The Obama campaign's homepage, as of this morning.
Step One for President Obama was deciding whether to announce his support for marriage equality. Step Two for the president and his team was deciding what to do in the wake of Step One.
In a way, this was a test unto itself: Obama was willing to take a bold stand on a controversial issue, but how forceful would he be in standing by the move? If the president and his campaign are worried about a possible backlash, would they downplay the announcement?
Apparently not. The Obama campaign's homepage features a large box along the top with a quote from the president: "Same-sex couples should be able to get married." It's also created a separate page just to tout the president's position, which was unveiled in a fundraising letter the campaign sent out last night on the issue, urging supporters to "weigh in ... on behalf of marriage equality."
The response, Zeke Miller reported, has been swift and positive.
President Barack Obama's endorsement of gay marriage carries a political cost, but it also means floods of cash from wealthy gay donors and disillusioned young people eager to be inspired by him again.
After three years of political compromise on issues from health care reform to spending cuts, Obama delivered a surprise gift to what many of his core supporters view as the civil rights issue of the day, simply by saying what everyone assumed he believed. But the distinction between implying a change and saying it outright will more than symbolic in the crucial area of campaign fundraising. Already, gay donors, mostly men, reportedly constitute 1 in 6 of Obama's top fundraisers known as bundlers. And in the first 90 minutes after the news broke Wednesday, the campaign received $1 million in spontaneous contributions, a Democrat told BuzzFeed.
Though much of the talk over the last day or so has been focused on potential political risks for Obama, it's worth keeping in mind that the president's comments yesterday are not without potential and meaningful benefits. Polls have shows Obama doing very well among self-identified liberals, younger voters, and the LGBT community, but there was a question about the intensity of the support -- these are constituencies likely to vote for the president, but were they prepared to open their wallets and volunteer their time?
Given the initial reaction to the news, yesterday may mark a turning point in the larger campaign: a point at which the left shifted from supporting Obama to being excited about him again. And as we saw in 2010, enthusiasm matters.
Leave a Comment:
View from NC. I am glad he supported gay marriage but, fear he may also have lost votes as a result given that NC use to be democratic when I lived here once and I came home to now a GOP state/swing state. I do hope enthusiasm matters in his favor but, may be politically divisive.
Maybe, maybe not. Amendment One passed, so that's a bad sign. On the other hand, this is now going to be an issue in the presidential election. It will motivate people on both sides of the question of marriage equality, but the advantage will probably be to the Democrats. Younger people tend to be more pro-equality than older people (said the middle-aged person), and so far their enthusiasm has lagged behind that of 2008. Younger voters helped push Obama over the top in 2008 and their lessened enthusiasm this cycle has been a concern. Will this help raise younger voters' enthusiasm? Probably. Enough to make a difference? We'll see. I expect that this will further drive voter enthusiasm among Democrats and on the left, and while it will also drive enthusiasm on the right, enthusiasm overall drives up turnout. Higher turnout is always more favorable to Democrats. There's a reason why Amendment One was not put on November's ballot: turnout will be higher in November, so the makeup of the electorate will be different.
Spoken like a Democrat. Mustn't upset anyone. Which is bonkers, considering how much success Republicans have had being divisive. Democrats have gotten used to having no spine. It's time for them to grow a pair. (A pair of spines!?)
Well if listening to my 17 year old daughter (and this will be her FIRST election) and my 20 year old son (second election) is indicative they had identical responses. 'Why would the Republicans CARE about who marries who? I thought we were all equal in the eyes of the law.' I guess all those years of screaming at the TV actually worked!
The generational and educational aspect can move beliefs forward or backward, and that is why it is important for young people to get involved in issues. Representatives on the right are quick to point out how our children will inherit our monetary debts.. What about the cost/debt of inequality? Historically we should know that that debt takes quite a long time to pay off!
