NOM BLOG

Breitbart's Ken Klukowski: "Marriage Still Wins When Equally Funded"

 
Breitbart News contributor Ken Klukowski:

"...the facts from the election returns don’t support the contention that marriage is a losing issue. First, it appears that supporters of gay marriage had vast resources to promote these ballot measures that swamped social conservatives, easily outspending supporters of traditional marriage. The Left managed to heavily market this issue not only to their base but also developed ads targeting Republicans, young people, and minorities with customized messages as to why those specific audiences should support gay marriage. Traditional marriage supporters had insufficient funds to effectively respond.

Second, in each of those four states, traditional marriage outperformed Mitt Romney and Republican candidates in general. Far from a drag on the ticket, traditional marriage received more votes than Romney in each of those four states. Thus, most citizens voting Republican/Romney also voted for traditional marriage, and also a sizable bloc of Democrat/Obama voters supported traditional marriage.

In the end two things appear clear within the context of how gay marriage is currently being discussed. The first is that there is a trend among young voters in favor of gay marriage. The second is that, given the narrow margins in these races, traditional marriage still wins when equally funded, but a large imbalance of resources for promotion and organizing to mobilize voters can give gay marriage a winning edge.

The looming question that America will soon face as a consequence of gay marriage is polygamy."

45 Comments

  1. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    The stupidest thing that this country did was lower the voting age from 21 to 18, effectively allowing children to vote on issues that they do not understand or that are seemingly inconsequential to them. Young voters, either supported by their parents or supported by the government, are clueless about the problems facing Americans who are striving to live independently, paying taxes, bringing up children, maintaining a household. These children mostly voted Democratic, the party of government handouts and false victimhood.

  2. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    "The looming question that America will soon face as a consequence of gay marriage is polygamy."

    Ooga, booga polygamy. FEAR !!!! This may be the next question that arises and I am sure the American people will make a good decision if it does. The fact regarding this election is that it was a BIG win for marriage equality.

  3. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, so our young men and women can effectively understand the risks they are taking when they join the military but are too immature to marry or vote properly? Wow, way to put down the very men and women who are fighting for our country. And, proof that this demographic voted Democratic?

  4. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Let's be honest about the military; the vast majority who sign up do so for government benefits; young boys and girls moving from under the wing of mom and dad to under the wing of the government. It's a choice much like other children choosing to go to college. Why should joining the military give them any more rights than the kids going to college? What more do those children know than other children?

    You don't need to be a mental giant to decide to go to college or join the military; but I believe that you do need independent life experience to vote.

  5. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    It will come as no surprise to anyone paying attention when polygamists start demanding their "marriage equality." Pseudo marriage paved the way for them.

    The GOP needs to take a collective Xanax. You don't throw out conservative values just b/c you lose an election. The GOP elites need to step down and let the new generation of conservatives have the spotlight.

    Too bad all those military ballots were thrown overboard.

  6. Ash
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Republicans would be stupid to view marriage as a losing issue when it narrowly lost in deep blue states after being outspent by a huge amount. As Klukowski noted, marriage outperformed the Republican ticket in states Republicans never carry.

    Obviously, the marriage issue is a bonus for Republicans. Would they surrender on any other issue because young people and liberals disagree with them?

  7. RAJ
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    Overcame wrote: " Why should joining the military give them any more rights than the kids going to college?"

    You do realize that the vote was extended to 18 year-olds in this country at a time when young men could be drafted into the military and sent off to war? The thinking at the time was (and I couldn't agree more) that if you were able to be conscripted and very possibly die for your country, you should at least have a voice in the country's decision-making process.

  8. RAJ
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    "able to be" should have been "old enough to be"

  9. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    I do realize why the voting age was lowered. I still disagree with it. Some five year-olds are entitled to Social Security benefits; since they are part of a government program should they be given the right to vote too?

  10. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA, we don't ask our five year olds to die for our country. What an ignorant response.

  11. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Ash "Obviously, the marriage issue is a bonus for Republicans. "

    yeah, was a BIG win for the Republicans. Sorry to point it out but Obama and the Democrats scored a huge victory at this election. But, hey, keep your party in the past. See how that works for you.

