President Barack Obama's allegedly "historic" support for same-sex "marriage" apparently has "prehistoric" roots -- at least as "history" is seen by the establishment press, which has acted as if all relevant history relating to Barack Obama began with his 2004 Democratic convention speech.
A Friday Los Angeles Times puff piece ("President Obama's influence on gay marriage will be tested") on the potential impact of President Barack Obama's decision to publicly support same-sex "marriage" -- supposedly for the first time -- caused blogger and longtime LAT nemesis Patterico to remind readers that Obama was a proponent of same-sex marriage without qualification during those "prehistoric" times -- in 1996 (links are in original):
If we’re going to talk about Obama’s “evolution” on this issue, let’s talk about Obama’s evolution on this issue.
In 1996, when Obama was running for the state senate in Illinois, he signed a questionnaire in which he supported the right of gays to marry.
The questionnaire contained this resolution: "RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage."
Obama signed it.
Later, things changed, as Patterico noted:
Then, when he was running for federal office, his position changed. He has allowed a spokeshole to claim that the above questionnaire was filled out by someone else — a claim later retracted by another spokeshole when nobody bought it.
And he cited religion as the reason for opposing same sex marriage.
Now, having flip-flopped, he has flop-flipped back. And he is trying to make it sound principled.
And the L.A. Times is letting him. Because somehow, none of this makes it into today’s misty-eyed description of Obama’s “evolution.” The “devolution” preceding the “evolution” never comes up.
Note that when he signed the questionnaire in January 1996, Obama forgot that he wasn't still in 1995, and dated the document "1/7/95." Someone forging Obama's signature would very likely not have done this, or would likely have caught himself or herself after making the error.
Of course, with the exception as usual of Fox News, the establishment press won't let totally contradictory "prehistoric" facts get in the way of a "historic" story.
And the total failure, as usual, to vet virtually anything Obama said or did before 2004 won't keep the press from obsessing over what Mitt Romney might have or might not have said or done over 40 years ago.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
