Guest from the Right: Proof

Obama's "Evolution" on Gay Marriage

One of the charges that Obama wants desperately to avoid this November is that of being a "Flip flopper". To that end, a story was concocted that Obama somehow "evolved" on his position on gay marriage.

Now, whether or not you believe in evolution, since evolution is typically portrayed as a linear progression from the simple to the complex, you must admit that this must have been one strange and unusual evolutionary process to flip flop, er, change back and forth between his positions.

In 1996, when he ran for the Illinois senate, as liberal Democrat, he believed it was in his best political interests to support gay marriage. Which he did. Eight years later, when he was running for national office, he determined it might not be in his best political interests to support gay marriage, so he came out against it - a view which he still publicly held in 2008 when he ran for president. Finally, in yet another election year, he came out with a supposedly more "enlightened view, where he would now recognize gay marriage, (providing enough gays support him, contribute to his campaign, etc). In other words, it has once again been perceived as beneficial to his campaign (and fund raising) for him to "evolve" into his current beliefs.

A couple of questions: One, if his "evolution" is genuine, perhaps Mr. Obama would tell us what were the pivotal moments in his beliefs, what events and circumstances, caused him to flip flop, er, retreat from his position on gay marriage between 1996 and 2004? (Other than political expediency, I mean!) Some crisis of conscience? Some observed aberration from what he believed? Surely there must have been some tragic event, some seismic cataclysm on his way of thinking that would cause him to change his mind. What was it?

If his change was principled at all, and not merely sticking his finger in the wind to see what positions would garner him the most votes, perhaps the man who has written two autobiographies to date, and never seems to tire talking about himself, could explain the thought processes and soul searching involved in making that retrograde portion of his "evolutionary" journey? Or was the man who voted "present", like Teddy Kennedy at Chappaquiddick, merely trying to "preserve his political viability"?

Two, how can one say he has "evolved", when the end result sees him in the same place as as where he started, at the beginning of his "evolutionary" process? How is that "evolution" and not the "F-F" word? And if the acceptance of gay marriage is the most enlightened position, how can you describe it as "evolutionary" to regress as he must have between 1996 and 2004? (Unless it was simply the most crass of political opportunism, telling prospective voters whatever he thought they wanted to hear, and adapting or hiding his beliefs to bamboozle the greatest number of people to vote for him?)

Funny, too, how all the major changes of Obama's "evolution" can be traced to different election years and different bases of voters, isn't it? That's right! You're looking for the "H" word now!

Some of Obama's more rabid supporters will try to paint Romney as a "flip flopper" between now and November. Without even getting into all the campaign promise made and broken by Obama, Mr. Romney has a long way to go before he fills Obama's sandals!

(You can read Proof daily at Proof Positive Blog, Cartoon by Bok)