  12. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Low information voters are a bit schizophrenic by nature. They don't know which candidate supports which platform. They're not even sure who is running as VP. They'll say they support a balanced budget, then vote for the spendthrift because, darn it he seems like a nice guy and he gives out free Obamaphones.

    The GOP shouldn't try to compete with Santa Claus, but they can make sure to run a candidate who doesn't fit into the fabricated GOP stereotype. Conservatism is cool.

  13. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Mark said, "we don't ask our five year olds to die for our country. What an ignorant response."

    What's ignorant? It's a question of where the line should be drawn. Why does risking one's life in exchange for compensation by the government make one more qualified to vote? Young soldiers are paid to serve; 5 year olds participate in the government education system. All have interests in how the government operates; all are too young to participate in the important voting process.

    What if we drafted 16 year olds? Should we lower the voting age to 16? How about 12 year olds?

  14. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Democrats spent a lot of time, with the help of the liberal media, mischaracterizing Republicans as meanies who hate women, minorities, and homosexuals. If the Republicans made a mistake, it was failing to address those lies, albeit when the media has your opponent's back, it is difficult for your perspective to become known.

  15. RAJ
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Overcame wrote:

    "What if we drafted 16 year olds? Should we lower the voting age to 16? How about 12 year olds?"

    Do you not see that even asking the above questions makes you seem unhinged?

    If you're talking about the draft , the issue is compelling individuals into military service without allowing them any say. From an ethical standpoint, what's so hard to understand about that? And why would you even pose a hypothetical about compelling minors into military service? MINORS?

  16. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Barb, conservatism is dying. Get a clue. The GOP lost the vote of younger people in droves. You lost on social issues primarily. There will come a time when being against marriage equality will be equivalent to opposing school integration. Many have spoken out to GOP leaders to get them behind marriage for gays, unless they listen, you will continue to lose elections. It will ultimately be the Supreme Court which decides on marriage, not voters. Every important social issue was resolved this way throughout our history. People don't get the right to vote on civil rights issues.

  17. Fitz
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    RAJ

    Overcame was making a simple point about the draft age non neccesarily being a good excuse for lowering the voting age. He did this using a hypothetical.'

    To the reasonable mind hi dosent look "unhinged"...rather you look like someone who is intentionally misinterpreting his remarks in a gambit to paint him as someone who wants to draft 5 year olds

    .He dose not & anyone reading his remarks can see that.

  18. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA how can anyone in their right mind not see that the GOP does work against the rights of women, Latinos and gays? Do you think imposing a ban on birth control is doing women a favor? Not to mention opposing the civil rights of gays to marry.

  19. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Futz how are you old Cathiolic geezer? Did you answer my simple questions from yesterday?

  20. Fitz
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Dim (writes)

    " You lost on social issues primarily"

    There is no evidence to suggest this. Marriage outperformed Obama in those states were it was on the ballot. More Obama voters voted for marriage than marriage voters voted for Obama..

    Romeny ran on economics and ignored the social issue's in campaigns and speech's. No resonable person would suggest that this election soemhow came down to social issues.

    Black and Hispanic voters who propelled Obama to victory are much, much more likley to support traditional marriage than whites.

  21. Jacy Topps
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    This blog post is just absurd. I am so tired of hearing crazy phrases like "deep blue state", "narrow margin", or "outspent". Apparently, NOM and its supports have not learned lessons from the brutal lose of the Romney/Ryan ticket.

    The Republican party lost because their head was so far up their behinds that they didn't notice the facts. The facts are a win is still a win even if it was just by a nose. We did put a man on the moon. Obama's win was a mandate and a repudiation of extreme views in this country. And finally NOM lost all four states that it spent money in. Those are the facts. Deal with it.

    Also, if being "outspent" is the argument that you're sticking with, then you are fighting a losing battle my friends. Starbucks, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple are who you're going up against. You will NEVER out spend them no matter how many greasy chicken sandwiches you buy at Chick-Fil-A. FYI, you are helping the marriage equality cause as you're typing on your Macs or surfing the net on your Microsoft laptops brainy acts.

