The Human Rights Campaign has now endorsed Obama for President, despite his refusal to oppose the California ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage (as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle), and despite his stated position that marriage can only be between a man and a woman—neither of which is mentioned in HRC's gushing endorsement announcement.
As noted in the item below, the Economist reports that African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage, and Obama is likely to fire up a much larger African-American turnout in California this November. So why an endorsement with no strings attached? Because HRC exists to serve the party, silly.
More. HRC even beat the Stonewall Democrats in getting out their endorsement message, showing which organization is the more effectively partisan.
Furthermore. The San Francisco Chronicle article states:
Obama ... has said repeatedly that marriage itself should be reserved for a man and a woman. With an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the California ballot in November, Obama will probably be called to defend his carefully nuanced position when he campaigns in the state.
Gee, maybe HRC should have gotten him to strongly, and publicly, condemn the amendment and work against its passage as a precondition for their endorsement, you think?