Blurring distinctions on the three G's

One of the more fascinating aspects of this election cycle has been the ability of Obama to neutralize what has been the bane of Democrats in the last two presidential election cycles: the three G's of God, Guns, and Gays.

Clearly Obama is a man of faith, and has not been labeled as a sceptic of religion and faith. Yet on Gays and Guns his views have been a little bit more blurred. He proclaims to support Second Amendment rights, yet he has made statements that he would allow local authorities ("communities") to define to what extent the Second Amendment should be extended.

He has stated that he is opposed to gay marriage, and has been forceful in pointing this out on the stump. Yet this weekend, two and a half days before the election, his image is being used in an advertisement by the No on 8 campaign (see here). I guess that a talented talker (and Obama is certainly talented), could thread the needle and say that opposition to gay marriage and support of an initiative that would curtail gay marriage are not one and the same, and that the personal is not necessarily the policy.

It seems to me that Obama's statements on this subject are being tailored to a socially conservative audience that has been wary of Democrats that they perceive as being too liberal on social issues. It also seems to me that Obama intended for this audience to infer from his statements that his policy on gay marriage would not be any different than his personal beliefs.

It appears that this audience has been duped. However, Obama and the media will probably say that this audience is the victim of nuance they couldn't understand.

Certainly, if Obama is elected, there will be a great number of groups disappointed to find that he made opposing promises to both sides of an issue, and that one side will be left out in the cold. Yet shouldn't the media be demanding some reconciliation on some of these topics before the election, so the voters understand which Obama they are getting?