  22. Curious George
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Not to mention opposing the civil right to vote.

    Look at the voter suppression efforts for minorities in PA, OH, FL, AZ - all Republican run states; all tried to limit access to voting or spread mis information about voting in areas that were Latino / African American

  23. Fitz
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Dim (writes)

    "Do you think imposing a ban on birth control is doing women a favor"

    When did the GOP advocate a ban on birthcontrol????

    Fantasy land for old DIm, who thinks I old & Catholic when I'm not...

    Keep grasping at straws..

  24. Curious George
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Not to mention that NOM has declared an outright war on Starbucks - even threatening to get the Jihadists to 'boycott' Starbucks over their corporate stand on equality for all employees - including equal rights to marry.

    BTW - if you need an Arab / English translation - 'Boycott' to a Muslim extremist means 'burn down' and 'murder' - NOM's position is deliberately putting people in harms way....

  25. Curious George
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Fitz,

    Akins lost specifically on social issues.
    Mourdock lost specifically on social issues.
    IA voted to retain Wiggins in a larger majority than they did to elect President Obama.

  26. Curious George
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Latino voters are more likely than the electorate in general to support gay marriage, according to exit polls reported by ABC News

  27. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Dan asks, "how can anyone in their right mind not see that the GOP does work against the rights of women, Latinos and gays? Do you think imposing a ban on birth control is doing women a favor? Not to mention opposing the civil rights of gays to marry."

    Dan, you're spewing the Democratic mischaracterizations that I spoke about.

    The Republican platform doesn't advocate a ban on birth control; that's a baseless Democratic accusation. Republicans do believe that people should pay for their own birth control; why should taxpayers pay for people's decision to engage in risky sexual behavior?

    What does the Republican platform say about Latinos? Nada. Another Democrat myth conjured up to make Republicans look evil. Republicans want to enforce our existing immigration laws, which means that if you want to come to the US, you have to get in line; and when you come here against the law, you have to go back. that's just the law, and it applies equally to immigrants from Mexico and France. Are Republican anti-French, too?

    As far as gays go, Republicans believe that gays are free to do what they want; they are already entitled to get married. They also believe that marriage is an institution for men and women, designed to assure that kids have a mom and a dad and to assure that moms and dads take responsibility for the children that they create. No animus, no bigotry; just responsible procreation and protection of children. Democrats like to paint them as bigots and haters; all lies.

    Same deal with abortion. Dems paint Repubs as against women's rights; whereas Repubs believe that a woman should not have the right to kill an unborn child. Isn't it outrageous to give women the right to kill?

    Your drinking your party's Kool-Aid, meanwhile, the true oppression comes from the Democrats who keep the minority classes down, including single women, through dependency on government entitlements, vilification of successful people, and failed economic policies. A large percentage of Democrats are merely happy slaves, voting for the benevolent massa.

  28. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    Oh, goody, another long post lost in NOM land. This blog sucks so badly. Outa here.

    NOM - If you're going to let the contrarians post here, you have to let your advocates' posts through.

  29. Layne
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Great comment, Jacy! Couldn't agree more!

  30. james Macpherson
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Bottom Line. If Gay Marriage is "inevitable" then why are all these Gay Agendist posters here? Isn't it time to watch THE NEW NORMAL for the 40th time ?

    If something is "inevitable" then it is coming no matter what and yet the GA cadres practically live on these post boards??

    Perhaps "inevitable" is not so inevitable after all?

    Hmmm?

  31. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    Don't give up, Overcame. The gay trolls, while mildly entertaining, do need to be limited in the length and frequency of their comments.

  32. David in Houston
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    Didn't Brian Brown say that Obama had lost the election the moment he came out in support of marriage equality? Gee... I wonder what happened?

    Secondly, the side that spends the most money doesn't automatically win. Romney spent millions of dollars more than Obama and still lost. Just because the marriage equality side had more money to spend doesn't FORCE people to vote against their conscience. This is a matter of fairness, and being treated equally under the law.

