Jake Schlossberg Staff Writer On May 9th, 2012, history was made. As some of you may know, President Obama mentioned during an interview with ABC News that he “thinks same-sex couples should be able to get married.” The consensus of Latin students’ reactions has all been fairly positive; from what I have seen, people are generally excited about the announcement, and believe that this change is one for the better. Yet, Sophomore Cynthia Trujillo has a different perspective on the issue, stating, “I think it’s a little sad that it took so long, but at least he finally talked about it.” In my opinion, It is a bit surprising that it took us until 2012 to have a sitting president voice his support for gay marriage. However, it did take us until 2008 to elect the first black president, so we all know that change takes time. Although his statement has planted a few more seeds for change, Junior Blair Marshall is, “concerned for his reelection…[she’s] honestly terrified for what will happen if we have another conservative president, so [she’d] rather he be more electable even if it’s a less powerful statement.” True, this statement was a risk, especially so close to reelection time. Did President Obama really need to voice his opinion in the way that he did? Well, yes. The question was asked to him in an interview, therefore it was impossible to ignore. Though he could have danced around the question like they teach you in politician school, Obama’s views on LGBT rights have been more or less clear from the beginning of his time as president, looking at his views on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the “Defense of Marriage Act,” one can easily see his slant, so a direct comment was an important one to make. Most reactions that are being publicly circulated are positive, but one anonymous student really doesn’t see what the fuss is about, wondering, “why everyone thinks this is a big deal. It’s been pretty obvious how he feels about the issue, a public statement isn’t going to change anything.” For me, this opinion is valid. One person’s opinion, even if it is our country’s president, can’t facilitate all of the change that needs to happen. What is important to see, though, is how this announcement has given validity to the fight for same-sex marriage. People may have been ready to give up in the past, but Obama’s support has rekindled the fire. Ours is the generation that will win marriage equality, it ends with us.]]>
sfript • May 17, 2012 at 4:38 pm
It took Lincoln two years into the Civil War to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Sometimes you have to be political to gain the results you want.
ezhou • May 17, 2012 at 9:07 am
For the first time ever, polls are starting to show that more than 50% of Americans support gay marriage. I’d like to say that this didn’t affect Obama’s statement, but it probably eased his mind.
pwiggin • May 17, 2012 at 7:12 am
I’m with TJ…even if he’s privately supported gay marriage for years, he came out with his opinion now for purely political reasons. Also, without Biden’s foolish off-the-cuff remarks to pin him down, Obama may not have declared his support at all. Remember that the support he gave was purely personal–he has no plans (or ability) to pass a bill legalizing gay marriage. So although a nice gesture that will be remembered kindly in a century, Obama’s move was a damage control reaction to Biden that won’t produce anything tangible in 2012 but might help him in the election. Unfortunately, it might blow up in his face if North Carolina and others swing against him. We’ll see…hindsight is 20-20.
akling • May 16, 2012 at 11:33 pm
We’ve been taught throughout school to admit when we’re wrong, that it’s okay to change your mind, and through that outlook I hear what you’re saying, Rachel — if the case is that Obama’s changed his mind on gay marriage (if he was against it before … which I highly doubt, but whatever … and is now for it), then that’s awesome. But I do see the value in the “flip-flopper” label in general. A large portion if not all of America elects their politicians based on their stances on issues. It’s troublesome for me to imagine electing a president based on his stances on issues only to lated find that he’d changed his mind.
If I felt really strongly about an issue — say, a Free Puppies for America plan where every American was given a free puppy — and there was an election where Candidate A supported the plan but Candidate B didn’t, and I voted for Candidate A solely because he supported Free Puppies for America (otherwise I would have voted for Candidate B because he’s got a good economic plan), I’d be pretty pissed if a year into his term, Candidate A changed his mind on the Free Puppies Bill.
rstone • May 16, 2012 at 11:17 pm
While I am in agreement with Nick on this one, I think it’s important to question the value of labeling presidents or candidates “flip-floppers’ at all. In this increasingly partisan political society, it’s almost suicidal for a politician to admit that he/she does not agree with his/her party’s principles. That hasn’t always been the case. Presidents like Wilson, Lincoln and Roosevelt have changed their opinions on war, diplomacy (and even slavery) throughout their terms, and in most of those instances, the change was for the better. Continuing to question the political motives of someone who changes their opinion after three years only further mires these politicians, both Republican and Democratic in the stalemate of factionalism. But regarding Obama, I hope that this assertion isn’t the only progress he’s made. Regardless of whether they are politically-motivated or not, I hope these changes keep coming.
tfinch • May 16, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Looking back at my first post, I should have added something. I’m only speculating, of course. From the evidence I’ve been presented with, it appears Obama’s simply playing politics and telling us what we want to hear.
I also don’t want to be put on record saying that this isn’t a monumental move towards equal rights. This is a sign that America is finally accepting what it should have from the beginning.
It just bugs me that people are praising Obama for what looks like a purely political move.
tfinch • May 16, 2012 at 10:10 pm
When Mitt Romney changes his position, he’s a flip flopper. When Obama changes his position, he did so because he’s changed his mind. We can’t have a double standard for the two parties.
North Carolina may have voted against it, but the people who would have voted are mainly hard-lined neo-conservatives, who Obama would never have won over in the first place. He’s aiming for the moderates, the independents and the left leaning conservatives who don’t know who to vote for. And that’s exactly who he’d win over with this.
nlehmann • May 16, 2012 at 2:53 pm
I’m not sure I agree with you, TJ. Coming out in support of gay marriage doesn’t guarantee he’ll gain a ton of voters. We live in an accepting community, so we are able to just think that everyone wants there to be gay marriage. That isn’t the case in many of the states in America. North Carolina, which just banned gay marriage, is one of the swing states in the upcoming election. If he were to look around and see how other states feel towards gay marriage so he could gain voters, he wouldn’t have come out to support it. I think it’s unfair to say that he did it just for the votes. People’s minds are allowed to change and their feelings towards certain things are allowed to evolve over time.
tfinch • May 16, 2012 at 7:59 am
While this is monumental, I still feel that President Obama is simply doing this for votes. He has repeatedly said marriage is between a man and a woman.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3375059/Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html) (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/112795-axelrod-obama-remains-opposed-gay-marriage)
On the bright side, this means that the popular opinion is for gay marriage, but Obama is really doing this for votes.