NOM BLOG

SSM Will Cost Obama Re-election Bid

 

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The media is abuzz with the news that President Obama has publicly endorsed same-sex marriage.

Many see political calculation. The Washington Post suggests a financial connection, noting that 1 in 6 of Obama's top fundraisers are gay or lesbian.

Others are calling the announcement a profile in courage—a claim more convincing had it not been preceded by two years of suggestive "evolution" and three days of awkward damage control over Vice President Biden's remarks this past weekend.

President Obama's announcement just raised the stakes in the state marriage battles this November. For the next two days, NOM will match every dollar donated to the state marriage campaigns in Minnesota, Maine, Maryland and Washington, up to $100,000! Please make your gift to Stand for Marriage America right now!

After months of trying to have it both ways, the charade is over. President Obama has opposed every state marriage amendment, despite claiming to support the right of states to decide the issue. He opposes a federal constitutional amendment that would protect states' right to define marriage. And his administration is trying to dismantle state marriage laws by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

The strategy is clear: The Obama campaign is beholden to gay marriage financiers and is counting on an energized base to carry him to victory this November. But it's an approach that is likely to backfire, alienating large parts of the constituency that carried him to victory in 2008.

  • No state in this country has ever voted for same-sex marriage, a string of 32 consecutive defeats for same-sex marriage activists.
  • Two days ago, swing state voters in North Carolina rejected same-sex marriage by a 22-point margin, with support from nearly half the state's Democratic voters.
  • The African American church has become a powerful force in the fight to protect marriage, with Black voters opposing same-sex marriage by 2-1 margins.
  • President Obama's announcement is likely to spark a divisive battle over same-sex marriage in the Democratic Party platform this summer.
  • Same-sex marriage will be a defining issue in swing states, especially states like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Nevada where state marriage amendments are threatened by President Obama's position.

Yesterday's announcement further highlights the contrast between President Obama and Governor Romney, and we commend Governor Romney for his bold and outspoken commitment to marriage.

With high stakes come great opportunity. North Carolina voters just sent a strong message that Americans want to defend marriage. Now is our opportunity to build on that momentum.

We intend to win the marriage debate this November. I hope you'll stand with us.

In order to win marriage in November, the state campaigns in Minnesota, Maryland, Maine and Washington need your prayers and support today.

Please click here to make a generous contribution to Stand for Marriage America today! Every dollar donated will go directly to the state campaigns, and will be divided equally among them. And for the next 36 hours, NOM will match every dollar raised, doubling the impact of your gift, up to our goal of $100,000.

We have a short window to raise funds that are desperately needed by the state campaigns.

In Washington and Maryland we have just a few weeks left to collect the tens of thousands of signatures needed to ensure that voters have the chance to decide this issue. The need is urgent. I hope you will make a generous gift to Stand for Marriage America today!

Paid for by National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, Brian Brown, President. Not authorized by any candidate, candidate's committee, or ballot issue committee.

Contributions or gifts to Minnesota for Marriage, Protect Marriage Maine, Maryland Marriage Alliance - No on 6, and Preserve Marriage Washington are not tax deductible.

MN - PAID ADVERTISEMENT: Prepared and paid for by the Minnesota for Marriage committee, 2355 Fairview Ave N, Box 301, Roseville, MN 55113, in support of the marriage protection amendment.

WA - Paid for by Preserve Marriage Washington, 16212 Bothell-Everett Highway, Ste. F, #276, Mill Creek, Washington 98012.

MD - Maryland Marriage Alliance - No on 6, Brian Duggan, Treasurer.

66 Comments

  1. Posted May 10, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    I'm in.

    Donation en route.

  2. B73
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Nope. If he loses, it won't be due to his support of marriage equality. Half the country and the overwhelming majority of Dems. share his views on marriage rights. Gay marriage ranks dead last on the list of issues influencing voters' choice for president. People who won't vote for Obama because he's pro-equality are right wing conservatives who weren't going to vote for him anyway.

