Obama and gay marriage stance

Obama's support for marriage between same-sex partners has been surprisingly momentous.  Surprising because it has long been obvious that his spin about "evolving" has been a thin facade that obviously meant:  "I'm waiting for the right time to announce this."

So it surprised me -- as it did gay, conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan -- how emotionally stirring it was to have the President of the United States give his public endorsement to gay marriage.

Equally surprising has been the relatively mild response from the conservative camp.  Even some Republicans have been jumping on the bandwagon and saying that conservatives should support it too -- as the conservative position (see my May 12 blog, Really Remarkable Republican advice).   Of course, the right fringe and a lot of the preachers are ranting and saying it will rile up their people.

But, all in all, the conservative response has been less than we suspected, especially from politicians other than the most conservative ones.

Today, conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer writes about this -- not to condemn the decision but to say that Obama has boxed himself in.   He goes on to point out that the president made two arguments that are contradictory.

1.  Obama said that he personally supports gay marriage rights but would leave it to the states to make their own decisions for their state.

2.  Krauthammer then points out that Obama also said that marriage equality is a civil right.

So, he asks, how can you reconcile the two?   If it's a civil right, how can you leave it up to the states?

I hate to find myself in agreement with Krauthammer, but this time I do.   I think those are contradictory.  I have never understood why something as basic and ubiquitous as marriage should be subject to individual state decisions, rather than one decision affecting all U. S. citizens alike.

My solution is simple:   make it a national decision;  don't leave it to the states.   I suspect that Obama might also agree with that, but put in the 'states' rights' clause for political purposes.

Given the importance of his statement, I think we can forgive him this bit of continued political expediency.   After all, he's got an election to win so he can continue trying to save us from total Republican rule.

Ralph