From a political standpoint, if he wants to draw a distinction between the sanity of a pro-marriage equality position, and the insanity of whatever garbled, right wing position comes from the likes of Mitt Romney, he should keep it simple, and not get drawn into the quagmire; that alone might persuade others who have been sitting on the fence.

Citizens who choose to be in a partnership without the sanction of a particular religion or a particular State should be granted the same rights and privileges as those who choose to get married.

In my view, the government should not be in the marriage business.

If people choose to get married because it is meaningful to them, they can do so in many ways. But rights and privileges offered by the government should not be a motivating factor.

If I'm not mistaken, people in a partnership are accorded the same rights and privileges in France whether or not they are married.

In any case, inducements offered to people to get married are yet another intrusion upon our lives and yet another example of the imposition of a moral code dictated to our government by various religions.

It is of course incumbent to offer to all citizens the rights and privileges now offered to some. And it is good that Obama, finally said it after "evolving" for at least four years.

His previous position, "Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman", was obviously intellectually untenable. He ascribed it to his religious upbringing and tradition. But his record of vacillation on this issue indicates that it was politics that dictated that he take a regressive stand at that time.

Which brings me to this new statement.
I believe that tremendous pressure was brought to bear upon Obama to get him to verbalize this enlightened stance. Especially after Biden's unequivocal declaration in favor of marriage rights for all.

People who believe in other agendas described as "liberal" should learn from this that Obama can be pressured from the liberal-left and not just from the conservative-right.

""Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn't having it.

" `He can't look like that. That's wrong. Just look at him!' an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann's recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber's look, Friedemann recalled. A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school's collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber's hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors. The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another."

Link

If the Obama campaign was smart, they will take this story of Mitt bullying a possibly gay kid and draw a direct comparison to Obama's strong statement in the video you posted and the statement yesterday.

Those three bits of data alone were enough to make me send an extra $50 today.

Really powerful moment and the GOP is (as is becoming cliche) on the wrong side of history and fundamentally what is good and right.

Our expectations are so low now, it seems the phuckers have been undergrounded.

The process may not have been ideal, but the outcome is both idealistic and realistic.  The president and the vice president of the United States have registered their views, and, in so doing, have brought their influence to an American principle of civil equality.

While it is no longer an issue of where the president stands, it does not relieve the need to provide reasons for why he has formed his opinion.  It will be tempting for the campaign to think it can move on so as to focus on other issues, such as the economy, but that is neither feasible nor reasonable.

I care about this issue. A lot. But I wasn't voting for Obama before he said this. And I'm not now.  Nor am I giving any money. But I know people who will be convinced by this to support him. Under the argument that even if it's a craven act it's important to support people who say this. It's a logic I understand. But one I don't share in this instance.

I don't believe Jeralyn about "his heart". I frankly don't really care about Pol's hearts.  But I've seen evidence of Obama's homophobia since before he ran for President, throughout that campaign and after.

Obama made be simply pandering, not just for votes and money, but for goodwill among his base. Now that a big chunk of the left has figured out that he's either incredibly ineffective or just tool of the plutocrats who have stolen our government, he's clearly lacking the momentum he needs to be reelected. His worst nightmare would be frenzied right wingers flocking to the polls over social issues, moderates voting for the rich businessman who gives them economic wet dreams (or Ron Paul if they trust him more), and the left sitting out the election in disgust or maybe voting for one of the true liberals running. What's a president to do?

Let's face it: Republicans and Democrats now work together to create social discord over abortion, contraception and marriage in order to divide Americans into two herds of sheeple flocking to the polls to vote against each other on social issues while hopefully ignoring the ongoing ruthless economic exploitation from corporate greed, perpetual war, massive wealth redistribution from tax inequality to ObamaCare, and in denial regarding the existential threat of climate change.

Two days ago, North Carolina enshrined bigotry in their Constitution, expanding their preexisting ban on gay marriage to prevent equality even via civil unions. The anto-gay amendment brought the bigots to the polls in droves as usual, with forty percent of SC's Democrats voted to grind "teh gays" under their heels. This is the state where Obama squeaked by in the last election with a half a percent. If his base sits out the election, he'll lose the state in November.

So Obama took a stand. A minor step, but with at least the appearance of being principled, and purportedly framed in his own deeply held faith. Good on him. He's earned my respect, if not my vote yet. My god, he just took on the Roman Catholic Church and right wing evangelical Protestantism! Not that many of them were going to vote for him anyway, but now they're really go on the attack. The black churches might give him a pass, especially since he's tiptoeing so carefully around their bigotry, but the evolution that was necessary to reclaim some of his base now puts him at risk elsewhere.

Obama probably hoped to go down in history as the Prez who finally gave us universal healthcare, but those expectations are being dashed. The gay issue could be a defining moment for the Change he promised. To do so, he need to take this issue up a notch, and it's up to us to push him. The Democratic Party has screwed up the gay issue for fifteen years. Bill Clinton's "compromise" put our party in the position of continually fighting throngs of angry fundamentalists. Without DOMA, the state by state oppression of gays wouldn't have been as successful. We have a chance here to finally get what we want from big O on at least one issue.

We're letting the right wing frame the discussion on this issue instead of taking the lead. They're training their leaders and followers to not say anything negative about gays, but instead, to express their motivation in terms of "supporting marriage." That's an absolute lie, as none of their political activities support heterosexual marriages other than to prevent gays and lesbians from having marital equality.

Is there some way we can reframe the discussion that would give our President the opportunity to, well, actually lead on this issue? He's opened the door. Can we find a way to help push him through it? Instead of allowing wingers to pretend religious marriage is the same as the civil contract our governments regulate, how about trying to establish the line between civil marriage and "holy matrimony" between a man, a woman and God? Instead of pushing for gay marriage, allowing gays into the institution, can we push religious marriage out of it?

The President surprised me yesterday. Not about what was in his heart. I was confident about that.

"Undecided" - in a questionnaire on the same question in 1998 for re election to state senate

"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am NOT a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about primarily just as a strategic issue" - 2004 running for US senate.

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ... it is also a sacred union" - 2008 running for president.

"It is important for me personally to go ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married" - 2012 running for re election for president.