NOM BLOG

NOM's Peters: Socially Conservative Democrats Will "Jump Ship" Over Obama's Marriage Betrayal

 

NOM's Thomas Peters in Politico:

"...social conservatives remain convinced that black voters and Hispanic voters will be demoralized by Obama’s flop.

“There’s a heck of a lot of socially conservative minorities that are part of the Democratic coalition — his coalition — that will jump ship,” said Thomas Peters, the cultural director for the National Organization for Marriage.

“It seems that in my experience that marriage is absolutely an issue” for the black and Latino communities, Peters said."

29 Comments

  1. John Noe
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Let us hope that is the case. If they don't vote with us but stay away on election day then that is one less vote for Obama.
    Remember we need the minority votes in the states where marriage is being voted upon.

  2. Posted May 11, 2012 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Mitt Romney absolutely must ask these people for their votes.

    In person.

  3. Little Man
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    It is true. Hispanics come from a maternal-istic society, where the family is led by the mom, in general. The father typically makes the money, but submits to the mom. To the extent Hispanic families have been assimilated into the typical traditions of the USA, they will have changed to a neither maternalistic or paternalistic tradition. Obama bets that he can brain-wash or bribe the Blacks and Hispanic minorities, which are the largest minorities in the USA. True Hispanics don't sell out their mother, or family, though. They trust their family much more than the government, because they know from childhood who is really on their side. Civil marriage is about protecting motherhood, the sacrificial source of the true family, and motherhood is left unprotected outside marriage. A family is much more than a bunch of people that live under the same roof and share expenses. Family does not mean room-mates, except to those who never experienced a happy family. They think they know what 'family' is, but they don't. Not their fault, but they are still ignorant on this.

  4. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    More Democrats and Independents, combined, have voted Yes on state marriage initiatives than have Republicans, in absolute numbers.

    Likewise, more Liberals and Moderates, combined, have voted Yes on state marriage initiatives than have Conservatives, in absolute numbers.

    This cuts across partisan and ideological lines.

    SSMers would do better, and there would far greater support for the SSM idea, if the SSM campaign did not attack the core meaning of marriage and did not emphasize homosexuality as the reason to impose the SSM idea.

    Shorn of that homosexual emphasis, the SSM idea is not "gay marriage" but merely a call for protections for the wide range of vulnerable families that live in the nonmarriage category. Of that category the vast majority are not gaycentric and are not same-sexed. And of the subset that is same-sexed, the vast majority are not gaycentric. Protection equality is far more reasonable and inclusive than the phoney slogan "marriage equality" (as used by the SSM campaign).

    Of course, the provision for reciprocal beneficiaries is not the moral nor legal nor policy equivalent of marital status. But nonmarriage does not merit the special status of marriage.

    The SSM campaign has attempted to blind its supporters so that they cannot permit themselves to see that protection equality is just while, on the other hand, imposition of the SSM idea with its homosexual emphasis is unjust --- and a losing proposition anyway.

    So the SSM campaign recruits Obama to play the tactic of hyper-personalization and to repeatedly misrepresent those who support the marriage idea -- again and again and again. Obama makes no sense -- but would make at least some sense if he'd throw his support behind protection equality and make a stand in favor of society justly discriminating between marriage and nonmarriage.

    The identity politics of the SSM campaign corrupts all that it touches.

  5. Pete
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    Isn't this where you NOMers ask about our crystal ball whenever we try to predict the future?

    Just thought you might want to work on consistency.

  6. mominvermont
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    To the black and Latino communities, Welcome!

  7. Jim
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    It looks like Obama's stand on same-sex marriage can only help him, according to most media reports. People find real leadership refreshing, and most Americans agree with the president on this issue.

  8. Good News
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

    @ Chairm. Nicely put.

    And that is in part why I think even the 'gays', the SSM lobbies and all their varied supporters and sympathizers are only a very useful tool for a larger and much more complex western world agenda.

    Taking away the word marriage, the institution of marriage (and even the idea of man and woman) and perverting it, eliminating it as such, will do so much in way of 'controlling', manipulating, limiting and alienating the people, (using them). And it will richly oil the western economic machine.

    To me, taking away the institution of marriage this way is far more inhumane than was even the legalization of the buying and selling of human-beings with the market of slavery. Even in that case the individual human-being existed. In this case we will really be, (all of us, the “99 percent”) only meat, or greasy oil for the market machine.

