Mr/Senator/President Obama's Truth

I seem to be in the minority of Americans when writing that I have yet to muster much excitement over President Obama's announcement Wednesday that his thoughts had finally evolved into an unprecedented, full-fledged presidential endorsement of same-sex marriage.

I have seen numerous clips from the ABC interview with Robin Roberts and, as best I could tell, the President seemed sincere when describing both the process he used to arrive at the decision as well as his fulsome support.

But when compared to the gushing hyperbole of the infotainment talking-head celebrities that followed the statement, my personal reaction was clearly left wanting. Blitzer, Matthews, Sawyer and Williams fell all over themselves exalting the President's courage in making "The Decision" amid metaphoric shouts of "Hallelujah!"

My empty reaction left me wondering, despite my great love of politics, if I had simply become too cynical or jaded when it comes to politicians.  Regardless, there remains a nagging sense that the events of this past week may have been more about politics than presidential evolution.

The week that began with an apparent gaffe by the Vice President admitting he was "absolutely supportive" of same-sex marriage eventually ended up making the White House look as if it was scrambling for a unified message; before Mr. Biden's interview was complete, the White House machinery was fast at work backing away from his remarks only to be followed in short order by yet another oddly-timed statement by Secretary of Education Duncan publicly pledging his support.

Before Wednesday's landmark interview, the White House had settled on the position that President Obama's opinion was in flux ~ that it was "evolving." But, in light of what would surely be seen as a defeat for the White House if the looming North Carolina Constitutional Amendment ballot initiative banning both same-sex marriages AND civil-unions were to be passed on Tuesday, it also seemed reasonable to posit that the collective "gaffes" and subsequent machinations might very well have resulted more from political orchestration than mere coincidence might have allowed.

Mr/Senator/President Obama's official paper trail on the subject of same-sex marriage is rife with well-documented changes-of-heart:

1996 ~  while running for a State Senate seat in a liberal suburb of Chicago, Mr. Obama filled out a questionnaire stating, "I favor same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

1998 ~  when asked about the subject again during his second run for the seat, Senator Obama backtracked a bit when he replied, "he'd have to look into it."

2004 ~ just as state Senator Obama was hoping to make the leap to national prominence with a run for the United States Senate, the candidate essentially re-affirmed his opposition to gay marriages by abandoning the word "marriage" while "embrac(ing) civil unions and full rights for gays and lesbians."

2010 ~ President Obama lobbied successfully for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." To be certain, no one in official Washington believes absent successfully striking down DADT that the President would have ever come to support same-sex marriage; it was "a meaningful building block to get to a meaningful discussion about marriage."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just had an "Ah-Ha!" moment; something has finally registered with me.

It's amazing what writing does for my mind; throwing down words sometimes allows me to eventually ferret out my true feelings and untangle lingering confusion; the little "light bulb" above my head has now stopped flickering.

I DO believe the earnestness of Mr. Obama, the man's, statement on the matter of same-sex marriage.

I also can't help but feel that he, the Senator and the President truly felt this way all along.

It leads me to suspect that once the mantle of high office is achieved, political expediency as well as a primal drive for survival takes hold of all politicians.  Democrats, Republicans and Independents surely understand that politics is not a game for the timid; it seems to demand a small Faustian-like bargain of at least a part of one's true self in order to continue "playing the game" successfully ~ a story not unfamiliar to the lives of many Americans.

I could personally not care less if Mr/Senator/President Obama or Mr/Governor Romney have waffled over time; authentic growth and change is an essential component of our lives.  But it can also not be denied that a legacy of political "waffling" lends itself to more confusion and division among the electorate especially when subjectively reported by the media.

Sadly, I honestly don't believe Jimmy Stewart's "Mr. Smith" would survive in the Washington of today; perhaps it was never realistic. But for whatever it's worth, I do wish we had a system in place that would allow decent men and women who serve as our representatives to merely speak the truth as they see fit without fear of the constraints of political maneuvering, party arm-twisting or blatant obfuscation. 

This is not about a solitary political wedge issue for me; naive or not, all of us should demand nothing less from our representatives.

I am satisfied that Mr. Obama, the man, finally had the strength of conviction to speak his truth this past Wednesday … and, for once, a President agreed.

I believe that alone warrants a little smile!

"Love A Goat, For All I Care!"

As everyone knows, Vice President Biden let loose with another (seemingly) unsanctioned comment this past weekend on NBC's Sunday morning talk show,"Meet the Press," when he replied that he was "absolutely comfortable" with the thorny topic of same-sex marriages as well as supporting parity with rights accorded to those in "traditional" marriages.

Within minutes, the offices of both the President and Vice President went into hyperdrive in an attempt to walk back his off-the-cuff comment by releasing statements hoping to assuage various potentially untenable voting blocks.

In the two days since the Biden interview, Press Secretary Carney has been inundated with question after question from the press hoping to elicit salacious information for columns purporting potential rifts within the administration.

His steadfast reply, despite the single-minded stream of consciousness of the reporters, is "the President's stance on same-sex marriage is evolving."

This is one of the facets of politics that drives me bonkers.

Vice President Biden, in my opinion, may have answered the question honestly ~ as average citizen Biden might have done if asked. But during a crucial election year, no White House can afford having one of the President's minions going off the reservation by making rogue, unsanctioned comments. Once the wheels of a Presidential campaign are in full motion, every syllable and turn of phrase is vetted and tested by pollsters before any candidate or spokesperson utters a word. Modern Presidential candidates don't enjoy the luxury of being spontaneous or brutally honest with the end result being that their true beliefs are often intentionally blurred so as not to offend an essential voting demographic.

