Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
James Downie at the New Republic provides persuasive evidence that President Obama has changed his position on same-sex marriage purely out of political convenience. Here's what he said long before deciding to run for president:
1996: In response to a questionnaire from Outlines newspaper (now part of Windy City Times), Obama, a candidate for the Illinois state senate seat representing the wealthy Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, writes, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
But as he ascended higher in politics, his position began to shift:
1998: Responding to an Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test: "Q: Do you believe that the Illinois government should recognize same-sex marriages? A: Undecided."2004: In an interview with Windy City Times, Obama mentions the religious dimension of the gay marriage debate, says he supports civil unions, and indicates that his stance is dictated in large part by political strategy:
Obama: I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, 'should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, 'absolutely.' And then if you talk about, 'should they get married?', then suddenly...
WCT: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.
Obama: Since I'm a product of an interracial marriage, I'm very keenly aware of ...
WCT: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn't going to happen so you won't support it at this time?
Obama: What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 [which would add "sexual orientation" to Illinois's non-discrimination laws] passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name."
2006: In his bestseller, The Audacity of Hope, Obama, now a U.S. senator, explains his support for civil unions, again mentioning religion and noting the strategic problems that the push for gay marriage poses:
For many practicing Christians, the inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex--nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount. ...The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians. (pp. 222-3)
And his current position:
2008: In an interview with MTV, Obama says he opposes Prop 8, but also gay marriage. Civil unions, the candidate says, are sufficient:I have stated my opposition to [Prop 8]. I think it is unnecessary. I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about. Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them. What I believe is that if we have strong civil unions out there that provide legal rights to same-sex couples that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, that they can transfer property to each other. If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners. I think that is the direction we need to go.
2010: After the Perry decision, which struck down Prop 8, the White House releases this statement: "The president has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans." Meanwhile, White House senior adviser David Axelrod tells MSNBC that Obama "does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples. ... He supports civil unions. That's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."
But his position clearly has changed. In 1996, he was in favor of same-sex marriage, not civil unions. In 1998, he was undecided. After that, he was for civil unions but against gay marriage (which is, quite frankly, an incoherent position). And he changed his position, quite clearly, as a matter of political convenience. His new position allows him to attempt to be all things to all all people and pose as a moderate.
It's almost inconceivable to me that his real position is not that same-sex marriage is perfectly fine and should be legal. Everything else is just political posturing.
Politics
Comments
Gee, President Obama is a politician. In other news, fire is hot.
Posted by: SLC | August 25, 2010 10:16 AM
he's a professional politician in charge of implementing, and in no small part drafting, policy that affects other people. as such, his "real position" is what he actually does; if he disagrees with his own actions behind closed doors that's just private opinion that has no bearing on anybody, or anything, that actually matters.
"political posturing" can not be written off a "just posturing" when it's what actually influences how other people can and do lead their lives. in such cases, it's the non-posturing "real opinion" that's the mirage.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | August 25, 2010 10:20 AM
Prior to the Prop 8 vote I could not figure out why Mr. Obama thought it prudent to oppose gay marriage. I previously assumed the group I thought that would vote against politicans supportive of gay rights was monolithic, i.e. - social conservatives, who'd never vote for a non-conservative like Obama regardless of his position on gay marriage.
However I now think his claimed opposition appears to be a defense mechanism to not turn away black voters* who disproportionately voted for Prop 8 while also voting for Obama. This is mere speculation on my part; insight from others would be greatly appreciated regarding the President's opposition. Especially since Obama's opposition has never appeared authentic where Ed's blog post here provides further validation.
*Prior to the '08 McCain - Obama race it also now appears he was not just worried about depressing black turn-out, but also attracting black women voters who might consider Hillary Clinton over his own candidacy. I realize Hillary Clinton didn't come out in favor of gay marriage but took the same absurd position Obama does, but his coming out in support of gays on this matter could have been a factor that justified these voters going with Ms. Clinton instead.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 25, 2010 10:22 AM
"It's almost inconceivable to me that his real position is not that same-sex marriage is perfectly fine and should be legal. Everything else is just political posturing."
