Controversialist Ann Coulter was asked to comment on Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day and what it says about gay marriage heading into the November election:
Ann Coulter on Sunday argued that comments made by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy "wasn't an anti-gay thing."
"He said, look, all the founders of this company are married to our first wives," she said on a political roundtable during ABC's 'This Week'. "It's genuinely a pro-marriage position to oppose gay marriage."
... "When you see crowds like that coming out [to support Chick-fil-A], no, I'm sorry, I don't believe the polls on gay marriage. Let us vote. Those polls I believe, and it makes me suspicious at the polls on the presidential election." -- The Huffington Post
45 Comments
Ann Coulter is on the board of GOProud, which poses as a gay front for gay republicans and the GOP. I'm surprised NOM lends any credibility to Ann Coulter, since she serves on the board of a group that has initially denounced the NOM pledge, and lauded Romney until he caved in and signed.
NOM + Ann Coulter = marriage of convenience
GOProud Statement on President Obama’s Remarks Regarding Marriage Equality
Statement of Christopher R. Barron, Chief Strategist
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, President Obama signaled his support for marriage equality in an interview with ABC News. In response, Christopher R. Barron, Chief Strategist and Co-Founder of GOProud.
“It is good to see that after intense political pressure that President Obama has finally come around to the Dick Cheney position on marriage equality..."
That last statement was dated May 9, 2012.
Thank you for bringing Ann Coulter, GOProud board member, into the debate.
"...there is particular reason to doubt the accuracy of this poll [...] the use of unsound polling data for political purposes [...] This poll is bald political persuasion and little more. [...] Advocates are spinning this one as evidence of a shift in public attitudes on the question, but there are reasons to doubt whether that is the case."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-gay-marriage-poll-20120809,0,7928784.story
Of course the polling in favor of same-sex marriage is grossly overestimated. Every state with the exception of Colorado(though public polling tends poll more Democrats than independents and Republicans), every state with a marriage amendment has support for Traditional Marriage ranging from as low as 55% to as high as over 70% of the population.
The problem with the marriage equality movement is that it's difficult to mobilize sympathetic heterosexuals, who are not affected by the decision, unless they know family members, friends, colleagues who are affected. This is the plight of a minority who has its rights decided at the ballot box.
It was the same thing with inter-racial marriage, African-American voting rights, segregation. If these had been decided at the ballot box, the US southern states would still be segregated.
Funny that other posters did not comment on Ann Coulter's credibility gap, another proof of NOM's political expediency and semi-truth approach to marriage news.
"It was the same thing with inter-racial marriage, African-American voting rights, segregation"
Not even close to being the same.
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2008/07/15/false_equation_opposing_same-sex_marriage_and_opposing_interracial_marriage
Zack, you can quote right wing biased sources all you want... I invite readers to open their minds and look at all media, from this country and others... in order to make their OWN minds.
I see you avoid, like teh plague, the Ann Coulter credibility gap I raised earlier.
"I see you avoid, like teh plague, the Ann Coulter credibility gap I raised earlier."
Non sequiturs, like the plague, should be avoided.
Claude, stop spamming the page with stupid posts. Ann Coulter is, and has always been, against ssm. She loves to boast about how she's skilled at talking gay Republicans out of supporting ssm. She believes that gays are really against ssm, but they have to "come out of the closet."
NOM covered her joining of GOProud's council. It's no secret. Your posts are revelatory of *nothing.*
http://www.nomblog.com/12393/
Ann Coulter, if anything, is an example of how people can be opposed to ssm, but not hate gays; or can be opposed to ssm, inter alia, but form alliances with gays on different issues.
But even if she did favor ssm, NOM can quote a message from her any time they want, so long as they like the message. They've quoted from SSMers: 1) who have expressed fear about SCOTUS upholding DOMA; 2) who have expressed disbelief about polls showing the majority of Americans favoring ssm; 3) who have condemned attacks on Chick-Fil-A.
Give it a rest, amateur.
I may be an amateur, but I have lived with legalized same sex marriage since 2005, with full recognition and protection of the law... and marriage is doing very where I live. Same-sex marriage comes with rights and responsibilities, obligations, costs and benefits. There is even a baby boom here, showing that opposite-sex couples are not adversely affected. Religious freedom and marriage equality coexist peacefully. Stop fear-mongering.
Ash,
Why call Claude an amateur? Perhaps commenting is his day job.
Nope, Publius... I have a job, and it's not political. Just vacationing, under unpleasant weather, and doing my bit to refute NOM positions, which I strongly believe are wrong. I am taking advantage of the fact that the usual censorship is down, for some odd reason... since my comments are usually blocked by an organization that doesn't like to hear the other side of the argument from ordinary people.
Now, my husband and I have to go take care of a few chores and shopping with my elderly Mom. That's what's next on my gay agenda...
@Publius, LOL
Excellent points, Ann!
The entire pseudo-marriage m,movement has been exposed this past week as a vast media echo-chamber, a concoction.....
A Potemkin village.
