President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage this past week brought with it a variety of benefits to his re-election effort. It energized his base and may well be a spur to more fundraising success, especially in Hollywood. Just as important, it engendered a chorus of unadulterated praise from the mainstream media that fits in well with the attempt to recapture the luster of his “hope and change” campaign in 2008 that hinged on the historic nature of his candidacy. The only question was whether it would cost him more votes from those who disagree than it would cause pro-gay rights voters to become supporters.
On the surface, a new Gallup poll conducted in the aftermath of the announcement seems to reassure the president’s camp that there was no danger of it harming his chances. The survey reports a clear majority of Americans — 51-45 percent — agree with him. Even more reassuring is that the decision won’t affect the votes of the vast majority, as 60 percent say it will make no difference and 13 percent assert it will make them more likely to vote for his re-election. Only 26 percent claim this will make them less likely to vote for him. But within these figures is still some very bad news for the president. The numbers show far more votes will be lost as a result of his stand than gained, especially in the center where the election will probably be decided.
Though the headline may say most votes won’t be affected by gay marriage, one needn’t go too deep into the results to figure out that this means twice as many voters could be lost to Obama on this issue than he would win. Even more depressing for Democrats is that independents are the most affected by the issue, with 23 percent registering less interest in voting for the president and only 11 percent with more support.
As Gallup’s own analysis concludes:
Those figures suggest Obama’s gay marriage position is likely to cost him more independent and Democratic votes than he would gain in independent and Republican votes, clearly indicating that his new position is more of a net minus than a net plus for him.
There is little doubt that Obama’s flip-flop on gay marriage (he supported it as an Illinois state senator, prudently opposed it when running for the U.S. Senate and for the presidency but now endorses it) is because he believes it is vital to energize the Democrats’ base. Neither Obama nor Romney can hope to win without the enthusiasm of their party’s core, but in an election that tracking polls tell us is a virtual dead heat, any issue that has the potential to lose twice as many vital independents as it can win is a possible death blow.
As the results in the North Carolina referendum this week showed, as much as there has been a sea change in American culture on gays, there is still stiff resistance to tinkering with the traditional definition of marriage. That is especially true in swing states that Obama won in 2008 such as North Carolina, Virginia and Ohio but which are up for grabs this year.
Thus, while the president is reaping the hosannas of the mainstream liberal media and possibly raking in even more Hollywood donations, his “evolution” on the issue may wind up costing him states he can’t afford to lose in November.
I think gay marriage is coming, and should. n nI also think it's the worst-run civil rights campaign ever, defined by people flipping over to it overnight, then self-righteously condemning as haters anyone who is five minutes behind them on the topic. There's been none of the effort to change minds that the black civil rights movement excelled at in the 50s and 60s, making case after case of simple justice involving sympathetic subjects to win whites to the idea that the basic rights of life should belong to everyone. Much more typical has been the Andrew Sullivan approach of shrill demagoguing. n nThis is a case where letting it happen state by state would have been a huge asset to the movement. Instead they're forcing a confrontation on federal grounds because hey, it's liberals, there are only federal issues. And they nearly always lose, putting a new federal barrier in place each time. It would be fitting if federalizing yet another issue finally cost Obama his job, but ye gods, all we'll hear for decades is that he was defeated by hate, the noble saint.
You may have picked the one issue on which Romney hasn’t changed his mind. Although he has been vague about civil unions. Apparently, he favors them unless they include “all” of the rights included in marriage, although he did not specify exactly which rights should be denied to gay couples. Hospital visitation is apparently OK, which at least puts Romney to the left of Scott Walker.
But face it, you guys are on the losing side of this issue. Obama may be very slightly ahead of the curve, but not by much. The up-and-coming generation simply does not worry about gay people.
History is filled with people who are certain they are on the right side of it. They are almost always wrong.
