Same-sex couples should be able to get married.

That's what he said!

The LGBT community has been waiting for Obama to say that for years. Everyone knew he would someday, it was just a matter of when and how. I imagine many hoped for something louder and stronger than this, a statement of policy. A speech not unlike his race speech. Instead they got this, which is, in my opinion, a whole lot more interesting.

There is a lot of tossing around of the idea that this was in response to a supposed gaff made by Biden. Here's the "gaff":



I see the stumbling, but I don't see the mistake. Biden doesn't say it anywhere near as straight as Obama does, though the sentiment does get across. Even if this was a gaff (which is a stupid word anyway), it's not really the kind that Obama should have to respond to. It's just not blatent enough. Plus, he could just write it off as another "Oh, Joe..." moment and ignore it entirely. No one would really blame him, except the LGBT community who have wanted him to just-say-it-already for years. But most of them will vote for him in November regardless. So why on earth did Obama and his strategy team choose now? And why have him do it the way he did?

These, my friends, are my favorite questions to ponder, and I think I have come up with an answer. Doesn't matter if it's the actual reason why, that's the fun part of rhetorical study! Everyone's opinion counts as long as you can back it up. There isn't a "right" answer. It's pretty sweet like that.

Anyway. The first question. Why now?

I've read a lot of comments from people posing the idea that Obama chose now because of all the bigoted noise coming from the GOP. The idea being to show that Obama is equalist, not bigoted and LURVES E'RYBODY, unlike those big rich meanies over there. To some degree this seems right to me, but at the same time it seems too limited in scope. It's not as if the GOP doesn't make a habit of being racist, sexist, and gay-hating (in case my negatives confuse you, they do make a habit of that). It's not like their behavior is something new or irregular. So, why wait until now to show how Obama is a more accepting person than them? Sure the general election just started, but really? No. This cannot simply be an "I'm a better person than you" contest.

I think that to some degree it's because of this. That's a link to a New York Times article citing the newest poll numbers on same-sex marriage. There are more Americans in favor of same-sex marriage than there are in opposition. This first changed a year ago. So why didn't Obama say anything then? He had no reason to. It would have been essentially purposeless, and would probably have hurt his chances of convincing congress to get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell. In case you haven't noticed, House Republicans are very contrary. Many of those who voted to get rid of DADT would have voted otherwise, just because the POTUS had real opinions upon which he was basing such a policy choice. A policy choice alone is just policy. There could be a million reasons, stated or not, that a policy is bad. But a policy choice with an ethical opinion behind it? An ethical opinion that you disagree with? Them's fightin' words. The repeal of DADT would not have passed if Obama had openly supported same-sex marriage, just because congress is contrary. Now, with the new polls having just come out, Obama can make his announcement. But again, this is a little too small to be the ONLY reason.

Last week, our favorite person in the House of Representatives, John Boehner chose to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. For those of you who don't know, DOMA is the federal law banning recognition of same sex marriages by states aside from the one they occurred in and federal agencies. It also covers a whole lot of other minor details involving the prevention of same-sex marriage. So, under DOMA, a lesbian couple could be married in DC, but they have no married privileges in any other state, and they have to file their federal taxes as if single. DOMA was passed in 1996. In February 2011, the Obama Administration announced it found the law unconstitutional and would no longer defend it in court. A case has, of course, come up, and despite the administrations decision, Boehner has chosen to spend tax dollars defending the law. House Republicans also quietly enacted a few other measures last week that also infringe on the rights of same-sex couples.

The last couple weeks have therefore been full of legal activity on the same-sex marriage front. There have also been a number of announcements of support from high ups on the Democratic side of Congress, among them Harry Reid (D, NV), Majority Leader in the Senate. So, Obama's announcement is timely, based on actions by his opponents and by his allies.

So, why did Obama choose now? Because support for same-sex marriage is growing, and the opposition is becoming a louder, less reasoned minority. Has anyone else noticed how the right becomes even more crazy when you back them into corners? They seem to think this works, I am not sure why.

Well, that question has been answered. Next! Why did he do it that way?

Obama's announcement to me sounds a whole lot more like a confession. It's a solid stance, backed with his usual stories, but he notes that it's personal. It's a sort of quiet note, that yeah, he supports gay marriage, but not a statement that you should too. While that might be disappointing to some LGBT rights activists, I think it's a brilliant strategic move.

Obama is not a gay rights leader, as much as we may want him to be. He isn't one and he can't be. Despite the fact that yes, more Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage than oppose it, it is still a political risk for him to stand up on a podium and shout to the world about gay rights. The LGBT political movement has been pinned as radical, and a lot of people still think of it that way. If he were to  stand up and say HEY YOU SHOULD SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE, like so many wish he would, he would lose a lot of independent voters, simply because the stance made him seem radical. This calm quiet method of conveying his personal views is a whole lot less scary and a whole lot less offensive to the middle group that Obama needs to win the election.

Plus, it works just as well on everyone else. Those of us who support gay marriage are relieved and excited to hear his views, his real views, finally. Obama absolutely has the LGBT vote now. Hand and foot. Not to mention any other socially liberal Democrat who was maybe a little bit on the ropes.  Also, his base is now pepped to support him, because he has just done a wonderful thing that we've wanted from him for years.

That's why he didn't shout it from the rooftops: He didn't have to, and it was better if he didn't. Shouting and rooftops scare voters.

Another thing that has also been noted is the rhetoric of the word "marriage." Obama has supported full civil unions forever. The only difference was name, pomp and circumstance. Now he's said the word marriage, and as he notes, it's the meaning of the word that matters and makes the difference for the LGBT couples involved. It means a lot to say you're married, it doesn't convey the same if you say you're "civilly united." Sounds sort of like the end to a war to me, rather than the merging of 2 households. And so, marriage it is and marriage it should be, Mr. President.

On bias and how I have it

Before I begin to write this blog, I thought I would make a post to note what my particular biases are. That way, if anyone ever calls me out on something that's clearly an opinion stated as fact, I can send them here. Welcome, person who found an opinion.

I have several biases and though I will try to be as objective as possible regarding my analysis of rhetorical pieces, they're going to show. Especially because I will usually choose to write on things that I have opinions about. I will attempt to list them here.

1) I bleed liberal blue. I was raised in the San Francisco Bay Area and I went to college in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. I am an environmentalist, peace loving hippy. I do not deny this.

2) I am a socialist republican. I don't mean republican as in GOP, but republican as in I believe the best kind of government is a socialist representative democracy. As the US already has a representative democracy (technically) I do lean severely on the side of socialist policy.

3) I freaking love Obama. It's actually kind of a problem. I am a total Obama fangirl. I have plenty of reasons why I like him so much, and I consider most of them to be quite good. However, I do have a slight tendency to overlook his mistakes and flaws. That said, take things I write about him with a small grain of salt. I think what he does is awesome and skillful, and often the right thing. I will admit that it isn't always.

4) I grew up without religion. Most of the things I know about various religions came from study, and therefore I know a whole lot more about Islam than I do Christianity. I have only read very small portions of the Bible. 9 times out of 10 I will miss a religious reference that's blaringly obvious to everyone else in the room. Keep this in mind, and if you see something, let me know. I will only learn if I am taught.

I am sure I will add to this as I go along and things come up. Welcome to rhetor I see!