In reply to Matthew Dessem.

Matt,
If I could consolidate this entire post into what is the one most important point, it would be this: claiming that civil rights issues should be left to states to decide is not a moderate position. We have to stop acting like it is.

Earlier, I said it was "inaction." It's actually worse than that; it's inaction in the face of clear injustice. I think it's ridiculous that Obama is getting praise and thanks for making what is practically the same statement Chris Christie was vilified for.

If you leave the rights of a minority up to a majority vote, the minority loses. If you leave the rights of a minority up to individual states, the minority loses, as their rights change from state to state. That's not rhetoric, we've seen it happen. Not long before NY legalized same-sex marriage, there was a piece in the Times from a woman who'd gotten married to another woman in Vermont, moved to NY, broke up, fell in love with a man, and she couldn't marry him, because she couldn't get divorced from a marriage that wasn't recognized by the state of NY! It's an untenable position.

An expert on constitutional law should know that. And no, it might not be fair, but I'll say it anyway: a black man should know that, and a child of an interracial relationship should know that. And the question might be melodramatic, but it's still perfectly applicable here, on a smaller scale: where would we be if slavery had been left to the states to decide? The essence of a relationship doesn't change when the couple crosses state lines, so why should the recognition of it? Anyone who asserts that it's perfectly valid to leave this to individual states is either ignorant or lying. Obama isn't ignorant. That's what I mean when I say that Obama should know better.

I guess my thinking on this is that it’s always been obvious that Obama supports full civil rights for gay people, but for calculating (and craven) political reasons, didn’t think he could say so publicly. He supported gay marriage in 1996, for God’s sake. You say that it seems like he should have known all along–well, I think he did, or at least since 1996. [...] I just think, based on Obama’s actions, his true position is probably closer to Corey Booker’s than he’s letting on.
Here is a timeline of Obama's "evolution" on the topic of same-sex marriage. I think you're projecting beliefs onto Obama that not only has he never shown evidence of having, but he's been actively denying for years. Between 2004 and last Tuesday, his campaign and his administration have taken every opportunity possible to make it absolutely clear: he's against same-sex marriage.

While running for senate, according to that timeline, he said that he doesn't believe marriage is a civil right. I would genuinely like to hear any rational defense of that belief.

Also, again I can't find the link anymore, but someone pointed out that the issue of same-sex marriage is the only one in which Obama claims to have an anti-federalist position. For just one instance, he's got absolutely no qualms in backing federally-mandated health care.

Now not using the bully pulpit is worth condemning (though he did make an “It Gets Better” video, right?)
Have you watched it? It's an anti-bullying message. (At least Biden's compared homosexuality to his own stuttering problem, which made it seem less robotic). It's as generic a message as you can possibly make without ending up with a Disney film. He talks about not discriminating against people while his administration was speaking out repeatedly in favor of a discriminatory policy against homosexuals.

And pushing him to be on the right side of this issue — well, that’s what just happened, right? But I’d rather have a Lyndon Johnson in office, uninterested in being on the right side in a defeat while simultaneously accomplishing as much as possible. I mean, sure, I’d rather have Corey Booker. But better Johnson than Strom Thurmond. And if some kabuki about evolving on the issue is the price for making real progress, well, let’s pay it.
The parts of his statement that I quoted at the end of the post above speak out on the right side of this issue. Practically every other word he said on the topic, however, is almost verbatim the same terminology that same-sex marriage opponents use to justify introducing constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in state after state. Different conclusions. Healthy debate. Has to happen at a local level. People aren't doing it out of malice (or homophobia). We have to respect everyone's opinions. No one with intelligence or backbone has a responsibility to "respect" opinions that are wrong, they have the responsibility to correct them.

You say that it's all the price of making progress. In 2008, CA wrote bigotry into the state constitution. In 2012, NC did even worse, restricting civil unions as well. Everything Obama said regarding policy in that interview says that this is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Where is the progress, exactly?

I do think you underestimate the difference between people thinking Obama supports gay marriage and giving Karl Rove video footage of Obama saying it, which he can (and will) cut into hundreds of Citizen’s-United political ads and run 24×7 in Ohio and North Carolina and other swing states with a sufficiently bigoted population that they’ll help get the gobshits to the polls. [...] The issue is not that Obama will lose the black & latino vote. The issue is that the evangelicals will all, every last one, go to the polls because their preachers have been telling them God will destroy the country and make them have the gay marriages they keep thinking obsessively about, for some reason, if they don’t vote.
So we're supposed to believe that there's a significant demographic of evangelical gobshits who are swayed by FOX News and Karl Rove-driven GOP ads, who were going to vote for Barack Hussein Obama? Seriously?