    So, unfortunately, I do not think that this is in any way about a fight for the protection of equality, or for gay rights. But that it is precisely attacking the core meaning of marriage, and putting an emphasis on sex (homosexuality) that is the objective of this entire mesmerizing song and dance that is built around the idea of same sex marriage, equality etc. etc. In order, in the end, to more completely control, 'possess' and dominate the people, the masses, and make money.

  9. Posted May 11, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    Yes, if only media reports were electoral results, how happy the marriage corrupters would be :-)

  10. Little Man
    Posted May 12, 2012 at 3:29 am | Permalink

    A lot of politicians make the mistake in supporting same-sex marriage, because of the promising polls. But earlier, Obama said he didn't support 'gay marriage' (whatever that means), but now he spoke as accepting of same-sex marriage (whatever that means). Using vague language is Obama's main strategy. He is a weasel. One never knows what he means. Okay, we are ready for the 'reasons', but don't expect them to be reasonable. These will be reasonable only to the gullible, of which there are many voters, sadly. But that's also why there are politicians who use gullibility to their advantage (for short while, until their economic plans fail disastrously). There's no reason to add same-sex partnerships to civil marriage. So, they ask (and it is always a question) what would it 'hurt'? (again, a vague word; and leave all the research to you). Not falling for that one.

  11. Jim
    Posted May 12, 2012 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    Little man, there are many reasons to extend marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples! It gives their relationships equal protection, givens them over a 1,000 state and federal rights, gives their children the protections and security of having married parents, and honors the US Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Society has every reason to treat same-sex relationships the same as different-sex relationships!

  12. Chuck Anziulewicz
    Posted May 12, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    Likewise, socially progressive Republicans will now be less likely to vote for Mitt Romney, since he has made it clear that Gay and Straight couples should NOT have the same rights.

  13. Posted May 12, 2012 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Everyone has the same rights, Chuck.

    The attempt of the marriage corrupters to claim that marriage somehow exists to provide Federal benefits for non-marriage relationships isn;t flying.

    No amount of media braiwnashing is going to get that particular ruse over with the voters, is it?

  14. Son of Adam
    Posted May 12, 2012 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Jim, do you really believe that the purpose of federal and state benifits for married couples is just an arbitrary reward for coupling? No, their function is to encourage procreation and the rearing of children with a mother and a father. But marriage corruption supporters have twisted its purpose into allowing adults to reap benifits from their relationships while banishing children from all relevance from the institution of marriage.

    The only time children are considered is when they can be used as trophies in order to validate homosexual relationships. Marriage corruption supporters also view adoption agencies as pet stores dedicated to suiting thier wants and desires rathar than suiting the needs of the child.

    It is the advancement of such narcissistic attitudes that have disintigrated families, boosted social costs, and forced countless children to be raised in broken homes.

  15. Posted May 12, 2012 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    So Obama has lost the Regan Democrats. We knew this.

  16. Jim
    Posted May 12, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    If only everyone had the same rights! That's kind of the point: gay couples don't have the right to get married in most states. We need to fix that, obviously. I have faith in the US Supreme Court to right this injustice in all 50 states!

  17. Andrew
    Posted May 12, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    @Son of Adam: I hear procreation discussed often, but it may be helpful to have some clarity as to what we are actually talking about.

    Could you name one example in which procreation has been a necessary condition of marriage?

  18. AD
    Posted May 12, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Americans care most about jobs and the economy, not what their neighbors are doing in bed.

  19. Lefty
    Posted May 12, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    “There’s a heck of a lot of socially conservative minorities that are part of the Democratic coalition..."

    Yes, there are. Although I'm not sure that some of what is taken for social conservatism in these groups -- e.g., opposition to SSM -- actually is social conservatism as such.

    "...that will jump ship”

    There are bound to be exceptions, but on the whole, I don't see this happening to any great extent.

  20. Fitz
    Posted May 12, 2012 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    It will not be simply Hispanics & blacks, but socially conservative, blue dog, and blue collar democrats especially in the mid-west and the South..'

    It will help keep turn-out down amoung groups that support Obama but not ss"m"..

    As many reports say...Obama made a calculated risk that shoring up his base & fundraising were worth these risks..

  21. Little Man
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    Jim: Your comment is besides the point, because i am waiting for Obama's rationale, not yours. Equality of two non-equal associations is mathematically absurd. You would need to go re-take logic 101. Plus, of course, you are just not aware your points have been debunked already on the NOMblog. It's just you haven't researched those topics. Okay, number the present 1000+ Federal benefits of 'spouses' (Don't count any twice. Okay?). You are like in kindergarten and we are already in High School on this Nomblog.

