Obama Says Yes to Gay Marriage: Americans Less Conservative than French
Published in Le Nouvel Observateur
(France) on 12 May 2012
by Pierre Guerlain (link to original)
(France) on 12 May 2012
by Pierre Guerlain (link to original)
Translated from
by Leah Brennan.
Edited by Hodna Nuernberg.
While Francois Hollande has been timid on the issue, Barack Obama, who is in the midst of his campaign, has declared himself in favor of gay marriage. Who would have believed it? Not many, especially not in France — where Americans are cast as "Puritans" and prudes. However, Pierre Guerlain, professor of American civilization, argues that this is a strong political move.
Why would Barack Obama declare himself in favor of gay marriage in the middle of his campaign? One could, in France, interpret it as a mistake; yet it is a strong move.
On the issue of sexual freedom, there are two Americas: the conservative and the liberal. The conservatives are the reactionaries or Christian fundamentalists, who live in the South (not on the coasts, the big northeastern cities, or California). On the other side, there are the center-left liberals, who do not share the same values. Obama's base certainly consists of the latter.
A Good Political Move
Barack Obama knows that the very conservative will never vote for him. He is, therefore, not afraid of losing them. With this announcement, however, he satisfies an electorate that has been disappointed by his record on matters of freedom. Issues such as Guantanamo Bay, Social Security and the drones have been unsettling, especially for the youth who so heavily supported him in 2008.
Since his commitment to certain social issues might appear weak, he has seized a new one.
This can only benefit him. It will not upset his constituents, a large majority of whom support gay marriage. Black Americans are the only exception, of whom 60 percent are opposed to gay marriage. They are, however, loyal to Obama, and would never vote for a Republican candidate.
Symbolically, financially and politically, this is a good move. Since the announcement, contributions to his campaign have surged. It's an astute decision by the American president: This announcement costs nothing and will bring many donations.
An Embarrassment for the Republicans
In addition, this announcement embarrasses the Republican Party, which is quite divided on questions of sexuality and even more so on those concerning homosexuality.
Now in the Romney camp, a controversy has shaken the campaign. A gay aide to the Republican candidate was silenced by the ultraconservatives and, eventually, resigned for "personal reasons." Mitt Romney, meanwhile, is not particularly bothered by gay issues, but he knows that many in his base are fundamentalist Christians who find gay marriage an abomination.
In making his announcement, Obama has shifted the debate toward the issue of sexuality, which Romney has not wanted to deal with. This problem, after serving as a scare tactic for the Republicans, has become an asset to the Democrats.
A Rapid Change of Heart, as Opposed to France
Over the past few years in the United States, there has been a dramatic shift in attitudes about gay marriage. In 2008, 38 percent supported gay marriage but, by 2012, that number had increased to 53 percent.
Obama has followed the evolution of his base. And this strategy is paying off.
So why isn't this question more central in France? Hollande has stated his position, but it hasn't really served as an issue in his campaign. Even though Hollande was elected, the strong showing of the extreme right reveals that we are in a country evolving towards greater conservatism. In France, the dominant ideology is to the right.
Our hearts are less mature than those in the United States. The Netherlands, England and the Scandinavian countries are evolving faster than France. This can be explained: On issues of sexuality, there is a real divide between Protestant and Catholic countries.
We are an atheist country, but we are of Catholic tradition, and that has slowed progress on certain questions, including those about abortion.
We, the French, often imagine Americans as "Puritans," but it should be noted that the term "Puritan" is problematic. There is some ambiguity surrounding the word. In everyday language, the French use the word to mean "prude" or "rigid." But, historically, Puritanism was a form of seventeenth century Protestantism that was born in England, and which happened to lead to certain sexual practices that would not be considered prudish at all.
In everyday language, the word "Puritan" refers, instead, to the sexual mores of the late nineteenth century, referred to even in the United States as the Victorian period.
And there are many sides to sexual morality. In the United States, morals demand that presidents be married. In France, the fact that Francois Hollande lives with a woman who is not his spouse was in no way an issue in his campaign.
A Not-so-binding Announcement
Ultimately, it is especially shrewd on Obama's part because, in fact, the choice of whether or not to permit gay marriage lies with the states. At the federal level, the administration cannot impose anything on the states with regard to gay marriage.
