They note that:

Support for same-sex marriage has been growing in the general population since at least the mid-1990s. That trend has been evident among blacks as well — but at a considerably slower pace. A poll conducted by Pew Research in April, just a few weeks before Mr. Obama’s announcement, found 39 percent of blacks supporting gay marriage and 49 percent opposing it. By contrast, a plurality of white Americans supported gay marriage in the Pew poll, as they have in most other recent surveys.

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 59% of Blacks favor same-sex marriage.

538 also notes that:

There is reason to be cautious in interpreting these numbers. First, polling has tended to overestimate support for same-sex marriage ballot referendums by about seven percentage points. In addition, the sample sizes for demographic subgroups like African-Americans are small, producing large margins of error.

In the end, the thinking is more that Obama’s announcement made it easier for various Blacks to actually voice their support rather than actually changing people’s minds. A study conducted by Melissa R. Michelson and Brian F. Harrison found that the race of the caller in polling actually effects support for same-sex marriage. Michelson stated that “So if it was an African-American calling an African-American, then they were much more likely to say they were a supporter of same-sex marriage. We don’t think people were changing their minds, but they felt more comfortable” expressing support for same-sex marriage.

J. Michael Bitzer also noted “I certainly want to see several more polls. But if these kinds of early signals are being sent, then we could see a significant transformation on same-sex marriage in the African-American community.”

Still, basically, it doesn’t look like there’s going to be a lot of people leaving Obama over same-sex marriage.

“The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. The purity of the public morals, the moral
and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate,
and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by positive law and subject to no evasion.”

And

“The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. The purity of the public morals, the moral
and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate,
and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by positive law and subject to no evasion.”

Oh, and my favorite:

“[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or
the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

And, if those look familiar, well, that is because they are being said today about same-sex marriage.

It is not surprising that the decision by the NAACP to come out in support of same-sex marriage has angered some of the more ardent bigots within the religious community, and that many pastors are harshly critical of this. For instance, Pastor Derek McCoy, the executive director of the Maryland Marriage Alliance- a group dedicated to the destruction of marriage through exclusivity- called the NAACP’s stance “unfortunate” and claimed that it would contribute to the “further demise of the family”, though he seemed to not have any actual statements regarding how.

McCoy claimed that the NAACP was “endorsing an epidemic” of fatherless households, perhaps not quite grasping that the problem is not not having a father, but not having a two parent household. Recent polling has shown that there is a shift, though, in the Black Community towards acceptance of same-sex unions thanks to the decision of President Barack Obama, General Colin Powell, actor Will Smith and the NAACP coming out in favor of these unions.

According to the Catholic News Agency:

McCoy said that redefining marriage is redefining the family in a way that is “hazardous” for children.

“Gay marriage” teaches that fathers and mothers are both dispensable, he explained, and “this is absolutely going to harm the family.”

The absence of a father has been linked to higher rates of crime, poverty, drug abuse and teenage pregnancy throughout the U.S.

Actually, the absence of two parent households have been linked to crime, poverty, drug abuse and teenage pregnancy in the US. The studies used to attack same-sex marriage are almost always ones which compare two parent households to single parent households. Studies have shown that there is little appreciable difference between same-sex parents and opposite sex parents when it comes to parenting, how their children will grow up, and the like. This is deliberately ignored by the Religious Right.

McCoy also tried to dismiss attempts to “compare” same-sex marriage opponents to those who oppose interracial marriage claiming that it is not the same issue at all, and that “The core essence of a marriage is the two sexes coming together.” Which is a religious based belief, and is reflected in the attacks on interracial marriage all those decades ago.

Alveda C. King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr and ardent homophobe, also tried to claim that her grandfather and uncle would never have “embraced the homosexual agenda that the current NAACP is attempting to label as a civil rights agenda.

Reverend William Owens, founder of the Coalition of African American Pastors, also claimed that “We who marched with Rev. King did not march one inch or one mile to promote same-sex marriage.” Owens also went on to claim that same-sex marriage was counter to Dr. King’s work because it was an attempt to “declare that an act contrary to God’s law and to the natural law is a civil right. We call on all Americans to respect the legitimate civil rights of gay people to be free from violence, harassment, to vote, to hold jobs. But none of us has a moral or civil right to redefine marriage.”

Back about fifty years ago, this was said:

“[A]t the very time the Constitution of the United States was being formulated, miscegenation was considered inimical to the public good and was frowned upon by the colonies, and continued to be so regarded and prohibited in states having any substantial admixture of population at the time the 14th amendment was adopted.”

