I’ve got to give it to my PRESIDENT. There’s no end to his END game. For anyone thinking that this whole same-sex brouha ha hasn’t been a calculated, well-planned strategy for President Obama to make his announcement today, well, THINK AGAIN!
History is being made today.
The President’s announcement on marriage will be dominating the news today, but as you’re writing about it we wanted to make sure you didn’t miss Mitt Romney’s statements too.
Romney came out AGAINST Civil Unions, putting him to the right of George W. Bush, and Romney supports a federal marriage amendment, which would roll back rights for committed gay and lesbian couples and invalidate state laws legalizing SSM. And it would be the first time in history that the constitution has been amended to discriminate and deny rights. Additionally, he’s funded hateful groups like NOM that have engaged in fear-mongering on this issue.
Key Points on Federal Marriage Amendment:
- A federal “Protect Marriage Amendment” would roll back rights for committed gay and lesbian couples and limit American freedoms.
- A federal “Protect Marriage Amendment” could prohibit committed gay and lesbian couples from marrying, and prevent courts from guaranteeing same-sex couples the same rights as other Americans.
- State laws allowing gay marriage would be invalidated. All states could be required to discriminate against committed same-sex couples, taking this decision away from the states and making it a matter of federal constitutional law.
If enacted, this would be the first time the Constitution was amended to discriminate and deny rights.
- Our Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, and the amendment process has been used throughout history to expand America freedom. Constitutional amendments have eliminated slavery; given women, racial minorities, and eighteen year olds the right to vote; and guaranteed our rights to free expression, a fair trial, and the free exercise of religion.
- America has not used its constitutional amendment process to limit freedom or require discrimination. Indeed, the history of amendments to our Constitution displays a steady march of progress.
ROMNEY REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS “ONE OF THE NATION’S LEADING ADVOCATES OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE”
Romney: “I Stood Up To Fight Same Sex Marriage. I Was One Of The Nation’s Leading Advocates Of Traditional Marriage.”[KVRR (Fargo, ND), 3/1/12]
ROMNEY HAS OPPOSED CIVIL UNIONS SINCE “DAY ONE”…
2012: Romney Senior Adviser Eric Fehrnstrom: Romney “Has Not Been In Favor Of Civil Unions, If By Civil Unions You Mean The Equivalency To Marriage But Without The Name Marriage.” “‘[H]e has not been in favor of civil unions, if by civil unions you mean the equivalency to marriage but without the name marriage,’ Fehrnstrom said. ‘What he has favored, and he talked about this, I believe, last night, was a form of domestic partnership or a contractual relationship with reciprocal benefits.’” [Huffington Post, 1/8/12]
2007: Romney: “I Opposed Then, And I Do Now, Gay Marriage And Civil Union” And “I Am Proud Of The Fact That I And My Team Did Everything Within Our Power And Within The Law To Stand Up For Traditional Marriage.” “During his dinner speech at the National Review Institute’s Conservative Summit, the former governor said he was a strong opponent of a November 2003 state supreme court decision making Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage. ‘I opposed then, and I do now, gay marriage and civil union,’ he said. ‘I am proud of the fact that I and my team did everything within our power and within the law to stand up for traditional marriage.’” [Associated Press, 1/28/07]
2005: Romney Said He Has Been Against Gay Marriage And Civil Unions Since “Day One.”“In February, Romney told a South Carolina Republican audience that ‘from day one, I’ve opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions.’ But gay rights groups, including a leading GOP organization, accused Romney of flip-flopping, saying he had supported some benefits for gay couples in his 2002 campaign.”[Boston Globe, 6/17/05]
2002: Romney Opposed Civil Unions Saying “For All Intents And Purposes” Civil Unions And Gay Marriage “Are The Same.” In an interview with Bay Windows, Romney was asked, “To you, what is the difference between civil unions between same-sex couples and gay marriage?” He responded, “Very little, if any. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.” He was then asked, “Do you support civil unions?” and responded, “No, because I believe it’s virtually identical to marriage.” [Bay Windows interview, 1/1/02]
…AND WOULD ALLOW STATES TO DENY BENEFITS TO GAY COUPLES IN DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS INCLUDING HOSPITAL VISITS
Romney Would Leave “Each State Can Decide The Benefits Associated With People Who Live In Domestic Partnerships.”Romney: “My preference again would be to have a national standard, with one standard for the nation. Now that doesn’t mean that same sex couples can’t enter into domestic partnerships, and the benefits associated with domestic partnerships could be, developed from, by enterprise, by the state, by the federal government. So one could say for instance that in Iowa, a same sex couple can come together, can adopt a child. And they can have hospital visitation rights and so forth. I mean you could decide what benefits, each state can decide the benefits associated with people who live in domestic partnerships. But I believe the term marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview, here.
Romney: “So One Could Say For Instance That In Iowa, A Same Sex Couple Can Come Together, Can Adopt A child. And They Can Have Hospital Visitation Rights And So Forth. I Mean You Could Decide What Benefits, Each State Can Decide The Benefits Associated With People Who Live In Domestic Partnerships.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview here.