The only constitutional problem posed is if a gay person is married in a state that permits it, will s/he still be considered married in another state? There is a vacuum on this question.
In France, if there were a vote in Parliament, everyone would go along with it. In this, Obama's announcement is less binding than that of Hollande, and it has delighted a group of voters whose Obamamania had somewhat weakened.
Why would Barack Obama declare himself in favor of gay marriage in the middle of his campaign? One could, in France, interpret it as a mistake; yet it is a strong move.
On the issue of sexual freedom, there are two Americas: the conservative and the liberal. The conservatives are the reactionaries or Christian fundamentalists, who live in the South (not on the coasts, the big northeastern cities, or California). On the other side, there are the center-left liberals, who do not share the same values. Obama's base certainly consists of the latter.
A Good Political Move
Barack Obama knows that the very conservative will never vote for him. He is, therefore, not afraid of losing them. With this announcement, however, he satisfies an electorate that has been disappointed by his record on matters of freedom. Issues such as Guantanamo Bay, Social Security and the drones have been unsettling, especially for the youth who so heavily supported him in 2008.
Since his commitment to certain social issues might appear weak, he has seized a new one.
This can only benefit him. It will not upset his constituents, a large majority of whom support gay marriage. Black Americans are the only exception, of whom 60 percent are opposed to gay marriage. They are, however, loyal to Obama, and would never vote for a Republican candidate.
Symbolically, financially and politically, this is a good move. Since the announcement, contributions to his campaign have surged. It's an astute decision by the American president: This announcement costs nothing and will bring many donations.
An Embarrassment for the Republicans
In addition, this announcement embarrasses the Republican Party, which is quite divided on questions of sexuality and even more so on those concerning homosexuality.
Now in the Romney camp, a controversy has shaken the campaign. A gay aide to the Republican candidate was silenced by the ultraconservatives and, eventually, resigned for "personal reasons." Mitt Romney, meanwhile, is not particularly bothered by gay issues, but he knows that many in his base are fundamentalist Christians who find gay marriage an abomination.
In making his announcement, Obama has shifted the debate toward the issue of sexuality, which Romney has not wanted to deal with. This problem, after serving as a scare tactic for the Republicans, has become an asset to the Democrats.
A Rapid Change of Heart, as Opposed to France
Over the past few years in the United States, there has been a dramatic shift in attitudes about gay marriage. In 2008, 38 percent supported gay marriage but, by 2012, that number had increased to 53 percent.
Obama has followed the evolution of his base. And this strategy is paying off.
So why isn't this question more central in France? Hollande has stated his position, but it hasn't really served as an issue in his campaign. Even though Hollande was elected, the strong showing of the extreme right reveals that we are in a country evolving towards greater conservatism. In France, the dominant ideology is to the right.
Our hearts are less mature than those in the United States. The Netherlands, England and the Scandinavian countries are evolving faster than France. This can be explained: On issues of sexuality, there is a real divide between Protestant and Catholic countries.
We are an atheist country, but we are of Catholic tradition, and that has slowed progress on certain questions, including those about abortion.
We, the French, often imagine Americans as "Puritans," but it should be noted that the term "Puritan" is problematic. There is some ambiguity surrounding the word. In everyday language, the French use the word to mean "prude" or "rigid." But, historically, Puritanism was a form of seventeenth century Protestantism that was born in England, and which happened to lead to certain sexual practices that would not be considered prudish at all.
In everyday language, the word "Puritan" refers, instead, to the sexual mores of the late nineteenth century, referred to even in the United States as the Victorian period.
And there are many sides to sexual morality. In the United States, morals demand that presidents be married. In France, the fact that Francois Hollande lives with a woman who is not his spouse was in no way an issue in his campaign.
A Not-so-binding Announcement
Ultimately, it is especially shrewd on Obama's part because, in fact, the choice of whether or not to permit gay marriage lies with the states. At the federal level, the administration cannot impose anything on the states with regard to gay marriage.
The only constitutional problem posed is if a gay person is married in a state that permits it, will s/he still be considered married in another state? There is a vacuum on this question.
In France, if there were a vote in Parliament, everyone would go along with it. In this, Obama's announcement is less binding than that of Hollande, and it has delighted a group of voters whose Obamamania had somewhat weakened.
Previous article![]( "Evolution of Obama: Critics Won’t Buy His Flip-Flop on Same-Sex Marriage")
