President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage is energizing Christian conservative support for Mitt Romney in a way that the likely GOP nominee has so far not been able to do on his own, according to religious leaders and activists.
Pastors in Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and other swing states are readying Sunday sermons inveighing against same-sex unions, while activist groups have begun laying plans for social media campaigns, leaflet drives and other get-out-the-vote efforts centered on the same-sex marriage issue. Romney could benefit from a strong turnout among evangelicals and other social conservatives, many of whom remain skeptical of his commitment to their causes.
Now there’s a surprise! Is anyone shocked that this subject galvanizes the social values crowd faster than just about another else other than abortion rights? The reaction was very predictable. It certainly shouldn’t be a shock to the values crowd that President Obama would support same sex marriage, as a civil rights issue, without his much awaited announcement either.
Some on the religious right also remain deeply uncertain about Romney’s convictions on cultural issues and are unhappy with his statements in recent days that he supports allowing gay couples to adopt children and that he does not view same-sex marriage as a religious issue. Many activists say they will continue to push Romney on the issue.
“Romney says he is for traditional marriage and then immediately says he is fine with homosexuals adopting children,” said David Lane, who organizes conservative pastors and congregations nationwide and helped lead anti-gay-marriage efforts in Iowa, California and other states. “Our base does not react well to that. They are not going to turn out [for a candidate] who tries to triangulate” on topics such as marriage and other traditional values.
So now it gets a little trickier. I tend to agree with Mitt Romney. Same-sex marriage isn’t really a religious issue. Of course, even if it were a religious issue, that should not put a ban on civil rights. One group should not be forbidden to have rights that others have. Its fairly simple.
One now has to ask what the Religious Right has planned. If they reject Romney, then who? Who can win? If they leave Romney high and dry, then they have turned the race over to President Obama without a fight. A third party candidate who opposed gay marriage just isn’t a winning ticket. The only way for a conservative win is with Mitt Romney and he just isn’t carrying enough pitchforks for some conservatives.
Maybe it’s time for these so called “bases” to stop saber-rattling and accept a few realities. There are gay and transgendered Americans who want to live happy lives with the same rights and priviledges as the rest of the folks. There will always be things that make us uncomfortable. Loving, committed relationships can’t be all bad, even if the relationships involve same sex couples. At what point will it be unacceptable to deny a minority their rights? The LGBT community is one of the last minorities who has to fight for equal rights.
Finally, when all is said and done, does it really matter what the president thinks on the subject? The Religious Right can unite, pray, wave torches, poke with pitchforks, threaten, and say “queer” as often as they can spit it out. It really isn’t going to change anything. They weren’t supporting Obama anyway so the goal posts haven’t moved an inch. The gays can threaten and do whatever it is they do also. Who else are they going to vote for? It is all political posturing on both sides. The only real winners have been the media.
Actually, so far I hear it’s working out good for Obama on this one. His fund-raising has bumped up a notch, and even though they are reporting that the religious right is up in arms, they can’t find any average person that cares…which sounds about right. And no, it really doesn’t matter what the President thinks about gay marriage…..other than the obvious: “What 16 Trillion Debt? We want gays to get married!” And as you say, the media seems to care a great deal about Obama’s stance on gay marriage…but see the “What Unemployment?…We want gays to get married!” point.
By the way….Obama’s political views on gay marriage have not changed. He said that he wants the states to decide. Very common sense of him. His personal views have…….evolved. So, I wonder how he reconciles such an evolution with his religious faith. It would seem to be that he has fallen away from his churches doctrines.
2004:
“My religious faith dictates marriage is between a man and a woman, gay marriage is not a civil right.”
2008:
“I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman, As a Christian it’s also a sacred union.”
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
Take a look at this article. IF it is true, I wonder what the Catholic Church is going to say. As to Obama’s position–I believe the term I would use to describe it is “pandering”. How often have politicians been known to say one thing while in their heart of hearts they hold an entirely different belief? I suspect the number is greater than the stars in the universe.
George, haven’t you changed your mind over the years about stuff? I sure have. I think our thinking does evolve. Sometimes we just get worn down. Sometimes the situation just changes.
Maybe people look at marriage differently also, depending whether they are in it or outside of it.
Here, ask the Obama buy-our-t-shirts team why Obama’s stance on gay marriage is important:
http://store.barackobama.com/collections/lgbt-for-obama.html
Ha! That didn’t take long. Team T-shirt needs to make some bucks.
@Cargo,
I am still trying to figure out the real religious tie. I don’t mean specifically with Obama. I don’t recall him saying that, just in general. I don’t recall reading that Christ defined the specifics of marriage. The patriarchs(Abraham, David, Solomon, et al) of the Old Testament had many wives at the same time.
