The White House is still mopping up after Joe Biden’s comments on gay marriage yesterday. At today’s press briefing, White House spokesman Jay Carney batted down questions about whether President Obama has changed his stance on gay marriage, saying he had “no update on the president’s personal views.”
Meanwhile, David Axelrod sought to change the subject by highlighting the “very clear distinction” between Romney and Obama on the issue:
Though Axelrod sounded reluctant to discuss the issue again Monday — after tweeting about it Sunday— he quickly contrasted the Obama administration’s position on gay rights with Romney’s record.
The former Massachusetts governor “has funded efforts to roll back marriage laws in California and other places,” Axelrod said, adding that Romney “believes that we need a constitutional amendment banning the right of gay couples to marry and would take us backward not forward. There’s a very clear distinction in this race.”
No argument there – Romney and Obama have taken different positions on gay marriage-related policy. And while the president hasn’t explicitly spelled out his support for gay marriage, the Obama team has made sure that even the slowest learners recognize his true position on the issue, which he can’t take publicly (yet) because of “politics.”
But the Romney-Obama comparison is also a distraction, and it’s one that’s seemed to have worked so far with Obama’s liberal supporters. The question at hand isn’t whether Obama has taken more laissez faire positions on gay marriage than Mitt Romney. It’s whether he’s finally going to dispense with the charade and publicly acknowledge his own personal opinion on it. So far, many liberals have given Obama a pass because his policies are supportive of gay rights and (for the most part) gay marriage. Because gay marriage is chiefly a state-by-state issue right now, does it really matter what the president thinks?
Yes – it matters because he’s using it as a dodge. If Obama had never mentioned the issue, then there would be far less interest in his personal views. But he said he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman multiple times during his 2008 campaign. He then claimed his position was “evolving” during a meeting with bloggers in October 2010. That was more than a year and a half ago. How long does it take for one to “evolve”?
It’s time for Obama to clarify his position, particularly because it could have an impact on the way some of his supporters vote. The media wouldn’t let Romney get away with such evasiveness on the issue, and it shouldn’t allow it from Obama.
Obama's view of gay marriage is quite simple: 1) never express a clear opinion either way, and 2) contradict everything everyone else says on the matter regardless.
Gay marriage is chiefly a state-by-state issue now, and Romney was once the governor of the first state to pass and retain a law permitting gay marriage. What did he say then? nI suspect that in his heart, Romney supports gay marriage, and in his heart, Obama opposes it. But politics is politics. Romney has consistently opposed it, as a Republican candidate must. Obama has suppressed his own hostility, as a Democratic but secretly anti-gay candidate must.
Can you point to anything at all to support your "suspicion" that while Romney's church, to which he is so devoted, is squarely against SSM and "Romney has consistently opposed it," Romney is secretly for it? Did you happen to see that he had his fingers crossed when he said he was against it? Any other divinations as to what is in the secret heart of hearts of these two candidates or other ones?
You're kidding right? Romney for gay marriage and Obama against? You're living in a parallel universe mate.
"The former Massachusetts governor 'has funded efforts to roll back marriage laws in California and other places,' Axelrod said…" n nWhat is the basis for that claim? Did Romney ever dig into his own pocket and contribute to "efforts to roll back marriage laws in California" or anywhere else? Is Axelrod alluding to the Mormon Church's efforts in opposition to SSM in CA and elsewhere, which wouldn't incriminate Romney personally? Unless Axelrod has something with which to back up that claim, he should be called out on it. But the Romney campaign may not want to go there.