  3. Posted May 10, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    B73:

    Then you have nothing to worry about, right?

    heh heh heh.......

  4. AD
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    As if anyone who opposes marriage equality was going to vote for Obama in the first place? This only gives him more power. EQUALITY is the right thing to do, and it is amazing to see a President take a stand for what is right.

  5. Posted May 10, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    It is indeed to see this President finally take a stand.

    Too bad it was the wrong one.

    Oh well.

    That's why we have elections, right?

  6. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Nothing like so-called gay "marriage" to bring out conservative voters in droves. Heck, nearly half of NC's Democrat voters came out to vote in favor of marriage between one man and one woman.

    If this becomes a key issue in the election along with the economy, say, "Hello," to President Romney. And say, "Hello," to a Constitutional Amendment to establish once and for all that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.

  7. Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    HELLO!

  8. Fitz
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Romney needs to turn the heat up on this issue and keep it up. He has a real chance of changing results in key swing states..

    Southern & midwestern democrats who are disinchanted with Obama, latino swing votes and even a higher percentage of the black vote is possible with the issues laid out as they are.

  9. B73
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Rick, You're confused. I didn't say Obama's reelection is inevitable, just that his support for equal rights won't be a determining factor. As an issue, gay marriage ranks below contraception but I don't hear anyone proclaiming that Obama will lose because he thinks condoms should be legal. LOL.

  10. Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    B73:

    You are comprehension-challnged.

    I merely stated:

    In that case, you don;t have anything to worry about, do you?

    But apparently, you do :-)

  11. Sam
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    You would think that the votes in 2004 and 2006 would be evident enough of how hard it will be to pass a marriage amendment through Congress. I consider those two times the best chances to pass that kind of amendment. The nation would need to make a hard-right politically in order for Congress to have another chance to pass a marriage amendment. I don't see that happening.

  12. B73
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Rick, Are you seriously confused by what you were implying by your own comment? I guess those recent studies on how religion impairs brain function were right!

  13. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    B73 says: "As an issue, gay marriage ranks below contraception but I don't hear anyone proclaiming that Obama will lose because he thinks condoms should be legal. LOL."

    Exactly, B73. No one cares about gay marriage until it becomes an issue in an election. THEN, people who have never voted before will make it a point to come out and vote against it; whereas, those who are in favor of it (read: don't care one way or the other), excluding gays, will not make a special trip to the polls to vote in favor of it.

  14. Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    B73:

    Boy, you really do seem to be worried about this..........

    Congratulations.

    You are beginning to get the picture :-)

  15. Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    I'm not so sure it will cost him the re-election...thought it could definitely tip the scale against his favor. This will definitely hurt him in the conservative Rust Belt states such as Pennsylvania. There are even articles detailing how a lot of blacks are now renouncing their support for Obama because of this issue, but he will sure enough get a majority vote from them.

    The Values Voters will definitely turn up. This has sealed his defeat in some key swing states.

  16. Posted May 10, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    typo: though*

  17. a.mcewen
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Sorry guys but black people are not monolithic. It is possible for them to not support marriage equality but still vote for Obama.

  18. Pete
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    How funny, NOM's rabbi Levin and the AFA are still against Romney, and when you move away from the extremist like NOMers this issue is not a deal breaker.

  19. AM
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    In other news, the DNC is keeping the convention in Charlotte.

  20. B73
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Rick, Not really worried. Just pointing out that NOM is foolish for pretending that everyone hates gays as much as they do. Again, gay marriage isn't influencing voters' choice for President. Generally speaking, those who are strongly for marriage equality were already supporting Obama and those who are strongly against equal rights were already voting for the Republican. The moderate middle - the ones who are undecided and ultimately decide the election - by definition aren't the far right/anti-gay crowd that is so obsessed with gays (sound like someone you know, Rick?) that a candidate's position on marriage is the deciding factor. 

  21. JoneNapkin
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Rick, Fitz, etc.:

    No worries on my part. Obama will win.

