From a Politico story on "President Obama's Marriage Muddle":
Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen, who briefly served as director of the LGBT advocacy group Human Rights Campaign ...
“We are going lose in North Carolina today and that will make the POTUS campaign think they are right, and the activist crowd say now is the time for leadership,” Rosen said. “This thing gets messier as the election goes on. It is a function of the timing of the issue, not anyone’s fault.”
16 Comments
Hilary is a smart lady.
Marriage is the issue that will sink Obama this year- as long as Romney can find the guts to realize it.
Really, it would be a win for everyone. Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, will continue to be allowed to get married, married women who give birth will continue to be protected by presumption of paternity (which would be pointless with SSM), married men will still get to claim paternity rights (again, pointless with SSM*), and children will maintian the right to be raised by a married couple which includes both sexes.
* SSM ensures government sponsered motherlessness or fatherlessness.
The people of North Carolina need to remember what happened in New York. Even though the court's upheld traditional marriage, the NY State Senate under Dean Skelos sold us out and passed homosexual marriage in the dark of night at the last day os session.
Vote to protect marriage, vote yes for North Carolina families.
Is this not the same Hilary Rosen who bad mouthed Mitt Romney's wife a couple of months ago for being a stay at home mom.
Yes, I do believe she spewed forth a little gem about Ann Romney having "never worked a day in her life."
SSMers seem quite antsy about Obama giving an explicit endorsement of ssm. I don’t know why. Perhaps they feel his endorsement will gin up his base. Perhaps their hope is that if Romney wins the election at least the record will reflect the first president to endorse ssm.
I don’t see SSMers pressuring the president as a wise move for their side. A few of the SSMers in the article acknowledged this, and advised others to “be patient” with the president. They recognize that Romney and Obama are pretty much polar opposites on this issue; and that Obama would openly endorse ssm if he were reelected. I just see this pressuring of the president as SSMers shooting themselves in the foot.
I also think one of the interviewees overestimated the motivation of young people. They may support ssm, or at least be apathetic towards it, but I’m not sure if it’s a motivating factor for them in terms of voting. When a young person is living in their parents’ basement, unable to find a job after college, I think they could care less whether a candidate is for ssm. A lot of young people may not even view ssm as a civil rights issue, but merely consider it OK. So perhaps a few strategists are betting too much on the idea that the president’s endorsement of ssm will reinvigorate his support from young voters.
"Marriage is the issue that will sink Obama this year..."
A Pew Research poll of 3,000 people conducted last month ranks "gay marriage" DEAD LAST among issues influencing their vote for president. Did you take your own poll, Rick?
"A Pew Research poll of 3,000 people conducted last month ranks "gay marriage" DEAD LAST among issues influencing their vote for president."
If true (and I believe it is) it cuts both ways.
B73, AM:
Polls don't count.
Elections count.
Mitt needs to smoke Barack out on this.
If he does, he will win.
America doesn't like having judges and pols redefine marriage against their will.
Haven't you guys figured that out yet?
Guess not
Rick, Americans appear to support same-sex marriage, so it is their will.
The courts will be the final deciders, obviously. State constitutional amendments forced this into the federal court system, which does not appear too interested in letting laws stand based on animosity towards gays and lesbians. See Roemer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas.
Ash -
Great point about the difference between young people supporting so-called SS"M" and being motivated to come out and vote for it.
Which, incidentally, is one of the ways that distinguishes the issue from civil rights issues, the latter of which does bring out voters. That's one of the reasons Obama was elected; it was out of White guilt for the years of oppression suffered by Blacks in this country. Surely no one can equate the suffering and injustices committed against Blacks with the wealthy Tim Gill and other Gay Moneyed homosexuals. Yes, how hard it is to be homosexual in this country, not.
Jim:
Let me put it this way.
We the people have spoken.
Our servants in government must now decide to either respect, or defy, our will.
It is true that we can speculate all we like about what the SCOTUS will or won;t do, and it is all speculation.
I will simply say that I am very satisfied that we the people have done what was necessary to make our will clear.
It is now up to our servants the three branches of government to respect our will, or else we will have to remind them who is sovereign in these United States.
"Our servants in government must now decide to either respect, or defy, our will."
That's a false choice, whether you realize it or not. Courts don't worry about the people's opinions, they worry about the constitutionality of a law. That's why the courts struck down prohibitions against inter-racial marriage, despite a 75% approval rating from the people.
The US Constitution trumps the will of the people, obviously.
"The US Constitution trumps the will of the people, obviously."
Then why are Constitutional Amendments allowed?
"Then why are Constitutional Amendments allowed?"
*facepalm*
Amendments are allowed so long as they aren't unconstitutional.
Bryce K, that is a paradoy of the pro-SSM side, right?
Heh.
And Jim said:
"That's why the courts struck down prohibitions against inter-racial marriage, despite a 75% approval rating from the people."
You misrepresent the opinion surveys.
And the Loving decision is a stand against the abuse of marriage for the sake of pressing the supremacy of identity politics into the law and governance. That is analogous with a stand against the SSM campaign's attempts to press gay identity politics into the law via its goal of misusing marriage for nonmarriage purposes.
But on a basic level you need to say whether or not you believe that there is such a thing as "inter-racial marriage" whereby subspecies of humankind exist as a matter of fact or as merely a social construct. If the latter, then, you might ponder that there is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Hence the reasoning against the law that prohibited the Lovings from eligiblity for marital status -- and which criminalized their marriage outright.