Politics, Presidents and Marriage Equality -- a View from the Jurassic

The president attended an LGBT fundraiser in New York this Thursday, and of course that visit came in the middle of the now-successful push to legalize marriage equality in that state. Many LGBT people (and indeed anyone who supports the same rights for all citizens) have for some time now expressed frustration with the president's irksome, if politically astute, repetitions that he is "evolving" on the issue of marriage equality.* (Read full post after the jump....)




On the curmudgeonly side, one can't help but ask the president, "Are ya fer it or agin' it, young feller?" The issue itself is by no means a subtle one: either you favor acting on the principle that all Americans have the same constitutional rights and that nobody should be unjustly hindered from pursuing the Declaration of Independence's prerequisites for a worthwhile existence ("liberty and the pursuit of happiness") or you think we ought to allow one group of Americans to bully and limit another group based on religious convictions. Either you think America's civic life should be shaping us all towards fitting into some Christian model of the Shining City on a Hill, with government prodding us along the way, or government at all levels should remain secular so that people can live their lives as they wish. From that perspective, it isn't convincing to say, "my views are evolving."

But what's more complicated, of course, is the politics of gay marriage. At times, even though they're doing what they should do, it's frustrating to watch LGBT activists give President Obama flak just short of the full "lemon meringue pie in the face" treatment because he doesn't give a shout-out to marriage equality. What exactly would a full endorsement accomplish? Well, it would cheer the president's liberal base, of which the LGBT community is an important part. That's hardly a trivial thing because the base has been complaining about Obama's supposed lack of credibility as a liberal, and they're not entirely off the mark. Ol' Hopey-Changey, it turns out, is closer to Talleyrand and Machiavelli than many had somewhat naively thought. (You don't get elected president by being Winnie the Pooh; you have to have a few ounces of Cesare Borgia in you. Mi dispiace parlarlo, ma viviamo in un mondo cattivo – we live in a wicked world.) At the same time, an endorsement would probably alienate a fair number of so-called "purple" folk who might be induced to vote for Obama on the basis of other things he's done or refrained from doing. Moreover, it would obviously energize the right-wing base of the GOP – though they seem to be blessed with preternatural energy anyhow since they're always upset about something.  Let's just suggest that it would be yet another cup of moral double espresso to start their already frenetic busybody mornings: not only is O'Bummer imposing Stalinist health-care on us and trying to impose Kenyan Sharia Law, now he's forcing us to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, God doesn't actually "hate fags."

And then there's the question, "what would an endorsement do, aside from lending moral support and delighting or infuriating certain groups?" The president can't make law; that's what the U.S. Congress and various state legislatures do. Some of the president's critics seem to think the man has the powers of a dictator: if he wills it, it must be done. But so far as I know (aside from the things he has already done, such as ending DADT and assuring hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples), he cannot force positive action without the consent of a congress that clearly has no intention of consenting on ANY issue pertaining to full equality for LGBT citizens. I don't suppose he or his advisors think it makes sense for him potentially to sacrifice one or more states in the 2012 elections as the cost for making a bold statement in favor of marriage equality.

If and when President Obama gets himself re-elected, I think it would then be excessively timid to refrain from making precisely such a declaration as he seems unwilling to make now; any more talk about "evolving" will strike many as utter nonsense, and insulting nonsense at that. That's especially so if the Democrats re-take the House, which is unlikely but at least possible, given what insensitive, greedy bastards the GOP have conducted themselves as since the 2010 mid-terms. What's been happening at the state level makes Dickens' Ebeneezer Scrooge look like a generous man.

My suggestion to critics on this issue is that while it is frustrating and even infuriating to see a whole group's fundamental rights subordinated to political calculus (I don't know that it can be put any other way without equivocation), a few more years may bring monumental change, and there's reason to suppose that the president's annoying talk about "evolution" is more code than creed. There are times when you might prefer your politicians to be pulling your leg instead of speaking from the heart, and this is one of them. The national public has already outstripped the politicians on this important issue: a majority of Americans – especially younger Americans – consider the whole "agin' it" thing stupid; they don't see what the fuss is about and don't appreciate other people throwing some interpretation of the Bible in their faces about everything under the heaven.

Increasingly, "the Gay" is a non-issue, and the politicians will catch up soon. One of the best indicators of how far opinion has been shifting lately is the other day's remarkable statement by Republican State Senator Roy McDonald of New York; the fellow ought to get a medal, so I'll just give him the (salty) last word:

You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing," McDonald, 64, told reporters.

You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing.[...] (HuffPo quoting the New York Daily News.)

*I keep saying "marriage equality" because the semantic shift seems important: "gay marriage" sounds like a boutique issue, one too easy for opponents to dismiss as trivial in the face of larger concerns about economics, war, etc. – why not use a term that underscores the issue's broader civic and ethical significance?