Proving that cynicism never sleeps, the editorial board of the New York Times refuses to take President Obama at his word when he says that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The board speculates that he may have lied to the American people during the 2008 campaign. Key paragraphs:
In the 2008 campaign, when Mr. Obama said he supported civil unions and believed marriage should be between men and women, he may have wanted to appeal to slightly more conservative voters who were wary of him.
After he took office, it became evident that Republicans intended to portray him as a radical, out-of-touch leftist no matter what he did. Supporting same-sex marriage at this point is hardly going to change that drumbeat, and any voter for whom that is a make-or-break issue will probably not be an Obama supporter anyway.
Firm support for gay marriage is, on the other hand, likely to help him among his cheerless base. Mr. Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and is presiding over the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He signed the United Nations declaration on gay rights, and allowed the Census to count same-sex relationships. But he has been absent from the biggest and most difficult drive of all.
It's all politics to the editorial board. It's all about attaining and retaining power. President Obama couldn't possibly have a principled position on marriage. He couldn't possibly believe that marriage, as an institution, is meant to bind people of different sexes, with different sex drives, different emotions, and different interests, for the sake of their offspring. He couldn't possibly believe that there is a presumption in favor of one of the bedrock institutions of Western civilization and that the presumption hasn't come close to being rebutted. He couldn't possibly believe that there is a relevant difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples with respect to marriage.
The editorial board continues to view Barack Obama as an empty vessel.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 