Today Mitt Romney introduced Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his vice presidential running mate.
Here is a sampling Rep. Ryan's pro-marriage votes during his years in public service:
"Voted for a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union between one man and one woman." (source)
Voted against repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 2011. (source)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)
Votes YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years (Mar 2001)
Voted YES on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000) (sources)
Supported the marriage amendment in Wisconsin in 2006. (source)
82 Comments
"Voted against repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 2011."
Exactly what does that have to do with marriage?
Andy, you beat me to it!
Andy and Katie miss the point. Ryan has a record of voting against turining our military and our country into a social experiment.
Immediately after Romney picked him, the debate has shifted back to the class warfare rhetoric of Ryan trying to kill grandma. It's an uphill battle but I accept this champion of Conservative values into the race.
Andy and Katie miss the point. Ryan has a record of voting against turining our military and our country into a social experiment.
Immediately after Romney picked him, the debate has shifted back to the class warfare rhetoric of Ryan trying to kill grandma. It's an uphill battle but I accept this champion of Conservative values into the race.
Actually voted tactically against ENDA in 2007, once he knew that it would fail.
I thought I'dd add that, since NOM already added non-marriage-equality votes to the list, as usual... either lying or stretching the truth.
Paul Ryan will be a magnificiant VP and will destroy Biden in the debate.
Zack... not an experiment. Israel has had openly gay troops in the military for the past decade, and has the meanest, toughest military you can think of. There are plenty of other countries too, btw.
Erratum: Gays have been serving openly in the Israeli military since 1993. Longer time than I initially indicated. Experiment conclusive.
The choice of Ryan will relegate social issues such as marriage equality to the back burner. His Ryan budget, savaging Medicare and Medicaid will be front and center from this point on.
"Zack... not an experiment. Israel has had openly gay troops in the military for the past decade, and has the meanest, toughest military you can think of. There are plenty of other countries too, btw."
You can't compare a country like Israel which has forced conscription to the United States which has voluntary service. If you are willingly giving x amount of years of your life the government, it isn't asking a lot to keep your private life private. And yeah, I currently serve in the military.
Excellent choice by Romney. Ryan is strong on both the social and economic fronts. He's smart, serious, and, as Zack noted, will kill Biden during the debates.
If the advocate doesn't like him, marriage supporters should!
http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2012/08/11/here-lgbt-rights-record-paul-ryan-who-reports-say-romney-pick-veep
"The choice of Ryan will relegate social issues such as marriage equality to the back burner. His Ryan budget, savaging Medicare and Medicaid will be front and center from this point on."
He's not regulating anything. He believes Marriage is between a man and a woman and believes our existing federal law should be codified into the Constitution. And his budget plan doesn't "savage" anything. It mostly affects people in my age group while exempting seniors.
Zack: check the dictionary. Relegating is not regulating.
@Claude
My mistake. Thought it was a typo on your part.
Anyways, my point remains.
Zach,
Thank you for your service (comment nr. 10).
I am a veteran, as is my brother, and my father before us, but that was many years ago. Not everyone in my family tree served in the military and my children have not, but at least one ancestor served in the Revolutionary War.
Is this relevant to marriage? Not particularly, except I do want to thank Zach for his service, note that life is an inter-generational project, and confess my roots going back to the original Tea Party.
@Publius
Thank you and thank you for your prior service. Myself have military background that dates back to the Revolutionary War.
@Claude
"The choice of Ryan will relegate social issues such as marriage equality to the back burner. His Ryan budget, savaging Medicare and Medicaid will be front and center from this point on."
Spot-on. He may be a "champion for (heterosexual) marriage", but you can bet he'll be talking about that little if at all. Especially his record on DADT.
The repeal of DADT has had no negative effects on the combat readiness of our men and women in uniform. However, re-instituting DADT would at best, closet (and at worst, terminate) thousands of now-openly gay servicemembers, something that definitely -would- impact the ability of the military to do its job.
On top of that, Romney and Ryan's main focus is how much they care about saving money. The Government Accountability Office put the cost of the military having to recruit and train replacements, and the cost of terminating already-trained, able servicemembers, at $363.8 million from 1994 to 2005. Do you think the American people are going to stomach being told that they should resume footing that bill?
Mitt made a excellent choice..,
Ryan is a great choice for VP.