- GEORGE W. BUSH CAME OUT IN FAVOR OF CIVIL UNIONS
George W. Bush: “I Don’t Think We Should Deny People Rights To A Civil Union, A Legal Arrangement, If That’s What A State Chooses To Do So.”PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: “Well, I, I,I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.”CHARLES GIBSON: “The Republican platform opposes it.” PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: “Well, I don’t. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman. Look, if you’re, if you’re interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so, that’s through the constitutional process. This is too important a decision to have a handful of judges making on behalf of the American people.” [ABC News, World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, 10/25/04]
ROMNEY SURROGATES HAVE STATED THEIR SUPPORT FOR CIVIL UNIONS
Chris Christie: “I Have Been Just As Adamant That Same-Sex Couples In A Civil Union Deserve The Very Same Rights And Benefits Enjoyed By Married Couples—As Well As The Strict Enforcement Of Those Rights And Benefits.” “Renewing his push for gay marriage to go to New Jersey voters in a referendum in November’s general election, Christie said an ombudsman should be appointed to ensure the state’s civil union law is being followed. ‘I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits,’ Christie said.” [The Star-Ledger, 2/18/12]
Jon Huntsman: “I Think Civil Unions Are Fair. I Think There’s Such A Thing As Equality Under The Law.” “Personally, I think civil unions are fair. I support them. I think there’s such a thing as equality under the law. I’m a married man. I’ve been married for 28 years. I have seven kids. […] And I don’t feel that my relationship is at all threatened by civil unions. On marriage, I’m a traditionalist. I think that ought to be saved for one man and one woman, but I believe that civil unions are fair. And I think it brings a level of dignity to relationships. And I believe in reciprocal beneficiary rights. I think they should be part of civil unions, as well. And states ought to be able to talk about this. I think it’s very — I think it’s absolutely appropriate.” [ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR Republican Primary Debate,1/7/12]
REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE ENDORSED CIVIL UNIONS
Mark Kirk: “I Support Civil Unions.” At a debate in 2010 Kirk said, “I oppose gay marriage, and– I support civil unions. But I also don’t think we should have a federal takeover of all marriage law in the United States. I think the federal government is already trying to take over too much.” [Illinois Senate Debate,10/19/10]
Scott Brown: The Characterization Of Me As “Gay-Hating” Is “Mean Spirited And Certainly A Misrepresentation,” Since “I Have The Same Position As Barack Obama” In Supporting Civil Unions. “He has been the bête noire of gay rights activists since 2001, when he said it was `not normal’ for Jacques and her partner to have children, and referred to Jacques’s role in the relationship as `alleged family responsibilities.’ Brown quickly apologized and said he chose his words poorly. Activists have neither forgotten nor forgiven. `Scott Brown has demonstrated a persistent antagonism toward equality’ for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community, said Scott Gortikov, executive director of MassEquality, an advocacy group. `He’s not someone who even likes or tolerates gay people or their families.’ Brown responded that `it was never about hating or disliking any particular group because of their sexual orientation. `When I read the headlines in Bay Windows or any other groups – you know, `gay-hating Scott Brown’ – it’s mean-spirited and certainly a misrepresentation,’ he said, `especially when I have the same position as Barack Obama,” who, like Brown, favors civil unions.” [Boston Globe, 11/20/09]
ROMNEY VOWED TO “FIGHT FOR A FEDERAL AMENDMENT DEFINING MARRIAGE AS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN”
Romney: “When I Am President, I Will Preserve The Defense Of Marriage Act And I Will Fight For A Federal Amendment Defining Marriage As A Relationship Between One Man And One Woman.” [Romney Prepared Remarks, Conservative Political Action Conference, 2/10/12]
Romney: “We Should Have A Constitutional Amendment That Defines Marriage As A Relationship Between A Man And A Woman.”“‘My view is that we should defend the Defense Of Marriage Act and that we should have a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman,’ he said, before adding: ‘This path is one that as you watch it, we become more and more of a secular nation.’” [New York Times,1/16/12; Romney, South Carolina Faith & Freedom Coalition.
Romney Said He Supported A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Same-Sex Marriage Rather Than Leaving It Up To The States.At the New Hampshire primary debate John King asked, “Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney who, like I believe, the congresswoman just said, this should be made — this decision, same sex marriage, should be a state’s decision?” … KING: “Governor Romney, constitutional amendment or state decision?” ROMNEY, “Constitutional.” [New Hampshire Debate,6/13/11]
Romney Vowed To “Champion A Federal Marriage Amendment.” Romney, at “Values Voters” conference: “As president. I will work with the people in this room, as I have for the past four years, to champion a federal marriage amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/21/07]
THE FEDERAL “PROTECT MARRIAGE AMENDMENT WOULD ROLL BACK RIGHTS FOR LGBT INDIVIDUALS AND USE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR THE FIRST TIME.
The Federal Protect Marriage Amendment Would Define Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman And Could Prevent Courts From Providing Marriage-Like Benefits. Under the proposed amendment, the Constitution would be amended to say: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” [H. J. RES. 88, introduced June 6, 2006]
- “Barack Obama Voted Against The Federal Marriage Amendment In 2006 Which Would Have Defined Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman And Prevented Judicial Extension Of Marriage-Like Rights To Same-Sex Or Other Unmarried Couples.” [Change.gov,accessed 05/09/2012]
Mary Cheney Said A Federal Marriage Amendment “Is Writing Discrimination Into The Constitution.”Mary Cheney: “I think that is what the federal marriage amendment is. It is writing discrimination into the constitution… Well, I certainly don’t know what conversations have gone on between Karl and anybody up on the Hill. But you know, what I can say is look, amending the constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong. Now, I would certainly hope that, you know, and understand, this is an issue that Americans do disagree on and that we do need to debate and discuss. And I would certainly hope that those discussions would continue. And I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy, that people wouldn’t try and use amending the constitution to further their own political goals.” [Fox New Sunday, Fox, 5/14/06]
2008: ROMNEY SENT FUNDS TO THE ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE GROUP, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MARRIAGE
Headline: “Mitt Romney Fuels NOM’s Divisive Racial Tactics” [LGBT Weekly,3/31/12]
Headline: “Mitt Romney Secretly Supported Anti-Gay-Marriage Group”[Daily Beast,3/30/12]
