Republicans Respond to Obama on Gay Marriage

Besides my initial excitement when Obama came out for gay marriage earlier this week, I haven't really had a chance to talk about it further.  I first want to address the President's detractors on the left who see this as a political move.  Of course it was a political move, every decision made by every single President is a "political move" by definition.  That in no way detracts from the historic significance of this moment or removes it's importance.  In the history of our country no President has ever come out for marriage equality, and now one has.  It is now almost inevitable that it will be added to the Democratic Party platform and a litmus test for future Supreme Court nominees, and that's before you get to the culture impact.  With that out of the way, I can now move on to mocking the Republican responses:

• Interestingly Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner didn't seem to want to talk about it much: “I have always believed that marriage was between a man and a woman, Republicans here on Capitol Hill are focused in on the economy.”  Which presumably explains why in a year and a half of his Speakership, Republicans have failed to come forward with a Jobs bill.

• Rick Santorum brings a bit more of what you'd expect: "The announcement today by President Obama should come as no surprise to the American public. President Obama has consistently fought against protecting the institution of marriage from radical social engineering at both the state and federal level. The President recently opposed the North Carolina constitutional amendment and, of course, he refused to defend President Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act before the U.S. Supreme court. The charade is now over, no doubt an attempt to galvanize his core hard left supporters in advance of the November election."  Personally I'm glad no Republican Presidential candidate has ever used gay marriage to galvanize his base in advance of the November election.  Wait a second....

• Speaking of the November election, the National Organization for Marriage now "promises to defeat" Obama in the Fall.  Which is a real shame, since before this week I'm sure they planned on being an integral part of his reelection team.

• Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council makes a good point about there being a clear political downside for Obama (which again kind of negates the idea this is simply a political move): "Considering that ten of the sixteen battleground states have marriage amendments that could be overturned by the President's new policy position on marriage, today's announcement almost ensures that marriage will again be a major issue in the presidential election. The President has provided a clear contrast between him and his challenger Mitt Romney. Romney, who has signed a pledge to support a marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution, may have been handed the key to social conservative support by President Obama."

• Franklin Graham went a little farther, "in changing his position from that of Senator/candidate Obama, President Obama has, in my view, shaken his fist at the same God who created and defined marriage. It grieves me that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more."  Thank goodness, Franklin Graham is around to tell us how God feels about things.

• Rush Limbaugh decided not to mince any words, "we've arrived at a point where the President of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage."  And now all I can picture is President Obama doing this (and it kind of makes me want to vote for him even more).

• Fox News' Eric Bolling proved himself to still be in kindergarten, "the people of North Carolina said 'Adam and Eve.' President Obama says 'Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve.' But what he did do more importantly, he gave North Carolina, he gave Virginia, probably gave Indiana to Mitt Romney.  He probably turned over 40 electoral votes in one comment."

• Which probably puts Senator Rand Paul somewhere in pre-school give his response to Obama, “Call me cynical, but I didn’t think his views on marriage could get any gayer.”

• Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus reminds us that while Obama has improved on this issue, Republicans will always remain terrible, “While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear. We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that.”

• And the Log Cabin Republicans prove that the only word in that title that matters is Republican: “Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch. This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign’s ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short.”  Now I would like them to provide a list of things Dick Cheney has done over the last few years to advance the cause, since apparently he is the gold standard leader on gay marriage.

• And where exactly is the Republicans Presidential candidate Mitt Romney?  His campaign says they're going to make a Gay Marriage Ban Constitutional Amendment an issue.  And Romney confirmed it himself, “Let me make it very clear, which is that my preference would be to have a national standard that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.”

So just to review, one Party's candidate believes in full marriage equality while the other Party's candidate believes we need a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that states don't have the ability to grant gay people rights.  And if you want to call that "just a political move", fine.  But it's also damn important.