First President Obama played the pity card, asking Americans to sympathize with people who want to marry someone of their own gender, allowing states to grapple with the issue at “different times” and reaching “different conclusions.”
Shortly afterwards Obama evolved, again, and dumped the diversity of states rights. Instead he embraced the view that single-sex marriage is a right that should be expanded to “everybody” because “it’s the right thing to do.”
Charles Krauthammer has an excellent analysis at Washington Post that breaks down Obama’s politics on same-sex marriage:
It’s a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right. And beyond being intellectually untenable, Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry. Not a good place for a president to be in an evenly divided national debate that requires both sides to offer each other a modicum of respect.
Remember, the Civil War started out as a debate about states’ rights but was actually about the humanity of both blacks and whites, and the morality of slavery.
Similarly, single-sex marriage began as a debate about the right of same-sex couples to marry, but is actually about the importance of both genders, and the morality of sex.
If gender is irrelevant in marriage, then why does it matter to the very people who are only attracted to their own gender? Either gender is important, or it isn’t. Single-sex marriage advocates can’t have it both ways.