A question I also ask is why, since the President cannot unilateraly declare gay marriage legal nationwide, that this is that relevant for the upcoming election. It's all good and fine that he is for it, but just because he supports it does nothing for making it happen everywhere in this country. Sadly, it will take years and years before this is universally legal and his timing for supporting it, to me, is strictly for campaign donations and possible votes (although he may have lost some).
I do not like one-issue voters, and this may or may not be something like that, but I just find it curious on the timing both by the POTUS and the media. I just hope no one votes soley on this.
Most of the talk right now is about votes Obama might lose because of this. Maybe ...
But something else might happen: What if the religious bigots in the base of the GOP make so much nasty noise that they drive "independents" into the "D" column?
I think the noise will happen and it will be intolerable. There is an ideological chasm in this country between the advanced and the obsolete. Each day the obsolescence is more obvious and hopefully, less attractive. We have so many more pressing priorities than this issue, like the planet, climate change, the plastic-trash zones in the oceans, renewable clean energy, green product containment, etc. It is not that I don't think that marriage/lawful equality is important but, the clock is ticking on what we can do to change carbon output, etc.
I fully understand the symbolic effect and the momentum of his announcement, but what is the practical or policy effect? I don't know of anything substantive since he is for leaving the decision up to the states.
What is he proposing federally? Surely his team has been thinking in this area. He didn't just wake up yesterday and think, "Oh, I think now I'm for same sex marriage."
I think there would be much more of a backlash if he mandated this federally. I think that by leaving it up to the states, but telling the states that he endorses it, it will push the democratic states to pass laws, and it will force the conversation for the republicans as to why it matters so dearly to them that same sex couples can't have the same state's rights as heterosexual couples.
Interesting, ludwigtr, but most of the "Republican" states have already addressed the issue, so I don't see what the gain would be unless it was to move more lazy "Democratic" states to pass same sex marriage laws.
In the end, I don't see President Obama doing anything substantive or policy wise, seems more lip service (in the narrow area of same sex marriage, not LGBT rights as a whole).
Mandating it federally will take a lot of time. Obviously this is not a topic that would breeze through Congress. I agree with RobDon on the symbolism. I do not know how this will help him in the election. I would imagine people that support this are already voting his way.
Typo Alert:
I think you meant "when" to do Step One.
Common error I, too, make way to frequently.
Good for BO. He finally stated what everyone knew his evolving position to be. The local news media here in LA went to black churches to get initial reactions and there was no support from black church goers, some of whom were very distraught. However that said there was still general support for BO. This change will be a push at best and a slight disadvantage for him in NC and FL.
That "influx" of donations to the Obama campaign in the first 90 minutes was not only from gay donors. There was a $200 donation from me, a straight, white old lady.
I suspect there were others from people like me. And, no, I don't have gay children or siblings; supporting marriage equality is simply the right thing to do. I can only hope that my grandchildren will look back on 2012 and be shocked there was ever a time when gay marriage was even an issue. Sort of like we feel when we look back at the fight over inter-racial marriage.
Me too phoebes, older, white, straight lady who believes in fairness! I wish I had more to donate!
That "influx" of donations to the Obama campaign in the first 90 minutes was not only from gay donors. There was a $200 donation from me, a straight, white old lady.
I do suspect this is one of the top reasons he did it now. His support will not make it legal nationwide for years or decades (sadly), but it obviously worked $$ wise for his campaign. His campaign is good at this stuff. Remember they spent $750 million in 2008 and plan on raising $1 Billion this time around - and that is not including any Super PAC money.
Barack Obama's cowardly half-assed "support" of Gay Marriage, as long as it can still be sorted out state by state, like Slavery was 150 years ago, recalls a truly brave moment. Our awesome former vice president Dick Cheney sincerely and fully endorsed gay marriage three years ago. THAT is bravery. God bless him.
Dick Cheney awesome???? Please, it's only because his daughter is gay otherwise he's be as bigoted as the rest of his ilk.
