Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama’s “political policy on same-sex marriage isn’t even different from Romney’s”

As usual you can count on blogress diva Ann Althouse for insightful commentary on events of the day.  And she does so again today with her thoughts on gay marriage and the 2012 election.

She agrees with us that Republicans should resist using the same-sex marriage issue against Obama:

The issues in this election should have to do with economics, foreign policy, and the things that fall squarely within a President’s responsibility. Obama has a record here, and he should have to defend it, not distract us with a “social” issue. His actual political policy on same-sex marriage isn’t even different from Romney’s: Leave it to the states. Leave it to the states is a fine — truly excellent — way to package the issue and set it to the side. I would encourage Republicans to do exactly that . . .

Emphasis added.  Just read the whole thing (via Instapundit).

I quibble slightly with Althouse’s spin, and would replace the word “actual” in the highlighted passage above with “effective.”  Romney does favor a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus precluding state recognition of same-sex unions.

The reason, however, I would use the word “effective” is that there is no way such an amendment could muster the necessary two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress in order to be sent to the states for ratification — and you need three-quarters of the states to agree to a constitutional amendment.  Ain’t gonna happen.

The only difference between Obama’s policy on gay marriage and Romney’s is rhetorical.  Just words.

Share

22 Comments

  1. Didn’t Ann Althouse admit that she voted for Obama?

    Comment by nomobama — May 14, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - May 14, 2012

  2. She doesn’t have to admit it. She did. I remember. I’m not inclined to believe that she’ll do so again.

    Comment by David — May 14, 2012 @ 1:41 pm - May 14, 2012

  3. The difference may be “words” but what a cavernous difference it is. Obama thinks gay people deserve equal rights and should be able to wed, and Romney claims to be unalterably opposed to both. Romney will support state initiatives to prohibit marriage equality and Obama will not. Romney will defend all aspects of DOMA in court; Obama will not.

    Say what you will about Romney and Obama’s differences or similarities on other issues, on this one there is no comparison.

    Comment by Rick Sincere — May 14, 2012 @ 1:43 pm - May 14, 2012

  4. Personally, I believe that Marriage is the union of one cow and one chicken but the States should be able to decide for themselves.

    Wow, I never thought I would agree with any political position taken by BHO.

    Comment by BigJ — May 14, 2012 @ 1:46 pm - May 14, 2012

  5. “As usual you can count on blogress diva Ann Althouse for insightful commentary on events of the day.”

    Assuming that by “insightful” you mean “literally false.”

    Comment by rt — May 14, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - May 14, 2012

  6. On occasion, I disagree with Ann Althouse. This is one of those times. I harken back to McCain’s poorly run campaign. He left so much on the table. Romney should not do the same thing with gay marriage. It is a Federal issue in some respects like abortion. I offer up Prop 8, which will be heard by the Supreme Court. The Federal government will insert itself into the debate just like what Obama did. Romney could at least say he won’t impede the desires of the state. This is a losing issue for Obama. Romney could win with this issue. It only takes a few percent to bring Romney over the top.

    Comment by anon23532 — May 14, 2012 @ 2:05 pm - May 14, 2012

  7. “Obama thinks gay people deserve equal rights and should be able to wed”

    #2…Except.. that as soon as you move, you aren’t married
    Except.. as soon as you step foot in a federal court house or federal building, you aren’t married.

    If he supports state initiatives, why did he back out of a visit to NC the day before those voters slammed the door on SSM? Oh.. ya.. I forgot, he was still evolving. or was he?

    But heck, send him a check. After all, he boosted your poor self-esteem by telling you that you are his equal (per Andrew Sullivan). Personally, if Obama told me that I was his equal, I would drink heavily for a few days. Then I would try and figure out just where I went so wrong.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — May 14, 2012 @ 2:41 pm - May 14, 2012

  8. It’s “just words” with Obama who hasn’t yet evolved from being a corrupt community organizer.

    Comment by nomobama — May 14, 2012 @ 2:53 pm - May 14, 2012

  9. Sadly, No, and other sites skewer you for being a toady to your enemies, and if anything, they understate the case against you.

    I love this blog because it is like reading a Jewish Man in Italy praising Mussolini for making the trains run on time, being dreamy, and being secretly on the side of Jews unlike those liberals who say they want freedom but don’t meet some impossible criteria you set even as you praise Benito for cracking down on the homosexuals and Jews who really are trying to embarrass him.

    I hope for Gay People’s sake that you and they never face the actual contempt Romney and all the other anti-Gay forces truly have for you. Behind your back and out of earshot, they talk about fairies and queers and girlymen. Facts.

    And you enable them with your praising getting dumped on as a generous gift.

    btw, it isn’t raining, they are……on you.

    Comment by tomcj — May 14, 2012 @ 3:05 pm - May 14, 2012

  10. No, Obama doesn’t think any such thing; he says what he needs say for political convenience and campaign contributions. He hedged his words and didn’t try to make a compelling case for gay marriage, merely indicated he supported it, didn’t tell us why it’s a good thing or how he precisely he “evolved.”

