TIMOTHY NOAH MAY 9, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
[Guest post by Nathan Pippenger]
President Obama has earned himself plenty of goodwill today for finally announcing his support for marriage equality. But Vice President Biden deserves a lot of credit for steering the administration in the right direction, however inadvertently.
When Obama, as a young, relatively-inexperienced presidential candidate, picked Biden as his running mate, he ended up with a steady hand—and a big mouth. In its report on Obama’s decision, The New York Times noted that “Mr. Biden is known for being both talkative and prone to making the kind of statements that get him in trouble.” The Los Angeles Times said that Biden was “sometimes close to a loose cannon with his verbal barbs.” Certainly Biden produced a string of doozies during the campaign—his remark, early on, that Obama was “articulate” and “clean,” his stray observations about Indian accents in 7-Eleven stores, and his assertion that a young Obama would be “tested” by foreign powers.
But the distinguishing mark of Biden isn’t his gaffe-proneness; it’s his wandering, amiable perspicacity. John Dickerson of Slate got it right when he observed in 2008 that the greater challenge may be what Biden says when he's not making a gaffe.” Dickerson went on to predict: “He may be willing to explore contradictions or seeming contradictions in his boss’s positions. He can also be intellectually honest—if for no other reason than the desire to have a good discussion.”
Certainly that is what Biden did on Sunday’s Meet the Press, and good for him. Message discipline is important but overrated. It should have come as no surprise that many members of this administration—the ever-evolving president included—have no problem with same-sex marriage. With independents increasingly coming around to a pro-equality stance, why should leading Democrats be lagging behind?
Even more importantly, Biden’s remarks were a welcome shot of vitality to an administration that seemed increasingly complacent on marriage equality. Among liberals, the very word “evolving” was the target of open ridicule. The bitter laughter it occasioned was a sign of left-wing disenchantment with Obama. Everyone knew the president supported marriage equality, but more importantly, everyone knew he was too careful to say so out loud. The insult was all the worse because liberals knew that Obama was actually ahead of the curve on the issue; he had unambiguously supported marriage rights as far back as 1996.
So kudos to Biden for voicing—or, it might be said, loud-mouthing—his support, and for setting into motion a process that culminated with the president voicing his as well. Leaders often have to be goaded into doing the right thing, and history won’t care much if the process was a little messy. It certainly won’t matter to the gay and lesbian citizens, still feeling the sting of last night’s loss in North Carolina, who can now count a very powerful ally in their corner.
Nathan Pippenger is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic.
18 comments
I was under the impression this was more of a calculated rollout than a gaffe followed by Obama doing some sort of damage control. But whatever. The fact is, it's a good day. That in 2012 America fundamental rights are denied a certain group of people for reasons of sexual orientation is baffling. Props to the President for finally getting behind equality, even if his direct influence in the matter is limited.
- Tristan
May 9, 2012 at 4:29pm
For once, I don't believe that Biden was freelancing. The timing of Obama's statement is so perfect that this has to have been orchestrated in advance. The strategy: wait while your opponent paints himself into a rhetorical corner (which he can't really get out of, given his record in MA). Then wait for a moment when sympathetic press coverage for the issue is at a peak (say, when an important southern state has gone four-square for bigotry). Then spring the trap. I would not want to play poker against Obama. As smart as he looks, he's way smarter than he looks.
- gwcross
May 9, 2012 at 4:56pm
A careful review of Biden's MTP remarks reveals a full-throated endorsement of civil unions and equal rights, which is not the same thing as an endorsement of gay marriage. He, I, presumably Obama and a majority of Americans in general, are against discrimination. To the extent that marriage is a function of religious belief, it's best left to the religious IMHO. It seems provocative to tell religions what their doctrine can be on issues like this, which includes contraception.
- Robert Powell
May 9, 2012 at 5:00pm
Joe Biden freelancing? Whatever gives people the idea that he does that?
- liberalref
May 9, 2012 at 5:06pm
A day to be proud to be a Democrat. And wistful. If ever a President should come out in favor of civil rights for gays, Obama is the right one to do it, for the most likely Democratic group to punish the President would be African Americans, who don't look favorably upon homosexuality, but they are highly unlikely to punish an African American President for being the one. And I suspect the number of swing voters who will be turned off by civil rights for gays will be about the same as the number of swing voters who will be turned off by a Mormon. Now if Romney comes out in favor of polygamy for gay Mormons . . . . Never mind.
- rayward
May 9, 2012 at 5:16pm
Robert Powell: no more provocative than the notion that religious institutions should hold veto power over a civic and legal definition of union. The two are quite separate issues, and that discrimination on the part of religious institutions should not at all have any power over persons who are not part of that particular institution; yet in our twisted scheme it does, for all practical purposes, to the degree that one particular interpretation of one religion's teachings on the subject is holding up legal protection for a whole lot of people who are not part of it.