Unlike the opposition, he actually understands and respects the US Constitution, and he also understands that our rights were "endowed by our Creator," not by the government.
This race just became a lot more exciting.
Andy King wrote,
> The repeal of DADT has had no negative effects on the combat readiness of our men and women in uniform.
Source?
I wonder how many people have decided not to go into the military, because they don't want to be controlled by an entity that could and might force them to room with a homosexual -- even if that's not their only reason.
Without knowing that, how could we know what affect repealing DADT has had?
> thousands of now-openly gay servicemembers
That sounds like so many. Source?
Active-duty uniformed personnel: 1.4 million
http://www.prb.org/Publications/PopulationBulletins/2004/AmericasMilitaryPopulationPDF627KB.aspx
The repeal of DADT got Obama the 'pink dollar.' He flip-flopped on marriage for the same reason.
@Claude #9 and Andy #17:
Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you guys are beginning to recognize what a disaster the pseudo-marriage issue has turned into for Obama;s re-election chances.
I chuckle at the suggestion that this will be a back burner issue, it won't.
You see, it is already a no-burner issue for Romney.
Doesn;t matter.
NOM and Brian Brown and Frank Schubert are on this case, gentlemen
It has to do with marriage because gays are not simply trying to marry. They are trying to entrench gay dogma into all public law and to remove the Judeo-Christian basis from public law.
Thus, when we defend the Judeo-Christian moral foundation regarding any public law, we defend the moral foundation for marriage, as well.
Gay marriage is about changing the moral compass of society by changing its laws.
Protecting marriage involves protecting the moral compass of society, which means defending moral laws from change.
@Andy
"The repeal of DADT has had no negative effects on the combat readiness of our men and women in uniform. However, re-instituting DADT would at best, closet (and at worst, terminate) thousands of now-openly gay servicemembers, something that definitely -would- impact the ability of the military to do its job."
We have no way of knowing that because the policy adopted is new. However, I'm someone who believes that if it doesn't improve our combat readiness, nor does it improve our survivability or our lethality then it should not be considered.
"and the cost of terminating already-trained, able servicemembers, at $363.8 million from 1994 to 2005. Do you think the American people are going to stomach being told that they should resume footing that bill?"
The terminitations of which you speak peaked between 2001-2005 when reservists and active duty soliders refused to go into combat even though they swore an OATH. Think about all the money wasted on the people who deserted this country in her hour of need just because it "wasn't what they signed up for".
I'm sure a lot of good soliders were discharged as a result of this policy, but that isn't a reason for repealing it. I don't think you people understand just what the military is about. You fight as one cohesive unit, individuality has absolutlely no place. You are paid to do your job, nothing more, nothing less. So it is perfectly reasonable that when you sign your life to the government, you keep quiet about your private matters.
This politicizing of the military is what's killing our servicemen.
@Preserve Marriage
While I disagree that the onus is on me to prove that things didn't get worse, I'll oblige. NOM is sometimes iffy about links, so Google "DADT repeal has less impact than expected Marine Corps Times", it's the first link.
"I wonder how many people have decided not to go into the military, because they don't want to be controlled by an entity that could and might force them to room with a homosexual -- even if that's not their only reason."
Defense.gov has some statistics, although they're not easy to compare to one another; in 2011 they began measuring DOD reported retention and recruitment rates by the month instead of by the year. But this should illustrate pretty well.
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14087
Those are the numbers for the month following DADT's repeal. To make a long spreadsheet short, all branches of the military are meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals. In your "wondering", people stop joining because they disagree with the military's policy of forcing them into a room with a homosexual. I'm sure some are equally perturbed that they might have to share a room someone of a different race. Regardless, the military is meeting its needs. If those people don't decide to join the military, the military meets its recruitment goals without them. The military is doing fine.
I'll continue my response in a second post.
@Preserve Marriage (contd)
"> thousands of now-openly gay servicemembers
That sounds like so many. Source?
Active-duty uniformed personnel: 1.4 million"
Thanks for giving me the number. For this calculation I'll use the most (ridiculously, in my opinion) conservative number given for what percentage of the general population is homosexual: one half of one percent.
one half of one percent of 1.4 million is still 7000 soldiers, translators, medics, pilots, engineers, and teammates. And that's the most ludicrously conservative estimate I can come up with. If you're open to a more human take on it, the Army Times has its own article.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/10/ap-military-dont-ask-dont-tell-gays-coming-out-nonevent-101611/
@Zack
Feel free to lecture me about what it's like to be "boots on the ground", if you like. I have no frame of reference as I've never been in the military myself. But don't presume to be able to tell me what military culture is like; I grew up in a military family and I lived on base more often than not through my adolescence.
