"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about," spoke Obama in November of 2008, prior to his election. Obama in his presidential campaign emphasized his religious values significantly as a Christian, and someone who would not promote a seemingly radical social agenda. Obama was a proponent of traditional values and marriage being a union of a man and a woman, and discussing how he "would support such a resolution" to protect gay marriage from state interference.

Twelve years earlier, though, Obama wrote, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages" while running for Illinois' state Senate. Then, he certainly was in support of it, and quite strongly so, framing his support as a willingness to actively defend it and fight back against attacks to make gay marriage illegal.

"It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," spoke Obama again in May of 2012, in an interview on ABC News. He was firm here, saying that he knew it was "a very tender and sensitive topic", and that his own view on marriage was just "my own preference", hesitating because he thought the issue would be sensitive. The word "marriage" could, for many people evoke "very powerful traditions, religious beliefs."

So... why did Obama constantly change his view, from in support, to against, to again in support? Through Obama's apparent mindset changes with regards to gay marriage, we can see two possible paths. The first path is one of a candidate trying to "mainstream" their beliefs,changing them out of political necessity. For lack of a better term, to play the game. The other option is, of course, that he genuinely changed his beliefs.

Obama was more honest at first, but in 1998 as he ran for re-election to state Senate, he now was "Undecided." Perhaps his open support of gay marriage had antagonized some of his supporters, or perhaps he was open to the idea of something bigger and wanted to start walking things back. In 2004, as his campaign for the U.S Senate was ongoing, Obama spoke in a different light. "I am not supporter of gay marriage. ... I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example."

The telling thing is that in both his Senate campaign and initial presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly emphasized this "nuance." He didn't support gay marriage, but he did support civil unions. Gay marriage? That was too far, encroaching on what a relationship should be, after all, Obama was a Christian! But shouldn't "gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, visit hospitals", and etc? But as Obama said, "And then if you talk about, 'should they get married?', then suddenly..." which is curious, because it highlights the exact irony that Obama himself was committing. He wanted to equalize the playing field, but he didn't want to commit to it.

Obama's theme here of emphasizing rights and equality instead of marriage when the question is asked is not exclusive to this theme. Throughout his time in the Senate and the majority of his first term, he responded in the same manner, with the same idea. But this inherent contradiction provides gripping insight into Obama's thoughts, as the contradiction is just so close to plain sight! And remembering that his position earlier on was that of firm support, only switching to "Undecided" after he had won, and perhaps could have been considering bigger plans... well.

Obama's former political David Axelrod, in his memoir Believer, tells us how Obama really felt about it in private. "I'm just not very good at bullshitting," he said to Axelrod, after an event where he publicly opposed gay marriage. "Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions," wrote Axelrod, "... though, Obama never felt comfortable with his compromise, and, no doubt, compromised position," and routinely stumbling on the question in debates or interviews.

Barack Obama was the nation's first ever African American president, and that in it of itself was a major accomplishment. As smart as he was, as brilliant of an orator he was, he would never be able to win the votes of the bigoted far right who saw him only for his color, and not for his person. How, then, could he stack on another disadvantage, by publicly supporting gay marriage when he was still merely a fresh face in politics? America wasn't ready for an African American and pro-gay marriage president.

Yet in 2012, Obama flipped the switch, and did publicly support it. Obama was now the incumbent, and now he had proven himself more to the American people. And when Biden got ahead of him, saying he was "absolutely comfortable" with gay marriage, Obama decided to join in support of it as well. He had played the game to win the presidency, and now that he had power, he actually was in a position to fulfill his earlier beliefs. The contradictions may have been displeasing... but is such a philosophical victory really more important than the real, meaningful progress brought to gay couples?

The parallels to The Rise of Gavin Newsom cannot be forgotten. One who initially, in a much more constrained position, had a much more firm and proactive mentality; Obama with his firm desires to protect gay marriage, and Newsom with his approval of more than 3,300 gay marriage licenses. And Newsom with his moderating his rhetoric regarding his support for trans people and trans athletes as he prepares to fight for the next presidency, as Obama did with gay marriage before his own presidential run. So could Newsom too be playing the game, taking a page from Obama before him and wanting to incite real change?

In 2015, The Pillar of Obergefell was realized with Obergefell v. Hodges. With Obama's public declaration of gay marriage, certain demographics (especially African Americans) increased significantly in their support for it. Under the Obama administration, an amicus brief was filed against California's Proposition 8, arguing that state laws in general trying to restrict gay marriage was unconstitutional. And because of Obama's mainstreaming of gay marriage as an acceptable view, the ruling of Obergefell itself seemed legitimized. Courts do still require public approval, and Obama provided them the guise of that public approval.

Obama played the game, and in this particular instance, the world is all the better for it. So how much would a cheap philosophical victory of choosing to "stick to your guns" and let the opposition candidate win do? If the world is all the worse for it, how much does your moral certainty really matter? Obama made the choice to play the long game, and sometimes, you have to play. But Obama's flickering support for gay marriage, which contradicted his own values as he opposed a policy he deeply supported, does indeed provide us with incite onto how strong political pressure can be.

Obama's presidency was a symbol of something, a symbol of change and progress. In June of 2016, Obama thanked "heroes" like Windsor and Obergefell who "insisted that love is love." In Chicago, in his farewell address, he warned citizens not to "withdraw from big global flights – to expand democracy, and human rights, women’s rights, and LGBT rights." It was a symbol of change and of equality, of a more open world. And although it did take him time to get there, he did get there.

The ends may not justify the means... but we still can't forget ends entirely. When Michelle Obama spoke her famous phrase, "They go low, we go high", it wasn't an abdication of moral responsibility, but a recognition that the high road itself is difficult. By choosing to lie, Obama made a moral decision, and as uncertain as it may have seemed... that was the high road.

Because sometimes, you have to play the game.