The real explanation of the president's gay marriage flip-flop

Lot's of pundits are breathlessly hailing the courage and groundbreaking heroism of our fearless leader. You know, he's so courageous and heroic that he finally admitted to holding a view expressed by Dick Cheney back in 2009. 

I might as well reiterate here that I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other.  If you want to be gayly married, then good for you.  I don't think your Creator sees it that way, but I can't for the life of me figure out how any of this is a government issue.  I'd prefer to keep the government out of all of our lives as much as possible.  At the same time though, I would appreciate an end to the lectures about how normal and natural all of this stuff is.  Hetero sex creates new humans.  Gay sex does not.  Gay sex is therefore, by definition, unnatural.  That being said, I don't care.  Marry whomever you like and I'll (not) marry whomever I like.  We can keep the government out of it and leave each other alone.

But we never leave the government out of anything, do we? We have to engage in horseshit discussions of "rights" that are apparently being denied to people.

Hospital visitation is one that the people on the radio like to talk about.  Seriously dude, get the fuck out of here.  When my buddy Mr. Pedro was in the hospital prior to his death, I could go and visit him whenever I felt like it.  I'm not his wife.  I'm not related to him in any way (and we also happened to be of the same gender).  But I could visit him in the hospital.  Nobody had to redefine an English word for me to do so.  If one individual is being prevented from visiting another individual in a given hospital, then there's a hospital policy problem.  Not a government problem.

Inheritance is another one, right?  Inheritance is a simple matter of estate law.  States have skewed estate law in favor of married couples, to be sure.  So why not just fix that problem?  Require spouses to do what anybody else would have to do in order to direct their assets following death - fill out a will.  Simple enough.  And one more phony talking point about discrimination can go by the wayside.  If I want to leave my belongings to Jennifer Aniston (who clearly would be my wife in this imaginary scenario) and you want to leave your belongings to your gay lover, then fine.  We'll both fill out a contract stating that these are our preferences and life will go on.

My point here is to illustrate how phony and contrived this whole 'controversy' is.  The fact that Obama was afraid to pick a side was only a small indictment of him.  He's a spineless jellyfish when it comes to all kinds of issues, so why would this one be any different?  The Chicago way dictates that the right position on any given issue is the one that keeps a politician in power - nothing more, nothing less.  He's a Chicago machine politician in every sense of the phrase.

No, the larger indictment falls on the voters who sit around and wait to see about this stuff.  It's an imaginary controversy with a simple solution, yet we've spent years and decades wringing our hands and gnashing our teeth.  He is a coward about the issue only because we don't have enough sense to realize that it's not an issue in the first place.  We're the ones who theoretically embrace freedom, only until someone else's freedom seems a little yucky to us.  Whether it's the freedom to be filthy stinking rich or the freedom to be a flaming homosexual, we all pick and choose which freedoms are offensive to us.

So Obama had to pick a side on this particular issue, after years of trying to play both sides.  It's a funny thing about divide-and-conquer politics.  Some of the coalitions that you assemble over the years will end up on opposite sides from each other.  In particular, the party preferred by black people and Hispanic people has wound up also as the party preferred by gay people.  And do you know which groups of Americans are fairly hostile toward gay people?  Bible-thumping rednecks?  Yeah, to an extent, sure.  But also blacks and Hispanics.  These groups of people are largely Christian in their beliefs and largely hostile toward homosexuality in general.  But they're also mostly Democrats.  So a Democrat hoping to hold the coalition together would be well-served to straddle the line as long as possible.  It's not Obama's fault.  It's our fault.  We're the ones who vote along arbitrary and illogical lines most of the time.  He's just another player in the game.

So now the chattering class are trying to analyze whether the new Obama will benefit or lose from the new position on gay marriage.  The simple and obvious answer is that the president will neither gain nor lose significant votes by taking this position.  A few more gay people will turn out to vote and a few more anti-gay people will turn out to vote.  Most people will still vote based on the economy.  That's the reality.

What Obama will gain is money.  He's spent the last three years trying to fuck over the Wall Street crowd any time he had the chance.  The Wall Street crowd were his biggest supporters last time around.  It's entirely possible that they'll end up being his biggest supporters this time as well, but numerous stories have noted that his fundraising hasn't met expectations thus far.  Better get the far left jazzed up again, eh?  What better way to do it than to embrace one of their pet causes?  It's just simple mathematics.

But I think that explanation is a little too simple.  I have another theory.

Suppose you were married to a woman who was always blowing your money and lecturing people about what they eat and whining about your job.  You might start to wonder what other options were out there, right?  So now you have a big-money fundraiser wth Ricky Martin coming up next week.  That Ricky Martin sure is a dreamboat.  And he probably doesn't even care if you want to eat a cheeseburger every now and then.  Maybe you start thinking...

Yep, that's right, I said it.  Barack Obama supports gay marriage now because he wants to marry Ricky Martin.  Go ahead and try to find that kind of hard-hitting analysis on CNN.