    You all are a dying breed of bigots.

  22. Fitz
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    B73

    No - not THE deciding factor - a crucial factor, it certainly helps especially with swing voters, traditional demoicratic voting blocks like blue collar whites, latinos and even blacks. Also in crucial swing states in the mid-west and south.

    Just the fact that he has flip-flopped on such a central issue will turn off traditional support..

    Then there is the enthusiasm factor...

    Your very simplistic in your political calculations as well.

  23. B73
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, We seem to be going in circles. You want to call it a crucial factor - whatever gets you through the night. OK, it's a crucial factor that according to polling is the least crucial factor of any crucial factor and is at the bottom of the list of crucial factors after the crucial factor of contraception. Happy?

  24. Fitz
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    B73

    No I'm not "happy" - you seem to be rellying on a single poll, and its just that ...a simple poll...not votes or politics..

    You want to downplay its politcal negatives as much as possible. In doing so you make yourself look unsophisticated and emotionally driven.

    Same-sex "marriage" has now entered the national election ina up-front way.. Lots of people who did not take it seriously will be forced to confront a President who supports it.. It has been shown to drive turnout on election day, increase fundraising, dig into traditional democratic voting blocks, and help Republicans in crucial swing states..

    Its no silver bullet but nothing is... typically voters vote their pocketbook first. These are truisms, but you should not be afraid to admit the poltical negatives of this move for Obama's re-election.

  25. Randy E King
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    Flitz,

    I think B73 knows now that Obama will lose; he just wants us to know that his fight will continue.

  26. AnonyGrl
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

  27. eliasasm
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    @Zack#14,

    Seriously, what is wrong with you all? Value voters? Value Voters? We have no values? You mean your values. You mean your values and you are going to decide what those values are. Who do you think you people are? We don't get to share and you get to say so and we don't because we don't share your values, the ones that you have decided what they are. Really? It's a serious day when this happens, because who will be next and there will be a next with this mentally. And all that all of you do is attack as opposed to actually see what you are doing. How dare you say that another human being is less than you. How dare you say that the majority says so and be so misguided to not see that that is the point. The majority does not have the right to say on this issue. If you think so, then you need to reevaluate what country you are in. Seriously, enough.

  28. Pete
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    NOM doesn't want you to see this Politico article

    President Barack Obama’s embrace of same-sex marriage was viewed for so long as such a risky move that operatives in both parties expected it to drop like a bomb, handing Republicans a powerful wedge issue in an election year.
    Instead, it’s landed like a feather.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76190.html#ixzz1uW4sou9D

  29. eliasasm
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    @Pete#26,

    Don't be stupid. If you say that they won't look.

  30. AM
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    "NOM doesn't want you to see this Politico article"

    Yes, Pete, when you contribute to NOM they block your ability to check any other news source.

    Meanwhile.. President Obama has said that he *personally* supports ssm but that each state should decide the issue. Doesn't that position go against what most ssm supporters believe?
    That fundamental human rights should not be up to a vote?

  31. Randy E King
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    Come on guys; when was the last time the guy that was about to beat his adversary -within an inch of their life- cheered prior to doing the deed?

    As my Father once said:

    When people talk you got nothing to worry about, but when things go quiet...

  32. Pete
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    Romney demurs on gay marriage.

    Mitt Romney usually pounces when his campaign believes President Barack Obama has swerved into politically dicey terrain. But on gay marriage, the presumptive Republican nominee has been notably quiet.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304543904577396610339761698.html

  33. AM
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    Pete
    The DNC snubbed your petition to move the convention out of Charlotte.
    Any thoughts?

  34. Pete
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Republicans respond mildly to Obama's gay marriage statement

    House Speaker John Boehner speaks at his weekly news conference Thursday on Capitol Hill. He would not comment on gay marriage when asked.