"it is perfectly reasonable that when you sign your life to the government, you keep quiet about your private matters."
Servicemembers discuss their families with their teammates and make friendships that last a lifetime. They serve each other and they take the time to -know- each other. They are not machines, and they are not numbers. They have lives and they share those lives. Just as importantly, their families serve in their own way, too. And their families deserve to not have their breadwinner terminated from their post just because when they go to the many, many social events (balls, movie screenings, tours, to name only a few) that servicemembers are part of on base, they thought it appropriate to bring along their spouse and children that they share their life with.
So for you to say that the military is a solitary life, where your primary motivation is a -paycheck-, where "individuality has absolutlely no place", it honestly strains belief.
Zack-
Unless you are arguing that NO ONE can display pictures of signifigant others or talk about relationships your point is pretty invalid. If you are going to say that it does not help readiness to have people openly serve and therefore it should not be allowed the same should go for everyone. It does not help readiness for anyone to talk about or have their pictures. Except, that maybe it does, because if people are able to talk about missing home they wn't have to bottle it up inside until the crack.
I don't think the repeal of DADT by itself is the issue. How it relates to redefining marriage may be whether or not it can be used to undermine the DOMA.
I would prefer Ron Paul at the head of the ticket; Ryan makes a great VP.
The presence of straight men in the military has not deterred women from enlisting or accepting commissions.
Israel also has strict standards regulating sexual conduct among its soldiers to ensure discipline and good order.
Michael Ejercito comment #28. Women in the US military are not forced to room with members of the opposite sex. The repeal of DADT did not bring equal rights, it brought special rights. Women do not shower with men because even if a man didn't say or do anything the women might feel uncomfortable being forced to shower with someone who might look at them in a sexual way. With DADT repealed straight troops are forced to shower with homosexual troops. Apparently straight troops feeling uncomfortable showering with someone who might look at them in a sexual way is not important. That is not equal treatment, that is special treatment.
True, Michael, we have all seen the cases of heterosexual sexual harrassment (and worse) of female soldiers by male soldiers and officers... obviously not the same standards. I haven't heard one single case of M/M harrasment since the repeal of DADT.
Rich wrote,
> Are you conflicted in your own sexuality and Marcus raises concerns in your own mind?
I love the use of the question mark, here. Phasing it like a question almost makes it seem like it's not another of your personal attacks.
Thanks, Publius. Comment 23 is not mine.
Thrilled with the news! Mr. Ryan appears to be a man of good sense and moral integrity (a.k.a. a conservative).
Every time they falsely post, they simply prove which one of us is over the target.
Conratulations, Barb.
The real Barb
We know the real Barb. There's a night and day difference.
great...another Rich white man who has no idea what he is doing. I like medicare, thank you very much. I have paid into it since I first started working.
Someone is certainly obsessed with you, Barb.
Hopefully the mod will ban his IP address.
Andy,
Thanks for the huge rebuttal and link.
I'd be open to a more human take on it, but the only thing is, I'm not that interested in DADT.
Peace.
Andy #25
"Servicemembers discuss their families with their teammates and make friendships that last a lifetime. They serve each other and they take the time to -know- each other."
This misses the point I was trying to make. Going through the enlistment process, my instructors have made it a point that we leave our emotional baggage at the door. And yes for the most part we are machines our job is to defend this country.
"So for you to say that the military is a solitary life, where your primary motivation is a -paycheck-, where "individuality has absolutlely no place", it honestly strains belief."
It is a solitary life. Divorce is high among servicemembers because they do not disclose what they do. Individuality has not place. I mean you no offense but just because you lived on a military base doesn't mean you understand what it's like to wear the uniform. My civilian and personal life end the moment those boots are on my feet.
Call me old fashioned but that's how I am and that's what my Drill Sgt's have taught me.
typo: has no*
@Preserve Marriage
No problem. I'm interested in DADT (for my own obvious reasons), but I'm just a little confused as to why NOM, claiming to really be concerned with marriage, decides to get itself involved with who the armed forces gets to -hire-. DADT actually had no effect on benefits currently restricted to heterosexual married partners, because of DOMA, so it seems like it'd be a non-issue for them.