I am and always was a pretty liberal person. I do resent "Gay" people on several scores. First, I resent using the word Gay to describe them. Ginger Rogers was not Gay in the Gay Divorcee. I am occasionally gay, but never homosexual. Let the homosexual community acquire 'most' rights that heterosexuals have, but not some marriage rights, including the name itself. One right that I would exclude would be the adoption of children. Children needing adoption should have, as much as possible, a normal set of parents. I am also against the adoption of the color Black and African American by Negroids or those, almost all, who are only partially Negroid. Negroid, I understand, is an anthropologically correct term. That sentiment also goes for 'White' and 'Brown' and 'Red' and other assorted stupid designations. I don't believe that scientifically correct terms would reduce ancient prejudices, but, like chicken soup, it couldn't hurt. Incidentally, I just heard Senator Feinstein (California, running for reelection) lying about Obama's most absolutely correctly termed Flip-Flop on homosexual marriage. And she claimed that it was not politically motivated. HA.
The argument that “Ginger Rogers was not Gay in the Gay Divorcee” was clearly, except for morons, not against “Gay” marriage, but against expropriation of the title “Gay” where it does not belong. I do not care who marries who, as long as they do not call it a “marriage”. In your case, as long as no children are born.
The argument that "Ginger Rogers was not Gay in the Gay Divorcee" was to oppose the use of the term "Gay", not the idea of marrying between homosexuals. I do prefer that the term 'marriage' be confined to a man and woman. Homosexuals can receive the same treatment before the law as a married man to a woman, in most cases, without expropriating the term "Gay". I sense that your 'question' about Negroids and Caucasians was simply caustic without justification.
Rights can be conferred on gays without changing the definition of marriage. The conflation of gay marriage with civil rights is one of the more despicable elements — and there are many — of the pro gay marriage polemic. They can have the rights without appropriating the institution. n nAnd speaking of appropriating, Arthur Schlessinger, Jr., once remarked that it was unfortunate that such a lovely word as gay had been appropriated by such a "morose" group.
'rights can be conferred'? as humans we all have the same rights. the problem nis to get the hands of greedy and bigoted troglodytes off our human and civil rights. nthere are, of course, zealots, 'believers,' but most of the people making the loud noises against are in the business of meddling in the private and legal affairs of persons other than their own constituents. they've self-appropriated the franchise of an invisible sky deity to control others: 'you have to buy in my store!' n nnot.
"Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 10, 2012, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,013 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia." n nPlease note that this is merely a general population poll! It is virtually a waste of time. Likely voters polls and actual election results are of much greater importance. The latter clearly show that gay marriage advocacy is a political loser. Obama's reelection hopes are probably doomed.
Let's not assign to much importance to this issue. Obuma's re-election chances were already doomed because under his presidency this has been THE single worse post-recession period in the history of the country, because he unleashed punitive regulatory regime against American businesses purely for ideological reasons, because for the same ideological reasons he has encouraged the destruction of American health care system and because this is the most corrupt administration in the history of the country. The same-sex "marriage" issue is just another nail in the coffin of this, the worst presidency in history, by a panicked, frantic megalomaniac seeing his political life unraveling. Sad, really.
And that mindless tirade got votes? And I thought this was a site for intelligent conservatives.
His fundraising was lagging. This is a Hail Mary pass to jump start fundraising.
No this was a sideline pass with 5 seconds left to stop the clock. The Hail Mary pass will come when Biden is thrown under the bus in favor of Hillary Clinton. The only calculation to be made is by the Clinton camp–if they decide that Hillary will put him over the top, she'll be his running mate; if they reason that Obama is doomed anyway, she won't. She may bag him enough independents and squishy moderates to win re-election before they realize that Obama will still be the president. That's why, the decision will be made as late as possible, with nothing to lose, no time on the clock. Hail Mary.
I am waiting for the homosexual community to repudiate love affairs with teenagers. n nCurrently, Harvey Milk and Oscar Wilde are held up as exemplary gays by right of their lifetime accomplishments, one in literature, and the other in advancing gay interests politically in California. Both of these men also wrote openly about their love affairs, not only with adults, but also with underage boys. n n I believe most Americans would be appalled if they knew a percentage of gays are also sexually attracted to underage boys. I am a Catholic, and believe me, Catholics were horrified to learn some clergy acted on their attraction to boys. Who can guarantee this will never happen within gay marrige? n nThe Catholic priest scandal also taught the reading public that sexual attraction to underage boys cannot be cured with psychological treatment or counseling. The bishops tried this, assured by modern psychiatry it could be "cured". They were proved wrong, an the bishops have been pilloried for sending so-called "cured" men back into parish life. n nSomeone tell me, how can you prevent a child from being adopted by someone who will be sexually attracted to that child once he nears adolescence.