I think that religion has adopted customs but I am not so sure that makes something a matter of religion.
I don’t think that marriage is a civil right necessarily but…I think denying someone some thing that everyone else is entitled to is creating an inequality which causes a civil right issue.
I think if a person is married in one state, that marriage should be recognized in all states. Unlike my ancestors, not a big proponent of states rights anyway.
Yeah, that will get him reelected. I’m sure everyone who wakes up and drags themselves to work every week (if they’re lucky enough to have a job) to help spread the wealth to those who don’t have only one thought on their minds, and that is of course … gay marriage … NOT! Like I said before, it’s the economy stupid.
@Moon-howler
If you didn’t read the piece I linked to, I recommend you read it. as I noted, IF it is true, the Catholic Church sanctioned same sex marriage (particularly among men) for a good long time. And, No, I haven’t really changed by mind, but I don’t go around beating my chest about it and I don’t think the government, the president or presidential wannabes should either. One report ays about 3.5% of the populations MAY be homosexual. If so, that is a pretty small tail wagging a very large dog.
But they were wives, weren’t they? The idea was procreation….you know, the recurring theme of the barren wife, etc. Nowhere will you read that David and Ezekiel smacked their pee-pees together.
@SDlow, define “wives.” I think the Bible defines most of them as concubines.
Solomon had a little trouble procreating.
@George, I often read the figure 8-10%. Who knows.
I change my mind about things. I changed my mind about being anti death penalty, for example. Read about enough dirt bags and you want to volunteer to pull the switch.
Where does John Travolta fit into all this?
What I wouldn’t give for a candidate for federal office who, when asked of his view on same sex marriage, would simply say: “it’s not a federal issue, my views are unimportant and irrelevant to this race. This is a state issue, constrained by the states’ obligation not to violate rights in the federal constitution. The issue now working its way from the California courts (and federal courts in California) to the Supreme Court of the United States, is whether the states can dispense a legal status (in this case marriage) on some citizens and not others when the basis of the discrimination is sexual orientation. We’ll find out soon enough. But I don’t see that a Congressman, Senator, or President has much to say about it unless he/she is just using it as a dog whistle to summon certain demographics in the electorate.
and the Mormons believe marriage should between 1 Man and 1 Woman, and another Woman, and another Woman, and another……
Can atheists get married?
They haven’t for over 100 years. re Mormons. They are at a real difficult juncture with polygamy. Tehir ancestors practiced it and they must condemn it. Difficult balancing act.
“A national political campaign is better than the best circus ever heard of,
with a mass baptism and a couple of hangings thrown in.”
H.L. Mencken
Well, of course, in the situation of a barren woman, it was the wife’s obligation to offer her servant to the husband. My point is they were female humans, not men, not camels, not sheep.
I believe that Abraham mioght have had a couple others other than Haagar and Sarah.
Slow, do you believe thaat marriage is just for procreation? I do not.
That’s actually one of the better questions I’ve heard anyone ask concerning this whole issue. I had to ask myself that question! Yes, I believe that marriage is for procreation. I remember an awesome lecture I heard about monogamy and pair-bonding in people….it was really fascinating, and I remember that quite a few aspects of the one woman / one man pairing is tied to procreation….and that may have had to do with a patriarchal society. I babbling a bit here, but I actually thought about this a bit, and my answer is yes. BUT, I don’t have any particular problems with gays. Hell, I lived in Midtown Atlanta for several years. If I had issues with gay people, I’ve had a god-awful time, and I actually enjoyed everything about it. What I’m getting at is just because I believe the marriage is primarily about procreation, if two gay people “get married”….it doesn’t bother me in any way. If I’m minding my own business, it shouldn’t bother me, should it!
I guess I lucked out living in DeKalb County. @Slow
What about couples who do not want children? Should they not marry? I don’t disagree that originally, one purpose of marriage was to protect children…supposedly. I have also read it is to protect women. (Or acquiring the wealth of their families).
I don’t know. I don’t want to get to cerebral over it all…I just think its an equality issue.
@Moon-howler
Whether or not you are interested in or accept what the Gallup polls have to say, here is a fairly recent survey by the as to what percentage of the population Americans think are homosexuals:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/adults-estimate-americans-gay-lesbian.aspx#1
I refuse to use the word “gay” to designate homosexual men because someone took a perfectly great word and screwed it up. You can’t go out anymore and have a “gay old time” without someone raising their eyebrows at you.
As to the idea of equality, I just keep thinking about AIDS. Would AIDS be a pandemic problem if there was no anal sex among homosexual men? Millions of lives have been lost and billions of dollars have been spent and finding a cure for and/or preventing aids.
