You can tell what kind of election it is going to be. Democrats are running from Barack Obama. His position has “evolved” so that he now supports gay marriage. 31 States, including some states Obama must win, have, have passed laws outlawing gay marriage.
While the drive by media is quick to rush to Obama’s defense, claiming that a majority of Americans agree with him, the proof is in the actions of the politicians. If his support of gay marriage were really that popular, politicians would be running towards it, not away from it.
From The Hill:
Senate Democrats facing difficult reelections are breaking with President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, a sign the issue is politically dangerous in battleground states.
Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.), the two most vulnerable Democratic senators, have declined to endorse Obama’s call for the legalization of gay marriage.
Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Bob Casey (Pa.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), Democrats who have easier races but in states that could become more competitive by November, have also backed away from Obama’s stance.
They all represent states with constitutional amendments or laws banning same-sex marriage.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) predicted Thursday the Democratic Party would adopt a pro-gay marriage plank in its platform. While that may happen when delegates to the Democratic National Convention meet September in Charlotte, N.C., the party remains divided.
This is the problem with Democrats. They will tell their constituents they are against those unpopular platforms and programs, yet when they go back to Washington, they support them.
The simple fact is a majority if Americans view marriage as being between a man and a woman. They do not want to see marriage turned into some freak show involving three men, five women, two dogs and a Bengal tiger.
We should keep in mind the left’s track record on marriage and the end results. In 1960, marriage rates and illegitimacy rates among blacks and whites were roughly the same.
Then in the 1960’s, the Party of Treason passed the Great Society social programs and directed them towards minorities. What was the result? Today three quarters of all black children are born out of wedlock. Only 6% of black children will grow up in a family with a mother and a father. White children have a 50% chance of this happening.
Growing up in a single parent household is the greatest predictor for poverty.
The left has managed to condemn generations to poverty. But then again, impoverishing people is what liberals do best.
Given their previous track record on almost everything, why should we listen to the left on this issue or any other?
Permalink Reply by Monty Isard on Everyone thought he would wait until after the election. After all, same-sex marriage is still a wedge issue in most of the country. With just over half of Americans now supporting gay marriage, and with many religious conservatives already distrustful of the president, most did not think his administration would rock the boat on such a volatile issue.
So, what are we to make of this sudden turn of events? Over the last few years President Obama has said that his views on same-sex marriage were "evolving" along with the rest of the country's. But why has he chosen this moment to offer an all-out endorsement? Here are three things to consider:
1. Obama had already lost the religious vote. Over the last year the administration has made a number of decisions that have alienated religious voters, most notably the matter of non-church religious institutions having to cover contraception in employee health care plans. The decision upset the Catholic Church in particular, and an endorsement of same-sex marriage is only going to anger a block of voters already unlikely to vote for Obama. In other words, he's got little to lose politically.
2. Obama needs his base of young people and progressives more than ever in 2012. Surveys show that young people are far more open to gay marriage than their parents' generation. They are unlikely to turn against the president for this endorsement. In addition, Obama's progressive base, including the LGTB community, has been frustrated with the president's lack of action on a number of fronts. With his popularity slipping, Obama needs his base's enthusiastic support come November. His full endorsement of this key progressive issue is likely to do the trick. In other words, he's got much to gain politically.
3. Obama needs to keep the focus of the campaign off of the economy. No doubt the president's team hoped to run their campaign on the back of a resurgent economy. While things are definitely not as apocalyptic as when Obama took office in 2009, the recovery is showing signs of slowing down--exactly what Mitt Romney needs in order to sell his "smart business guy" brand to the American people. For the last few weeks, the White House has been pushing Obama's foreign affairs prowess and courage for taking out Osama Bin Laden. With the anniversary of OBL's death now passed, a new issue was necessary to take the focus away from the limp economy that is dragging down Obama's reelection bid. (Did you see the April job numbers? Scary.)
The question is: will Republicans and religious conservatives take the bait? Will they stay on message and hammer away on the weak, even non-existent economic recovery--an issue on which President Obama is genuinely vulnerable? Or will they swerve into a cultural crusade that might fire up their base but ultimately turn off the moderate swing voters necessary to win in November?
Remember, as it stands, the marriage equality issue is being addressed by the states, not the federal government. It is unlikely that Obama, or any other president, will see legislation come across his desk in the next four years on the subject. And while some states are passing legislation blocking gay marriage, as we saw in North Carolina yesterday, the legal foundation for such laws is growing weaker and weaker. I've spoken to a number of conservative legal scholars about the subject, and I've always heard the same thing: the church lost the legal battle over same-sex marriage decades ago. How, you ask? Because the church was silent when state after state passed no-fault divorce laws. These bills essentially removed the state from any interest in preserving or defining marriage. No-fault divorce laws defined marriage as an agreement between two individuals that may be entered or dissolved as the individuals desire without state interference or prejudice.
