President Barack Obama has remained in support of same-sex marriage since he began his long presidential run in 2008. Former political strategist for Obama David Axelrod wrote in his new book, “Believer: My Forty Years in Politics,” that the president began supporting civil unions instead of marriages in an effort to quell political concerns while he ran for office. This public deception of his stance on same-sex marriage was rooted in opposition “strong in the black church,” and at the council of close political advisors, Axelrod writes.

There are several instances both before and throughout Obamas presidential career that point to his support for same-sex marriage, despite the official position he told crowds and reporters during multiple campaigns. These were subsequently kept out of the media or cleverly covered up. While running for Illinois state senate Obama is quoted stating “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages” in 1996 on a survey from a gay newspaper. Communications director Dan Pfeiffer claimed Obama did not fill out the survey. Two years after, during reelection times, he claimed an undecided stance. Ten years after the survey, in 2006, Obama fell back on his Christian beliefs in opposition to same-sex marriage.

In 2008, when only 40% of Americans supported same-sex marriages according to Gallup, Obama’s opposition to gay marriage “was a fiction, but it was a politically effective one.” Axelrod also writes that the President claimed his views were “evolving” over the course of his presidential terms.

“I’m just not very good at bullshitting,” Obama responded to Axelrod after announcing the stance in May 2012 during an interview at the White House with Robin Roberts of ABC and politically opposing the Defence Against Marriage Act (DOMA). The act is a United States federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states, passed in 1996 by Bill Clinton. Section 3 was struck down June 2013, citing it as unconstitutional.