Obama’s decision to support gay marriage after years of ambivalence comes when his now likely presidential opponent, Mitt Romney, makes opposition to it a key measure in his electoral campaign, and after his closest Democrat colleagues have already declared themselves in favour.
His reluctance to declare his views on gay marriage may be, possibly, because in his heart he does not agree with it – we do not know, but he has very strong religious beliefs – but also because in so doing he is taking a massive political gamble, but then whatever he did in this regard was a risk: if he opposed the principle he would be at odds with many in his party and his country and would be seen to be following the lead of his Republican rival, but to endorse it, while it will differentiate him from Romney, will antagonise many, many other Americans who have a fundamental belief in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman only.
It is ironic that same-sex marriage is seen so simplistically, when there is so much more that is involved. In a relationship between two men, for example, one may have a very feminine energy while the other is masculine, or not; their ray patterns may make them truly soul mates; there may be past life issues to resolve through a relationship which is subject to judgment and challenge; a marriage ceremony is the expression of a societal belief but a belief does not make it right; and commitment to a partner can be made in other ways than through a piece of paper. It is all about freedom of choice, freedom to be, freedom from judgment and freedom from expectation and, of course, unconditional love.
If President Obama’s declaration of support for gay marriage (which he cannot implement into law, I understand) is truly heartfelt it is likely that the gamble will pay off, but if he has spoken up for calculated political gain only then he may have major problems with his choice, for that is how karma works.