Barack Obama has a marriage problem.
No, not that kind. To all appearances, Barack and Michelle Obama
are happily married. Rather, this marital malady concerns one
state, California, and one political movement, the push to redefine
marriage.
It began May 15 when the Golden State’s top court struck down a
voter-approved marriage law and culminated June 16, the date when
same-sex couples could legally marry.
Media conglomerates from across the country covered the historic
day. The party atmosphere grew (San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
told Time magazine the mood around city hall was “electric”) as county clerks opened their doors
and began issuing marriage licenses June 17. After tying the knot,
homosexual couples were only too willing to pose for cameras and
have their moment broadcast around the world.
“I see before me people who personify love and commitment. I see
people who are the personifications of joy and celebration,” said
actor George Takei, Sulu on the original Star Trek, just
before he and his partner got a
marriage license.
Journalists triumphantly chronicled the same-sex nuptials via
hundreds of human-interest stories. AP writer Malia Wollan wrote
about two men — one dressed in a kilt, the other “a
white jacket adorned with feathers,” both wearing pink orchid leis
around their necks — who married in Contra Costa County.
The San Francisco Chronicle described a group of eighth-grade graduates who went to see
their history teacher marry her partner. One student said her class
had been learning about LGBT rights in school, and that it was
“cool” to see it for real.
A reporter for the Edmonton Sun predicted an economic boom for California from this “summer
of love” caused by the influx of gay nuptials.
If nothing else, the stories reveal one fact: social liberals
are euphoric. Civil rights upheld, the economy blossoming, kids
getting a well-rounded education — all is good in the world.
Right up until Barack Obama opened his mouth.
IN AN INTERVIEW with ABC News’s Jack Tapper, Obama denied that the homosexual marriages taking
place in California bothered him, but then he committed the
cardinal faux pas of liberal doctrine by restating the
traditional definition of marriage.
“I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I
also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each
other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property,” he
said.
Big mistake. The liberal media and blogosphere pounced, hard. In
a blog post tastefully titled “Shut The Hell Up,” Sara Whitman, a
self-described suburban lesbian housewife, called out Mr. Change
for his rhetoric.
“If I hear ‘Marriage is between one man and one woman’ one more
time from Obama’s mouth — or any Democrats mouth — I’m going to
scream,” she wrote. “How is this change? Leadership? Hope? Or do
only straight people get to hope?”
The online homosexual publication Queerty had some advice for
Obama, too. The editors warned that “Whitman’s anger clearly indicates
that Obama and his campaign could be in dangerous territory with
some gays — clearly, Obama should keep his gay explanations to a
minimum.”
Some mainstream media outlets picked up on the tension as well.
In the Reuters blog post “No cake for Obama at same-sex weddings,” Peter
Henderson said the passion of same-sex couples in California had
cooled when the topic turned to Obama.
“With all due respect to Mr. Obama, he is not doing anything to
ensure my rights,” Ilana Kaufman of Oakland, Calif., told Reuters.
“Domestic partnership is separate, and it’s not equal.”
THIS UNDERLINES THE tension that, for years, has seethed between
the Democratic Party bosses and homosexual-rights activists on the
issue of marriage. The far left wants strong rhetoric and actions
to back it up. Politicians have elections to think about.
Striking the delicate balance between energizing the
homosexual-rights voting bloc (a solid component of the Democratic
base) and avoiding offense of traditionally minded Americans is
hardly an enviable task. John Kerry tried in 2004 and failed —
badly.
But the scenario is supposed to be different with Obama. He’s
the candidate of change and hope, the man who has generated a
near-messianic following. He doesn’t just wear his liberalism on
his sleeve — he plasters it across his forehead.
He’s a new kind of politician: modish, charismatic,
compassionate, in touch with the young but appealing to the old, a
sure bet to bring down gas prices, beat al Qaeda, and restore
American prosperity.
Homosexual activists are so agitated by Obama’s stance on
marriage rights because he is supposed to be the new candidate, not
bound to the dictates of the past. Yet he regurgitates the same old
talking points on matrimony, with scant deviation from the
positions espoused by John McCain.
Obama’s stance on marriage likely won’t cost him much support in
the general election, even among gays. Bloggers will complain, but
the pressure will dissipate. It’s a common, and in some cases
unfortunate, reality of elections — pet passionate issues are
forgotten by the time November roles around and the competition
between candidates is thick.
But still, we saw something important this week: Obama is hardly
the Democrats’ perfect savior. And at least on this one issue, he’s
anything but the candidate of change.
