The 2012 presidential election was supposed to be about the economy, and even with President Obama's historic decision to make it known Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage, that is still likely to be true.
But the president's decision to announce in an ABC News interview that he personally backs gay marriage could mean that at least one social issue may take a more prominent role in the election-year spotlight.
The decision carries risks for the president. Anyone doubting that clearly need look no further than the overwhelming support Tuesday in North Carolina for a gay marriage ban to be added to the state's constitution. That amendment was approved 61 percent to 39 percent.
The president and his re-election team are clearly gambling, however, that his now-open support for same-sex marriage will attract more voters than it repels, and allow him to make the choice between himself and Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, even sharper.
Romney opposes gay marriage. Indeed, he has said he supports a federal constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman.
By taking a public stand on the contentious issue, Obama may do for Romney what the former Massachusetts governor has had trouble doing for himself — that is, energizing the Republican base, especially evangelical Christians, to rally behind the likely GOP nominee.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, made that very point in an interview:
"What everyone said was not going to be an issue in this election is now an issue. The president has made it an issue. This provides a very clear contrast between him and Mitt Romney. I think [Romney] may have been handed the key to support from social conservatives. Obama just turned up the heat and intensity."
Risking African-American Support
Another potential peril for Obama is that he alienates some of his heretofore most faithful supporters — African-Americans. Of all the groups represented in his political base, blacks are among the most churchgoing and hostile to the idea of gay marriage.
According to an October 2011 Pew Research poll, 62 percent of black Protestants oppose same-sex marriage.
But African-Americans have backed Obama to a lopsided degree — 96 percent support on Election Day 2008 with little if any drop-off since.
That could give the president and his re-election team less reason to be anxious about the effect of his support for gay marriage.
Like African-Americans, Latino voters also have a high church-attendance rate and many have similar antipathy to gay marriage. But their much stronger support for Obama over Romney could offset the fallout from the president's move.
The Upside
While there are downsides to Obama's decision to go public with his support for gay marriage, there also was an upside.
Obama's campaign has sought ways to recapture the excitement of 2008, especially with younger voters, LGBT voters and liberals disappointed by the gap between his campaign promises of four years ago and what he's actually been able to accomplish.
A recent Gallup poll indicated that just about as many Americans favor gay marriage (50 percent) as oppose it (48 percent). But get inside those percentages, and you see some important demographic differences.
Younger voters especially are much more supportive of same-sex marriage than older voters. According to Gallup, voters aged 18 to 34 favor the legalization of gay marriage 66 percent to 33 percent.
Unfortunately, those younger voters tend to turn up to vote on Election Day at significantly lower rates than their older counterparts. Obama's support for same-sex marriage could help boost that young-voter turnout.
Independent voters favor gay marriage 57 percent to 40 percent, the same as college graduates. Moderates favor it by 20 percentage points — 58 percent to 38 percent.
His new public stance on gay marriage certainly could remind many of those voters of what they saw in Obama four years ago, motivating many of them to come out and vote for him instead of sitting it out in November.
Justin Ruben, executive director of the liberal group MoveOn.org said:
"This is a historic day. The president's support for marriage equality is great news that's likely to energize progressive activists across the country."
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates legal equality for LGBT people, said in an interview:
"I'm thrilled, excited. It's a historic moment. I think that the president spoke from his heart, from a place of common humanity.
"His words ... give hope to LGBT Americans that, as he has always said, he sees them as a part of the American fabric.
"The leadership of the president, the words of the president, his coming out in support of an issue as important as marriage equality, and around which many are still struggling, still on a journey, will help those people."
Asked what difference he thought the president's decision would make on Election Day, Solmonese said:
"I think at the end of the day, this election will continue to be about the economy and about economic struggles we all face. As all contests like this, it will also be a question of character. What the president demonstrated today is that he is a person of deep conviction. We still have to win the fight for marriage equality."
One certainty is that Obama defused an issue that might have caused a ruckus at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
Congressional Democrats and most of the party's delegates support same-sex marriage, and some politics watchers were suggesting there could be a high-profile effort to get a strong gay marriage plank in the party's platform. If the president had maintained his public opposition, he would have appeared to be out of step with his party on an important issue. That's never a good thing for a party leader facing what many think will be a close election.
Given that there is already some talk of punishing North Carolina for the constitutional ban on gay marriage, Obama didn't need the additional headache of being berated on his gay-marriage stance.
The Republican Response
Republicans were quick to try to convert what some saw as a virtue — the president's willingness to finally take a clear stand on one of the most controversial social issues of the day, what Solmonese called "character" — into a vice.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus characterized the president's move as a crass act of political opportunism, and Romney's position as principled:
"While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear. We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that."
It's true that Romney has long opposed gay marriage and civil unions. But when he ran for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts in 1994 and later for governor, he tried to square the circle by leaving the impression that he was otherwise a strong defender of equal rights for LGBT Americans.
The same criticism that was made against Obama — that his stance of being for gay equality but against same-sex marriage — could just as easily be made against Romney, since it's hard to understand how one can be both for equal rights for gays and against gay marriage.
In any event, by removing that contradiction from his position on the issue, Obama now is free to attack Romney for his inconsistency.
Perkins, at the Family Research Council, said that, in his opinion, the advantage would go to Romney and social conservatives. He told us:
"Ten of the 16 battleground states have marriage amendments. The only thing that stands between the votes these people made and same-sex marriage is the Defense of Marriage Act," he said. "They're going to have to vote for someone who wants to overturn the work these people did on marriage."