    GOP leaders, meanwhile, responded mildly to the endorsement and countered that the White House was attempting to shift attention away from a sluggish economy.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-10/republicans-gay-marriage-obama/54888930/1

  35. Pete
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    Not my petition, AM

  36. Pete
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Romney, Boehner Message: It's Still The Economy (Not Gay Marriage), Stupid

    http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2012/may/10/romney-boehner-message-its-still-the-economy-not-gay-marriage-stupid/

  37. Fitz
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    eliasasm (writes)

    "How dare you say that another human being is less than you. How dare you say that the majority says so and be so misguided to not see that that is the point. The majority does not have the right to say on this issue. If you think so, then you need to reevaluate what country you are in. Seriously, enough."

    #1.Preserving the traditional definition of marriage does not say that "another human being is less than you". It simply says that the couplings of male & female in marriage is of greater social importance than multiple other deomestic arrangments including same-sex partnerships. Its not a 5000 year old conspiracy to hurt your feelings. Its a fundemental social insitution designed to encourage intact married childbearing.

    #2. The consitution of the United States and every amendment in the Bill of Rights was "voted on". & not just by majorities but by supermajorities.

    Womens right to vote, emancipation of slavery, blacks right to vote...all are freedoms were voted on by 2/3 of the house & senate and ratified by 3/4 of the states...

    Not please stop using that inane line of "we dont vote on rights" its simply counter factual.

  38. AM
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    Pete
    Yes, most people are far more concerned about the economy that any other issue.
    Meanwhile...The President thinks your fundamental rights should be voted on.

  39. Pete
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    Boehner wants to focus on jobs, not the gay marriage issue

    WASHINGTON-- House Speaker John A. Boehner showed little interest in making an election-year debate out of President Obama’s support for same-sex marriage, steering away from a social issue that could weigh heavily in some regions where GOP candidates must appeal to voters on both sides of the debate.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-speaker-boehner-wants-to-focus-on-jobs-not-gay-marriage-20120510,0,2231831.story?track=rss

  40. Fitz
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    Pete..

    A leson in politics. When it comes to contentious social issues it is simply a truism & well known that the politician who is seen as bringing up the issue or forceing the issue are the ones who turn off voters.

    Its this way with abortion & multiple other issues. Voters kind of see it like a giant cocktail party...the person who brings up a contentious issue (regardless of the merits of the issue) is seen as displaying "bad form", they are the ones who are considered by the voters to be the "trouble makers"..

    Perhaps this explains the silence you keep refering to.

  41. Pete
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, you're the last person to lecture politics. But it's a good laugh when you do, thanks.

  42. eliasasm
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    @Fitz#35,

    "greater social importance"

    How dare you?

    That does not mean we should not be allowed to participate.
    What part of this scenario are you missing? Every single person on this planet acknowledges that having a straight, white, rich, christian (the right one) mother and father is the uber condition. Everybody. How wonderful that would be for us all. It's just an impossibility and nothing you are doing is going to make that happen. It's not reality.

    And a point on your values. What you want to think that we don't share in values has nothing to do with values. Just like what you are doing. It has nothing to do with anything, except what you are making it to be. Please wake up.

  43. Fitz
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    "How dare you?"

    I dare..

    The only good reason to have marriage laws in the first place — to have the state recognize a class of relationships called “marriage” out of all the possible strong bonds that adults can form — is to link erotic desire to the upbringing of the children it can produce.

    We have already gone too far, in both law and culture, in weakening the link between marriage and procreation. To break it altogether would make the institution of marriage unintelligible. What possible governmental interest is there in encouraging long-term commitments with a sexual element, just as such? What reason is there to exclude from recognition caring long-term relationships without such an element? (the case of two brothers who raise a child together following a family tragedy; other hypotheticals are easy to devise.)

    Many people who support same-sex marriage sincerely believe that they are merely expanding an institution to a class of people who have been excluded from it rather than redefining it. But this view is simply mistaken. We will not make our society more civilized by detaching one of our central institutions from its civilizing task.

  44. Fitz
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

    "How dare you?"

    I dare..

