Secrets of Obama’s evolution: The inside story of how the president backed gay marriage

[OKNancy]

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/28/secrets_of_obamas_evolution_the_inside_story_of_how_the_president_backed_gay_marriage/

The behind-the-scenes story of how same-sex couples took on the politicians and pundits — and won
MARC SOLOMON

One of the biggest challenges we were up against in getting the president to move was the conventional wisdom that coming out in support was still politically perilous. For some time now, national polls were showing support for the freedom to marry at greater than 50 percent. Yet shifting the conventional wisdom in D.C. is hard.

To help us with this task, we sought to line up a bipartisan dream team of pollsters. We needed validators who were respected enough by those on both sides of the aisle that they would draw the attention of political journalists, pundits, and ultimately the Obama campaign. We reached out to Joel Benenson, the Obama campaign’s lead pollster, and Jan van Lohuizen, the lead pollster for George W. Bush, asking them to analyze trends on the freedom to marry and write a joint memo that we’d release to the press. I honestly didn’t think either would say yes, given the public role we were asking them to play. But they both agreed. They’d evaluate publicly available polling since the late 1990s and write a memo on their findings.

On Wednesday, July 27, Benenson and van Lohuizen presented their findings to assembled media at the National Press Club, with Evan Wolfson providing context and talking about the path forward. The pollsters highlighted the fact that growth in support of this cause was historically remarkable; neither had seen support grow like this, from 27 percent in 1996 to a solid majority in 2011, on any other social issue. And, they argued, this wasn’t just a phenomenon of younger voters overwhelmingly supporting the freedom to marry. It also reflected a reevaluation by voters in nearly every cross-section of society they’d looked at: Democrats, Independents, and Republicans; people at all age levels; people in most religions; and so on.

They debunked the idea that our opponents would be more motivated to go to the polls because they cared much more, highlighting that “supporters of marriage for gay couples feel as strongly about the issue as opponents do, something that was not the case in the recent past.”


Much more at the link ...............

[William769]

1. I am glad this happened but still pissed that it was a political calculation

and not because it was the right thing to do.

[msongs]

2. those with courage & conviction lead and those without follow, at least on this issue nt

[OKNancy]

3. True Bill, but reading the article

The people fighting for equality also thought about the politics of it. Would it harm the President, they asked.

From the article:
If Obama were to lose by a small margin to our Massachusetts nemesis, Mitt Romney, soon after Obama had endorsed marriage equality, I could see the finger-pointing coming at us again. That was nerve-racking.

I thought long and hard about it, I spoke with a few confidants, and Evan and I batted it around. I concluded that, based on everything I knew, it was politically smart, even necessary, for him to come out in support.

[William769]

4. I understand and agree but that doesn't mean I can't be pissed about it.

[on point]

5. Illustrates the difference between leadership and backbone failure

[MNBrewer]

6. Nice to know that he didn't jump, but was pushed.

Such a fierce advocate.

[Fearless]

8. Bingo. n/t

[Maven]

9. +1

[QC]

10. You never really loved him!!!

[Bagsgroove]

7. Caution

I like Barack Obama, and it is a huge boost that he finally "evolved" on this issue. But on the subject of marriage equality he has been a follower rather than a leader.

During the 2008 Democratic primary debates, two women asked the whole panel (which at that point included Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kuchinich) -- "Would you support us getting married to each other?"

All but Kucinich said "no." The standard safe Democrat position at the time was support for civil unions, but not for marriage. At the time I didn't hold it against Mr. Obama as a great failing. Certainly support for civil unions was a lot better than the Republican's platform plank to amend the Constitution to forever end any hope of gay marriage.

But here is what did bother me. Some months later Senator Obama was asked about his stand against gay marriage. He started his answer with a list of all the things he supported about gay rights--ending "don't ask don't tell" in the military, support of anti-discrimination in government hiring, and yes--civil unions so gay people would have "all the same rights" as married people.

Then without prompting he added this, "But I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."

Where to start with that? I do understand that Obama was trying to fight off the right-wing garbage that he was a Muslim (or atheist). He was trying to convince people that he is--really--a Christian. But I wanted to ask constitutional law Professor Obama exactly how it is that his religious beliefs should form the basis of a question about public policy. It was a moment of profound disappointment with the man I hoped would be elected President.

I do like Barack Obama, and I'm glad that it became politically advantageous to him to support marriage equality. But on this issue he has been a cautious politician rather than a leader.