And this:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his
arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

It is ultimately sad to hear the words of the racists in the mouths of those they sought to oppress.

President Obama

Getting President Barack Obama to fight for LGBT rights has not always been easy, but he has done quite a lot for LGBT rights over the past four years. In the above campaign spot, Obama and supporter Jane Lynch outline what Obama has done in four years to secure more LGBT rights. Obama has done a lot for LGBT rights, and his decision to support same-sex marriage has only helped to secure some more moderate votes, but has not driven away any of the votes that would never have voted for him anyway.

Powell, if everyone remembers, was the architect of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which has now been repealed. Powell told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “It was the Congress that imposed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ it was certainly my position, my recommendation to get us out of an even worse outcome that could have occurred.”

For Powell, the issue is not about religion, but about public policy. He stated “I respect the fact that many denominations have different points of view with respect to gay marriage and they can hold that in the sanctity in the place of their religion and not bless them or solemnize them.”

He also stated that he has “a lot of friends who are individually gay but are in partnerships with loved ones, and they are as stable a family as my family is and they raise children. And so I don’t see any reason not to say that they should be able to get married under the laws of their state or the laws of the country.”

Powell served as President George W. Bush’s Secretary of State, and is a moderate Republican.

"Marriage Equality: It's A Right" from Flickr

There is one phrase that comes to my mind with regards to the National Organization for Marriage’s boycott of Starbucks. . .Instead of leaving, they’re staying in droves.

Apparently, NOM has now decided to hold up Robert Adolph Enyart as their model. Apparently the man created a video of him dumping Starbucks coffee down the drain. Other than being a waste of money, it seems like it isn’t much of a stunt. Apparently, Pastor Enyart claimed that he did not know about the fact that Starbucks supports same-sex marriage, and had just bought the coffee right before he bought it. In fact NOM wrote about it saying:

This past week a pastor in Colorado made a video of himself dumping a cup of Starbucks coffee down the street curb drain. Apparently he had purchased it on his way to work shortly before hearing of Starbucks position in support of same-sex marriage and the DumpStarbucks.com campaign and decided he couldn’t go through with drinking it, but wanted to make a statement instead. What you can do this week: Make an inventive and fun home video of yourself or a friend “Dumping Starbucks” and send it in. As many as we can we’ll post online so everyone can see and have a good laugh. If you don’t want to buy a cup of Starbucks (remember we are protesting them) then grab an empty cup from a coworker or friend and use that instead.

Joe My God notes that:

As anybody who saw the original video knows, that preacher did know in advance of his purchase. In fact, AFTER he became the subject of widespread internet ridicule, he pulled the clip and filed copyright claims against others that had mirrored his video. He then re-recorded his clip with the new claim and restaged pouring it down the sewer, this time with an included ad for his stupid radio show.

Enyart is, of course, not exactly the best choice for the face of the boycott. He has been married three times according to sources. He was married to Krista Lynn Crisler from 1981 to 1989, but divorced because, as one source puts it, he was struggling “sexual immorality and porn.” This occurred during his Operation Rescue days. He married his second wife because “I was desperately lonely, but I was also on the rebound”. We do not even know the name of his second wife.

The final time, though, he married Cherl Mayns, a divorcee, and while the two were, apparently, cohabitating, he beat Stephen Mayns, Cherl’s son. According to John Mayns, the boy’s biological father, Enyart “stripped him down naked, bent him over my ex-wife’s bed and then beat him with one of her belts.” In fact, Enyart beat the boy so hard that he broke the skin and was charged with child abuse. Enyart eventually was convicted of the crime and spent fifty days in jail.

Sounds like a great person to showcase traditional marriage, huh?

“The NAACP coming out in support of gay marriage you know (you know) (you know) (in the) in the mantra of civil rights, really (you know) irks rank and file African Americans who do not see this in a civil rights context. Um and and so there are a lot of dramas that will be played out here. I think it’s an opening for the GOP.”

Jeremy Hooper over at Good As You notes that the attempts to make the NAACP seem irrelevant are not a good idea and states “ Though if they do amplify this tactic, I think there will be a lot of African Americans of varying viewpoints who also won’t take lightly this obvious political attempt to damage the NAACP’s reputation. It’s a dangerously divisive path for the GOP to tread. “

There is more to it than that, though. The NAACP has now taken up a position in opposition to many Black pastors and priests. What this is going to do is force a conversation within the Black Community about LGBT rights. It is an important conversation that needs to take place not only for the advancement of the LGBT Community, but for the cohesion of the Black Community given the importance of religion to many Blacks. As the younger generations grow comfortable with LGBT Americans, many Black pastors and priests could find themselves with diminishing congregations over their stances.

