By ROSS DOUTHAT
5:47 p.m. | Update Visit my blog for an update to this column written after President Obama’s statements about same-sex marriage today.
In the latest Gallup poll, 50 percent of Americans support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples – which is more than the percentage of Americans that supported the Affordable Care Act, think favorably of the controversial 2009 stimulus package, or approve of Barack Obama’s job performance in general. Among independent voters, meanwhile, support for same-sex marriage is up to 57 percent, meaning that more independents support same-sex marriage today than voted for Obama during his easy victory in 2008.
Given these numbers, it seems a little strange that the president is so unwilling to acknowledge what every non-delusional Washington observer believes to be the case – that like his voluble vice-president, he is part of the emerging pro-same-sex-marriage majority, rather than the opponent that he still officially pretends to be. Why does a president who declined to defend the Defense of Marriage Act persist in the ridiculous pretense of an “evolving” position, one might reasonably ask (an evolution that will be complete, one assumes, the day he wins re-election), when same-sex marriage might actually be a political winner, and his wink-and-a-nod approach to the issue looks so transparently calculated?
Journalists looking for an answer to this question have largely focused on the possibility that a presidential shift on same-sex marriage might depress Democratic turnout among blacks and Hispanics, two crucial constituencies in which support for same-sex unions is lower than in the country as a whole.
But there are two deeper reasons why the president might be leery of being honest about what we can reasonably assume are his actual convictions on the issue.
Doug Mills/The New York TimesVice President Joe Biden caused a stir over his support for gay marriage.
The
first reason is that while the increase in public support for same-sex
marriage over the last two decades has been astonishingly swift, it has
not been irreversible. Instead, sudden bursts of legal momentum – mostly
driven by judicial rulings, from Massachusetts to Iowa – have often
prompted temporary backlashes. In Gallup’s polling, support for same-sex
marriage rose from 35 percent to 42 percent between 1999 and 2004, but
then dropped back to 37 percent; it rose to 46 percent just before
Obama’s 2008 victory, but then dropped back to 40 percent a year later.
Today’s 50 percent support likewise represents a slight drop-off from
the high of 53 percent in the survey Gallup conducted last year.
This pattern suggests that Americans grow more resistant to same-sex marriage the more they feel that it’s being imposed upon them by an unelected judicial elite, and grow more supportive the more it seems to be gaining ground organically. A president is not an unelected judge, but a public flip-flop on the issue by the nation’s chief executive might feel like yet another elite attempt to pre-empt a debate that appears to be moving toward a resolution, but hasn’t quite been settled yet.
The second reason for the White House’s caution is that opinion polling has consistently understated opposition to same-sex marriage since the issue rose to national prominence. Voters who say they support it when Gallup and other pollsters come calling can behave very differently in the privacy of the voting booth.
In a 2010 paper, for instance, the New York University political scientist Patrick J. Egan compared polling in advance of state same-sex marriage referendums to the actual results, and found that
But to say that the president’s approach is understandable does not mean that it’s necessarily defensible. Supporters of same-sex marriage have worked very hard to frame their issue, not as an ordinary political conflict, but as an all-or-nothing question that pits enlightenment and progress against reaction, bigotry and hate. I don’t accept that framing, but I accept that its architects genuinely believe in it, and see the conflict over same-sex unions as a clear-cut struggle between good and evil, with no possibility of middle ground.
If same-sex marriage isn’t an issue where people can disagree in good faith, though, then the president’s evasions and obfuscations can’t be treated as ordinary political maneuverings, and excused as just so much politics-as-usual. If the debate is as black and white as many supporters of same-sex marriage argue, then they should be much harder on political leaders who pretend that it’s a gray area.
Indeed, if you accept the framing of the debate that many liberals (and many journalists) embrace, then you have to acknowledge that President Obama has spent the last four years lying to the American people about his convictions on one of the defining civil rights issues of our time, and giving aid and comfort to pure bigotry in the service of his other political priorities.
This is a harsh indictment, but it’s one that follows inexorably from premises that many of the president’s own supporters have wholeheartedly embraced. If they hold true to these premises — and the press holds true to its obligations — then the kind of uncomfortable questions the White House spent this week dodging will be asked again and again of the president over the course of the campaign to come.
In the latest Gallup poll, 50 percent of Americans support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples – which is more than the percentage of Americans that supported the Affordable Care Act, think favorably of the controversial 2009 stimulus package, or approve of Barack Obama’s job performance in general. Among independent voters, meanwhile, support for same-sex marriage is up to 57 percent, meaning that more independents support same-sex marriage today than voted for Obama during his easy victory in 2008.