As for my "source" on how many gay service members were currently serving, I wish I had something better to refer to than that low-ball estimate, but as far as I can tell, the military (currently) doesn't make publicly available any data on how many men and women in uniform identify as LGBT.
In sum, I still don't understand how a vote against discrimination in the military is a vote "for traditional marriage". If the underlying argument is that increased social acceptance of gays and lesbians makes it more likely that the public will vote for SSM, then it seems like a key part of "protecting marriage" would be to decrease social acceptance of gays and lesbians; something I feel would stand in pretty ominous contrast with NOM's claim that they're just trying to look out for their own policies. But that's for them to decide, after all.
@Zack
If you say so. You're correct in that I can't pretend to know what it's like to wear the uniform, but I do understand what it's like to be the family of someone who does. Divorce rates notwithstanding (although I do believe that's a serious issue), I still believe that anyone who puts their life on the line for this country has earned the right to make their -personal- life with whomever they so choose, be it an opposite-sex partner or a same-sex one. After all, if nobody's supposed to be interested in each other's personal lives, doesn't it make sense that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve alongside their heterosexual peers? It would seem that that's the fairer, more neutral position to take on this matter.
If you keep your personal life out of the military, why would the military deign to believe it has the right to regulate what has no effect on it?
Re. #42
Military personnel already enjoy this right. What isn't incumbent upon we-the-people is for the military to redefine marriage, and treat any/all private relationships amongst military personnel the same as public marriages. Marriage = a man + a woman.
@DoE
And of course you're free to believe that, and vote your convictions in the fall. I will say that I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you agree that the right for our men and women in uniform to have their own romantic relationships without worrying about being fired is, in fact, a "right". I know that word doesn't get thrown around carelessly by NOM, so I thank you for that.
@ The Pretend Barb Chamberlan
If you think you're "helping", you're just making a fool of yourself. For everyone's sake, if you've got rational arguments to make, make them in your own name and stop vandalizing someone else's image.
Bravo, Andy.
Appreciated.
Rep. Ryan is a brave and controversial choice.
May God bless the candidacy of Mr. Romney.
He is all that stands between us, and the forced indoctrination of innocent children in homosexualist propaganda.
I will vote forMr.Romney.
I hope you will too.
If Mr. Romney (God forbid!) should lose, then parents will have no choice but to prevent the perversion of the minds of their children, by extra-legal means.
May God protect the poor homosexuals from bringing down upon themselves the just response of parents who refuse to surrender their children to homosexualist perversion.
The poor homosexuals have no idea of what is coming.
The schools are subject to state education departments. The homosexual indoctrination/brainwashing laws are being passed in state capitols.
The best people can do is to vote for Republican governors and state legislators.
If they do that in Iowa and New Hampshire, they will be able to restore the true definition of marriage in those states.
Wow! Rick is actually threatening us with some wrath? I read into this the threat of intimidation, discrimination or even violence against gays if the Republicans do not win (since the Democrats will not threaten us with negative policies).
The means Rick mentions are extra-legal (i.e. outside the law).
This illustrates perfectly that some of the anti-marriage equality movement is based on hatred toward gays and the means they have in mind are outside the law...
I hope that others here will denounce this. This is also proof positive that this issue of the gay minority rights should not be decided in the heat of a divisive ballot initiative, where some lose control.
@Claude,
Hating you for assaulting the family, for imposing your depravity on other people’s children, for seeding our government institutions with agents aligned against honest, hard working citizens is patriotic; not criminal.
Accusing your victims of the crimes you perpetrated is the calling card of the sociopath. You will find no willing victims here.
See you on the front line comrade.
Claude,
You don't know what Rick meant.
Maybe he meant "the perversion of the minds of their children" was being carried out "by extra-legal means."
There are other possibilities.
A teacher could leak to the parents when _King & King_ was going to be read, and the parents could pull their kids out of class beforehand. That would be "extra-legal".
Maybe he meant civil disobedience.
A sit in, perhaps, or all the parents calling their children in sick on Harvey Milk Day.
Truancy is extra-legal.
A parent could ask their kid to check _Heather Has Two Mommies_ out of the school library. The parent could then say it was lost, and pay for it, making it unavailable for the teacher.