Headline: “Mitt Romney’s PAC Funded Anti-Gay Marriage Group Under The Radar” [Huffington Post,3/30/12]
2008: Romney’s Free And Strong America PAC Contributed $10,000 To National Organization Of Marriage “At A Time When The Anti-Gay Rights Organization Was Seeking Repeal Of A California Law Legalizing Marriage Equality.” “In 2008, Mitt Romney’s political action committee made a $10,000 donation to the National Organization of Marriage at a time when the anti-gay rights organization was seeking repeal of a California law legalizing marriage equality. … But when Romney eventually made his donation, he did so quietly, and through an unusual channel. Records filed by Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC with the Federal Election Commission did not include details of that $10,000 donation. Nor did NOM’s public 990 form. In fact, record of the payment was only uncovered Friday when the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign was sent a private IRS filing from NOM via a whistleblower. The Human Rights Campaign shared the filing with The Huffington Post.” [Huffington Post,3/30/12]
- 2008: Free and Strong America Contributed $10,000 To National Organization For Marriage, Inc. [National Organization for Marriage, Inc. Form 990, Schedule of Contributors, 2008]
- 2008: Romney Spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom: Romney Donated $10,000 To The National Organization For Marriage And “Feels Strongly That Marriage Is An Institution Between A Man And A Woman.” “Romney, a former Massachusetts governor claimed by Utahns as a favorite son candidate before he dropped out of this year’s presidential race, appears to be positioning himself for another run for the White House. … The former leader of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City also has contributed more than $375,000 from his Free and Strong America political action committee to a variety of conservative candidates and causes.Those causes include California’s Proposition 8, which would reverse that state’s Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage there earlier this year. Romney donated $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage, [Romney spokesman Eric] Fehrnstrom said. ‘The governor feels strongly that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, and one of the most high-profile fights on this subject is happening in California,’ Fehrnstrom said.” [Deseret News,10/28/08]
- Romney Campaign On Romney’s Contribution To NOM Through Free And Strong America: “Romney Believes Marriage Is An Institution Between A Man And A Woman And His PAC Made A Donation To A Group Supporting That View.” “Free & Strong America PAC Alabama, one of a network of state-level PACs that has raised and disbursed money on Romney’s behalf, gave the donation in 2008 to the National Organization for Marriage, which at the time was working to pass Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage in California, disclosure records show. … The Romney campaign says the donation to NOM is hardly surprising given the candidate’s opposition to same-sex marriage and his avowed support for Proposition 8, which was approve by California voters. ‘Gov. Romney believes marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and his PAC made a donation to a group supporting that view,’ campaign spokesman Andrea Saul said Friday.” [Washington Post, 3/30/12]
2008: ROMNEY DONATED $10,000 TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE TO HELP IN THEIR EFFORTS TO PASS CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 8 INCLUDING A NUMBER OF ADS
Romney Donated $10,000 To The National Organization For Marriage To Help In Their Efforts To Pass California’s Proposition 8 Including A Number Of Ads.“In 2008 presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney donated $10,000 through his PAC to the National Organization for Marriage to help in their efforts to pass California’s Proposition 8, which reversed the state court’s decision to legalize gay marriage. Here are three ads Romney helped pay for.” [BuzzFeed 3/8/12]
- Yes On California Proposition 8 Ad: Warned That Children Would Be Taught They Could Marry Someone Of Their Own Sex In Schools.“Yes on 8 TV Ad: Its Already Happened”: Daughter: “Mom, guess what I learned in school today?” Mom: “What sweetie?” “Daughter: “I learned how prince married a prince and I can marry a princess.” Professor Richard Peterson, Pepperdine University School of Law: “Think it can’t happen? It’s already happened. When Massachusetts legalized gay marriage schools began teaching second graders that boys can marry boys. The courts ruled parents had no right to object.” Voice: “Under California Law public schools instruct kids on marriage. Teaching children about gay marriage will happen here unless we pass proposition 8. Yes on 8.” [NationForMarriage.org, 2/4/09; BuzzFeed 3/8/12]
- Yes On California Proposition 8 Ad: “Gay Marriage Will Be Taught In Our Schools Unless We Vote Yes On Proposition 8.”Transcript for “Everything To Do With Schools” ad: Voiceover: “Some say that gay marriage doesn’t have anything to do with schools.” Woman: “But it has everything to do with schools.” Robin Wirthlin: “After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, our son came home and told us the school taught him that boys can marry other boys. He’s in second grade.” Robb Wirthlin: “We tried to stop public schools from teaching children about gay marriage but the courts said we had no right to object or pull him out of class.” Woman: “It’s already happened in Massachusetts. Gay marriage will be taught in our schools unless we vote yes on Proposition 8.” [NationForMarriage.org ,2/4/09]
- Proponents Of Proposition 8 Claimed Gay Marriage Would Be Taught In Schools – Though “The Opposing Side Insists That This Is Fear-Mongering,” “The Yes On 8 Campaign Has Made It The Center Of Its Television Advertising Campaign.” “Supporters of the constitutional amendment, under which marriage would be defined as only between a man and a woman, contend that if Proposition 8 does not pass, gay marriage will be taught in public schools. ‘We are already seeing that happen,’ said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Yes on 8. The opposing side insists that this is fear-mongering and notes that there is no mention of schools or curriculum in the language of the proposition… Still, recognizing how politically potent the issue is, the Yes on 8 campaign has made it the center of its television advertising campaign. ‘Mom, guess what I learned in school today?’ a little girl says in one spot. ‘I learned how a prince married a prince.’ As the girl’s mother makes a horrified face, a voice says: ‘Think it can’t happen? It’s already happened. . . . Teaching about gay marriage will happen unless we pass Proposition 8.’” [LA Times, 10/19/08]