  33. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    RAJ, you are correct. It does make OvercameSSA appear unhinged.

  34. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    David in Houston, right on the (pardon the pun) money. And was NOM stretched too thin? Poor babies. Maybe they shouldn't have tried to deny rights in so many states.

  35. Son of Adam
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:29 am | Permalink

    "Just because the marriage equality side had more money to spend doesn't FORCE people to vote against their conscience. This is a matter of fairness, and being treated equally under the law."

    Then why hasn't marriage been redefined for fundamentalist mormons to include bigamy and polygamy? It is because that group isn't wealthy and influential enough to pass off their wants and desires as "rights."

    That's the way it's been for thousands of years - the most wealthy and influential usually get their way.

    And Obama won even though he was outspent by Romney in some areas because Obama still had the mainstream media on his side.

  36. Son of Adam
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:47 am | Permalink

    Keep in mind that Obama was an incumbent president and he had the mainstream media on his side. Those are advantages that are difficult to overcome, money or no.

  37. Son of Adam
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:49 am | Permalink

    And why hasn't marriage been redefined for fundamentalist mormons to include bigamy and polygamy? It is because that group lacks the money and influence to pass off their wants and desires as "rights." The most wealthy and influential usually gets their way - that's they way it's been for thousands of years.

  38. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam, Riiiiiiiiiight. An incumbent President with the highest rate of unemployment since FDR. With some who are convinced he is a Muslim / foreign born / alien. And the mainstream media? PUH LEASE. If you think the mainstream media is biased, just watch the mis-truths on FOX news, that should make you feel better. Oh, and I guess the election couldn't be purchased: Per analysis, Romney spent $6.35 per vote with 88% of it as attacks against Obama. Obama spent $1.83 per vote with 78% of it as attacks against Romney.

  39. Son of Adam
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    My point still stands, Markoh - biased partisan analysis aside. Obama won by slimmer majorities than last time. That much is an indicator of which party the next president will belong to.

  40. Curious George
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Hmmm - very interesting....

    "But the backing Mr. Obama received from gay voters also has a claim on having been decisive. Mitt Romney and Mr. Obama won roughly an equal number of votes among straight voters nationwide, exit polls showed. And, a new study argues, Mr. Romney appears to have won a narrow victory among straight voters in the swing states of Ohio and Florida. Mr. Obama’s more than three-to-one edge in exit polls among the 5 percent of voters who identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual was more than enough to give him the ultimate advantage, "

  41. Ash
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    James Macpherson in post #30, you read my mind!!!!

    SSM is "inevitable." NOM is done, toast, irrelevant because of the votes last week.

    BUT...SSMers are still here. For some reason, they feel the need to hang around the NOM Blog.

    Like you said: "hmmmm" :D

  42. Forrest
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    80% of the states in this country do not allow for or recognize gay marriage. Only in the deluded mind of a ssm supporter does a 4-1 margin against their side make them believe ssm is "inevitable." Lol

  43. Zack
    Posted November 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    @Curious George

    "Mr. Obama’s more than three-to-one edge in exit polls among the 5 percent of voters who identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual was more than enough to give him the ultimate advantage,"

    I find that unlikely since the bulk of homosexuals live in states like California or Massachusetts. 3 million less republicans voted in this election than in 2008 with an additional 1 million people voting third party. If I had to guess, I'd say it was these numbers that gave Obama his victory.

  44. Zack
    Posted November 18, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    @MarkOH

    "Oh, and I guess the election couldn't be purchased: Per analysis, Romney spent $6.35 per vote with 88% of it as attacks against Obama. Obama spent $1.83 per vote with 78% of it as attacks against Romney."

    I don't know where you got that information from, but Obama has spent over a billion dollars defacing Romney. This election was bought alright.

  45. DR
    Posted November 19, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    Let alone, not only does SSM pay lots into the campaign of states to push their view, I'm sorry, they stole and vandalized. This issue is strong-armed on the public.