Now some states are trying to reinsert themselves into marriage by defining who may and may not enter into it. But the courts are saying "Sorry, too late." The state abdicated that role years ago and the legal ground is weak for discriminating among those may marry based on gender. Marriage is a contract between two individuals--any individuals--and not the state.
I recap this history only to remind you that the marriage battle may be over. It is only a matter of time before the remaining states see SSM laws pass their legislatures or bans are overturned by their courts. Rather than fighting same-sex marriage, the church might need to be looking at the next issue on the horizon--protecting religious liberty. If SSM is to be the law of the land, how can Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and others participate in the drafting of these laws in a manner that protects their freedom of conscience and the free exercise of their religion? How can we fairly extend marriage rights to our LGTB neighbors while maintaining the First Amendment rights of Americans with religious beliefs that limit marriage to one man and one woman? This is the important, and hopefully more mature, public conversation church leaders ought to be having.
But, if conservatives, including those in the church, want to make same-sex marriage the defining issue of 2012, I'm sure the Obama campaign will be happy to comply. Anything to ensure the focus isn't about how to revive the economy--a battle that is still far from settled.
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on Your premise that " just over half of Americans now supporting gay marriage" seems to be in error.
Thirty-eight states now are on record opposing same-sex marriage, either by constitutional amendment or statute. That's 76% of the States!
The latest State, North Carolina, gay marriage ban passed by an overwhelming 62-to-38 percentage point margin, Which didn't make the Democratic Governor happy.
Sorry, Monty. I don't know what you are reading in Nottingham. The Main-Stream Media (MSM) American rags, I assume. Whatever it is, it is certainly not representative of one finds in the States!
Permalink Reply by Ruth Fennell on Arnold - Both Social Welfare programs and gay marriage are assaults on the traditional (and Biblical) definition of marriage. Blacks have fallen victim to the lure of "easy" money (aka Obama money) and allowed it to decimate their families, send their historical culture spiraling into drugs, a large percentage of their young male population into prisons, and become an sad legacy for future generations. Now a small percentage of our nation are trying to railroad others against these values and again assault traditional definitions to the detriment of the majority. I have gay friends and even family members that I love dearly for WHO they are, not because of WHAT they are. Many are in committed relationships that make them happy. I just believe that the term "marriage" defines a union between a man and a woman blessed by the Church. But would support gays being able to join together in a civil union if that allows them to solidify their commitment to each other. I just think the Left/Progressives/Communists are constantly trying to redefine our culture and our words and this has got to stop! Here is where we draw the liine...
Permalink Reply by Arnold Lincoln on Is Medicare an assault on the Biblical definition of marriage? Medicaid? Unemployment insurance? Welfare? Social security? (Not all of those were created, extended, or modified by LBJ or the Great Society, of course.) I hate liberals as much as the next guy, but our arguments against them must make sense. Of course, Judson's reason for mentioning the Great Society was to inflame sentiment against liberals, not to make a logical point. That's really my argument here. There are good reasons to oppose gay marriage; that liberals support it is not one. For example, Ruth, in your reply, you give a more cogent argument against gay marriage than Judson offered himself.
Permalink Reply by NWBill on Joe Biden definitely put Obama in a hole, that's for sure. He was forced by circumstance and the bloated power and influence of the gay lobby to declare a position on a subject even HE knows is a political bomb. Most liberals, on a certain level, understand that this is still a center-right country in terms of general social morals and standards - which means that no one should really be that surprised that more than 30 states have banned or prevented gay marriage from being added to the books. It's not bigotry, or prejudice; it's simply where society is right now. A significant number of those states (and voters) who turn down the chance to put gay marriage on their books WOULD likely accept civil unions for gays, with benefits for spouses; the real issue here is that the gay lobby and Hollywood insists on the whole enchilada; and anyone or anything that stands in their way is THE ENEMY. Not being satisfied with civil unions in a country that still holds very deeply to the moral and social compact of traditional marriage as its' stood for thousands of years, places you in a very dangerous position .... which is where Barack Obama is now.
If it were up to him, I'm sure, Joe Biden would have had his mouth duct-taped before being let out in public. Let's face it; anyone who has seen or heard Joe Biden would want the same thing. But Obama has to play the cards he's dealt, and Biden has taken away his ace card; gay marriage. Obama would have been more than content to use the power of his office to protect him from making a decision on the issue; now that he has, the GOP and Romney's team (those are not necessarily one and the same) will use it like a baseball bat from here to November .... and the voters, specifically the independents and conservatives that make up most of that center-right caucus, will tar and feather Obama for it.