    It’s a cynical political gesture, full of preening and posturing, signifying nothing.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 14, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - May 14, 2012

  11. “It’s a cynical political gesture, full of preening and posturing, signifying nothing.”

    Hear! Hear!
    Like virtually everything the left spews.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 14, 2012 @ 3:11 pm - May 14, 2012

  12. Romney could win with this issue. It only takes a few percent to bring Romney over the top.

    Romney could also win by keeping his focus on things that actually matter, like the economy, for example.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 14, 2012 @ 4:32 pm - May 14, 2012

  13. “Romney could also win by keeping his focus on things that actually matter, like the economy, for example.”

    The economy is the larger message, but Obama’s gaffe needs to be pointed out. He is the first gay president. Own it!!! And his dog too.

    Comment by anon23532 — May 14, 2012 @ 6:16 pm - May 14, 2012

  14. Tammy Bruce describes Obama as “Gay For Pay.” Brilliant.

    Comment by V the K — May 14, 2012 @ 8:48 pm - May 14, 2012

  15. Kinda hard to see how Obama’s “actual political policy on same-sex marriage isn’t even different from Romney’s” when less than 1 week ago, Romney said he favored a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage.

    Oh, yeah, that’s right – as I was reminded by the regular commenters here the other day, Romney was just lying again, saying he would support something he has no intention of following through with trying to make happen. Just another pander; might as well pretend it never happened.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 14, 2012 @ 11:10 pm - May 14, 2012

  16. Tomcj, LOL! You apparently have no idea how insipid that line of thought is. Of course, it continues to entertain me how many people are actually ignorant enough to believe things like that.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 14, 2012 @ 11:15 pm - May 14, 2012

  17. #9: “I hope for Gay People’s sake that you and they never face the actual contempt Romney and all the other anti-Gay forces truly have for you. Behind your back and out of earshot, they talk about fairies and queers and girlymen. Facts.”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Once again, a LWNJ like tomcj comes here to inform us of the “FACTS”–> that conservatives and members of the GOP harbor an obsessive, all-consuming contempt for us and call us vile, hateful names behind our backs, in an attempt to convince (?) us that we should be unified politically with people like him…people who summarily condemn us as contemptible dupes who are so vapid and ignorant we can only be likened to apologists for a pillar of the WWII Axis.

    I have NEVER been called names or disrespected by conservatives or Republicans for being gay or for any other reason. I have, however, now been condemned as a Mussolini/Fascism apologist by some left-wing dope named tomcj.

    In the words of the wise and wonderful ND30, tomcj is demanding that we substitute what we KNOW to be true, for what tomcj DESPERATELY WANTS to be true. No thanks, loser!

    Comment by Sean A — May 15, 2012 @ 12:49 am - May 15, 2012

  18. tomcj, you write:

    I hope for Gay People’s sake that you and they never face the actual contempt Romney and all the other anti-Gay forces truly have for you. Behind your back and out of earshot, they talk about fairies and queers and girlymen. Facts.

    You say these are facts. Okay, then document them.

    Thanks! Eager to hear your evidence of the way these Republicans talk about gays beyond our backs!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 15, 2012 @ 1:20 am - May 15, 2012

  19. Actually, if we want to see what a major political party says about us behind our back, we can just look here:

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    When you consider that Barack Obama and his hatemongering bigot followers like JennofArk and tomcj can say this type of thing about people, what one realizes very quickly is that the Obama Party and so-called “supporters” like tomcj really hate gays and do not tolerate them as anything other than obedient slaves to the Obama Party.

    Once you realize that Barack Obama and his supporters like JennofArk and tomcj are nothing more than screaming, abusive violent bigots who will even tell gays who do not support the Obama Party to kill themselves, then you care even less what they have to say.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2012 @ 2:23 am - May 15, 2012

  20. NDT, I wasn’t aware that Tintin was a leader of the Democratic Party. Perhaps you could provide some evidence of that before claiming that one person’s words represent the party platform. Also, you’d probably have more success in your quest to re-define the meaning of “bigot” if you could get yourself hired by MW or OED rather than just commenting on this obscure blog. Pro tip: “bigot” doesn’t mean “someone who makes you look foolish on the internet.” It also doesn’t mean someone who says something nasty about an individual based on a difference of opinion with that individual. There ARE online dictionaries, you know, so you COULD look it up and stop making yourself look like an even bigger fool than everyone already knows you to be.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 15, 2012 @ 11:32 am - May 15, 2012

  21. “Leave it to the states.”
    Hmmm… Does that include state enforcement of Federal immigration law?
    Didn’t think so.

    Comment by MVH — May 15, 2012 @ 12:13 pm - May 15, 2012

  22. By this logic, Romney’s position on DADT is effectively the same as Obama’s because he has said he would let repeal stand — even though he thinks it was a bad idea.

    Comment by Tom1729 — May 15, 2012 @ 5:43 pm - May 15, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.