Let me finish tonight with this.
My problem with two-party politics is that you are inevitably drawn into saying things in public that you would normally prefer not to. If you're a Democrat you're supposed to be down-the-line for the labor union positions, down-the-line for the women's groups, down-the-line for the immigration advocates, and--oh yes!--down-the-line for the latest bi-partisan push for war.
For this reason, I'd rather be a commentator and pick my fights.
Look, I've been fairly positive about all the causes of gay people in this country. I think the President is clearly with these causes.
It's about saying the right thing when it will achieve the right purpose. Would it achieve the purpose of marriage equality for the President to back it now? Would it advance the cause a year or two ahead of its current pace of acceptance?
Or would it simply incur casualties in the cause, the loss of several more culturally conservative states, including North Carolina or Ohio? Or cost Obama even a surprising state, like Pennsylvania?
Would that advance the cause? Or would it solidify the Republican opposition because they would owe it big time? Would it put Mitt Romney in the White House, someone who just said he will never give up his opposition to same-sex marriage?
I believe the President A) knows more about his political challenges than the rest of us, and B) is basically liberal on such matters. I can't read his mind or his heart, but I can judge him as a person and he is not the sort to condemn people for how they were born and the love they know because of who they are.
The statement that he is "evolving" places the President in sync with many Americans. If he is at a further stage of evolution than he's willing to admit, that is not a point on which to decide against him. It is a far stronger reason to vote against his opponent whose evolution, as he just declared, is non-existent.