It's not clear that Rick was "threatening [y'all] with some wrath," although I'm glad to see you admit you "read into this."
However, that admission didn't stop you from spinning Rick's post as a "threat of intimidation, discrimination or even violence," though.
Then you claim (based on your leap of faith) that Rick's post "illustrates perfectly that some of the anti-marriage equality movement is based on hatred toward gays" -- even though your leap of faith could have just as easily
assumed a threat against school boards, principals, teachers, governors, state legislators, or education departments.
Also, even violence might not indicate hatred.
Building on *that*, you claim, "This illustrates perfectly that some of the anti-marriage equality movement is based on hatred toward gays and the means they have in mind are outside the law."
What it may illustrate, is that *one* person has had thoughts.
Finally -- relying on the Otter defense -- you base on your leaps of faith, that this is all "proof positive," that voting is not the way to decide whether to redefine a cornerstone of society, because some might "lose control."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROxvT8KKdFw
Claude,
How do you know Rick didn't mean that "the perversion of the minds of their children" was being done "by extra-legal means"?
Other possibilities include truancy on homosexual indoctrination day, or civil disobedience.
Have you been studying the Otter defense?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROxvT8KKdFw
Good to hear it. Methinks that Paul Ryan was a good VP pick!
"If you keep your personal life out of the military, why would the military deign to believe it has the right to regulate what has no effect on it?"
It's to make sure your personal life doesn't interfere with your professional life. There are policies against fratenization, but people still do it and that hinders the mission. It's illegal to cheat on your spouse, you can get in trouble for establishing a relationship within your platoon or company and I have no reason to think repealing DADT will not have the same effect.
@Claude
"This is also proof positive that this issue of the gay minority rights should not be decided in the heat of a divisive ballot initiative, where some lose control."
While I don't agree with everything Rick says I have to point out that it wasn't the homes of homosexuals being vandalized or homosexuals themselves being harassed when prop 8 was passed.
Preserve Marriage
I like your idea of truancy as protest. Non violent civil disobedience is a way to remind people that the ultimate power of the state depends on force. What will the authorities do? Jail the parents?
Americans don't like government officials acting like thugs. The recent support for Chick-fil-A is proof positive.
Well.
Claude supposes that meek acquiescence in the surrender of our children to homosexualist role playing fantasies is required here.
Let's see.
Let me assist our friends and enemies alike:
Never, under any circumstances, should a parent surrender a child to homosexualist role playing fantasies, even should the law (God help us!)_explicitly allow for such child abuse.
Anyone disagree?
Let me be clear.
If any child is to be subjected to homosexualist role playing fantasies in school, it is the moral duty of the parent to protect the children from this, *no matter what*.
If this truth is frightening to NOM, please so indicate by censoring this post, and I will understand.
In such a case I will have nothing to do with NOM ever again.
Here goes......
Well Claude the post as not censored so let me reiterate:
Should any law be passed by criminals anywhere in the world, that requires parents to acquiesce in the programming of their children in homosexualist role playing evil, it is the moral duty of the parent to resist by any means necessary.
Clear for you Claude?
Claude, you are answered.
Now.
Since it apparently is a matter of some trepidation concerning whether or not homosexualist radicals should back off now, while they can, concerning their intention to emily pseudo-marriage laws to force children into homosexualist mind-control exercises in schools...
Never.
Nop child should be surrendered to such evil.
Any parent who surrenders their child to such evil is a disgrace.
No matter what.
Clear?
I'm with you, Rick. I'll stand in front of a speeding truck before I'll let my child be corrupted. Any parent would do the same.
God bless you Barb.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm a teacher with 38 years in public education. Specifically name which lesson plan you would denounce, which daily exercise you would boycott,which indoctrination practice you would condemn. Do not give me generalities. Do not rely on what others have told you. You have a responsibility to specifically name the established curriculum, the planned indoctrination practice, the school committee approved gay sex lesson that you, without equivocation, know to be in a public school system that you have spent time in. If you can not do this, then you have a moral obligation to stop with the innuendo.
... alright. Rick, while we certainly have disagreements in terms of what ought to constitute acceptable social policy, I must say most reasonable people would understand that you've gone beyond the pale here.
