Keith Olbermann Supports Gay Marriage; Obama Supports Voting On Stuff

In his Thursday show, Keith Olbermann showed Obama’s latest stance on same-sex marriage (as stated at a Thursday LGBT gala), and then offered his personal comment on the gay marriage debate in New York.

Olbermann argues that, regardless of Obama’s position (which is currently “Let’s vote on gay marriage… and then like whatever comes out of that?”, followed by a sheepish smile), gay marriage is going to be universally legalized within a decade.

Olbermann attributes the increasing popularity of gay marriage to “an inability of younger people in this country to do what older ones still can: To pretend that this matters anymore. It just doesn’t. It won’t destroy the democracy. It doesn’t destroy the family. It strengthens the institution of marriage… and it increases the number of people living in stable and loving homes.”

Olbermann also suggests that people who are worried that children are endangered by gay parents should think again.

“The list of risks to children created by their parents is nightmarishly long, and standing there being all gay around them is probably no higher than 206.”

(This is, by the way, the best use of the phrase “being all gay” that I have ever seen. May #beingallgay one day trend on Twitter!)

Olbermann closed with some thoughts about corn, power, and feelings.

“This is, corny as it seems, not about politics or religions or power or lobbying. It is about love.”

What do you guys think of Obama’s stance on gay marriage? Has it evolved enough, or does he need to keep evolving? And most important of all: Is Olbermann’s last quote corny, or awesome? I vote awesome, but then again, my favorite movie is A Walk To Remember.

Where does/should Obama stand on freedom to marry?

It seems like everyone is speculating about Obama’s position on same-sex marriage. In Salon today, Alex Pareene argued that that Obama should come out for gay marriage already (literally—Pareene’s title is “Barack Obama should come out for gay marriage already”).

Pareene notes that the only way the New York marriage bill will pass is with Republican support—so if it does pass, Obama will have out-Republicaned New York Republicans. He also argues that Obama’s current position is unofficially silencing him on the subject of marriage equality:

With the president still “officially” opposing gay marriage, he won’t be able to celebrate the victory — or criticize the failure, if the New York state Senate acts like the New York state Senate and the talks collapse at the last possible moment.

“[I]f the New York state Senate acts like the New York state senate” is maybe not the most illuminating rhetorical device, but Pareene’s larger idea is worth considering.

The Huffington Post, meanwhile, got a position clarification from Obama, who had previously been issuing borderline comical bulletins like this one (via HuffPo):

Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed that the president had been nothing but consistent in saying that his position was “evolving” on the topic.

It takes a lot of self-confidence to call something consistent and evolving in the same sentence.

Luckily, in an email to HuffPo today, an anonymous White House official helped clarify Obama’s current position:

“Although the President believes that this is an issue best addressed by the states, he also firmly believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal protection under the law,” the official said.

What do you guys think of Obama’s freedom to marry politics? Comment away!