I agree with those hear who argue that the national polls are meaningless and that this issue overall is likely to have little impact because people have other things on their minds and it's probably close to an electoral wash. n nBut I have a view of this that angers my liberal friends. It's this: n nhis pronouncement was an instance of supreme hypocrisy and needs to be seen in that light while also seen as positive position finally to take. He was for it in the nineties when he ran for the Illinois state senate. Then he came out against it when he ran for the federal senate and has stated publicly his opposition to it till now under the rubric "evolving"–as a matter of his own political calculation. n nThe premise of the case for gay marriage in the states is that it is a civil rights issue having to do with equal treatment under law and therefore has a founding analogue in the black white civil rights struggle. On that basis it's a question of unimpeachable moral right with no good answer just as racial discrimination was. That would be Obama's argument too: he quoted the golden rule as an aspect of his Christianity, equal treatment under law cited his recent conservations with his family, particularly his daughters, as triggering the recent "completion of his evolution." n nBut anyone who knows anything knows that all talk about evolution and his recent conversion experience is high order bs and that all along he has agreed with his initial position that he's in favor of gay marriage. Plus he qualified his endorsement of it by saying it's for the states to decide, which does gay marriage no favor at all. (Romney in converse says and has always said there needs to be a national standard that marriage has to be heterosexual ) n nSo we have Obama waffling on, undercutting– by standing against it–and then qualifiedly favoring gay marriage but gutting its realization by leaving it as a states' issue. That's like, ought to go the argument, having come out in favor of racial equality but then leaving it to the states in the sixties. n nSo it was the right pronouncement as far as it went. But given all the above why doesn't he stink, at least in part, on this issue?
And further to the foregoing: why can't Team Romney put together Obama's twists and turns here with all his other ones–like his 2007 pledge with McCain re public financing, his saying for 2008 he wouldn't run and then about face deciding to run, his long string of twists and turns over the Iraq War, standing against it, then for it, and so on including opposing the surge, then via Biden taking credit for succes in Iraq due to the surge and other things too? n nI think that would make for a politically potent "narrative."
People are quickly losing their prejudice against gays and are beginning to understand the malicious stupidity of depriving a fellow citizen of rights the rest of society enjoys because of their sexual orientation. Does anybody remember when it was illegal for blacks to marry whites? Federal laws were passed in the 60s ending that prohibition and the prohibition on gay marriage will end in much the same way. Freedom of association and equal rights under the law will trump religious bigotry in the near future.
During my wonderful 52 year (and continuing) heterosexual marriage, I have always felt sorrow for homosexuals, be they male or female. And I agree with previous comments that the homosexual community's hijacking of the word "gay" is unfortunate, and I wish someone would come up with a one-word name for homosexual relationships other than "marriage." And since homosexual couples are likely to both be fully employed, before pressing for "marriage" they should look closely at federal income tax tables and compare the rates for singles versus couples. They would find that for two married people each earning roughly the same salaries, the tax penalty for being married is enormous. nNevertheless, I cannot understand why homosexual "marriage" (or heterosexual marriage, for that matter) is a Federal Government issue. I have just now searched my PDF copy of the Constitution, and I cannot find the words "marriage" or "marry" anywhere. But I can find "Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." nIf I were running for President, and was asked (or felt that I needed to comment) about my own opinions about "gay marriage," I would say that given the Tenth Amendment, it was not a Federal issue, and that I would say nothing more about it because regardless whether I said I was for or against legalizing "gay marriage," I would lose votes, and I wasn't stupid enough to deliberately say something about a non-Federal issue that would inevitably cost me votes no matter what I said. nI wish that Mr. Romney had said something similar.
There is the federal problem of the "full faith and credit clause." If you are gay and married in a state that permits it, I would assume you remain married in a state that forbids it, and a gay spouse would be entitled to the same benefits as a heterosexual spouse. So anyone seriously opposed to gay marriage would demand a constitutional amendment to the effect that states that don't permit it don't have to acknowledge same-sex marriages contracted in other states.