'Bravery'? Honestly? I guess you don't remember how Cheney and the GOP went all crazy on Kerry for even MENTIONING that his daughter was gay? And THEN a couple of years later he became 'supportive'. Get your facts straight BEFORE you troll.
What??? "Cheney's not a bigot but he would be one if he didn't have a gay daughter!" This is plain silly. Give the man credit in an area where he is due credit.
Aren't there many people who's views on similar issues are impacted because they know someone personally? Isn't that in essence what President Obama said influenced his "evolution?"
Wow, there must be a lot of hate there...sorry, dude.
Rachel, I love you, love how you go in depth on issues and am TOTALLY happy about the president's decision to be openly supportive of gay rights, including marriage. I am a heterosexual OLDER woman. OK, in some circles I am just OLD at 66. But I have been a liberal all my life and so are most of my friends. And despite what some say, I find myself becoming more liberal the older I get. So I do indeed scratch my head at the stats of my generation. Then again I consider myself a boomer since I was born at the end of 1945, after WWII officially ended. Anyway I applaud your work, LOVE when you are on MTP and talk down to old f*rt right wingers.
But I do have one issue with you. I do not know why you come off as so negative toward everything Clinton, whether Bill or Hillary. I was glad Barney Frank took on some of your negativity toward Bill Clinton. While Bill was far from perfect in so MANY ways, I believe he truly was headed in the right direction. I understand the impatience of many in the gay community, just as I understand the impatience of youth (I was after all an activist in the 60s (decade not age)).
Anyway, many of us were evolved early on, many took a little longer and I believe that fighting the sharp right turn of the 1980 election of Reagan has been no easy task for Obama and it was probably even more difficult in the 90s on some issues.
Again I applaud your insight. I just think that you are more fair and open minded to people like Michael Steele (who sorry, but I change the channel when he comes on) than you have been to Bill or Hillary.
Just need to get that off my chest.
I don't think she's been uncomplimentary to Hillary, but Bill, just causes love/hate for his actions as President...from pulling the nomination of Atty Gen nominee within first weeks, to "welfare reform", to DADT, to cancelling Glass-Stegall and other deregulation rules, affairs, mixed w/ positive changes, growing economy, involvment to stop E. European genocide, etc., somehow don't seem to balance. So, Jjc, maybe Rachel can speak more directly to her own angst about former President Clinton, but as a 65 yr old myself, I agree and mostly share your sentiments. Rachel speaks truth to power and we need more journalists/pundits to do likewise rather than just "reporting" the words said.
President Obama can be considered to be more than just brave on his position about marriage equality. President Obama has consistently showed on how much he does care about America and its people. His record stands strong for all people to have a good and prosperous future. And the right future for everyone as in his speeches he has voiced his opinions and made actions to do what really is the right things to do as he has shown compassion and grace for people to have a healthy, prosperous and beneficial environment for everyone. As far as voting for President Obama he can have my vote any day, because out of the choices seen and any other choices President Obama will always be the right choice.
We the people have to step out of the current political paradigm
and speak the truth. Obama has led by example with his announcement yesterday
regarding his personal belief about gay marriage.
It seems to me that the Republicans have adopted the
following strategy:
It does not matter what is said- just say whatever you want
some segment of the population to hear- and then say something else (even the
complete opposite) so that another
segment hears something else- the Republicans have mastered the sound bites-and
that has become their message-the underlying assumption is that the public is
either too unintelligent to notice or too apathetic to care.
The second strategy is to push until there is a push back –
the only recent push back I can think of was birth control-and the Republicans
have already made that something of the past-so we can add a third assumption,
the public has no memory.
We the people have to step out of the current political paradigm
and speak the truth.
I suppose it is okay to continue pushing back until we
figure out something else. However, the Republicans are pushing on so many
fronts – and the public is pushing back after the Republicans have gone way
past the line – sometimes not even then (Michigan, Statuary Hall…). We need to
change the paradigm.
We the people have to step out of the current political paradigm and speak the truth. Obama has led by example with his announcement yesterday regarding his personal belief about gay marriage.