  22. Jim
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam, there is no requirement to have children in order to get, or stay, married. Elderly folks get married all the time, with no chance at procreating.

    So far as marriage is concerned, think of raising children, not procreating them. Marriage creates a more stable adult relationship, and therefore a more secure environment for children.

  23. Son of Adam
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    Andrew, being a man and a woman has always been a requirement in order to obtain a marriage licence in that they are the only combination that CAN produce children. It keeps the needs and upbringing of children relevant to the intstitution of marriage while at the same time acknowledging that there are no absolutes.

    And Jim, the male/female couples you mention are the exception. And exceptions do not invalidate the rule. Marriage has been established to provide stable homes for the children that are procreated by the sexual union of men and women. When it is redefined for same sex couples, it becomes more oriented to the wants and needs of adults while children are viewed as more like pets, or trophies to validate relationships -a means to an end to provide for adults when it should be the other way around.

  24. Fitz
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Jim (writes)

    "there is no requirement to have children in order to get, or stay, married"

    You realize that saying there is no REQUIREMENT for childbearing in marriage is what is called a straw -man

    You understand what that is?

    That no one who supports marriage ever claimed there was a REQUIREMENT, that only marriage corrupters do this...

    You do see this? No?

  25. Good News
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 4:17 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam #24

    Nicely put!
    First paragraph very clear. Thanks.

    The second also showing in it how the acquisition of children will become an open and free economic market (by not presenting biological mothers and fathers as the norm).
    The natural strong human desire and need to have children will become vulnerable to commercial manipulation for economic benefit. (As is that of sex today between men and woman; with the oncoming unrestrained rich market of homosexual sex, that will be marketed to all people, to be added to that).
    For me, among other things, we are in some way fighting a “reverse civil war”. Around the subject of direct financial gain and expenditure for the offering and acquisition of a human-beings. Of course the human-being would not be enslaved for life, nor have the same relationship with the “purchaser”. But the core principle of “buying” and “selling” human-beings will be reinstated. And the unconscious psyche of the nation, and of the world, will be aware of this. And so influencing how they view human life and their own. The financial workings of today around adoption (often, unhealthy) is not the same thing, in that there is already a child, and so his best interest is a real part of the financial interactions. (The "right way around" as you would say. Childrens interests first; adults for the children, not children for the adults..)

  26. Good News
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 4:20 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam; correction "#20"

  27. Fitz
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    Good News

    Quite right - Under same-sex "marriage" & abortion children become seen as "consumer disposables" - created or discarded for the pleasure of adults rather than human beings with a fundemental right to know & be known by the parents who created them.

  28. Posted May 14, 2012 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps Jim could explain to us what makes a couple "gay," such that we should redefine marriage from an always bride+groom union to a sometimes bride+groom union. What are the immutable characteristics of "gay?"

  29. Chairm
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Jim said:

    "Could you name one example in which procreation has been a necessary condition of marriage?"

    Regardless of marriage law, procreation is a pre-condition for humankind's continued existence.

    The participation of both sexes is a pre-condition to that. See the two-sexed nature of humankind, the two-sexed nature of human generativity, and the two-sexed nature of human community. All pre-conditions; from this marriage, as a foundational social institution, arises. The marriage law is for marriage, not for nonmarriage, and so this stuff is also a pre-condition for marriage law.

    The core meaning of marriage is a pre-condition of just and sustainable marriage law. It distinguishes marriage from nonmarriage.

    That core meaning is not "procreation" alone; it is 1) sex integration, 2) provision for Responsible Procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole.

    This is expressed in our marriage laws. See the man-woman requirement; see the two-sexed sexual basis for consummation, for annulment, for adultery, for the marital presumption that the groom will father the children born to his wife during their marriage.

    There is no same-sex sexual basis for any of that. SSM is sex-segregative; it cannot provide for procreation, much less for responsible procreation, within the same-sex relationship. It is not foundational to civil society. It is a purely legal fiction that is parisitical on marital status. SSM does not merit the special status of marriage because, first and foremost, it is not a marital type of relationship.

    Now, your question is absurd. It presupposes a strawman argument. It also depends on a tyrannical approach to lawmaking rather than a reasonable approach. No, there is no 100% guarantee enforced by government that each and every married couple will procreate; nor is that even remotely necessary to justify the man-woman requirement.

    The upshot: yes, procreation is a pre-condition on many levels; and, no, it is not a forced on each and every particular husband and wife.