Read your Constitution. You don't need a Constitutional amendment. The Full Faith and Credit section of Article Four says Congress can determine the "Effect" of laws from state to state. You just need a statute, which is exactly what the Defense of Marriage Act does.
I hope you are correct. But to argue that a mere statute can annul the effect of a constitutional provision with respect to whether a category of laws may be enforced is problematic. That seems to me arguably more than "the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
The key phrase is "the Effect thereof". The Constitution is explicitly saying that it's up to Congress to determine what effect one state's laws, records (say, of marriage) and court decisions have on other states. If Congress says nothing, and it usually says nothing, then Full Faith and Credit applies without qualification. But Congress has said something. n nThis is not "a mere statue," but a statute explicitly empowered by the Constitution. It's as if you and others are arguing that the Constitution is annulling another part of itself. Well, it's not — it is qualifying another part of itself. n nAnyway, the law, passed overwhelmingly by a Republican Congress and signed without reservation by a Democratic president, doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being overturned by the Supreme Court. n nWith DOMA, gay marriage advocates, predictably, are being hysterical. DOMA is NOT homophobic. All Congress is saying is, that if a state wants to recognize gay marriage, then fine; if it doesn't, then it can't be forced to.
Obama really had no choice. Refusing to back gay marriage (regardless of what he says, I think he still shares most AA's views about that), would not change votes. Coming out for it shores up his left-wing support and rallies gays for him. n nAside from the politics, there is the repugnant dishonesty of the media, which under the guise of news is actively cheerleading the gay marriage campaign, propagating the left-wing lie that gay marriage sentiment is sweeping the country or at least is the trend, when in fact the opposite is true: 6 states plus D.C. recognize gay marriage, by legislative or court fiat, while 42 states have explicit constitutional or statutory bans. Moreover, of the 28 referendums for gay marriage, not one passed. n nSo much for "wave of the future."
Same Sex Marriage is the civil rights issue of our times. Supporters of SSM must show the same bravery and commitment to confront the haters and the bigots as the Freedom Riders did. n nThe reason that Proposition 8 lost in California was due to black Christians splitting their ballots, voting for the Democrat candidates but then voting against the SSM referendum. n nThe same was true of evangelical Hispanics. Those two religious groups represent the firewall to acceptance of SSM in many predominantly Democrat states. n n
Therefore, homosexual activists and SSM supporters should conduct sit-ins and direct action at black churches and Hispanic churches. Gays must label those church-goers as "bitter clingers" and haters; they must disrupt services and demonstrate against the preachers who dare to declare their love an abomination. GLBT's must demand that political activity at AME and evangelical churches cease immediately and that they be denied their tax exempt status if the churches and their bigoted, hateful preachers continue their homophobe ways. n nBlack ministers are the new Bull Connors, the new Klan, the new White Citizens Councils – preaching hate, prejudice and bigotry. For the good of the new civil rights movement, black people must be told that they can sing and clap all their want in church on Sundays, but if they dare to actually believe what those Bibles say, then the wrath of America will descend upon them. n nCome on, SSM supporters! Show us that you're serious. Attack religious black people the same way you attack Mormons and white evangelicals. You're not hypocrites, are you?
Obama is weak. He has allowed himself to mau-maued by Michelle and Valerie into this stupid move. He will have to relearn what Clinton learned in 1994: do not take political advice from your wife and other amateurs. Use professionals, like Carville and Morris.
Looking at the general population is good. But for presidential elections you have to look at States and play the map. How does this help/hurt in swing states?
What for? Because some gays want it — for reasons having nothing to do with civil rights, which is just a front to make it look like a holy crusade — and they won't go away or shut up until they get it. n nAs for the pedophiles, I think there's always the possibility that any couple, mixed or same-sex, could be adopting for the purpose of engaging in abuse. This is where screening comes in. I believe screening for sexual predators, as well as drug abusers and career criminals, is routine in adoption cases. In the case you cite, perhaps it was evidence uncovered during the adoption process that led to the prosecution. If not, then obviously adoption procedures were lax.