It seems to me that the Republicans have adopted the following strategy: It does not matter what is said- just say whatever you want some segment of the population to hear- and then say something else (even the complete opposite) so that another segment hears something else- the Republicans have mastered the sound bites-and that has become their message-the underlying assumption is that the public is either too unintelligent to notice or too apathetic to care.
The second strategy is to push until there is a push back – the only recent push back I can think of was birth control-and the Republicans have already made that something of the past-so we can add a third assumption, the public has no memory.
We the people have to step out of the current political paradigm and speak the truth. I suppose it is okay to continue pushing back until we figure out something else. However, the Republicans are pushing on so many fronts – and the public is pushing back after the Republicans have gone way past the line – sometimes not even then (Michigan, Statuary Hall…). We need to change the paradigm.
Wow Eric!-2804575! According to your timeline,Dick Cheney fully endorsed gay marriage after he was VP. When did his daughter come out? Just wondering, because Bush was President for 8 years. What a profile in courage Also, ignore the repeal of DADT, not defending DOMA etc. I guess we should give credit to Cheney. Actions speak louder than words or as far as your concerned, they don't.Better yet, stay home in protest, because Obama didn't clear a standard you set for him.Why don't you go vote for Mitt, who now states, no to gay marriage, civil unions and the like? Let's see what happens when Repugs are in charge of the WH, Senate and House. That will show Obama for not speaking up sooner! Obama did the right thing and you bash him for it. He could have stayed silent or continue to 'evolve' and try not to lose the election or he could make a stand that has political analysts wringing their hands and worried about the 'political risk' for treating everyone as equals. That is brave! Sorry for the rant, but I am sick of the 'it's about time', the 'is that all', the 'i didn't get everything I want' chorus coming out (no pun intended) and bash this President at every turn. Maybe just maybe, if we show some support and solidarity and keep Obama's poll numbers up and stay engaged, we can withstand the onslaught (super pacs, voter suppression/ MSM propping Romney up) that is going to come from the other side. You have not seen ugly and Obama will need our help. This is not to co-sign on everything he has done, but for one day, can we agree he did the right thing?
If you truly are thankful to President Obama for stating his honest belief that allowing same-sex-marriages is the right thing to do.... please go the the following site and add your name to the thank-you card for him. The more people there are who show support for him, the less likely the GOP's rantings will matter.
http://act.allout.org/go/1070?akid=703.315466.nDia8a&t=3
I have also written emails to my congressguys, so they have some idea how this would poll with me.
If churches want to weigh in on 'traditional marriage', they should say that "marriage is an institution to be held by a man and a woman, which is ended only by death." And then, they should take steps to have demonstrable evidence that their marriages work better and last longer than civil ones.
I don't think gay marriage is going to be a big issue with undecided voters. And voters who decide to vote against Obama on the basis of one issue were not going to support Obama anyway. This issue will fade as the elections get underway. Only Romney can benefit from the issue because it will solidify his support with evangelicals who were not going to vote Dem. Even that may not be enough for the religious right to turn out and vote for Romney, but it may help with other elections. Again, the Republicans are going to be left behind on an issue where the voters and Dems have moved forward.
I'm going to try to say this as concisely as possible, even though there are a million words competing for space in my brain right now: Equal rights are not equal until everyone has them. Until that time, they are unequal rights. If rights are not universal, they are not rights at all. If they are subject to a vote, they are not rights, either. Until equal rights are universal, and are inherent by virtue of you being a human, then they are simply privileges, afforded to some people, and withheld from others. And if you're one of the lucky ones who happens to have your rights/privileges now, just wait, because at some point, the things you feel automatically confer those rights/privileges to you today, may be taken away by a new majority tomorrow. This is why it's vital to advocate for equal rights for EVERYONE, because if we don't protect every minority, the minority you're in will someday wish it had been on the side of equal rights for all- when it had the chance.