    The only good reason to have marriage laws in the first place — to have the state recognize a class of relationships called “marriage” out of all the possible strong bonds that adults can form — is to link erotic desire to the upbringing of the children it can produce.

    We have already gone too far, in both law and culture, in weakening the link between marriage and procreation. To break it altogether would make the institution of marriage unintelligible. What possible governmental interest is there in encouraging long-term commitments with a sexual element, just as such? What reason is there to exclude from recognition caring long-term relationships without such an element? (the case of two brothers who raise a child together following a family tragedy; other hypotheticals are easy to devise.)

  45. Michael
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, bigots like you are the scum of the Earth and until the last of the human waste such as yourself dies off this world will not be able to move away from the ignorance and stupidity scum like you espouse.

    NOM is a bastion of pure ignorance and bigotry and I am ashamed to live in the same country let alone the same planet that trash like you inhabit.

  46. Michael
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    Marriage is a fundamental human right per SCOTUS and as such will eventually be legal nationwide and until such time I will be fully ashamed of this backwards hick country and its trashy inhabitants.

  47. MarkOH
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    Fitz: "It simply says that the couplings of male & female in marriage is of greater social importance than multiple other deomestic arrangments including same-sex partnerships."

    So the ability to pop out kids, whether or not one can support them, is the reason for marriage? What a LAUGH! And you mean to tell me that my widowed mother, well past child bearing age, is NOT allowed to re-marry?

  48. B73
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    "... you make yourself look unsophisticated and emotionally driven." writes Fitz, the man who put the word marriage in quotation marks in the very next sentence he typed.

  49. byrd
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 12:46 am | Permalink

    Perhaps in the wake of the vote in North Carolina on Tuesday, gay marriage supporters were just happy for any good news, no matter how trivial.

  50. Posted May 11, 2012 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    I suggest we carefully consider just how desperately our marriage corruption friends are trying to downplay the significance of marriage in this election.

    They know very well that the polls are wrong, and that this issue, if our front and center, will cost Obama the election.

    It is not the *only* issue*.

    It might not even be the *main* issue.

    It is, however, the *winning* issue.

    Americans do not like having their votes disrespected by Hollywood-gladhanding pols.

    MITT WAKE UP!!

  51. Posted May 11, 2012 at 2:25 am | Permalink

    PS:

    This election has its Watergate.

    Joe Salmonese sits on Obama's reelection campaign.

    A confidential IRS document has been leaked.

    This investigation, combined with a steady, courageous outreach by Mitt to black voters in swing states, will result in the defeat of barack Obama in the 2012 campaign.

    There is nothing more important than securing that defeat.

  52. Posted May 11, 2012 at 3:04 am | Permalink

    Watching this marriage debate play out is like reading the Book of Jude (New Testament). Stunning how accurate a description of our day Jude is.

  53. Posted May 11, 2012 at 3:07 am | Permalink

    If anyone's interested in reading this one-chapter book, here's a link:

    http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/jude/1?lang=eng

    Worth a ponder.

  54. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 3:29 am | Permalink

    You all do realize that Romney may be against marriage equality, but that contrary to what many of you may personally belief he is actually fine with gay couples adopting and raising kids? As quoted by him: "I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That's fine." He has also mentioned that some rights should be extended to gay couples as well.

    As some of you have rightfully said, marriage be be a point in the election but I think that mostly the economy will be the deciding factor in the elections. I think NOM (and HRC for that matter) tend to make this issue bigger than it actually is. That said, if Obama loses, I'm sure the NOM will be more than happy to claim that marriage played a key role. If Obama wins, well... I'm sure they'll find a way to blame it on him as well.

    I read a comment somewhere that sums it up pretty nicely, and it was something along these lines: Obama gave his personal opinion on marriage equality, but affirmed that he believes states should retain the rights as they do now. Romney on the other would support a nation wide constitutional amendment that bans marriage equality. The question therefore is, who is forcing his views upon others?

  55. eliasasm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    DoE,

    I have a comment for you on the other thread.