According to MSNBC in 2008, “The world invests about $8 billion to $10 billion into AIDS every year, more than 100 times what it spends on clean water projects in developing countries. Yet more than 2 billion people do not have access to adequate sanitation, and about 1 billion lack clean water.”
Here is an interesting 2006 article from the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2006/oct/06100404
It pretty much says it all for me.
I absolutely believe that between homosexual men and bisexual men created this pandemic. I think it was the book, “Boys in the Band” that describes some of the forms of male homosexual sex–if that is “normal”, I don’t ever want to be “equal”.
How does that question fit in in Africa where most of the AIDS that is devouring some in that population is from heterosexual behavior?
We can’t eliminate sex altogether.
@George S. Harris
Careful there old-timer. Better stop talking common sense or they’ll pull your party card and label you a homophobe.
“Every high civilization decays by forgetting obvious things.” (GK Chesterton)
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/8/6/willthisgetme128625367866352874.jpg
@Moon-howler
At some point, some poor woman (more than likely a truck stop prostitute) had sex with a bisexual male, thank you very much. Now that woman can pass AIDS along to every male with whom she has sex. And the next guy she has sex with can go home and pass it on to his wife as well as the next prostitute he visits. And so on and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Isn’t life great? Please tell me–did you ever hear of AIDS among heterosexuals before the pandemic among homosexual males began about 40+ years ago? Don’t think so! As noted in the California report, AIDS is and always will be a male homosexual disease. Heterosexuals are the real victims.
Interesting, this morning Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said on “Face the Nation”, “You can make same sex marriage legal but you can’t make it right.” I kinda gotta agree with that.
I am not so sure I am getting the connection. How does AIDS have anything to do with same sex marriage?
Maybe the answer to the issues you are discussing is less promiscuous behavior. In that case, it would seem to me that same sex marriage would help correct what disturbs you. Certainly male gay men don’t have the edge on unhealthy sex practices either. I don’t necessarily think prostitution is something I can go around giving atta girls to either.
I just see Tony Perkins as someone who propagates ignorance. He is the one who said he would never have gay children because he teaches them correctly. I guess Phyllis Schaftly thought the same thing.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/09/tony-perkins-my-kids-wont-be-gay-because-i-teach-them-the-right-ways/
One can feel any way they want about homosexuals. There is no thought police out there. However, I don’t think restricting them from marriage will last much longer, at least legally. It is one of the last legal forms of discrimination.
@Cato the Elder
Cato, I would wear the label proudly.
George and I agree on an issue? I’m feeling a little faint!
The earth grinding to a halt has that effect on most of us.
The religious right wasn’t going to vote for Obama anyway.
In twenty years we’ll look back and wonder how educated people could have voted against gay marriage – just as we look at people who opposed civil rights in prior years. You’d better ask yourself which side you prefer to be on because one side will definitely be seen as Neanderthals.
I am still stuck on the part about where does same sex marriage hurt me? I still don’t see where it is hurting me or where it will hurt me.
Live and let live.
My mother was moderate about gay people even. She was glad none of us were but didn’t hold it against others. Not bad for a lady who would be 91 if she were alive today.
Newsweek declared President Obama to be the first gay President.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that……
I think maybe you misread the gaylo.
Still a little classier than the time cover. I know its a slow news week…I have had to dig myself…but geez.
@Moon-howler
Its right on the cover. The First Gay President
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/fabulous-newsweek-obama-cover-the-first-gay-president/
Faaabulous!
@Moon-howler
“Certainly male gay men don’t have the edge on unhealthy sex practices either.” Again, I suggest you read “Boys in the Band”.
I read it many years ago. It has a bad reputation actually, for stereotyping and has often been referred to as the “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” of the gay community. You know, taking the worst case scenario and presenting it as normal representation to sensationalize the situation.
I have had several sets of gay friends. I prefer to judge people as individuals.
I am not even sure why we are having this conversation. What does a person’s sex practices have to do with whether that person should be able to marry who they love?
@Moon-howler
Since we are still on the subject, here is an interesting CBS news piece. Although the article claims that 62% of Americans are for some type of union, only 11 states have laws permitting them. When I went to school, a looonnngggg time ago, 11 was not 62% of 50 (was only 48 when I went to school 😉 )
I don’t necessarily think a voting stats will reflect stats gathered in surveys. I might say yes, I think same sex civil unions are fine and then got give enough of a damn to go out and vote in a referendum. I don’t have a dog in the fight. The culture warrior folks feel they have a dog in fight. Who is going to have the most incentive to go vote? Not me.
Ooops–forgot the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433493-503544/poll-most-americans-support-same-sex-unions/%5D
How many gay couples do you know George?