- Think Progress: National Organization For Marriage’s “It’s Already Happened” Ad That Ran During The Proposition 8 Campaign Is “The Most Infamous Example” Of NOM’s “Overt Accusations That Homosexuals Recruit And Molest Kids To The More Recent And More Subtle Threat That Young People Might Actually Be ‘Taught Homosexuality’ In Schools.”“It’s no secret that anti-gay groups have primarily targeted children in their campaigns, whether through overt accusations that homosexuals recruit and molest kids to the more recent and more subtle threat that young people might actually be ‘taught homosexuality’ in schools. The intended audience for all of these messages is parents, as the National Organization for Marriage confirms in their 2009 confidential strategy memos released today… This tactic can clearly be seen in NOM’s many ads, produced by its go-to media company, Schubert Flint Public Affairs — a partnership the organization flaunts to donors throughout the documents. Perhaps the most infamous example (of which there have been many variations in other states) was the ‘It’s Already Happened’ ad that ran during the Proposition 8 campaign… The obvious anti-gay animus behind this ‘parental rights’ strategy confirms that NOM’s opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with actually protecting children. In fact, allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt is good for children, because it allows more of them to find homes and ensures that their families are protected and secure.” [Think Progress, 3/27/12]
- October 2008: Lawyers Opposing Prop. 8 Sent A Letter That “Urged Television Stations Not To Run The Ad Featuring The Young Girl And Her Mother, Saying It Was False And Misleading To Say That ‘Teaching Children About Gay Marriage Will Happen Here Unless We Pass Proposition 8.’”“‘People watch TV,’ said Chip White, a spokesman for the Prop. 8 campaign. ‘The ads are doing a good job of dramatizing the threat. It lets people know there are real consequences to not passing Prop. 8.’ How real those consequences are depends on who’s being asked. ‘We’re concerned when people spend millions of dollars to lie to Californians,’ said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California and a leader in the anti-Prop. 8 fight. ‘These charges are lies, and the other campaign knows it.’ Kors and others argue that same-sex marriage will have no effect on churches, schools or opponents of such unions. Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, and churches there still have tax exemptions and people still complain about it without being forced into court. A letter sent out this week by lawyers for the Prop. 8 opposition urged television stations not to run the ad featuring the young girl and her mother, saying it was false and misleading to say that ‘teaching children about gay marriage will happen here unless we pass Proposition 8.’” [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/11/08]
So Mitt Romney, WHERE DO YOU STAND ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AGAIN? TODAY?
It’s a Democracy, Not a Theocracy: How The Black Church Gets it Wrong
Let me put a clear disclaimer before I launch into the deep with this blog post:
The institutional Black Church as we know it, something that is a proper noun, has entered it’s final stages of life. The metonymical phrase “the Black Church” is rather black churches that have a different socio-economic and political outlook on their American lifestyle and their theology is framed around that. This is not to say that the theology of black church-goers throughout the last two centuries or so have not been shaped by sociology, economics and politics in the past, it’s just that that trifecta has seen a major shift in the last half-century that indeed, the theology has now caught up with it.
I said all that to say that when Rev. Dr. Jamal-Harrison Bryant got on CNN and decided to speak about “the Black Church” and its response to President Barack Obama personally affirming same-sex marriages, he unfortunately and egregiously missed that nuance.
RAW VIDEO: Rev. Lowery on gay marriage
Is the black church guilty of spiritual hypocrisy in same-sex marriage debate?
By John Blake, CNN
CNN) – Some people wonder if the black church will punish President Barack Obama for announcing support for same-sex marriage.
Here’s another question:
Why would the black church cite scripture to exclude gays when a similar approach to the Bible was used to enslave their ancestors?
“It’s so unfortunate,” says James Cone, one the nation’s most influential black theologians and author of “The Cross and the Lynching Tree.”
“The literal approach to scripture was used to enslave black people,” he says. “I’ve said many times in black churches that the black church is on the wrong side of history on this. It’s so sad because they were on the right side of history in their own struggle.”
Call it historical irony: Black church leaders arguing against same-sex marriage are making some of the same arguments that supporters of slavery made in the 18th and 19th centuries, some historians say. Both groups adopted a literal reading of the Bible to justify withholding basic rights from a particular group.
Opposition to gay rights is not the standard position of all black churches. Still, while several predominately white mainline denominations have officially accepted gays and lesbians in various forms, the vast majority of black churches still consider homosexuality a sin.
Black church leaders recently helped lead a successful drive to amend North Carolina’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The Rev. Fred Robinson, a black pastor in Charlotte, says most black churchgoers aren’t hypocrites. They take scripture, and sin, seriously.
I would encourage any and all commenters to continue expressing their views on 3 Chics regarding this topic. There is no reason to ever allow the GOP to use any topic to block us from verbalizing our differences in regards to President Obama or any other topic that affects ALL our RIGHTS as American citizens.
Gay Celebration of Obama Revelation
By Lauren Michelle Kinsey On May 10, 2012
Republicans are now campaigning on marriage equality and LGBT rights – campaigning on taking them away:
· While Republicans are cautious about campaigning on marriage equality, Romney’s campaign said that they would make writing discrimination into the constitution a significant campaign issue: GOP leaders on gay marriage: Sound of silence: http://bit.ly/JjpSSf
· And the Boston Globe reports on how Romney has devolved on gay rights and cast his lot with the extreme right-wing in advocating for writing discrimination into the constitution:http://b.globe.com/KVFxRQ
It’s Not About Black Folks
Fri May 11th, 2012 at 11:12:29 AM EST
There is something that every analysis piece of the president’s decision to embrace gay marriage has missed. They all wonder whether his decision will dampen enthusiasm among black voters, but they don’t ask why black voters support Democrats at better than a 90% clip. There are many reasons for this, but the most important one is that Republicans send a clear and sustained message that they do not like black people. They characterize them with negative stereotypes on a constant basis. They feed the feeling of white resentment by continuously suggesting that government programs for the poor are just handouts that white people give to undeserving black people. And, in this cycle, they’ve gone so far as to pass bills all across the country that are ostensibly about voter fraud but which are in effect nothing less than Jim Crow-lite voter disenfranchisement laws.
In the black community, there is a very large church-going community. And many of those churches are very traditional and quite conservative on social issues, including sexual orientation. These voters do not support gay marriage. But they’d like to remain voters. They’re not going to show up to vote for a party that is doing everything it can to keep them from the polls. They aren’t going to vote for a party that demonizes them and their children for political profit.