Anything else is inconceivable to me too but that is because it is pretty much exactly what Obama has said. He thinks that it is fine but the word marriage seems to bother people so he supports giving same sex couples all the same rights but not using the word marriage. Now I agree with Ed that there is no practical difference between civil unions and marriage and I personally would prefer marriage as same sex couples should have the same treatment as everyone else but I do not see how Obama is being hugely inconsistent. He is being overly cautious and too interested in not offending anyone - much the same as always - but I do not see how adapting and updating an idea from 1996 means he is being inconsistant.
Posted by: Hemulen | August 25, 2010 10:23 AM
Hemulen @ 4:
If Obama had been born 2 generations earlier, schools today wouldn't teach kids that "all citizens enjoy the same rights regardless of the color of their skin", they'd teach "citizens and negitens enjoy the same rights under the Constitution".
Posted by: Phillip IV | August 25, 2010 10:54 AM
Phillip IV @5
I certainly do not agree with Obama's decision. I am only arguing that it is (relatively) consistent. Personally I think that it is a cop-out decision and have no respect for it at all.
Posted by: Hemulen | August 25, 2010 11:09 AM
Does Obama ever take a bold position on anything? (And I don't mean "bold" by crazy wingnut standards.)
Posted by: Taz | August 25, 2010 11:18 AM
Michael Heath, you might be right, but I would note that Hyde Park is nearly 40% black. Politicians in Chicago, where the concentration of black voters is very high, generally favor civil unions or same-sex marriage. Mayor Daley, for example, has unequivocally supported same-sex marriage for several years. I haven't noticed that he has taken any heat whatsoever because of his position.
My guess is that Obama's shift had more to do with appealing to a larger number of downstate voters.
Posted by: Dr X | August 25, 2010 11:18 AM
The characterization of Hyde Park as a wealthy neighborhood is somewhat misleading. Because of the U Of C, there certainly are many affluent, socially liberal residents in Hyde Park, but there are also many non-affluent residents. It is definitely not the neighborhood of choice for most affluent city residents. Most wouldn't even consider living there.
Posted by: Dr X | August 25, 2010 11:32 AM
For what it's worth, I sent Obama this sternly worded letter right after hearing his response to the Perry decision:
--
Mr. President:
Like many of my fellow Californians-- and fellow Americans-- who are concerned with social justice issues, I felt a great sense of relief when my state's court overturned our unjust and unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriage. As a voter who voted for you, and against the original Proposition 8, I am disappointed by your rather lukewarm, waffling, and even negative reaction to this civil rights victory.
If you truly support marriage equality, and equal protection under the law, come out and say so. Even if you are personally uncomfortable with the thought of same-sex marriage, you must not allow this personal discomfort to compromise the rights of the American people.
Bring us change we can believe in. Our nation should not have to abandon hope.
--
Posted by: Emily | August 25, 2010 11:38 AM
Spineless? Surely you jest.
Posted by: Buffoon | August 25, 2010 11:50 AM
Hermulen @ #6
Sorry, I didn't want to insinuate that you support his position - I just think that you can't really call his position consistent when it's not even coherent to begin with. He believes in equality for LGBT citizens, he has stated as much, but instead of following that belief to its logical and inevitable conclusion, he whips out the "God is in the mix"-get-out-of-logic-free card. That is consistent in about the same way a clown can consistently end every argument with a banana-cream pie to the face.
Posted by: Phillip IV | August 25, 2010 11:53 AM
Practical politics is not always a dirty word. It's my feeling that Obama doesn't think that it's possible to pass national legislation right now that would permit same-sex marriages, but that it is possible to pass a national civil union law. And he feels that such a law would give gays virtually everything they're really looking for from marriage rights. Why would you give up the huge win of civil union legislation, he asks, in favor of working towards an unlikely total victory? You risk ending up just reinforcing the status quo.
I used to agree with that, but I'm convinced now that this position is mistaken on both counts. Civil union legislation isn't significantly more likely to pass Congress than same-sex marriage legislation. And even if it did, it's unlikely to achieve anything close to what's hoped for. Obama, of all people, should be keenly aware of what 'separate but equal' inevitably ends up meaning ...
