Source Claims Obama Considering Marriage Equality Endorsement Before November
With Democrats increasingly vocal about including marriage equality in their official party platform, it's looking more likely that President Obama may "evolve" toward full acceptance of same-sex nuptials before the election.
Well, that's what an insider told Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade:
The chances that Obama will make such an announcement before the election are looking better than in previous months as the issue receives growing media attention and voters in a handful of states face ballot initiatives this year.
An informed source, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said “active conversations” are taking place between the White House and the campaign about whether Obama should complete his evolution on marriage and that the chances of him making an announcement are about 50-50.
According to the source, the administration would like to unveil another major pro-LGBT initiative before the November election, and an endorsement of marriage equality could fit the bill. But concerns persist on how an endorsement of same-sex marriage would play in four or five battleground states.
“We’re talking about the Michigans, the Ohios, the Illinois of the world; the real battleground states in which voters are already conflicted and may factor this into their judgment,” the source said.
Though Obama wants to pass one more pro-LGBT policy, it may not be marriage. There's also speculation that he'll sign an ENDA-type executive order to protect federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. There's reportedly already a draft order drawn up, so these developments could go either way, not both ways, says the source.
"My feeling is you’ll get one, [but] you won’t get both before Election Day."




The LAST thing the gay community needs is for this election to become a referendum on Marriage Equality. Right now neither of the likely Republican candidates, Romney and Santorum, has broad support. There is a huge enthusiasm gap for either one and we want to keep it that way!
The GOP has been exploiting "wedge issues" for decades to get elected and the last thing we want to do is hand them another one, gift-wrapped with a bow, right before the election. They're already exploiting Obama's stated opposition to state laws that ban gay marriage against him.
Posted by: Caliban | Mar 22, 2012 12:26:24 PM
a strange world we live in when advisers decide when someone evolves and work place protections against discrimination and a declaration of support for marriage equality become mutually exclusive. I'll take what I can get, of course, I just wish these things didn't have to appear so politically calculated.
Posted by: R | Mar 22, 2012 12:29:26 PM
It's wonderful to see the community thinking strategically.
I'd go even further. Marraige is a symbolic issue designed by our enemies to put us on the bad side of public opinion.
I switch all the marraige battles to CU battles, where we are much stronger. And I'd switch the main focus to ENDA without trans protections, where we are stronger and which would help many more people. Trans protections could be brought in later when the public have evolved.
Posted by: Wilberforce | Mar 22, 2012 12:29:46 PM
Put MY civil rights on hold for strategic reasons?
I'm voting Paul.
Obama has spent as much as Bush, and in half the time. He's bad for gay families. Period.
I'm not a paid troll, nor a "rethuglican", although I'll inevitably be termed one...
Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 22, 2012 1:56:30 PM
I live in Michigan and I can tell you the last thing people care about here with 9.8% unemployment is Obama 'saying' he supports the right of gays to marry. Michigan is safe (D) anyways w/ all the union busting happening nowadays.
Posted by: Jay Hollon | Mar 22, 2012 2:01:38 PM
If we could just have a few more New Hampshire style states to balance out all those Ohio style ones... Oh well ... My heart Vs. my mind. Difficult as it is on my spirit, I must agree we need to maximize chances for a second term.
Posted by: ROBERT BAKER | Mar 22, 2012 2:48:21 PM
I'm glad that most posters here agree with me that it would be a bad idea for Obama to come out in favor of marriage equality before the election. It's 7 1/2 months. Even ONE more Supreme Court justice who's pro-gay is worth waiting this amount of time for. While it must be frustrating for you to have to wait for him to "evolve" (and I'm sure it's no picnic for him either, as he gets accused of being crafty) it isn't his fault that attitudes take time to change. I know it would be exciting (and validating for all of you) to have Obama give a pro-gay marriage speech and let the chips fall where they may, but as I've said before - doing good and feeling good about what you're doing aren't always the same thing.
As to the claim that he'd be "making history" and pushing things in a liberal direction, I've learned that you never know what suprises history has in store for you. Best to be practical and let "history" work itself out. Obama is the most LGBT-friendly president we've ever had. Gays should make re-election as easy as possible for him.
Posted by: Mary | Mar 22, 2012 2:55:38 PM
I thought the democratic party was already the party of gay people. Why does he have to evolve??? Oh that's right it's not convenient for them, only to suck money from gay people in time of their need. Oh yeah he CAN'T evolve because he has to follow his religion, even though his religion says abortion should also be against the law. Maybe after a few more cocktail parties with the "elite gays" they'll care about equality. Politicians are all the same, doesn't matter which party. Why so many of you bow down to them is beyond me.
Posted by: Name: | Mar 22, 2012 3:13:58 PM
Wow. What a bunch of battered wives. No one is going to come along and give you rights. You have to fight for them. Now is the time. Equality now.
Posted by: Max | Mar 22, 2012 6:34:50 PM
@Jason: Go back to bed.
I'm not generally one to consider kicking social justice down the road for the sake of political expediency, but considering the very real possibility that this move could put President Frothy McAssjuice in the Oval Office? Yeah. I'm totally cool with moving this announcement from November to January.
Lest anyone forget, President Obama did speak out against Prop 8. Those of you seem to be laboring under the disillusion that Californians screwed over their gay neighbors as the result of Obama's inaction need a reality check. Prop 8 happened because of our own community's complacency. Look up the statistics for the number of potential gay voters living in California in November 2008 that were unregistered to vote during the election and catch a clue.
