NOM BLOG

Haley Barbour, potential 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate, Comes out Swinging for Marriage!

 

Haley Barbour included a special shout-out to marriage in his recent “State of the State” address:

“I’m proud that Mississippi cast the highest percentage of its vote of any state in the country for the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

You can read his entire speech here and watch it on Youtube here.

18 Comments

  1. Raynd
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    Go Haley Barbour!

  2. ConservativeNY
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Good for him!

  3. Alicia
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Another bigot on the wrong side of history... He'll end up looking just as foolish as John McCain... Oh well. Some people never learn, apparently.

  4. Don
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    Alicia:

    You're confused. Caucasian homosexuals are the bigots.

    "Racism within the Castro is nothing new, many report. "In the Castro, which is supposed to be the mecca of the gay community, there's no place for Black people," stated Swazzi Sowo, a former board member of San Francisco Pride. "The racism is so prevalent in the white gay community. In one particular store, a manager I know doesn't work there anymore, because people would come in and say, 'Look, there's a n***** working there." Sowo said that on three different occasions, she has been called racial epithets on the street. "It's like the '50s in Mississippi."

    http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=1812

  5. Alicia
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    Right. Like in that NOM's add "I'm confused..." ROTFL!!!

  6. Don
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    Alicia:

    Right. You are confused. It is caucasian homosexuals who are the bigots.

    "Jamez Smith, a gay black man, says racism is alive in the Twin Cities' gay community"

    "He accuses local gay bars of singling him out for harassment because of his race"

    "By Bradley Campbell Wednesday, Mar 18 2009"

    "In San Francisco, he had felt the sting of racism at a gay bar just blocks away from the spot where Harvey Milk gave a speech for equal rights."

    "In another Bay Area incident, a gay co-worker told him to fly back to Africa."

    "Smith has a hard time understanding how any gay man can be racist. "They know what oppression feels like. How could they turn around and be this way?" he says. "It's white privilege."

    "And to make matters worse, the majority of the racism, sexism, classism, and straight-up cultural insensitivity I've encountered since moving here has come from the gay community."

    http://www.citypages.com/2009-03-18/news/jamez-smith-a-gay-black-man-says-racism-is-alive-in-the-twin-cities-gay-community/

  7. Kyle
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 5:06 am | Permalink

    I think same-sex marriage is a good idea, so that the children being raised by same-sex couples will have more security.

  8. Posted January 13, 2011 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    Here are some comments from another blog .

    RC Dean

    I gots no problem with state legislators enacting expanding marriage to include gay marriage.

    I am not so sure that the Constitution requires the wholesale amendment of marriage laws, though.

    From my perspective, it gets to what "marriage" means. If it means "a lifelong partnership of two people (by implication, regardless of gender)", then gay marriage bans do violate the Equal Protection Clause.

    If it means "a lifelong partnership of a man and a woman", then gay marriage bans don't violate the Equal Protection Clause.

    Now, the question is, who says what "marriage" means for purposes if this discussion? In the first instance, the legislature does (which is why they can (re)define it if they want). If the legislature opts for the traditional definition, is that a violation of Equal Protection?

    I'm having a hard time saying yes, simply because I don't think the definition of "two persons (regardless of gender)" is what marriage has been understood to mean, ever. What is being asked for is a redefinition of marriage, which is the business of the legislature. Unlike legislatures, the courts are not in the business of changing the accepted definitions of terms.

    The counterargument, of course, is that society as a whole sets the meaning of "marriage". Which is a way of begging the question, in my mind, of which institution is better situated to reflect a societal redefinition - an unelected and tenured judiciary, or an elected legislature.

    MNG

    It's just a question of what is central to marriage, the gender or the number. I can see rational answers all around...

    Emphases mine

  9. Edith
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    "What is being asked for is a redefinition of marriage, which is the business of the legislature. Unlike legislatures, the courts are not in the business of changing the accepted definitions of terms."
    --
    The courts have a long history of changing definition of terms (re-defining the meaning of where one could go to get an education) see Brown v. Board of Education. At one time women could not practice law, until the meaning who could "practice law" was re-defined to be more inclusive. And the meaning of the process of voting was re-defined to include women. Gender marriage roles were re-defined in marriage when women were not required to be only housewives and surrender property to their husband owners (coverture).
    --
    Things change, sky doesn't fall and folks who don't like it, learn to deal..

  10. Andrew
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    "I’m proud that Mississippi cast the highest percentage of its vote of any state in the country for the Defense of Marriage Act". Would that be the same Mississppi with one of the country's highest divorce and -out-of-wedlock birthrates, in contrast to the 'liberal' North East states (like MA, CT, RI, NY, PA) that have the lowest rates? The smug hypocrisy of these anti-gay fossils never ceases to astound!

  11. Raynd
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    Liberal/LGBT tactics 101:

    Whenever you lack arguments....attack.

    You guys are so predictable.

  12. Richard Cortijo
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    You are jusst upset that Andrew is right and you look unsmart is all. Typical tactic of the Right, when proven wrong ....wine. So predictable..

  13. Posted January 13, 2011 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Actually.... I don't drink.

  14. Richard Cortijo
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    ..*whine (real mature beetle).

  15. Posted January 13, 2011 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    haha. Had to do it. You have to admit, leaving that one out there just asked for comment.

  16. Anna
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    @Michael Ejercito

    *It's just a question of what is central to marriage, the gender or the number. I can see rational answers all around...*

    I agree with you that the central question is the gender or the number.
    But this commenter doesn't seem to realize that the rationale behind the number is the gender of the people.
    So if gender isn't important there is no longer any logic for the number.

  17. Posted January 13, 2011 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    At one time women could not practice law, until the meaning who could "practice law" was re-defined to be more inclusive. And the meaning of the process of voting was re-defined to include women. Gender marriage roles were re-defined in marriage when women were not required to be only housewives and surrender property to their husband owners (coverture)

    And those redefinitions were achieved through legislation, not litigation.

  18. Anna
    Posted January 13, 2011 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    "And those redefinitions were achieved through legislation, not litigation"

    Michael Ejercito, you concede to Edith that they were, in fact, redefinitions. :-)

    I would ask how the definition of *practicing law* or *voting* or *marriage* are now different due to those changes. They are not.