"May God protect the poor homosexuals from bringing down upon themselves the just response of parents who refuse to surrender their children to homosexualist perversion.
The poor homosexuals have no idea of what is coming."
Imagine that sort of statement coming from my side, directed at yours. Under what circumstance would you not consider that a threat? "Those poor bigots have no idea what's coming."
Then again, your statements do not appear to differ much from Orson Scott Card, a member of NOM's board of directors. "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage..."
You tell me if that sounds like intelligent discourse between opposing points of view, or something more.
Ryan may have a perfect voting record — he's rated 0% by both HRC and NARAL — but does he have a good advocacy record?
Or will the Romney-Ryan ticket continue the nonsensical "Chick-Fil-A is not part of my campaign" policy?
That, friends, is why I was hoping for Vice President Santorum or Vice President DeMint. Ryan may say "aye" or "no" at the right time, but he hasn't been shown to be an advocate.
P.S. The Florida Republican primary is on Tuesday. Why hasn't NOM endorsed Dave Weldon?
Andy:
Since I already have personally experienced the threats and ministrations of the gay fascist movement, for years now, it is time for you to grasp what ought to have been clear all along.
This is a battle, as Orson Scott Card rightly notes, between two irreconcilably opposed world views.
Only one can prevail.
Now since the gay side cannot reproduce, but only acquirte children who have first been separated from mother, father, or both, they have forgotten something.
Parents will not surrender their children to homosexualist mind control programs such as we read about in the article above.
Your side needs to very carefully consider the truth in what I say here, while you still have time to adjust your strategies.
For now, of course, the matter can still be settled by vote.
I urge you and all supporters of gay rights to recognize that rewritingthe marriage laws will certainly destroy peace and polity for everyone, on both sides of the issue, for years to come.
But we will win.
We will be fighting for our children.
Claude,
I didn't get from Rick's post that he was even a parent, so how could he have been threatening? Also, he wrote that he wants God to *protect* y'all!
"The accommodation they gave, was to put me in handcuffs and send me to jail. And they were willing to handcuff a father and send him to jail. It was a 6 x 8 cell, filthy. But, you know, I felt I didn't have a choice at that point, in order to fulfill my roll, and duty as a father."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJx1tpqe5W8
Marriage supporter attacked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcKJEHrvwDI
Homosexual batters 21-year-old Christian missionary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU
I know plenty of gays who have have been together for decades in happy monogomous committed relationships. Heteros do not "own" marriage, and haven't done much in the way of preserving it... As long as someone like Kim Kardashian can marry, I see no reason to prevent gays from marrying.
Times WILL change. Y'all are dinosaurs who just don't yet know that you're on the extinction list.
What's important is to get an executive branch that is going to defend federal law, i.e., DOMA; and that is going to appoint conservative judges to the federal bench and SCOTUS.
I do believe that it would be great for Romney/Ryan if Obama's position on so-called ss"m" is publicized over and over again as election day approaches.
"I do believe that it would be great for Romney/Ryan if Obama's position on so-called ss"m" is publicized over and over again as election day approaches."
>> I do also. How many times have you called the Romney campaign to tell them so?
If it is twenty or more, bravo.
Let Obama/Biden try to defend the current President's absurd favoritism for gay identity politics.
Let Romney/Ryan make their positive case against the current President's record overall ... with the marriage issue illustrating the bizarre priorities of Obama/Biden.
Note that the current president lacks an honest approach to campaigning and promotes a decidedly dishonest approach to his own record. Again the marriage issue illustrates this. The Republican ticket can tap into this distrust that Obama has earned.
There are bedrock things for which Romney/Biden can be well trusted. The marriage issue illustrates this. The contrast with Obama/Biden on this is stark and so expect the current president to try hard to make the campaign about anything .... anything .... else. Their position is that those who support the marriage idea are "bigots" and their default position, such as it is, is a twosided coin. The flipside is an arbitrary assertion that gay identity politics is supreme to marriage and justice. Let them accuse voters of bigotry. Let them extoll the societal significance of gay identity politics. The Romney/Biden campaign needs to stand as the clear alternative ... and that is so obvious ... and hammer away on the economy and foreign policy and the trustworthiness factor.
Obama will shoot himself in the foot with his lowball tactics. He has that in common with the SSM campaign.
Typo correction: I said, "Romney/Biden" when I meant to write, "Romney/Ryan".