Obama announced Wednesday that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his public opposition after feeling pressure from several Democrats, including his own Vice President, Joe Biden.
Obama’s position on same-sex marriage has changed several times during his hideously dishonest, radically motivated, meteoric career. In 1996, he was in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. Then, in 2008 his view “magically” switched to “marriage is between a man and a woman”. More recently, up until Wednesday, his opinion was “evolving”.
What this reveals about obama is how coldly calculating is his timing. Each and every reversal of position coincidentally benefited obama’s political prospects enormously. It’s clearly not an accident that each shift in his position happened at exactly the right time…for him.
Back in 1996, while running in a Democratic primary to become an Illinois State Senator from Chicago, he took the position that suited the views of that electorate. He was an open supporter of same-sex marriage.
When Obama announced in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, he was running a nationwide campaign for president. He clearly understood that Electoral College votes might not fall his way if he openly supported gay marriage. Naturally, since the ends justify the means, a dishonest shift in his position seemed perfectly appropriate to him. As was his tactic in the 1996 State Senate campaign, he tailored his views to suit the electorate.
Now in 2012, when he’s struggling to raise funds for his re-election, obama suddenly supports same-sex marriage…again.
It’s no mystery that the gay community makes big donations to Democratic campaigns. Since obama needs donations from the deep-pocketed gay community, don’t expect him to change his position on same sex marriage again. That is, unless and until it becomes politically expedient.
Since he first took center stage within the national public eye, obama’s constantly preached about how he will have the most transparent administration in American history. In this instance, on this issue, that claim carries a semblance of truth.
What are the odds?