There is also the counter voice to this. . .and in this case, it comes from Wanda Sykes. Sykes is openly lesbian and Black. She praised Obama’s stance stating “I’m so proud of him. I knew he would get there. But I believe it’s earnest and I’m just so proud because I flash back to this time four years ago and watching the vice presidential and presidential debates and when the topic of same sex marriage comes up, it was almost like they laughed…I still voted for him because it was what I thought was best for the country and I just hope people who are – have a problem with him coming out for same sex marriage that they will still go with their instinct of what’s good for the country.”

She also praised the NAACP for supporting same-sex marriage by stating “I’m so proud of the NAACP! I mean – this is huge! Really is huge because the NAACP, their roots are so instilled in the church. That’s where their meetings and all of that are held, in churches. So to come out and support same sex marriage – I’m so thrilled that they have gotten past the point that it’s not about religion, it’s about rights. . .Marriage really doesn’t have anything to do with religion. That’s why atheists get married. It’s about all the rights that comes along with it. So I’m very proud of the NAACP right now and I think I’m going to join! Maybe I’ll up my membership now.”

The thing is, there are many LGBT Blacks in the nation too, and it is an important conversation for them.

“The NAACP’s resolution is ground breaking. Gay rights are civil rights, period. Like the African American civil rights movement and the movement for women’s equality, the movement for LGBT civil rights is not seeking something special. We are seeking what has been promised to us in the constitution of this great nation, to be treated equally. Same-gender civil marriage is a civil right and the NAACP has affirmed that with this resolution. Further, the NAACP affirmed that this is not a matter of religious liberty, but a civil matter. Same-gender couples should have the ability to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities that are granted to opposite gender couples.”

Pakman went on to explain:

Gordon also added that “when president obama endorsed homosexual marriage, he blamed jesus christ,” and made direct attacks against President Obama and against me, saying that the devil promotes homosexuality through straight people like David Pakman and President Obama. Another hugely dangerous comment he made is that straight marriages and society are hurt by gay marriages through the abuse of children which he claims is a constant in gay marriage/gay parenting (confusing to me as well).

From the sounds of it, not only is Klingenschmitt wrestling with his own demons, but that he sounds desperate to prove that he is right just so he can assuage his own problems.

Rush Limbaugh, by Donkey Hotey, Creative Commons

FOX News’ Shepard Smith is the only one on FOX who seemed to actually have praise for Obama’s decision to vocally support same-sex marriage. Of course, that means that there are those who are going to attack him as soon as they can. . .like Rush Limbaugh.

Smith said of Obama’s announcement that the President was now on the “right side of the 21st Century.” He then asked Bret Baier if the GOP would still be campaigning against same-sex marriage all “while sitting very firmly, without much question, on the wrong side of history on it.”

So, of course, Rush Limbaugh had to say about the comments “Shep, where has the issue won? Where has the issue been victorious, Shep, outside your house? Where has the issue won an election? What state? Tell me where it’s happened.”

Baier’s remarks stating that same-sex marriage had always failed when it was put before a vote were played by Limbaugh who then stated “Exactly right. What do you want to look at, Shep? You want to look at the polls? Or do you want to look at the votes.” Even though Obama endorsed same-sex marriage, Limbaugh pressed, nothing has changed. “It’s still up to the hicks and the hay seeds in the state.”

Have you ever noticed that these guys like Limbaugh never seem to quite grasp that the bulk of those elections were held eight years ago. Additionally, they never quite get that whenever the rights of a minority are put to a popular vote, they are inevitably defeated. Had the First Amendment freedom of religion been put to a vote, the rights of Catholics and Jews would not have been allowed because both groups were hated. If the civil and political rights of Blacks had been put to a vote in the 1960′s, they would never have passed either. Had the right for women to vote been put to a popular vote, they would not have been allowed to vote.

Of course, given Limbaugh’s hatred of women, and nearly every other minority group, he undoubtably wishes that those votes had been taken.

President Obama

Originally posted 11 May 2012

Within 90 minutes of it becoming known that President Barack Obama now supports same-sex marriage, he raked in some $1 million. He then held a fundraiser with George Clooney that raised at least $15 million. In the same time, Mitt Romney has had no real spike in fundraising.