It will be hard to replicate the excitement Obama’s first run for the presidency created in the black community, but that’s a separate question, isn’t it? Black folks play the role of Lex Luther every day on Fox News. Do these analysts think that they don’t notice this? But we don’t see analysis about how hyping the practically non-existent New Black Panther Party or the constant ridicule of black culture on Fox News is going to harm the Republican nominee. How do black folks feel about the fact that the Mormon Church banned black people until the 1970’s? How do black folks feel about Mitt Romney saying he is not concerned about poor people? How do they feel about the Republicans’ budget priorities than slash support for food security and medical treatment and add billions to the military?
The real story isn’t even in the black community because they long ago figured out that the Republicans dislike them. What’s happening now is that Latinos are coming to the same conclusion. There are plenty of very socially conservative Latinos. Many of them are anti-choice. Many of them are very protective of their daughters and embrace very traditional ideas about gender roles. There’s a reason that George W. Bush won over 40% of the Latino vote. And there’s a reason that John McCain, despite trying to advance an immigration reform bill, only won 33% of their votes. There’s a reason that Mitt Romney is polling well below McCain. When you make it clear as a party that you don’t like a segment of the population, that segment of the population doesn’t like you back.
Next on the list is women who use contraception. You make it clear that you don’t like them, and you can go tubing down the gender gap.
Nevertheless, the president did make matters harder for himself in swing states by coming out for marriage equality. But that’s because marriage equality still polls poorly in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. He certainly didn’t improve his prospects in those states by taking his new position. That it did it anyway showed courage. But it also probably shows that they don’t think it will cost him the election.
What people should be focusing on is not how black folks feel about marriage equality but how Republicans are alienating huge constituencies of people with their intolerance and radicalism.
THIS: “What people should be focusing on is not how black folks feel about marriage equality but how Republicans are alienating huge constituencies of people with their intolerance and radicalism.”
Those MOFOS are siotting back laughing at everyone who is tired up in knots about a matter that is of no concern to anyone but the folks who make their own life choices, just like we all do.
The President Dares To Defy Franklin Graham
May 11, 2012 9:02 AM
By Ed Kilgore
We still don’t know for sure who if anyone is responsible for shoving 93-year-old Billy Graham back into the harness of right-wing politics after so many years of devoting himself to loftier causes, in order to marginally boost the numbers for North Carolina’s Amendment One. But this statement from his son in response to the president’s announcement of support for same-sex marriage is certainly a pretty big hint:
On Tuesday my state of North Carolina became the 31st state to approve a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. While the move to pass amendments defining marriage is relatively new, the definition of marriage is 8,000 years old and was defined not by man, but by God Himself.
In changing his position from that of Senator/candidate Obama, President Obama has, in my view, shaken his fist at the same God who created and defined marriage. It grieves me that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more.
The institution of marriage should not be defined by presidents or polls, governors or the media. The definition was set long ago and changing legislation or policy will never change God’s definition. This is a sad day for America. May God help us.”
A swift response to Franklin Graham from a fellow North Carolina minister, the Rev. Murdoch Smith, pastor of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church in Charlotte, said it all for me: “I am always suspect when someone says that they know the mind of God.”
I understand that many sincere Christians fundamentalists believe they are submitting themselves to God and subordinating their own egos and their own self-interest by simply following in their lives what they understand to be infallible divine revelation of the Bible. Many of them, indeed, are so humble it would not occur to them to impose their views on other people, much less force them to live as they do.
I think this is a good video that shows how blacks were not allowed to get married legally.
They had to jump the broom.
Hello, 3 Chics!
I went to bed with a heavy heart last night over President Obama’s decision to support same sex marriage. I love President Obama and my past actions & support speak for itself. But I’m very discouraged about President Obama’s latest announcement. He has stated before he didn’t support SSM because of his faith. What happened to his faith? I don’t agree with this at all and it has shook me to the core. I am one of President Obama’s most passionate & positive supporters but this is the deal breaker for me. I don’t do all things right and have my shortcomings but I try to live up to my Christian values. I fail sometimes and when I do I ask for forgiveness otherwise my conscience would bother me until I get it right.
As much as I love President Obama, I cannot and will not support him over God. My heart is broken into a million pieces as I come to part ways with 3ChicsPolitico. I may tease and play around on the board but I am very serious when it comes to my faith. My faith is my life. God is my life and I have no life without him. This is very hard for me because I never dreamed I’d come to part ways with the first black Pesident. I am against discrimination of any kind. I don’t hate gay people, I don’t condone people mistreating them, but this is about my love for God.
I thank God I had a chance to be among such good people as Ametia & Rikyrah, people admire them all across the blogosphere. They’re excellent bloggers. I’ve met some wonderful people who visit 3ChicsPolitico and join in with good discussions and I want to thank all of you for your support. I want to explain my departure and wish everyone well.
Rev. Al Politics Nation
Marriage equality and the black vote
Barney Frank knocks the fuck out of Tony Perkins.
Steady going BACKWARDS, Mittens… Good luck with this strategy.
As Obama backs gay marriage, House GOP tries to limit gay-friendly policies
Source: Washington Post
On the same day President Obama became the first president to fully embrace same-sex marriage, House Republicans once again approved measures that limit Obama administration policy decisions and federal policies favorable to gays and lesbians.
House Republicans voted Wednesday night to bar the Justice Department from using any federal funds to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act. They added the prohibitions to an appropriations measure. The Obama administration last year said it would no longer defend the federal law that bans the recognition of same-sex marriage because it considers the legislation unconstitutional.
Also Wednesday night, the House Armed Services Committee voted to bar gay and lesbian service members from getting married or holding “marriage-like” ceremonies at military facilities.
