Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.
In 1996, as he ran for Illinois state Senate, Chicago’s
Outlines gay newspaper asked candidates to fill out a questionnaire. Tracy Baim, the co-founder and publisher of
Outlines, dug up
a copy of the questionnaire in 2009, cataloging the president-elect’s shift.
He had written on the 1996 questionnaire, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
Just two years later, on
another Outlines questionnaire, Obama wasn’t so sure. Did he favor legalizing same-sex marriage? "Undecided." Would he support a bill to repeal Illinois legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage? "Undecided." Would he co-sponsor it? "Undecided."
Later years offered greater clarity — and a shift from 1996. Civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? No.
As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004,
he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. ..."
He described his hesitation to endorse same-sex marriage as strategic and political.
"What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. … I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. … Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game."
When he wrote his 2006 memoir,
The Audacity of Hope, he offered a religious explanation for his definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. But he left the door open for yet another shift.
"I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. …" he said. "(But) it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."