Mitt Romney's delicate balancing act, that of advocating discrimination against gays without seeming to, appears to have hit a stumbling block. The idea was to use coded language to outrage gays and soothe conservatives while leading the apathetic middle to think that Romney was against unfairness but for a discriminatory environment. That way Aunt Mildred could safely vote for Romney while pretending to her grandchildren Romney had nothing against gays.
Barack Obama's support for gay marriage has changed the game. Romney can now appeal more thoroughly to outraged conservatives, but with demographics shifting against the Republican base, his potential gain in the "enthusiasm gap" both candidates face is shrinking and Obama's is widening.
Romney's reference in his reaction to "states" being the appropriate forum for deciding what benefits to give out, merely highlights to gays that most states don't give out any benefits and don't intend to.
Indeed, in most states it is still perfectly legal to fire gays for no other reason than homosexuality and if the Obama campaign concentrates some fire on the unfairness of that, they may succeed with underemployed youth.
The media ran to get comments from two marginalized gay Republican groups, but did not survey a single one of the traditional gay community organizations, as one would expect from a biased, Republican controlled media.
The only gay marriage proponent they spoke to was Richard Soccarides, the son of an antigay psychiatrist, who is a full-time lawyer, not a full-time activist.
In this article they also spoke to two opponents, one "academic," and one "anonymous" Democratic critic.
Once again the media blackout on the real gay community was total.