  56. Posted May 11, 2012 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Johan asks:

    Who is forcing his views upon others?

    Answer:

    Barack Obama, who has refused to uphold the law and has disrespected the overwhelmingly clear decision of the American people to reject the fascist media brainwashing campaign called same sex "marriage".

    Now Mitt Romney is wrong about a (very) great many things, alas.

    But he is right to uphold the clearly expressed will of the American people to reject the social engineering assault on humanity's oldest and most important institution.

    Therefore, not only must marriage advocates support him.......

    Every American disgusted with the cynical disregard of the sovereign People must support him.

  57. Posted May 11, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Johan asks:

    Who is forcing his views upon others?

    Answer:

    Barack Obama, who has refused to uphold the law and has disrespected the overwhelmingly clear decision of the American people to reject the fascist media brainwashing campaign called same sex "marriage".

  58. Posted May 11, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Now Mitt Romney is wrong about a (very) great many things, alas.

    But he is right to uphold the clearly expressed will of the American people to reject the social engineering assault on humanity's oldest and most important institution.

    Therefore, not only must marriage advocates support him.......

    Every American disgusted with the cynical disregard of the sovereign People must support him.

  59. Posted May 11, 2012 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Now Mitt Romney is wrong about a (very) great many things, alas.

    But he is right to uphold the clearly expressed will of the American people to reject the assault on humanity's oldest and most important institution.

    Therefore, not only must marriage advocates support him.......

    Every American disgusted with the cynical disregard of the sovereign People must support him.

  60. Posted May 11, 2012 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    BACKLASH!

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    Cool.

    Even Mitt will get the message now.

  61. Posted May 11, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    "widowed mother, well past child bearing age, is NOT allowed to re-marry?"

    Of course she is. And if she did, she and her husband would be able to offer a child a married mother and father, however likely it may be that she be asked/required to do so.

  62. Posted May 11, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    "Marriage is a fundamental human right per SCOTUS and as such will eventually be legal nationwide and until such time I will be fully ashamed of this backwards hick country and its trashy inhabitants."

    In all your righteous outrage, you did stop to notice that there is no legal prohibition against "gay' people getting married, right?

  63. Posted May 11, 2012 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    "Marriage is a fundamental human right per SCOTUS and as such will eventually be legal nationwide "

    And, not to overstate the obvious, but marriage IS legal nationwide. ;)

  64. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    eliasasm,

    Fitz said something far more meaningful than you would represent in your over-heated reaction.

    But you made a stab at denouncing the decisive weight of the majority.

    You said:

    "How dare you say that the majority says so and be so misguided to not see that that is the point. The majority does not have the right to say on this issue."

    You are against majorities? So if a court favored SSM, you'd denounce the vote of that majority, too?

    Howzabout a majority of legislators? That goes in the trash, too?

    I expect that you favor majorities that you favor, no more and no less.

    On the other hand, defenders of marriage favor the core meaning of this social institution while the SSM campaign is stuck on asserting the supremacy of gay identity politics over all other considerations -- including the principles of good governance and even the principles of judicial review.

    Against majorities but in favor of the rule of a tyranical minority, I suppose. Please elaborate.

  65. Pat
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    He CAN'T defend DOMA. Oath of Office, y'know? Plus the whole "Would have to commit perjury" thing, which is kinda important.

    And you're still saying to "stand up for" what you're opposing. Might wanna fix that.
    Soliciting donations while lying about what you want to do with the money--and doing the literal opposite of what you said--sounds illegal as well as grossly unethical. And as supposedly-religious people, I'd think the unethical part would be important to you, too.

  66. Pat
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    "Who is forcing his views upon others?

    "Answer:

    "Barack Obama..."

    The fact that he didn't actually *DO* anything aside, he's supporting freedom. Y'all are restricting it.
    "Let *everybody* do X if they want to" can not, AT ALL, be called "forcing" anything on anybody. The other way 'round? Hell yeah.