Given these numbers, it seems a little strange that the president is so unwilling to acknowledge what every non-delusional Washington observer believes to be the case – that like his voluble vice-president, he is part of the emerging pro-same-sex-marriage majority, rather than the opponent that he still officially pretends to be. Why does a president who declined to defend the Defense of Marriage Act persist in the ridiculous pretense of an “evolving” position, one might reasonably ask (an evolution that will be complete, one assumes, the day he wins re-election), when same-sex marriage might actually be a political winner, and his wink-and-a-nod approach to the issue looks so transparently calculated?
Journalists looking for an answer to this question have largely focused on the possibility that a presidential shift on same-sex marriage might depress Democratic turnout among blacks and Hispanics, two crucial constituencies in which support for same-sex unions is lower than in the country as a whole.
But there are two deeper reasons why the president might be leery of being honest about what we can reasonably assume are his actual convictions on the issue.
Doug Mills/The New York TimesVice President Joe Biden caused a stir over his support for gay marriage.This pattern suggests that Americans grow more resistant to same-sex marriage the more they feel that it’s being imposed upon them by an unelected judicial elite, and grow more supportive the more it seems to be gaining ground organically. A president is not an unelected judge, but a public flip-flop on the issue by the nation’s chief executive might feel like yet another elite attempt to pre-empt a debate that appears to be moving toward a resolution, but hasn’t quite been settled yet.
The second reason for the White House’s caution is that opinion polling has consistently understated opposition to same-sex marriage since the issue rose to national prominence. Voters who say they support it when Gallup and other pollsters come calling can behave very differently in the privacy of the voting booth.
In a 2010 paper, for instance, the New York University political scientist Patrick J. Egan compared polling in advance of state same-sex marriage referendums to the actual results, and found that
the share of voters in pre-election surveys saying that they will vote to ban same-sex marriage is typically seven percentage points lower than the actual vote on election day.That seven-point gap between appearances and reality may help explain why same-sex marriage supporters lost referendums they expected to win in liberal states like Maine and California. And it explains why a savvy White House might take polls suggesting that the issue is a political winner with a very large helping of salt.
But to say that the president’s approach is understandable does not mean that it’s necessarily defensible. Supporters of same-sex marriage have worked very hard to frame their issue, not as an ordinary political conflict, but as an all-or-nothing question that pits enlightenment and progress against reaction, bigotry and hate. I don’t accept that framing, but I accept that its architects genuinely believe in it, and see the conflict over same-sex unions as a clear-cut struggle between good and evil, with no possibility of middle ground.
If same-sex marriage isn’t an issue where people can disagree in good faith, though, then the president’s evasions and obfuscations can’t be treated as ordinary political maneuverings, and excused as just so much politics-as-usual. If the debate is as black and white as many supporters of same-sex marriage argue, then they should be much harder on political leaders who pretend that it’s a gray area.
Indeed, if you accept the framing of the debate that many liberals (and many journalists) embrace, then you have to acknowledge that President Obama has spent the last four years lying to the American people about his convictions on one of the defining civil rights issues of our time, and giving aid and comfort to pure bigotry in the service of his other political priorities.
This is a harsh indictment, but it’s one that follows inexorably from premises that many of the president’s own supporters have wholeheartedly embraced. If they hold true to these premises — and the press holds true to its obligations — then the kind of uncomfortable questions the White House spent this week dodging will be asked again and again of the president over the course of the campaign to come.
Comments
Post a Comment
That said, I suspect the Koran burning was just a religiously justifiable excuse for Afghans to demonstrate their burning resentment at ten plus years of American occupation and upheaval that still is resulting in numerous civilian casualties. Apologies and troop training in handling religious objects aren’t going to mitigate those grievances, and may have no effect at all on protests and rioting. I guess Obama and the military just aren’t willing to take that risk with their soldiers’ lives. It is easy to imagine what most of the soldiers are thinking about this training, and how much actual respect for Islam it will engender.
Are you saying that the government and military should only be concerned about not desecrating what is venerated by children, not what is venerated by grown-ups?
I’m saying the government is only concerned about doing what it can to protect the troops. The apology and the training are tactics meant to prevent troops from getting killed. So was the burning of the bibles written in Afghan languages. If Christians start threatening violence I suppose they will start getting apologies and promises to train troops too. None of it will influence what the troops really think about religious objects or what will happen to them out of the public eye. Adults put human life above inanimate objects, and Christians mostly are adults, so they don’t demand to be placated like children over what happens to inanimate objects in chaotic circumstances.
