Even if you assume these political crumbs are pure posturing it's an interesting switch that strategists now believe a spouse supporting gay marriage is a useful pose. On 60 Minutes this week, the atrocious Eric Cantor sat by his Democrat(!) wife Diana as she explained she supports same-sex marriage. She may really feel strongly about marriage equality, but the careful public announcement was no accident. It is calculated to soften his image -- moderation by association -- while not actually changing his own hardcore antigay actions an iota. Nevertheless. The more political families who are vocal and visible in their support of gay marriage, the harder and less viable it eventually becomes for the ever-shrinking yet still intransigent antigay minority to make their case. The Cantors now join a long list of couples who publicly differ on the issue, chief among them, the Bushes, the McCains, and the Clintons (he for, she against). Both of the Cheneys went on the record for gay marriage while in office. Even conservative spokesmodel Elisabeth Hasselbeck supports gay marriage. As do the majority of Americans. Both of the Obamas oppose same-sex marriage.
On Sunday, after years of battles and reversals, Hawaii and Delaware began registering same-sex civil unions. Today, Governor Christine Gregoire proposed legislation to legalize gay marriage in Washington state. Tomorrow, the AFL-CIO of Maryland with 300,000 union members, will announce their support for gay marriage in that state. Last year a gay marriage bill passed the Maryland senate but was pulled from the house before a vote; it is on the legislative docket again this year.
Later this month Republicans in the New Hampshire legislature will bring a vote trying to repeal the state's gay marriage law which passed in 2009.
Obama is playing the same game, though not with his wife. As the Times noted, he's letting surrogates in the administration lead on gay rights, which is certainly how he handled the DADT repeal. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/us/politics/on-gay-rights-obama-lets-surrogates-take-the-lead.html) It's called having your cake and eating it too.
Posted by: Keppler | January 04, 2012 at 02:25 PM
Stephen, this interview was disgusting for other reasons - Lesley Stahl's Jew-baiting of Canter. Her line of questioning was grotesque. "How can you be a Jew and not be a Democrat?" As if he was betraying his own people. Horrific on her part and CBS, truly a new low.
Posted by: David | January 04, 2012 at 02:51 PM
Big deal. It's atrocious Rep Canter himself who votes, not the Mrs.
Posted by: karen in kalifornia | January 05, 2012 at 06:49 AM
"As if he was betraying his own people."
Maybe so. I haven't seen the video. But it's not unreasonable to ask; it's like asking a gay Republican or a gay Catholic the analogous question. It doesn't mean that they're "betraying their people" (though I'm not sure that's a non-issue either), it's asking, "Why would you want to belong to a group that hates your guts?" With the Republican Party dominated by its theocratic-Christian fringe (i.e., pro-Israel but hostile to all non-Christians and indeed to most Christians), it's not off-the-wall as far as I can see.
Posted by: Duncan | January 05, 2012 at 07:14 AM
David,
I actually loved what Stahl did. She asked Cantor why he thinks majority of Jews vote Democratic, and he started talking about "tikkun olam" ("repairing the world," which means doing good things, among which are supporting the hand of the widow, orphan, etc.). And then Cantor said that essentially most Jews connect this to the Democratic Party. But the way it came out of his mouth, I bet he was regretting he answered the question this way :) Loved it!
Posted by: Feygeleh.blogspot.com | January 05, 2012 at 10:32 PM