Let's defeat Obama, defend marriage, and then we can see about a decent accommodation for the legitimate issues of the victims of Same Sex Attraction Disorder.
Claude: I was wondering how someone with coherent arguments against NOM's hateful positions could ever be allowed to post here.
@Shawn #21:
There exist no coherent arguments against NOM's perfectly rational positions in defense of marriage.
The incoherent arguments against marriage are posted by NOM, so that their incoherence might be demonstrated.
Claude,
You don't have a husband. Live with it. He's your domestic partner.
Whether or not your State pretends that your "marriage" is real, it isn't.
P.S. I despise Ann Coulter.
You keep trying to publish stock SSM spin and soundbites here: using "marriage equality" as a synonym for same-sex 'marriage', equating opposition to inter-racial marriage to opposition to SSM, and declaring that "opposite-sex couples are not adversely affected."
This last phrase is not only untrue, it is narrow. The question shouldn't be just (the usual), "how would gay marriage affect *your* marriage" -- but rather: What would gay "marriage" affect?
That broader question would a more honest one, just less usable as spin.
Re interracial marriage:
"the anti-racist activists of old were calling for democratic equity within an already-existing institution, whereas today’s pro-gay marriage activists are calling for the creation of an entirely *new* institution."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100137861/it-is-moronic-to-compare-opposition-to-gay-marriage-with-opposition-to-interracial-marriage/
While I can, I, like Claude, will take advantage of the current situation that NOM is open to counter arguments in support of SSM. I see, frequently, on this site comments that suggests marriage between men and men and women and women don't exist here or anywhere. DoE claims this, frequently and Dovie E, just said it again. This is their opinion, only. The reality is that marriage exists for men with men and women with women. It has existed for years and is now considered a tradition for many. Argue, as you will that you don't like it, but if you wish to be taken seriously, recognize that which is real. Argue, if you will, that it should be changed back to what you want, but recognize that the reality of marriage is not what you want. To do their otherwise is to play the role of ostrich with its head. In the sand.
Claude (writes)
"The problem with the marriage equality movement is that it's difficult to mobilize sympathetic heterosexuals, who are not affected by the decision, unless they know family members, friends, colleagues who are affected. This is the plight of a minority who has its rights decided at the ballot box."
This mantra is common amoung the people who want to redifine marriage.
The facs however are quite different. All arte rights have been ratified by the people at one point or another. The consitution and every amendment in the Bill of Rights and onward were voted by 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states.
The 19th amendment was predicated on convinving males to give females the right to vote. Yet it passed.
The iPad has a mind of its own when trying to be grammatically correct.
Rich:
The Emperor never had any clothes, howsoever many excellent arguments could be made about what color they were.
There can never be a same sex marriage, just as there can never be a square circle, or a male female.
Now it is possible that a given civilization *might*, for a while, pass legislation insisting that the contrary were true.
The only immediate effect of such a bizarre action would be to secure legal means whereby those who asked "why is that man going around naked?" could be arrested as enemies of the State.
In the long run, of course, such lunacy creates its own backlash
My opinion, in this aspect, is also that marriage is the union of a husband and wife. Period.
It existed before there was a USA, with states, laws, judges, and politicians to use the laws to redefine marriage -- which didn't contemplate that it could be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman -- to get homosexual campaign contributions (bribery).
Our laws didn't create marriage. They recognized it.
If a man and a woman tell me they're married, I'll understand that.
If two people of the same gender tell me they're married, I'll understand that they took advantage of some illegitimate state law that was put in place by judicial fiat -- or by politicians whose votes are for sale to the highest bidder (where there was only one bidder) -- not by consent of the governed.
I've known what marriage was my whole life, and don't expect Government to be changing my mind, the way the people that it's comprised of have been going about things.
Nope--marriage is still opposite-sexed; there are simply some unfortunate segments of the population living under willful self-delusion that same-sex unions are marriage, simply because a few misguided judges have given these copycat counterfeits the name of marriage. Marriage is a Truth which stands alone, in changeable in its opposite sexed nature irregardless of the foolish macho nations of a few misguided mortals.
"machinations" LOL.
Not arguing Rich--simply reminding you of an unchangeable Truth you refuse to acknowledge, to your self-imposed disadvantage. Not too late for you yet....
DoE, adding a capital T to the word truth does not, in any way, change the truth and reality that gay couples are married world-wide. Delusional can work both ways here so it requires something real to hitch our truth to. For me that reality is a fact and it's quantitative: world-wide gay marriages exist alongside straight marriages. The qualitative aspect is purely subjective. Not arguing either but it seems to me you are at a disadvantage as long as you delude yourself of facts.
There are no "gay" people, no "gay" couples. There are males & females. Some individuals experience a same sex attraction, but none are compelled to homosexual behavior. Some males are married to some females. Everyone else is in some kind of non-marriage relationship. Some relationships are by choice, and include love and devotion. Some occur through natural kinship and also include love and devotion. But only a real marriage includes a man and a woman. Only marriage can simultaneously procreate and tie a child to both halves of their family tree. Sadly, some in society are perpetuating a government sponsored delusion that same sex couples can have valid marriages. This wrong will be righted and truth will prevail. Only real marriages will endure. You can accept the truth or reject it; either way, you are accountable for both your beliefs & your actions. It's not too late to accept truth, but time is limited. Best wishes for you.