Perkins added that he thought the president's action could affect his grip on the African-American vote, noting that in Tuesday's vote on an anti-gay marriage amendment in North Carolina, majority black precincts voted overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment.
Perkins also pointed to the 2004 presidential election, when President George W. Bush won the swing state of Ohio with the help of voters who turned out to vote for a ballot initiative promoted by Republicans that would ban same-sex marriage.
The number of conservatives voting that year in Ohio increased from 2000, and Bush made inroads with African-American voters, Perkins said. He added that black voters supported the Ohio anti-gay marriage initiative by 61 percent to 39 percent.
That may be true but, to state the obvious, the first black president wasn't on the ballot, so Perkins' comparison may have something of an apples to oranges quality to it.
9(MDA2Mzg3MDUxMDEyODg5NzcwMDhkODJjMA001))
Source: NPR
Comments [9]
Everyone please read my web page at www.mybetteramericaplan.com to see why it's important to re-elect President Obama and why Mitt Romney and the Republicans are bad for America.
With popular opinion pro-gay marriage, what is the risk? This issue likely won't energize the Republican base without alienating party moderates. Smart politics for the Democrats. But all politics.
Gay marriage, like abortion and immigration, are wedge issues created by the Karl Roves of the world to "energize the base" - in other words, get the single issue voters who are angry and afraid of gays, immigrants and women who might promiscuously destroy the social and religious fabric of the USA - (which of course they won't) - to get out and vote. Obama will lose no votes to the anti-gay single issue voters, for he never had them, and they are probably already 'energized' to vote for 'anyone but Obama' already. So there will probably be no political fallout for Mr. Obama in taking a very American position of favoring equal rights for all citizens before the law, which his supporters have mostly recognized before his announcement. Of course its political. Everything in an election year is political, but it is also undoubtedly sincere. Bottom line here is: how foolish is the citizen who will base his vote on whether gay people can be married -- as if that would have any real effect on their lives. They are real issues to be debated in this election.
Whoo-hoo!
I am so proud of our president for not only finally doing the right thing, but doing it before the election. This was a true act of integrity. Could this possibly be the beginning of our constitutional rights finally taking precedence over religious law? As stated in the 1868 14th Amendment : No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". In essence, we have a constitutional right to freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
PLEASE SIGN this international thank you card for our president!
www.allout.org/thanksobama
On a similar note concerning the 14th Amendment, I ask that you please sign and SHARE this petition on change.org
http://www.change.org/petitions/rectify-noise-code-laws-in-nyc-to-include-religious-institutions
I am not challenging anyone's right to practice their religion. However, amplification - especially because it is unregulated for religious institutions because they are exempt from noise code laws seems to again challenge the 14th Amendment. It is not a tenet of any religion as major religions have been in existence and thrived for hundreds if not thousands of years prior to the invention of electronic amplification. Traditionally, church bells, sirens, and calls to prayer were not amplified yet it has somehow become their "right" taking presedence over my right to peace and quiet within my home. This is clearly putting religious rights over civil rights (again) which is contrary to our Constitution.
There is an issue with a church in Marine Park that has refused to lower the decibel level of the amplification of the bells. There is also a mosque on my corner that blasts their call to prayer from a bullhorn attached to their roof. As a friend of mine said, "But it sounds so lovely". When I pointed out that he lives half a mile away, he promptly signed this petition.
http://www.change.org/petitions/rectify-noise-code-laws-in-nyc-to-include-religious-institutions
If you have any doubt to how serious of an issue this is, please watch this short video clip.I'm sure I disagree with the videomakers' politics but the footage is compelling.
FF to 45 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBbIQyLB1OU
I think a reasonable compromise would be to allow each institution to amplify (in a reasonable manner that can be regulated) on their individual high holy days and their chosen one day of the week. For example, Fridays for Jews and Muslims, Sundays for Christians).I know that this issue only affects a few, but it affects our quality of life tremendously; all day, everyday. Please sign and share!
http://www.change.org/petitions/rectify-noise-code-laws-in-nyc-to-include-religious-institutions
DO NOT ALLOW OUR LAWMAKERS TO CONTINUE To ALLOW RELIGIOUS LAW TO SUPERCEDE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!
Why is everyone underestimating any calculation behind Biden's comments? Instead of a gaffe, it could just as well been the administration's way to open the door on this discussion & to Obama's endorsement.
I wish people would stop saying Biden made a gaff statement on gay marriage. Anyone who looks at the footage can tell he is not saying it by accident.
I am aware of the strategy involved in making this public statement, and I do wonder if that strategy may backfire. However, as a human being, I am very happy to have heard the President of the United States make this statement. It sends a strong message to all Americans that members of the LGBT community are not second class citizens, and this will have a far-reaching, positive effect on all Americans. We need to continue to define ourselves as a forward-thinking nation that supports human rights, and gay marriage is a human right.
As a 58 year old lesbian planning a September wedding - I don't care why he did it. It does not take away from the joy and affirmation I felt yesterday listening to my president take a stand for my civil rights. YES I WEPT when I listened to him.
I will continue to focus on that and luxuriate in that feeling.
While I'm in favor of marriage equality, it's very much a back-burner issue for me. Marriage laws are made at the state level and the President has no authority to change what constitutes a legal Marriage anywhere. It looks to me like the President was pressured into making this declaration by people 'supporting' LGBT causes. However, this may also motivate a million or two Tea Party types, who might otherwise not have bothered to show up at the polls to vote for Mitt Romney, to vote. In short, it strikes me that those supporting LGBT causes have cut off their nose to spite their face.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.