Posted by: Scott Simmons | August 25, 2010 12:44 PM
Should a politician always work on implementing his personal preferences into legislation and public policy? Not necessarily. I could support any number of measures, but you really can't get too far ahead of public opinion - even if public opinion is wrong. You'll just be replaced by someone who does support the public's position, because the public chooses who gets to decide policy.
Should a politician, even if constrained by public opinion, work to *change* the public's position on various issues, and try to win over the public, even while compromising during the actual legislative process? Absolutely. Do I believe Obama has done enough of this? Absolutely not.
I recently read Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals. The lesson you take from any book about an effective leader - like Lincoln - is that they don't get too far ahead of public opinion on actual policy, but they do work very hard and very effectively at shaping public opinion along the way, so that ultimately you can get the policies that are right for the country. Lincoln, during the Civil War, gradually changed his position from supporting returning slaves to their rebel masters to supporting limited emancipation in captured territory from owners actively participating in the rebellion to general emancipation in states that seceded to, eventually, universal emancipation. Lincoln was harshly denounced by abolitionists, but eventually his approach worked.
Obama, on the other hand, is not doing the hard work (or at least not doing it effectively) of *shaping* public opinion to match what seems to be his personal view, which seems to be largely spot on with regard to many issues. He has allowed himself to be the prisoner of circumstances that he inherited rather than overcoming those circumstances with a combination of leadership and strategic compromise on policy. This is why, initial promise notwithstanding, Obama will eventually be viewed as a middle-tier president.
Posted by: Chuck | August 25, 2010 12:54 PM
Chuck asserts:
I think it's far too early to determine the success of the Obama presidency. In addition how he's viewed in history will focus primarily on his impact on economic growth and foreign relations than it will on domestic social issues or his ability to move public opinion along on such. From history's vantage point now public opinion is racing towards acceptance of gay rights. That trend will obscure or perhaps even disproportionately attribute that success to this President.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 25, 2010 1:22 PM
Ed, are you seriously implying that a politician did something for political gain? I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous.
Posted by: Brandon | August 25, 2010 1:30 PM
Ed, quoting Obama:
I wonder what his reaction would be, especially considering he is black himself, if someone pointed out to him that his stance seems eerily similar to the doctrine of 'separate but equal' that existed as regards black civil rights?
Posted by: Zmidponk | August 25, 2010 3:46 PM
"Should a politician always work on implementing his personal preferences into legislation and public policy?"
This is, in essence, the democratic contract between electee and elector in simplest terms.
"Not necessarily. I could support any number of measures, but you really can't get too far ahead of public opinion -"
Because of self-preservation, only.
"even if public opinion is wrong"
This is the foundation of the absolute wrong kind of thinking.
Posted by: Buffoon | August 25, 2010 3:59 PM
Scott Simmons, he doesn't need to move legislation that introduces same-sex marriage. But he promised to fight for the repeal DOMA which would be enough.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | August 25, 2010 4:11 PM
I'm sorry, but I can't take the "fire is hot, and politicians will be politicians" etc. comments very seriously. I highly doubt that Ed posted it because it is surprising but instead that it is appalling. I would guess that few of us who read Ed (or Balko and others) regularly would be surprised to hear more evidence of police abusing their position, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting. Regardless of how politicians generally act, we should hold them to higher standards of integrity even if - and especially because - they are unable to do so themselves.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 25, 2010 4:12 PM
Maybe Obama changed his mind because he had more time to think it over while he was on vacation(s).
Posted by: 386sx | August 25, 2010 4:16 PM
I wonder where our fearless leader would be if Rosa Parks had been more reasonable and accepted being relegated to the back of the bus.After all she still had the basic right to ride on the bus.
Posted by: Paen | August 25, 2010 6:57 PM
The one logically coherent explanation I've heard for Obama's position on GLBT issues (though I think it's a bit of a longshot) is that if he were to attach himself to them, he'd "infect them with Obama cooties" and stir up more opposition than there already is.
Posted by: ebohlman | August 25, 2010 8:50 PM