The gay marriage long game

The current Democratic president faces an election year dilemma that the next one won't

Topics: War Room,

 The gay marriage long game (Credit: AP/Carolyn Kaster)

At some point in the future, Barack Obama, perhaps the only national politician who supported gay marriage in the 1990s and opposes it today, will officially complete his “evolution” on the subject and endorse full equality. The assumption has been that this will occur sometime after the November election, when he’ll either be a second-term president or an ex-president, freed either way from ever having to worry about running for office again.

There’s a growing possibility, though, that Obama will be forced to make a tough call at the height of this year’s campaign, thanks to pressure within his own party. Last week, four former Democratic national chairmen publicly called for the party’s 2012 platform to endorse marriage equality, echoing previous statements from Nancy Pelosi and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who will serve as the permanent chairman of the party’s Charlotte convention this summer. Mike Memoli reported today on the platform maneuvering and noted that it

puts Obama in an awkward spot. He’s asking gay rights supporters for votes and money — he is scheduled to headline a fundraiser with gay supporters Tuesday in Florida — without committing himself on an issue of paramount concern.

According to Memoli, a platform committee will be assembled in mid-June, but a platform drafting committee could be in place before then. Since the White House effectively controls the DNC, the question is whether Obama’s team will work behind the scenes to keep a pro-gay marriage plank out of the platform, perhaps with some kind of compromise language. Theoretically, Obama could let the party adopt a marriage plank while remaining officially noncommittal (“I respect where my fellow Democrats are on this issue, but I’m just not there yet myself…”), but whether that would be practical is another question. Or maybe, as unlikely as it seems, he’ll conclude that there are more points to be scored by boldly endorsing gay marriage than by sticking with the “I’m evolving” mushiness; Greg Sargent recently reported that Obama’s team is at least thinking about this possibility.

You Might Also Like

What this really illustrates is that Obama, who as a state Senate candidate in a very liberal district in 1996 was on the cutting edge of progressive opinion when he endorsed gay marriage, has fallen behind where most of his party is on this issue. His reluctance to publicly come around is understandable; it’s still unclear how swing voters in states like Ohio would respond to a pro-gay marriage presidential candidate, and every time the issue has been placed on a statewide ballot, the anti- side has prevailed. But even voters in those states are changing their minds quickly, and the pace is even faster within the Democratic Party.

Viewed from this angle, Obama’s decision doesn’t feel quite as important. Sure, it would be a major development if he and his party were to officially endorse gay marriage this year. But look ahead to 2016, when the Democratic nomination will be open. It’s striking how many of the prospective candidates — Andrew Cuomo, Martin O’Malley, Deval Patrick, Sherrod Brown, Dan Malloy, Elizabeth Warren — are on-board with marriage equality. Their position is rapidly becoming the position that all aspiring national Democrats will be expected to take, and it’s virtually inconceivable that the ’16 platform won’t reflect this. And even if he punts this year, as still seems likely, it’s just as inconceivable that Obama’s evolution won’t also be complete by then.

Steve Kornacki
Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 8
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails
    Sonic

    7 ways Americans have defiled the hot dog

    Sonic's Bacon Double Cheddar Croissant Dog

    Sonic calls this a "gourmet twist" on a classic. I am not so, so fancy, but I know that sprinkling bacon and cheddar cheese onto a tube of pork is not gourmet, even if you have made a bun out of something that is theoretically French.

    Krispy Kreme

    7 ways Americans have defiled the hot dog

    Krispy Kreme's Doughnut Dog

    This stupid thing is a hotdog in a glazed doughnut bun, topped with bacon and raspberry jelly. It is only available at Delaware's Frawley Stadium, thank god.

    KFC

    7 ways Americans have defiled the hot dog

    KFC's Double Down Dog

    This creation is notable for its fried chicken bun and ability to hastily kill your dreams.

    Pizza Hut

    7 ways Americans have defiled the hot dog

    Pizza Hut's Hot Dog Bites Pizza

    Pizza Hut basically just glued pigs-in-blankets to the crust of its normal pizza. This actually sounds good, and I blame America for brainwashing me into feeling that.

    Carl's Jr.

    7 ways Americans have defiled the hot dog

    Carl's Jr. Most American Thick Burger

    This is a burger stuffed with potato chips and hot dogs. Choose a meat, America! How hard is it to just choose a meat?!

    Tokyo Dog

    7 ways Americans have defiled the hot dog

    Tokyo Dog's Juuni Ban

    A food truck in Seattle called Tokyo Dog created this thing, which is notable for its distinction as the Guinness Book of World Records' most expensive hot dog at $169. It is a smoked cheese bratwurst, covered in butter Teriyaki grilled onions, Maitake mushrooms, Wagyu beef, foie gras, black truffles, caviar and Japanese mayo in a brioche bun. Just calm down, Tokyo Dog. Calm down.

    Interscope

    7 ways Americans have defiled the hot dog

    Limp Bizkit's "Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water"

    This album art should be illegal.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>