Both measures, or similar bills, have been introduced or successfully added to appropriations and authorization measures in recent years, but the proposals are often dropped as part of negotiations over a final version of the bill with Senate Democrats
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/obama-backs-gay-marriage-house-gop-tries-rolling-back-gay-friendly-policies/2012/05/10/gIQAOKpLFU_blog.html
Mr. Cantor, your culture war is my life
Brad Dayspring, the former spokesman for the number two Republican in the US House, Eric Cantor, had the following to say about President Obama’s support for same-sex marriage:
Brad Dayspring @BDayspring
With the economy in stagnation and crippling amounts of debt, the President seeks to further divide America by launching in a culture war.
Your culture war is my life.
Posted at 04:04 PM ET, 05/09/2012
Obama comes out, and makes history
By Greg Sargent
Obama, in his interview with ABC News: “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” Video at the end of the post.
Whatever the actual impact of this in legislative terms, this is a major historical and cultural moment, and the President deserves kudos for it. Yes, he had to be pushed into taking this step, and those who hammered him ceaselessly on the issue deserve enormous credit for making this happen. But Obama himself has, in various ways, let it be known that he wants people to go out there and make him do the right thing. In this case, he responded.
There will be a lot of cynical media analysis to the effect that Obama only did this because Joe Biden forced him to do it and because his “evolving” position had become impossible to sustain. I wish those circumstances hadn’t been required to make this happen, and I frequently criticized the President for his equivocating. But happen it did, and this moment is a civil rights milestone. Obama has become the first — and only — sitting president to come out for full equality for gay and lesbian Americans.
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, MITT ROMNEY!
May 09, 2012
It doesn’t get any gutsier than this
Barack Obama’s open endorsement today of same-sex marriage seems, to me, rather superfluous. No one doubted that a president of such intellect and sensitivity ever really opposed such a thunderingly commonsensical position, and sure enough, he didn’t. And because same-sex marriage lies outside the realm of a U.S. president’s direct influence, nothing much will change, except the right will go even more bonkers for a while.
Yet, there is one thing I’d wish to gently note. I appreciate the slim possibility of this happening, but would the activist left now please shut the fuck up about what a coward President Obama is. He may have just kissed off a few swing states–and in the kick-off to a presidential reelection campaign, it doesn’t get any gutsier than that.
THIS: ‘He may have just kissed off a few swing states–and in the kick-off to a presidential reelection campaign, it doesn’t get any gutsier than that.
PBO took a huge political risk, to do what is legally, constitutionally, and above all HUMANLY RIGHT. so, if he lost the election in November, I don’t think he’s going to lie awake at night with a gulity conscience.
From CHarles Pierce at Esquire:
As to the argument that the president “didn’t want this” to open up in an election year, I think he did. It’s too perfect an ending to the narrative of his “evolving position” that he’s been talking about for three years. He saw a clear injustice — the North Carolina vote — and he decided that his conscience would brook no more delay. Look at how carefully he wove his support of marriage equality into the fabric of everything else he’d done for the cause of equality since he’s been president.
He talked about how our men and women in the armed forces (you know, the gay ones who can serve openly because he ended Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell, and who can get married in Massachusetts and Hawaii because he told his Justice Department not to pursue cases under the Defense of Marriage Act) shouldn’t be denied a right that we all have — to marry — just because they’ve left the killing fields.
…. I think both the Biden and Duncan interviews were long-range reconnaissance, and I think he got the information he wanted. I have my differences with this president, god knows, but this is one thing of which I am certain: He does absolutely nothing by accident. He has spent his entire life learning how to take cautious, considered steps. He’s damned good at it by now.
…. All of which is not to diminish what an authentic act of political courage this actually is. The dingbats will scream and fling their poo to all points of the compass …. even I can’t be cynical enough to deny that most of the reasons that the president said what he did today he said because he is a child of the civil-rights movement, someone whose fundamental ethics and whose most basic view of this country were formed as a result of the crucible through which the country passed in those years, and I believe he saw that denying gay couples the right to marriage when they contribute so much to so many areas of society was simply the right thing to do.
….. we all had a good laugh at his “evolving position on it,” but don’t we want our presidents to be thoughtful, to be open to new data and new perpectives, and new ways of thinking about things? …..I can tell you that, in my lifetime, I have had my fill of rigid presidents.
….a better and fairer country awaits ….I’m prouder to be driving through this country than I was this morning, that’s for sure.
we all had a good laugh at his “evolving position on it,” but don’t we want our presidents to be thoughtful, to be open to new data and new perpectives, and new ways of thinking about things? …..I can tell you that, in my lifetime, I have had my fill of rigid presidents.”
THIS IS WHAT PRAGMATISM MEANS, FOLKS!
Plenty of risk to go around
By Steve Benen – Thu May 10, 2012 8:02 AM EDT.
It’s too soon to say with any certainty what the political/electoral consequences might be for President Obama now that he’s expressed his support for marriage equality. It’s safe to say he showed some strong leadership by taking this risk, but one can make equally compelling cases that the move will help, hurt, or have no effect on his standing.
But the president isn’t the only one facing some risks on the issue. What will his Republican challenger do in response to yesterday’s announcement? If Mitt Romney aggressively condemns gay rights, he risks alienating an American mainstream that is quickly becoming more tolerant and respectful. If he downplays the issues, the GOP’s right-wing base will be outraged.
So, the former governor settled yesterday on a line of attack: Obama’s a big flip-flopper.
Plenty of risk to go around
By Steve Benen – Thu May 10, 2012 8:02 AM EDT.It’s too soon to say with any certainty what the political/electoral consequences might be for President Obama now that he’s expressed his support for marriage equality. It’s safe to say he showed some strong leadership by taking this risk, but one can make equally compelling cases that the move will help, hurt, or have no effect on his standing.
But the president isn’t the only one facing some risks on the issue. What will his Republican challenger do in response to yesterday’s announcement? If Mitt Romney aggressively condemns gay rights, he risks alienating an American mainstream that is quickly becoming more tolerant and respectful. If he downplays the issues, the GOP’s right-wing base will be outraged.