Rest assured that President Obama and former Governor Romney, like Mr. Biden, each has a definitive view of same-sex marriage; I suspect the public will not be privy to an airing of the victor's unvarnished opinion until after the election in November ~ unless the comments by Biden quickly followed by those of Secretary Duncan (Education) were intentionally fed to the media as part of an overall strategy by the Obama campaign.

Being neither the President nor a candidate running for office, I am free to offer my view on the subject.

When it comes to matters of privacy, my general credo is this:

When the day comes that the affairs of my house are completely in order; when I have no pressing problems or indebtedness; when there remains no single task which demands my attention, then and only then will I allow myself the luxury of even considering if I should involve myself in the private lives of others.

I have often told friends that when it comes to matters of the heart, my personal opinion is that a person can "love a goat for all I care!" There is "an edge of truth to my jest." It has never been nor will it ever be my prerogative to involve myself in the matter of whom others should or should not love; the choices people make for the sake of their personal happiness and in the name of love is not for anyone to judge.

Can I say I have never harbored concerns about an individual a friend might be dating. Yes. Have I always agreed with the ultimate choice a friend or family member has made in a life partner. Absolutely not! However, when push comes shove, it has never been left to me to determine who is best suited for whom when choosing a spouse.  Thank God.

As for this business of same-sex marriages, people are entitled to their fundamental disagreements and concerns. One might be justifiably opposed to same-sex marriage on the basis of a strongly held religious belief or even a personal sense of morality. Or, one might simply be homophobic, bigoted or wholly ignorant about the actual world that ~ like it or not ~ exists outside of every closed mind and door; even these individuals, sadly, have the right to their opinion. I will never hold someone's opinion against them so long as their views are expressed respectfully and intelligently without vitriol or malice.

At this writing, some thirty states have enacted laws that prohibit same-sex marriages. And the state of North Carolina, just moments ago, passed a statewide ballot initiative which has resulted in ratification of a State Constitutional Amendment to protect a ban already in place from being usurped by the judgement of a lower court in the future.

Despite these significant efforts as well as hundreds of newspaper articles and op-ed pieces I have read over the years, for the life of me I have yet, to my satisfaction, been given one sound explanation as to how a private decision between two adults of the same sex who decide to marry one another somehow adversely affects society.

As best I can tell, there hasn't been a demonstrable uptick in petty or violent crimes committed by these couples in states which have sanctioned the marriages. And unless I am grossly misinformed, malevolents like Richard Nixon, Bernie Madoff and Osama bin laden were never married to men.

I would honestly welcome reading a well-articulated, reasoned social justification for banning same-sex marriages (that doesn't invoke the tired arguments of old).

In the meantime, each of us has enough on our private plates to last a lifetime; tend to your home, your loved ones, your problems … or even your goat if that makes you happy.

Everyone else, in my opinion, should just mind their own business! 

Pilgrim's Progress(ion)

This is Peregrine White's cradle.

Surely, everyone ~ at some time ~  has wondered what finally came of lil' Pere's tiny woven cradle; it's whereabouts has certainly kept my mind racing well into the wee hours of many a night. That, and a little too much caffeine. 

But, on Sunday, May 6, 2012, the cradle will take second billing to thoughts of its former occupant when our cousin, LouAnn, is awarded her official passport as a newly minted member of the General Society of Mayflower Descendants.

Founded in 1897 by a group of descendants of the Pilgrims who sailed aboard the Mayflower in 1620, the Society's mission was to memorialize the establishment of Plymouth colony.  Any person who can accurately document direct lineage from a Mayflower passenger, following stringent approval by a Historian General, qualifies to become a member of the society.

We had all heard the story over a lifetime; we were somehow related to Peregrine White who, of three children born aboard the Mayflower, alone managed to survive the harsh ordeal of their pilgrimage.

But, talk to anyone and they are ALL related either to Peregrine or another of the Mayflower's 102 passengers.  I always lazily assumed the oral tradition might have been true but never saw a clear path that would have allowed anyone to actually prove it ~ as if I would have bothered; like most other members of the family, it was simply a quasi-factoid stored in the dusty recesses of my brain. 

And, let's face it, talk of buckle-shoed, funky-hat wearing Puritanical Pilgrim relatives from four centuries ago wouldn't have exactly made for great party conversation.

The family link with the Mayflower was destined to remain a mere rumor passed along from generation to generation until our intrepid cousin decided the storied tradition of the tale would not suffice. Whether she would ultimately succeed or fail, LouAnn decided to put the story to the test and began the tedious process of researching our family tree.

Stubborn. Dogged. Tenacious.

Three adjectives that barely describe the zeal with which LouAnn first linked one limb of the family tree to the American Revolution, earning her membership to the Daughters of the American Revolution, but eventually ~ and successfully ~ to the Mayflower and the male child born of William and Susanna White on November 20, 1620.

The first surviving child born to the Pilgrims of the Mayflower in The New World.

Typing those words finally has the effect of cementing the significance of proving the oral family history passed along over centuries is undeniably true. And while I would like to believe the link to an historic past somehow makes our family special, the reality is that tens of millions of other Americans can be successfully tied to our Pilgrim heritage as well.

Twelve generations have followed 9th Great-Grandfather Peregrin's birth in Provincetown Harbor aboard the historic ship.

When I reflect on the determination exemplified by LouAnn's life and years-long struggle to resolve the many questions of this family lore, I think it is safe to say that the grit and spirit of our Pilgrim ancestors is alive and well today.

Congratulations, LouAnn!