The rather ironic bit about all of this is that while the Republicans have pushed for bans on same-sex marriage, their money is getting kind of tight, and a lot of businesses are now supporting same-sex marriage. This was reflected in the coverage from FOX News in which all they could do to criticize Obama was to say that this was a cynical political move designed to garner votes.

Last night, on the Daily Show, they covered all of those:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Theodore Olson appeared on Hardball as well to discuss not only marriage equality, but lesbian and gay parents. Olson is one of two leads on the suit seeking to take down California’s Prop 8. Olson has been a strong advocate of marriage equality for some time now. He believes that it is only right as a Conservative to support equality for all.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ed Gillespie (photo by Gage Skidmore)

Originally posted 10 May 2012

Ed Gillespie, the senior adviser for the Romney Campaign, had a little talk with Chuck Todd regarding President Barack Obama’s support for marriage equality. Gillespie is apparently not on the same page as his candidate. Gillespie told Todd “Sure. I think it’s an important issue for people and it engenders strong feelings on both sides. I think it’s important to be respectful in how we talk about our differences, but the fact is that’s a significant difference in November.”

He went on to state that Romney would be pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Gillespie was President George W. Bush’s Republican National Committee Chairman during the 2004 campaign when the Republicans pushed for various state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage as a means to get out the Conservative vote. It should be noted that eight years ago was a long time ago.

Support for same-sex marriage is now at just over 50% nationally, and in many states, it is far beyond that. Six states now have same-sex marriage as well as Washington DC and two Native American reservations. ThinkProgress noted that Romney has been playing up his pro-hatred and pro-discrimination stand throughout the campaign. Romney even said before CPAC in February saying “On my watch, we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage.”

House Speaker John Boehner also dodged the questions. A reporter asked “A Romney adviser said this morning that they plan to make gay marriage a campaign issue and that they’re also going to push for a constitutional amendment. Do you agree with that?” Boehner reported “I’m going to stay focused on jobs.” Boehner then left the stage.

Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart is probably one of the most astute political commentators in the country today. On last night’s show, Stewart took on President Obama’s announcement about supporting same-sex marriage, and North Carolina’s vote outlawing same-sex unions. He even explored marriage’s historic meaning- which is hardly nice.

Ann Romney keeps telling us that her husband has a wild and crazy side under that android like exterior. Apparently, it only shows up when he is being asked hard questions about equality. Yesterday, the Colorado House had a meltdown over the issue of civil unions- which are favored in that state 62 to 33. In fact, Coloradans support marriage equality 53 to 40. Even 46% of Republicans support civil unions.

So, how does Romney avoid the issue? Well, he got rather upset.

In an interview with a local CBS affiliate in Denver, Romney interrupted reporter Shaun Boyd any time she asked about medical marijuana, civil unions, same-sex marriage, the DREAM Act and anything other than what he wanted to talk about. At one point, Romney even states “Aren’t there — aren’t there issues of significance that you’d like to talk about?” She replied “This is a significant issue in Colorado. We’ve got enormous issues that we face, but you want talk about — go ahead — you want to talk about Marijuana?”

Romney recently stated “Well when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.” Of course, this may sound really weird, but let us be honest here, it sounds like he wants same-sex marriage and no same-sex marriage at the same time.

But that’s normal for Romney. He manages to speak out of both ends of his mouth.

Gavin Newsom, the Lt. Governor of California, spoke out today about President Obama’s decision to support same-sex marriage. On the Young Turks on Current TV he stated “The first sitting president in the history of this country that used those words, ‘I support same-sex marriage’ — a point of real courage. This is not a politician running for re-election for city council or mayor of a blue city or, for that matter, governor of a blue state. He’s running for re-election in a very close election where he’s got to pick up these swing states. It was a point of remarkable courage.” Obama’s reluctance to strongly endorse same-sex marriage follows growing dissent among Democrats, including vice president Joe Biden. Newsom says this statement restores strength to Obama’s campaign. “He’s become once again the president we elected.”

Additionally, we have this press release from the Rainbow Sash Movement:

The Rainbow Sash Movement a National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Roman Catholics responds to the public statement of Cardinal Dolan current president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, head of the New York Archdiocese and Rev. Bryant Wright, president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Both of these men claim to speak for Christians on Gay Marriage, expressing distress and sadness at President Obama’s newly announced support for gay marriage. On the contrary President Obama spoke of his personal religious belief in his understanding of the Golden Rule of do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Given the current state of religious hypocrisy neither Dolan or Wright stand on solid ground.