- cspencef
May 9, 2012 at 5:17pm
Oh yeah, totally a calculated roll out. Still brought a tear to my eye. Bravo!
- Wonderland
May 9, 2012 at 5:34pm
A good day indeed
- ARealHero
May 9, 2012 at 5:55pm
When I saw VP Biden say on Meet the Press Sunday that he favored gay marriage, I knew something was up. And, naturally, I wondered why Obama, who has supported marriage equality for a long time, hadn't said the same thing as president. Of course, the answer to that stupid question is politics. And, as gwcross said, Obama is pretty good at politics. The majority of Americans now favor gay marriage. And it was time to get back more support from the Democratic base (I'm not too worried about blacks turning against him on the gay marriage issue--they're not as church-goin' as they used to be). Who somebody wants to marry is her or his own business, just as it's the business of a woman what she wants to do with her body. Only religious zealots, or religious-type zealots in police states, want to tell people what they can do with their lives and/or their bodies. Today is a good day for freedom. The president has joined the majority of Americans on this issue. Only zealots aren't rejoicing.
- magboy47.
May 9, 2012 at 6:24pm
About time.
- Sophia
May 9, 2012 at 6:43pm
" It seems provocative to tell religions what their doctrine can be on issues like this, which includes contraception." Provocative how? And in what imaginable way is anyone telling a church what their doctrine should or must be? I have never heard anyone suggest that the government force anyone religiously opposed to same sex marriage to marry someone of the same sex, or to avow that it is right to do so. I have rarely, if ever, heard anyone propose that ministers in religious who oppose same sex marriage be forced to officiate at one, or recognize them as religiously valid. I challenge you to find anyone seriously proposing a law to the contrary. We don't force Catholic priests to marry people who have been divorced, nor force the church to recognize the Catholic validity of such marriages, even though the government most certainly recognizes remarriage of divorced people. Again, I don't see anyone suggesting the rules be different for gays. Again with contraception: anyone see a proposal to force people opposed for religious reasons to contraception to use contraception? To preach it's moral validity? Though not. Priests who may be doctors to prescribe it? Of course not. The oh-so-controversial rule merely said that primarily secular corporations which happened to maintain a religious identity as part of their mission must perform their secular corporate duties with respect to providing health insurance the same as any other corporation. Given that these institutions happily hire and benefit from the services of people not of the faith which they identify, and equally happily accept fees for service from other people not of their faith, their medical and educational activities are way outside the envelope of the private exercise of religion. Why in the world should their secular duties be different from any other corporation? Our guarantee of religious rights is first and formost a guarantee of freedom conscience and exercise. Neither of these topics in any way encroaches on that. Only an overly precious narcissism about religious belief could lead to the conclusion any of this is "provocative" and dictation of doctrine.
- IowaBeauty
May 9, 2012 at 9:30pm
Excellent comment, Iowa.
- liberalref
May 9, 2012 at 9:53pm
Agreed.
- ironyroad
May 10, 2012 at 12:32am
To quote Annie from It's a Wonderful Life: "It's time one of you lunkheads said it!" (Thanks, Iowa. Well said.)
- Claris
May 10, 2012 at 5:20am
The issue between Obama and Romney is less gay rights than courage. Joe Biden's big mouth may have gotten the ball rolling, but it was Romney's cowardly immobility in allowing his gay spokesman to be eaten alive by Romney's own far right base that gave Obama his golden opportunity to show his mettle by taking a principled stand, at some political risk, because it was the right thing to do. It was a profile in courage. And voters who are not already wedded to the far right's sputtering and incoherent revulsion on gay marriage will take notice.
- TedFrier
May 10, 2012 at 6:45am
Robert Powell: Who is telling churches what they can and can't do? Nothing anywhere is proposed that will force churches to marry couples they don't wish to. Hell, no one is forcing Catholic priests to marry inappropriately divorced people now. But, yeah, leave marriage to the churches. The Episcopaleans want to be able to marry gay couples. Why stop them?
- miceelf
May 10, 2012 at 9:56am
Rush Limbaugh was quoted as saying "We've arrived at a point where the President of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage" None of Rush's former 4 wives could be reached for comment. HT to George Tekai
- singlspeed
May 10, 2012 at 11:47am
Iowa...best response I've seen regarding the over-reacting of the religious conservatives' false claims of being forced into actions they don't believe. And I'm finally glad to see the POTUS come out (pun intended) on his position supporting gay marriage. I also think he wisely said that this is a States' issue but that at the Federal level his administration tacitly supports gay marriage through non-enforcement of DOMA.
- singlspeed
May 10, 2012 at 11:51am