Thoughts on the 'evolution' of Obama's stance on gay marriage

On 5/9/2012, I read an article on NBC Politics titled "The 'evolution of Obama's stance on gay marriage" (http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite) and would like to make some comments on it.

To start off, I'm glad that Obama is becoming more progressive towards his views on gay marriage.  It's a step up from marriage being a union between a man and a woman.  Even if marriage as found in modern dictionaries is defined as a union between a man and a woman, it's roots come from Judeo-Christian values (and if they don't, I'd be glad to be corrected on this), most of which are in direct opposition to secular humanist values, such as liberty, equality, and rational inquiry.  However, as the President, I don't think that he's progressing as fast as he should be.

Let's take a look at a comparable movement:  the equality of black people in the United States.  Slavery in the United States was officially abolished in 1865, yet it took approximately 200 years for black people to get the law to officially eliminate segregation between blacks and non-blacks.  Granted, the spread of information during those time periods was miniscule compared to nowadays, but it still took a really long time.  Unfortunately, most of our presidents act as if they still live in the "good ol' days" and retain their antiquated values (mainly from their Christian faith) that really hold us back as a society when compared to other first-world countries.  And, as far as presidents go, Barack Obama is probably the most progressive of them all.  But when he says that individual states should decide how to deal with the issue of gay marriage (knowing that a number of states have a strong conservative bent and don't look kindly to that sort of thing), it demonstrates that he still has some more progressing to do to really show his stones when he says that he supports gay marriage.

I understand that, in putting the issue of gay marriage on a state level, he's abiding by the Constitution, who's purpose is to limit the power of the federal government.  However, when states want to ban not only gay marriage but gay civil unions on constitutional grounds (I'd like to see what part of the Constitution they refer to to pull this off), then it's time to amend the Constitution.  It's been done several times before and has even had amendments that exist solely to nullify previous amendments.  Why do I say that such a thing must be done?  Because, when used in this manner, the Constitution is an instrument of inequality.  When used in such a manner, the Constitution is inflicting self-harm, as it is being used to deny a particular group of people (homosexuals) the pursuit of happiness via marriage.

This country has had a reputation to welcome folk from all creeds, without discrimination towards how different someone is from another (in principle).  It seems hypocritical, but unfortunately recurring, that a particular group is discriminated against by the majority, when the majority themselves are a smorgasbord of different ethnicities, cultures, and beliefs who just happen to agree that "group X is bad."  Well, what about all the other differences said groups in the majority salad have with each other?  Catholic vs. Protestant?  Muslim vs. Jew or Christian?  Palestinian vs. Israeli?  Chinese vs. Japanese?  Bloods vs. Crypts?  Democrat vs. Republican?  And on what objective basis is gay marriage bad?  Because your holy scripture or your culture says so?

This issue of gay marriage has gone on way too long, in my opinion, and part of that is due to the ambiguity that this country's leadership has on this manner.  I think that each country has a foundation of values from which everything is built upon and I think that, for the United States, the foundation of its values is the U.S. Constitution.  If someone is going to live in the United States, they ought to abide by those values.  If not, they should go somewhere that shares the same values that they have.  Many people that live in the U.S., however, are confused as to what their country's values are.  Many people think that the U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian values; in many subtle ways, they are right, but not when it comes to the law of the land.  In this case, the ambiguity stems from the country's leadership from serving two masters: the U.S. Constitution and any other affiliations that contradict the U.S. Constitution (such as their political and religious affiliations).  The President can't serve these two masters simultaneously and should put aside their own biases in order to properly exercise the U.S. Constitution and to serve the people, despite what his religious doctrines tell him.