I suspect the ire of the Malaysian Christians, like that of the Afghans, is not really about the religious objects. It’s really about their second-class treatment by their government, rather than a few words printed on the bibles.
In other words, you basically agree with my thesis that the blah about “the proper handling of religious materials” is rank hypocrisy—that it’s not about ordinary human decency or respect for the religious feelings of others—and all they really mean is “how to placate Muslim thugs.”
By this sheerly pragmatic standard, armed forces desecrating churches or even the Blessed Sacrament itself would not be cause for administration or military apologies or remedial action, as long as Christians continue their “grown-up” nonviolent behavior.
Incidentally, if by “grown-up” you mean “not getting violent,” then I agree with your assessment. But if you mean that Christians should embrace a post-Enlightenment, desacrilized worldview in which “inanimate objects” are never more than clouds of atoms, and veneration and sacrilege are childish superstitions that mean nothing to adults, then you’re really saying that Christians should cease being fully Christian.
www.nationalreview.com/articles/291925/why-apologize-afghanistan-andrew-c-mccarthy
Thought this would be of interest to readers here!
When I was in the military, I can’t imagine doing that.
Anyone know why?
Should we honestly be surprised that this President, time after time has attacked religious identity and freedom in America?
What does Obama stand to lose by pushing his socialistic agenda down our throats, because he knows the modern American is far too complacent to give a drop of water in Hades about that evil word of ‘politics’.
When it comes to morally upright leadership based on ethics has never appeared in the current Presidential Administration.
Why should we be surprised that he doesn’t give a rat’s derrière what we think? I just hope people have the good sense to send Mr. Obama to an early retirement and let a real man of integrity take that office. Because clearly integrity is a very rare commodity coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue lately.
God bless you, Steven for speaking plainly.
He speaks fluent Arabic; raised in his formative years in a Muslim country; out of his own mouth has said the Muslim morning call to prayer “is the most beautiful sound” on earth; again out of his own mouth said to ABC “my Muslim faith”, twice. Bowed to the Saudi king.
So if I claimed to be Muslim but believed in the Ressurrection; ate pork; refused to perform cliterectomies on women or engage in pederesty; didn’t stone women to death for alleged infidelity; and on everal occasions referred to my Christian faith, you’d still believe anything that came out of my mouth? Seriously?
We will be assaulted from the left and extreme right of the Islamists.
The extreme irony of this whole situation is that the books were consigned to the rubish heap because they had been desecrated by the terrorists who were using them to pass notes back and forth to each other will detained. Yep, they had already been ruined…by Muslims.
Sir, as we’ve been cathechised, only God knows what is in the heart of a person. Therefore, only God can dtermine if one is faithful or not.
2. Perhaps you are overplaying your hand. Many here, I suspect, would be more sympathetic to you when you espouse protecting a religious institution (namely Catholicism), but when you write to support the acts of those who 1.are often hostile to our Catholic men and women serving in forward theaters of operation, and 2. promote their misquided form of christianity with their version of the bible, which is substantially less than the one inspired by the Holy Spirit in His working through our church, you seem to be favoring just another public policy agenda.
1. “Out of the fullness of his heart a man speaks,” and “By their fruits you shall know them.” God will judge us all according to His wisdom; in the meantime we all “construe according to [our] wits” (A Man for All Seasons).
2. Perhaps you can be a bit clearer about your meaning, friend. I’m not sure what acts you think I’m supporting. I think respect for religion and for religious sensibilities should be applied across the board.
What has not been said is why the Koran’s were burnt. It was because the prisoners were writting in them to pass on instructions to other prisoners who would get the Koran next. An Iman on TV said that to write on or in the Koran is a sacrilige. The Koran’s in question were confiscated. What was the military to do with them? They were already desecrated accoring to Sharia law so they should have been destroyed.
Let’s get real here people. The Taliban is using this to bring about MORE hate for Americans who are there to help them establish some semblence of a society—on that gives women a right to work and come outside without a man (a basic human right one would think).
For our President to appologize to these completely irrational people is a disgrace. And in the same month, he attacks the Catholic Church head on with his HHS mandate that the Church pay for abortion pills. This is the same President that told a crowd in Chiro that the US is NOT a Christian nation. It is clear to any thinking American that Barack Hussein Obama is more friendly to Moslems than he is to Christians.