The only way I'd even entertain the idea that this was politically risky is if you could present some demographic of Obama supporters who would suddenly be turned away by a half-assed and heavily-qualified support of same-sex marriage. This group of gullible evangelicals you're talking about don't cut it — they're still convinced he's Muslim. The only reason I even mentioned blacks and latinos is because the analysts who point to the high voter turn-out and support for Obama in the 2008 election still aren't quite sure whether race or gay marriage is the defining issue for them.

The Daily Show had the best take on it, when they showed all of the reactions on FOX News (even including the execrable and moral compass-free Michelle Malkin) complaining that the announcement was opportunistic. Not that it was a violation of the natural law that will destroy the moral fiber of the country. In fact, only Limbaugh, out of all the bullshit blowhard responses that I've seen, tried to take the tack of fear-mongering about the institution of marriage being under attack.

Let that sink in: even FOX has figured out which way the wind is blowing, and they've begun to realize that there's not much life left in bigoted, apocalyptic talk about pedophilia or men wanting to marry their dogs. It hurts them more than it helps. They've already demonstrated that if they use this at all, they're going to use it to portray Obama as inconsistent and opportunistic, and they'll mock his use of the word "evolution."

I guess what I’d say is this: the moral calculus for these decisions is simple, and mind-bogglingly easy. And that makes anything less than full support seem stupid and craven. But politics is stupid and craven. The more the GOP can mobilize the bigots, the less likely it is that any progress will be made after 2012 — a lot could have happened between 2000 and 2008 that didn’t, because Bush was in the White House. [...] I just think, based on Obama’s actions, his true position is probably closer to Corey Booker’s than he’s letting on. Anyway if I understand your conclusion correctly, we basically feel the same way about his statement–it’s not earth-shattering, and it should be obvious (and he shouldn’t be saying these things should be voted on) but it’s still a good thing.
But I think that it sounds like you want it both ways: it's both an important symbolic statement, and an unfortunately necessary example of political theater. I say that it simply can't be both.

Insincerity robs a statement of its symbolism. If you have to take everything a politician says and run it through the filter of political strategy, staying on message, possible motivation for saying it, possible repercussions for saying it, how is it going to play to the swing voters — at that point, you can't take any of it as genuine. You can only look at it as a statement of policy. Obama's "message" says one thing, his policy says the opposite. I don't know on what "actions" of Obama's that you're basing the belief that his true position is the same as Booker's: he's actually said the opposite. "I continue to believe this is an issue that's going to be worked out at the local level."

Booker's talking about referendums and popular votes in particular, and he doesn't explicitly talk about it in terms of "states' rights" vs federalism. But it would take uncharacteristically tortured logic to say that it's wrong to make a person a 2nd class citizen based on the opinions of a majority of voters, but it's perfectly fine for a person to be a 2nd class citizen in 30 states, a full citizen in 8, and of some indeterminate status in the rest.

And what's the most galling is that Obama's campaign — the reason I gladly voted for him, instead of begrudgingly voting for him as I did with Kerry — was full of the sentiment that political machinations were bullshit. He gave one eloquent speech after another, all talking about unity, bipartisanship, equality, and hope. Saying "Yes! 'Hope' plays well to the disillusioned 18-24 demographic" robs that of all its meaning.

Yes, it's great that Obama issued a statement that same-sex couples should be able to get married. The bit I quoted at the end hits all the right points: it's about creating families, not threatening them; it's not a threat to religious freedom; many gay couples have children; and civil unions aren't sufficient because it's fundamentally an issue of equality, not just marriage.

But by the looks of my web stats and what links readers are following, nobody got what I was saying when I pointed out that Obama said he didn't want his statement politicized, exploited, or turned into some type of big issue for everybody. And that's a shame, because here's how he didn't want it politicized (released on YouTube immediately after the announcement), this is how he didn't want it exploited (promoted to the top of the campaign page on the day of the announcement), and this is intended to make sure that it's done without a lot of hoopla or notice.

I was being absolutely sincere when I said that I care what Obama thinks. Believe me, I would love to be able to believe that this was a sincere and genuine statement. Even if I still thought his actual policies were bullshit, just having that statement out there would have some kind of symbolic value. But the eagerness and swiftness of his campaign to capitalize on it won't even let me have that. And forcing Biden to apologize for raising the issue at all just robs the entire spectacle of any meaning. It replaces the statement with a different statement: "Stop whining about your so-called 'civil rights' and just give us money."