If gays succeed in redefining marriage, there will rise up another word -- let's say, "casament" -- to describe the unique and special union of a man and a woman.
Churches, synagogs, mosques and temples will stop performing marriages and start performing casaments. The government will soon recognize casaments in the law, because there will be a public purpose for doing so. After all, not recognizing that which leads to the gold standard in raising children would be foolish.
(Party A and Party B) marriage will become less and less meaningful as (husband and wife) casament becomes more and more accepted, and recognized as something good.
Eventually, laws that make sense in the case of casaments will pop up.
This would all happen quite naturally, because the intrinsic nature of man-woman unions can't be eliminated by the law.
Ultimately, the homosexual special rights, monied special interest group would demand that the law redefine casament -- because that homosexual money keeps flowing, and the people getting it have to keep pushing. These lobbyists can't just declare themselves satisfied and return the money. They'd be out of a very well-paid job!
I guess it's cut-off time again with NOM?
Repeat it another 500 times and that will make it true.
I personally do not like Ann coulter. I agree with her on this issue but I do not like the way she treats Muslim folk. Muslims are hardworking, kind and Godly people who share many of our christian values such as marriage, family and sanctity of life and Ann seems to "bite the hand that feeds". I think they key to beating SSM in the more liberal states and in Europe is for conservative christians to forge alliances with Muslims aswell as Jews, Sikhs and Hindus who believe the same.
Nice Mikhail, is this your idea of a jihad? How godly of you to call on the worlds "great" religions to wipe out a whole segment of the population. Hitler would have loved you. Proud are we? Despicable are you!
Rich:
Legally, those unions are recognized as marriage. But they aren't.
Tell me, during the era of slavery — people were recognized as property. Do you believe that they legitimately were?
Dovie: Institutions evolve; they are not static.
Married women were considered property of their husbands not so long ago. Now they aren't.
Slaves were recognized as property. Now they aren't.
Same-sex people were considered ineligible to marry. Now, they aren't... in an increasing number of jurisdictions.
@Preserve Marriage, the idea of society giving another word to the man-woman union and leaving same-sex couples with the word "marriage" is unpalatable for SSMers. Their intent is to declare that same-sex unions are identical and equal in value to the union of a man and woman. So, although the LGBT lobby wants the prestige of the word marriage and its social significance, they wouldn't tolerate a new word for real marriages. Any distinction would remind them that opposite-sex unions are unique.
They make the issue about marriage, but it's really about their admiration for heterosexual unions, and their desire to imitate them. In fact, many (not all) SSMers say that they would be fine with no state involvement in marriage; the only important thing is that the state doesn't do one thing for opposite-sexed unions that isn't done for same-sex unions.
@Mikhail, unlike you, I love Ann Coulter. But what you said about religious coalitions reminds me of how the marriage debate has changed my thinking on a lot of things. I now have a more open heart to people who differ from me theologically. I'm not saying that I will become blind and mute to problems from certain groups; I'm just saying that I have more of an open heart to Muslims, etc., and see the decent ones as marriage allies.
@Dovie, excellent question. The government can lie. It can declare that a person is property, just like it can declare a same-sex union a marriage. But that just means the government is lying.
Ash,
Exactly. Marriage is between a man and a woman. No matter what anyone says.
The question might be asked, if I so strongly believe that marriage is heterosexual in nature, what do I care what the government says? Well, at the very least... I don't want to fund your "marriage" with my taxes. Just like Northerners didn't want to use their monies to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts.
Claude,
Look, I know this is a mostly Christian commentariat, but I can tell you what I know, as a Jew. And that is that women were never considered as property.
PM@32: We will never give up the word or the institution so stop cooking up substitute words. They like to redefine things and scr*w with the language. Don't let them. I realize you were trying to make a point but that should never be an option.
And....I like Ann Coulter just fine. I used to think she was over the top and BHO and his cohorts revealed they were worse than I could ever imagine. So now I think she was ahead of the curve.
Rich, if, as you claim, "gay marriages exist", please state the essential feature(s) such that these can be distinguished from other types of relationships that populate the non-marriage category in all the world.
No, I am not asking about a government issued license.
I am asking for your statement of the essential feature(s) such that, regardless of what the government issues or does not issue, there is such a thing as "gay marriage".
Afterall, you and I might agree that sometimes government gets stuff right and sometimes gets stuff wrong. How can you know that there is such a thing as "gay marriage" such that the government in this or that place has got it right and such that the governmen in this or that other place has got it wrong.
In other words, marriage -- or "gay marriage" -- must have a reality independent of government. Do you agree with that? Based on your remarks your agreement or disagreement is not evident thusfar. Please clarify.
Thanks.