The Rainbow Sash Movement commends President Obama on his integrity, and recognizing that it was time for Presidential leadership on Gay Marriage. Christianity like the Bible has no single group speaking for it, and any who claim to speak for either are not of God..

Joe Murray the Executive Director of the Rainbow Sash Movement said “We can no longer allow religious leaders to promote second class citizenship to any group of US Citizens based on their narrowly defined dogma which only promotes bigotry in the name of biblical fundamentalism as was done in North Carolina. Constitutional violence is just as wrong as any other form of mindless violence.

We are glad that we have a president who believes in the separation of Church and State.

God bless President Obama, you make us proud to be Americans once again.”

President Obama

President Barack Obama has voiced his dissatisfaction with the vote in North Carolina to ban any form of same-sex union. Obama’s NC campaign spokesman Cameron French stated that “The president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples.”

He went on to say “He believes the North Carolina measure singles out and discriminates against committed gay and lesbian couples, which is why he did not support it. President Obama has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples and is disappointed in the passage of this amendment. On a federal level, he has ended the legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act and extended key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.”

While the voters of North Carolina voted 61 to 39 in favor of the amendment amid allegations of voting irregularities, this is not going to be seen as a full on set back for the LGBT rights movement, but rather as another attempt to bully other states into not holding votes on this issue moving forward.

Meanwhile, people are awaiting word from President Barack Obama himself about the issue of marriage equality. In fact, it is expected that Obama will now endorse same-sex marriage fully.

Originally Posted 8 May 2012

By now, we all know that North Carolina has passed an anti-marriage equality amendment that will, in the end, hurt all families in the state. Protect All NC Families issued this statement:

“No One Wins Tonight in North Carolina,” says Campaign Manager, Jeremy Kennedy

Raleigh, N.C. — Tonight the discriminatory and overreaching Amendment One passed on the North Carolina primary ballot, enshrining discrimination into the state’s constitution. The amendment, which also bans civil unions and could strip rights, benefits and protections from children, families, battered women and seniors, made it to the ballot after Republicans took control of both houses of the legislature in 2010. Polling shows that support for LGBT equality is at an all-time high in North Carolina and across the country.

“While we are disappointed in tonight’s result, we know this concerted North Carolina effort to defeat Amendment One and protect all of the state’s families galvanized North Carolina and mobilized North Carolinians in historic ways,” said Coalition to Protect All NC Families Campaign Manager Jeremy Kennedy. “From unheard of homegrown fundraising online to unprecedented grassroots activism on the ground, Protect All NC Families was a campaign carried on the backs of countless North Carolinians who worked tirelessly to defeat a divisive constitutional rewrite that would hurt families they know and love. And our fight for fairness is not over.”

Amendment One is about more than marriage. It is overreaching and could have unintended consequences for families, children, women and seniors in North Carolina, including loss of healthcare benefits and domestic violence protections.

Because of Amendment One’s broad language, threatening protections for all unmarried North Carolina couples and their children, it was the Protect All NC Families campaign’s charge to educate North Carolinians about the amendment’s many intended and unintended consequences. In doing so, the campaign had over one million conversations—online and on the ground—with North Carolinians about potential harms to children’s health care, unmarried women’s domestic violence protections, and threats to hospital visitation, end-of-life directives and parental rights.

In North Carolina and across the country there is a shift in public opinion on LGBT equality. The numbers from the vote on Amendment One show there is a multigenerational and multicultural support for equality.

An unprecedented coalition came together to fight Amendment One. The partnerships developed in this campaign were deep and wide. The Coalition to Protect NC Families was proud to partner with the NAACP, over 400 faith leaders from across the state and the theological spectrum, progressive organizations including Equality North Carolina and the Human Rights Campaign, business leaders, students, and every day North Carolinians.

Kennedy added: “This fight was about more than marriage. Amendment One was overreaching and will have unintended consequences for families, children, women, and seniors in North Carolina. We will continue to work with our partners across the state to ensure fairness, equality, and common sense prevail.”

What is now important is not so much that Amendment One passed, as was expected, but by how much. Many LGBT activists, at this point, are more focused on the courts with regards to marriage equality. Should the Defense of Marriage Act go down, then so long as one state has marriage equality, it will no longer be an issue.

President Obama

Originally published May 8, 2012

Officially, President Obama’s views on same-sex marriage are still “evolving.” Nothing’s changed, there’s nothing to see here, move along people…..

