably higher than 50%.

      It's a gamble, to be sure: if the Republican base gets energized to support Romney, it might not be a net-win for the Obama campaign. However, it's a far better thing for the Democrats if the electorate is talking about civil rights, rather than Obama's miserable record and destructive policies on/for the economy.

      Delete
    2. You're right. But it's an amazing indication of the weakness of the Obama campaign. They're implicitly admitting that Obama has nothing to run on. I think Obama's success with social issues will match his success with Obamacare.

      Wasn't Obama supposed to pivot to jobs and the economy?

      The media can yammer about liberals' pet social issues 24/7, but I doubt most Americans think the President should be focused on homosexual issues right now. It's the wrong message and the wrong strategy at the wrong time. As Obamacare was. Except homosexual marriage is even more irrelevant to our most pressing issues. But what else can they do at this point?

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. Your analysis was absolutely spot-on, RK

      Delete
  7. A commenter over at Breitbart had this to say about President Obama's new change of heart regarding State's rights vs. Federal rights:

    --From Capt Tee: “I’ll believe Obama believes in “States’ Rights” when he says Abortion is an issue for the states and introduces an Amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

    Ouch.

    So here's the thing. Since Mr. Obama is now showing he might want to be a Constitutional President, and allow the Tenth Amendment to do its thing, how about he does actually overturn Roe v. Wade and let the States decide on abortion? He is allowing, by inference, to allow States to decide if they wish to be down with the whole 'gay marriage' thing, so....

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.