So, the former governor settled yesterday on a line of attack: Obama’s a big flip-flopper.
For those who can’t watch clips online, Romney said:
“My view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that’s my own preference. I know other people have differing views. This is a very tender and sensitive topic, as are many social issues, but I have the same view I’ve had, uh, since, uh, well, since running for office.”
Asked if Obama’s been “inconsistent,” the Republican added that those in the media will be able to make that determination on your own,” but said, “I saw the reports that he had previously said that he opposed same-sex marriage and now, according to ABC News, he’s saying he supports it.”
This isn’t a great message. For one thing, the less Romney talks about consistency, the better. This is, after all, a politician who’s flip-flopped on more issues than any other national candidate in a generation. It’s not exactly a selling point to effectively argue, “Yeah, but at least I’ve remained the same on stopping consenting adults from getting married.”
For another, Romney hasn’t been consistent.
As Rachel noted last night, Romney, as a Senate candidate in 1994, promised to be a better ally to the LGBT community than Ted Kennedy. As Alec MacGillis reports this morning, the former governor’s record on gay rights is far more “awkward” than he’d like to admit.
Whether Romney sticks to this line or not, the presumptive GOP nominee expected to have at least some cover on this issue because of Obama’s on-the-fence “evolution.” Romney has endorsed an odious, anti-gay constitutional amendment; he opposed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; he’s taken a stand against civil unions; and he’s opposed pretty much every advancement Obama has made on this issue over the last three years. The president’s opposition to marriage equality made it difficult for Obama’s campaign team to go after Romney too forcefully on this issue — but after yesterday, the contrast is easy to make.
One candidate wants the country to move forward; the other is to the right of Bush/Cheney. It sets the stage for a meaningful debate, and there’s plenty of risk to go around.
Posted at 08:59 AM ET, 05/10/2012 TheWashingtonPost The Morning Plum: Will gay marriage force Romney on to culture war footing?
By Greg Sargent
The papers are filled with articles gaming out whether Obama’s big announcement yesterday puts him at political risk, but the other question is this: Will it force Mitt Romney on to a culture war footing when he’d rather be talking about the economy?
Check out this interview with a Colorado affiliate, in which Romney testily snapped at the reporter: “Aren’t there issues of significance you’d like to talk about? The economy? The growth of jobs?”
The question that irked Romney was about medical marijuana, but it came after a long discussion about gay marriage that seemed to leave Romney increasingly irked. As even righty blogger Allahpundit points out, the exchange shows that Romney just doesn’t want to talk about the issue or any other social issues.
But guess who does want to talk about gay marriage, and even make it central to the campaign? The National Organization for Marriage:
“President Obama has now made the definition of marriage a defining issue in the presidential contest, especially in swing states like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Nevada,” said Brian S. Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage.
Obviously the economy will still be the driving issue in this campaign, but social conservatives are going to try to make gay marriage a “defining” one, as NOM puts it, and it will be interesting to see how Romney handles it. Obama’s embrace of full equality yesterday sets the stage for a very sharp contrast between the presidential candidates on one of the most important civil rights issues of our time, one that could play into Dem efforts to paint Romney and the GOP as hidebound, trapped in the past, and hostage to extreme elements.
This really is a defining issue for young voters, and Obama really needs to boost enthusiasm among them as he tries to reassemble his 2008 coalition. And as Ron Brownstein notes in a great piece, Obama’s forward-looking announcement could also appeal to socially liberal upscale whites, who may make the two men’s visions of the future central to their decision and are increasingly important to Obama and Dems as they look to offset losses among the white working class. On the other hand, the issue could also galvanize social conservatives who are suspcious of Romney.
It’s going to be very interesting to find out whether embracing full equality for gay and lesbian Americans is really the big political risk for Obama many seem to say it is. The country has moved foward on the issue in a big way since 2004, when Karl Rove successfully used it to boost evangelical turnout in key swing states. My bet is that this time, it will be a wash at best.
May 09, 2012 1:22 PM
The Evolving Evolution
By Ed Kilgore
It’s entirely unclear whether it’s a matter of appropriate or really bad timing, but the president has hastily arranged an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts this afternoon on an undisclosed set of topics. Speculation is spreading that Obama will take the occasion to clarify his position on same-sex marriage and related issues, after several days of media attention to the subject, spurred by what seem to have been off-message remarks from Joe Biden and Arne Duncan, followed by the landslide approval of Amendment One (which Obama had officially opposed) in North Carolina.
Insofar as the president has repeatedly described his views on gay marriage as “evolving” (presumably in a more progressive direction), it would be an excellent time for him to arrive at a clear and defensible destination. Recent polling on the topic indicates slowly growing support for marriage equality, with an underlying dynamic of ever-increasing partisan and generational polarization. Most notably, the latest Gallup survey showing a narrow 50-48 margin in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage showed independents approving legalization by a 57-40 margin.
Some observers have suggested that an immediate obstacle to the further “evolution” of Obama’s views is the relatively high level of opposition to marriage equality persisting among key elements of the Democratic “base,” particularly African-Americans and Hispanics. But the former are hardly going to defect from support of Obama over this issue. And the latter also have other fish to fry; it’s unlikely that large numbers of Democratic-leaning Hispanics will overlook Mitt Romney and the GOP’s troublesome positions on immigration and the economy in order to defect over gay marriage (or for that matter, abortion).
More to the immediate point, Obama may no longer have the luxury of “evolving,” given the steadily mounting pressure to place a commitment to marriage equality in the 2012 Democratic platform. Any move by the White House to squelch that effort will be viewed as a sign of hostility rather than thoughtfulness.
You could say the vote in NC showed how toxic this subject remains for an Obama campaign trying to hold onto the states it won in 2008. But you could also say it shows a highly nuanced position on the subject—yes to this, no to that, maybe to this—is not helpful, either, since Tar Heel State voters approved a ballot initiative contradicting their own apparent support for civil unions as opposed to same-sex marriage.