Don't make the same mistake in allowing yourself to feel false confidence over the Republicans' inability to win the General Election. Obama needs our support, if for no other reason than he's the best we've got.
P.S.: Anyone who doesn't see that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote completely thrown away is damned fool, to be perfectly honest.
Posted by: FFS | Mar 22, 2012 7:55:00 PM
As an Ohioan, I know firsthand (Bush 41 election 2) how effectively the repugs use this sort of thing to energize the voter turnout in November. And sad to say, boys, IT WORKS. We (The Gays) are once again set to be the wedge issue, and Obama coming out in support of marriage equality pre-election is basically political suicide here. I seriously doubt it would influence those who already support him, but it certainly will help to bring the repug old guard out to vote against him. And around here, I don't think they care so much who they're voting FOR, it all about casting their vote AGAINST Obama. I want equality certainly, and we'll eventually have it. But at this point in time, the thought of a repug POTUS scares the hell out of me. The metropolitan areas of Ohio are safe bets for Obama, the rest of the state...
Posted by: jim | Mar 22, 2012 8:06:46 PM
he won't and for practical political reasons, he shouldn't. sad reality, but such is politics
Posted by: gomez | Mar 22, 2012 8:28:14 PM
Obama SHOULD endorse marriage equality before November.
Why?
The benefits out-way the cost. The democratic party overwhelmingly supports marriage equality. It is a sure way to get the democratic base fired up. A pre-November endorsement will be viewed as bold, and inline with the sentiment that anytime is the right time for civil rights. The perception of sacrificing political capitol for principle can be framed as brave and the mark of a true leader. Even though Obama would not be sacrificing much political capitol at all. Bravery and true leadership are characteristics Obama has lost ownership of in the eyes of his base at various times during his first term. An endorsement will also clearly distinguish him from the likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney, who can at this moment still claim he and Obama have the same position regarding marriage equality.
The damages you ask?
Republicans are the only major party who are still a majority opposed to marriage equality, and a group Obama was not going to get much votes from anyway. If republicans try to turn this into a wedge issue like they did with the contraception "controversy", it will backfire on them AGAIN. Republicans hurt themselves on these social issues. There is real economic pain reverberating throughout the nation. Moral contentious issues will not blow up to the point where they can be used as wedges during this election.
To conclude
3 things will win the presidential election for Obama. These 3 things are: high turnout among people 30 and younger, high women turnout, and winning a comfortable majority of votes among independents. A pre-November marriage equality endorsements is favorable to all three of the these groups. And I think these 3 groups at large are more important than say subgroups based on race and income.
Posted by: anony6 | Mar 23, 2012 1:15:37 AM
What country are you living in? The Democrat "base" never gets fired up about anything. Democrats are the party of free thinkers, as opposed to Republicans who let their spiritual leaders and talk-radio personalities tell them how to thing. No Democrat gets fired up about all liberal issues across the board. They all have certain things that get them fired up, which often differ greatly from what gets the Democrat next door fired up. Trying to get the "base" to act en masse is like herding cats. We can't form a unified front on anything. How do you think idiot Republicans keep getting elected?
Posted by: FFS | Mar 23, 2012 4:24:40 AM
This "source" lost all credibiliy with me by listing Illinos as a battleground state.
Clearly this person knows nothing about the campaign or politics in general. If Illinois is a battleground, Obama has already lost.
Posted by: Ken | Mar 23, 2012 4:49:15 AM
FFS - ditto what you said.
The democratic base isn't going to get fired up over gay marriage. It's been on the ballot in how many states already? Marriage equality has lost nearly every time. It just brings out the conservatives. While we might have support in theory, people aren't going to drag themselves out to vote for something that doesn't directly effect them. Hell, we can't even get gays to the polls, we expect straights to show up on our behalf!?
The only thing that might get the younger generation fired-up and to the polls is Obama coming out in favor of legalizing pot!
Posted by: JD | Mar 23, 2012 3:36:36 PM
@ FFS
Why the quotations on the word base? The democrats do have a base. Obama won the nomination over Hilary because he had the base's support. A group being collectively fired up, and also being composed of free thinkers is possible and quite regular. Just look at the many progressive movements throughout history. And yes the democratic party is less of a regional party when compared to the GOP, which contributes to the more diverse ideology. But I don't think the base varies nearly as much state to state when compared to just "run of the mill" democrats. Just as the tea party can arguably be called the base of the GOP, tea partiers have a similar ideology no matter the state, despite New England republicans being quite different from southern republicans.
I will concede that fired up was too strong of a phrase. Rather, a gay marriage endorsement will help RESTORE Obama's image to what it was in 08, which was a truly transformative leader. And that image did have the base fired up. Anything and everything that will restore that image, will energize the base. A gay marriage endorsement will be a bold step to do so.
@ JD
Just because gay marriage has historically lost on the ballot, doesn't make an endorsement of it a looser for Obama during the general. The best example we have of that is prop 8 in California. Huge Obama support in the state, small majority opposition to gay marriage. Which speaks to what I mentioned in my post 2 post above yours. People who take exceptional issue with gay marriage are not going to vote democrat anyway.
And I 200% agree with you on cannabis legalization. Obama will never in a million years do it, but if he did, young people would flood the polls and Ron Paul would lose his base and fundraising ability over night.
Posted by: anony6 | Mar 24, 2012 3:17:39 AM
The Republicians are going to have pro-fairness
for Gays in their Platform in the year 2084.
Or maybe later....
Posted by: Mike in nyc | Apr 5, 2012 12:40:43 PM