He's lost anywhere from 5 - 15% of independents' votes from taking this stand; if he weren't toast before, his decision to kowtow to the gay lobby and Hollywood has doomed him for sure.
All we have to do now is: (a) continue to refuse to be taken in by distractions from the Obama camp, (b) continue to make his record and the economy top billing in the election discourse, and (c) sit and watch. Barack Obama will only get more histrionic and emotionally fragile, the closer we get to November 4th; let's let he and his posse continue to dig his own hole. It's one of the few things he's good at.
Permalink Reply by Norman Zink on NWBill--where you been? Like your thinking and writing.
Joe Biden has got to be a massive migraine or more likely a pain in the ass to Obama. Biden gaffs happen every time he takes a breath and opens his mouth.
0 thinks he is still a rock star but to copy your words his 'histrionic and emotionally fragile' condition make him more dangerous as events unfold against him. Norm
Permalink Reply by Chas Jones on Folks need to continue amending all the State constitutions to define Marriage as between one single man and one single woman at or above the age of maturity for each State. The District of Columbia must be made to mirror DOMA [defense of marriage act].
However, leaving this to vary State by State and between State and Federal law will lead to numerous unwise issues. The federal constitution requires each State to recognize the laws of the several states and when folks relocate as they often do and then divorce or seek custody awards, problems will follow when the marriage laws differ widely.
The supreme court should combine cases pertaining to "marriage" and rule that the same Creator who endows us with inalienable rights already defines marriage as the union of one single man with one single woman ... and this IS Marriage. Civil unions may be authorized by the several States and by congress solely pertaining to benefits conferred by such laws.
Then let the tiny voices of discontent wail to their heart's delight.
But never let anyone forget or mislead ... it is the sexually deviant causing all this controversy by seeking to have civil law embrace that which God condemns.
Permalink Reply by Billy Bowlegs on I received an email from Barrack. My answer follows.
Barrack;
I cannot believe you have totally destroyed the party.
Your same sex crap is about as sick as your other deals with the devil.
No, Barrack, I will be discussing this issue with my fellow Sunday School Students (Democrats and Republicans), and with many friends on both sides of the fence of politics.
I was too young to vote for Herman Tallmadge in Georgia, but if he were alive to read your trash, he would not be with you either.
Hope you enjoy finding out that you are pissing off Patriot Americans.
Say, if you want to have sex with same-sex, print off this entire email, roll it up very tight, and have sex with yourself.
I do not go for any of this bull crap you are spreading.
BB
From: Barack Obama [mailto:democraticparty@democrats.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:47 PM
To: BBowlegs@comcast.net
Subject: Marriage
Friend -- |
Permalink Reply by Elwood Frantz on None of this is done to be pro-gay, but rather to be anti-God! You can see what lies deep within this whole thing.....create a problem, create a solution! The way the liberals in this country have been for over 40 years, now. They want us true Conservatives to come out of the woodwork,(not to be confused with coming out of the closet) and cause a ruckus, so they can say "I told you so!" The gay and lesbian communities in this country are a very small minority, but a minority just the same. But many will suddenly "be gay" so they can start another OWS movement to be.....what else?.....anti-God! They don't want "religion" shoved down their throat, but they will shove same-sex couples and marriage down ours. "As it was in the days of Noah........." Thanks for listening!
Permalink Reply by Carolyn Hamilton on Elwood, do you think that one day the gays will be as disruptive as the blacks? Will they too want reparations?
What a mess Washington makes. Every stinking thing that is wrong with this Country falls on Washington's
backs.. Thank you.
Permalink Reply by Elwood Frantz on Carolyn, For years the gays have been passive, and now someone has stepped forward, well ....long before now, and they have what they think is a voice for them. It doesn't matter who it is, just as long as it is! I know that society as a whole will be as disruptive as the, let's say the people that have been intentionally race-baited, and, like we Conservatives, have a reason to be passionate about something. They hated Jesus Chriat, and as He says, "They shall hate you." You DO notice everything, after being blamed on Bush and Palin, turns to hating Christians as defined by a person who sits in the White House and calls himself one.....I guess good will be called evil, and evil good!
Permalink Reply by Marcia Wood on Judson - without realizing this you just prepared an ad for Romney's Super Pac great job
They do not want to see marriage turned into some freak show involving three men, five women, two dogs and a Bengal tiger.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