All in all, it would appear to be time for the president to speak plainly. Looking at the larger landscape of issues, there are worse things that could happen to him than a 2012 general election in which the positions of the two parties on cultural freedom suddenly become relevant to voters.
Now: A Choice
A reader writes:
Today takes away the free pass that so many Republicans have had. While some Republicans may favor gay marriage, and abhor the bigoted policies of their own party, they could still rationalize that support in their own minds. They could say, and not entirely without merit, that sure the Republican party is wrong on this issue, but so what? Were the Democrats really that much better? Isn’t the President against gay marriage too? Prior to today, they could say that. But no more. That free pass has now ended.
President Obama saw to that. I have seen comparison of this decision to Abraham Lincoln, but I’ll introduce another – to Harry Truman. Truman integrated the Armed Services in 1948, his presidential election year, and Obama just followed in his footsteps. And like Truman, Obama cannot possibly know how this will turn out for him politically in November. But he knew it was the right thing to do so he made the decision, and will let the political chips fall where they may.
This November, we Americans will choose between one candidate who recently bragged about preventing Massachusetts from becoming the “Las Vegas of Gay Marriage,” to one who has the moral courage to voice equal support for all citizens.
No more equivocation on language, no more gray areas, and no more passing the buck. Today, President Obama, like President Truman before him, can proudly say, the buck stops here.
The “Evolution” Of Obama
It’s been roundly mocked. But it’s integral to what has been happening in America. A reader writes:
Trying to be neither cynical or jaded, I do understand President Obama’s evolving position.
My son is gay. I couldn’t “hear” that for a period of time and I (finally) “evolved.” I love him, gay, straight, bi … it doesn’t matter. The same with gay marriage; it took me a bit of time to understand how important that he have all of the options in life that I was automatically awarded by virtue of being a heterosexual female. The bottom line becomes why would I want anything less for him than all options that are available to my other two children and myself?
Joe Biden is correct: it just comes down to love. What more can a mom ask for in her child’s life?
I’m a straight, white guy. I went to an all-boys Catholic high school, where gay pejoratives were commonplace as put downs. I regularly used terms to belittle knowingly straight friends. Then a year out of high school one of my very closest friends came out.
We went to separate universities, so I had no idea what was new in his life when we went for a beer on a holiday break. I was shocked, then realized very shortly that (shock of shocks) nothing was different about him. He was the same solid and caring friend I’d had in high school. He just liked dudes. As we’ve aged and progressed into our careers, the similarities in our fairly boring lives are remarkable – so much so that the one difference, that his spouse is a dude, isn’t noticeable.
That my president has progressed on the same path as me – from the mindset that gay relationships are fundamentally different to one that sees and knows an example and recognizes that gay and straight relationships are fundamentally the same – is remarkable.
These are funny gifs about POTUS and same sex marriage.
FLASHBACK WITH FLIPPER!
It’s interesting that the people who support the proposed marriage amendment are generally the same people who are usually whining about states’ rights and how the federal government is taking away our liberty. Not so concerned about that when it comes to taking away the right of the states to let gay people get married, I guess.
I will share something that made me mindful of this issue. Years ago before this became such a heated thing, my Hubby had a gay co-worker who was dying of cancer. In the poor man’s last days when he could no longer protect himself, his family blocked his partner of almost 20 years from his bedside. They went so far as to even lock the partner out of a “private” funeral. We went with this man to the grave site after this was all over. The pain & grief was so gut wrenching that I never forgot. No one should ever have to endure this kind of pain.
Regardless of people’s beliefs about “marriage” or civil unions. People who love each other & commit to each other should have all the rights & privileges regardless of their sexual orientation. No church has to perform marriage ceremonies if they don’t want to but any couple should be able to go to city hall for a civil union. I ♥ my Prez!
And just saying….
Hi AG. I have no issues with same sex anything. My issue is when a few white LGBT assault black folks and use as scapegoats for laws that were not created by blacks to ban LGBTs. These folks have a sense of entitlement and don’t do the reaching out and hard work that is needed to fight against discrimination.
And what are they doing after POTUS’ speaks in defense of SSM? “He should have done it earlier” He didn’t do XYZ, Blah, blah, blah.
For me; this has everything to do with LAWFUL RIGHTS.
EVERY CIITIZEN IN THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS & PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS OF OUR CONSTITUTION. I sincerely believe PBO knows what this is all about, protecting all Americans rights. I never cared if he never came out and made a statement, his actions told me all I needed to see and know.
It has nothing to do with religion. You can’t legislate religion.
I agree with every thing you said. Our Prez is a brilliant man who speaks from his heart. He does nothing by accident or because people “make him” He thinks, he deliberates & then he acts.
All those pushing him to speak before the North Carolina vote were either fools or enemies. Nothing he said would have change that vote by much but the goatfigging Repugs & media would have piled on him for messing in state business. PBO chooses his own time when he speaks.
Also my heart to yours about being blamed by white gay activists for not carrying their water jugs for them. I’d like to kick their smug useless asses but we got better things to do with our energy. We are going to get PBO re-elected! ♥ Chica!
NJ Mayor Corey Booker was on Maddow too. Waiting for the full segment to post.
I wish Romney would come out and try to take CREDIT for President Obama’s state for same sex marriage. Come on Mitt,; we’re waiting.
See how everybody focuses on what and how the Black President feels and thinks? Romney gets a mere mention and it’s off to the next Why didn’t OBAMA do this or that? Or WHY does he exist?
I trust that whatever his game is, it is DELIBERATE. He doesn’t do anything unless it is DELIBERATE. VP Biden and Arnie Duncan sharing their views on same-sex marriage set the stage. Trust, it’s calculated. Now on to winning this election and cleaning up the rest of BILL CLINTON’S SHIT.
Can you say DADT & DOMA=CLINTON