I really don’t get the idea that statements of personal opinion by Vice-President Biden and Secretary of Education Duncan represent some kind of division in the administration. I don’t understand why commentators are going nuts over this and analyzing it to death.

There is a major difference between pandering to a fringe for votes and knowing how a single issue can be manipulated to drive voters to the polls. Anyone suggesting that President Obama is refusing to take a public stand on same-sex marriage to pander to Southern voters is wrong.

In 2000 and 2004, we saw the Republican Party use same-sex marriage to get people to the polls. They included same-sex marriage amendments on state ballots so that they could increase turnout among people who would vote against Democrats. In 2008, with the economy in freefall, they could not use a single religion-based issue to drive voter turnout. They have spent the past four years building up their smoke-and-mirror issues and throwing dirt at the President to see what will stick and what might get out the hate vote. He doesn’t need to hand them gay rights on top of all the rest of the stuff they have nurtured.

Listen to them, to conservatives and Republicans, and you hear allegations that he supports illegal immigration because illegals turned out in droves to vote for him; that he wants to turn the United States into a communist dictatorship; that he “wipes his ass with the Constitution”; that he supports killing babies; that he is anti-religion; that he has not done anything in four years; that he spends millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars on his lavish lifestyle; that he should be hung as a traitor; that he hates America; that he hates business; that he is bosom buddies with radicals he barely knows and sat at the feet of Saul Alinsky as a student, though Alinsky died when Obama was in short pants. They have dug up nonsense from thirty, forty years ago to smear anyone who gets within two-hundred yards of Obama and paint them as Maoists who control the President. You hear racism at every turn, with people calling the President of the United States of America a monkey, a gangbanger, a coon and describe our First Lady as resembling a “crack ho wiping cum from her lips.”

No candidate in his right mind is going to hand the opposition another way to get gullible people to the polls for a single, hate-driven issue. It’s bad enough a third of Republicans think he’s a Kenyan-born Muslim.

It does not matter what President Obama says in public about same-sex marriage or gay rights. He may, honestly, as a Christian, have reservations about same-sex marriage. What matters at this time are his actions. He signed the law ending DADT. He ended government defense of DOMA. He has made his position crystal clear….he opposes restriction of civil rights for any reason.

Isn’t that what really matters?

Related articles

• Obama’s shift on same-sex marriage puts focus on GOP centrists(boston.com)

  ---

• Why Republicans should resist using the same-sex marriage issue against Obama.(althouse.blogspot.com)

  ---

• Clay Aiken Tells Hate Group Leader Tony Perkins He’ll Be Ashamed of His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage: VIDEO (towleroad.com)
• New Amendment on Same-Sex Marriage: Constitutional or Not? (parishgov.wordpress.com)

Mitt and Ann Romney

Sometimes the political calculus is not so much about what can gain you the most flat out, but rather, what you can gain and lose. Ask two different pundits about President Barack Obama’s support for same-sex marriage and you will get two different answers. What is amazing, though, is that they will both be mostly correct. By supporting same-sex marriage openly, Obama has managed to lose some voters while gaining others.

Political calculus is never really about the base gain, but rather the balancing act between the gain and the loss.

Bill White is a good example. The openly gay New Yorker has been a strong supporter for Mitt Romney, and even donated $2,500 to his campaign. However, after President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, White found himself in a position to make a choice, and he made it. The vehement opposition to same-sex marriage that came out of Mitt Romney’s mouth after Obama’s announcement was enough. White asked for his money back.

White stated in a letter to Romney’s campaign which was quoted in the Huffington Post “I feel that I no longer wish to support your presidential campaign and ask you that you please return the maximum contribution that I gave to you last year. You have chosen to be on the wrong side of history and I do not support your run for president any longer.”

White is a registered Independent. He does not agree with President Obama on fiscal issues, but “I feel like [Romney has] declared war on my marriage. And I could just sit back and not say anything. Or I could do something about it. And I’ve chosen to do something about it.”

The Huffington Post notes that:

Obama’s campaign has sought to draw on that growing support by highlighting the “strong contrast” between the president and Romney. One day before Romney’s speech, the Obama team’s director of religious outreach, Rev. Derrick Harkins, said that Obama stands for “values like loving our neighbors, being our brother’s and sister’s keeper and dignity for all,” a reference to the president’s stance on same-sex marriage.

There is more to this than just that. Many businesses are opposed to banning same-sex marriage these days as they are finding it hard to hire workers who are not open minded. In North Carolina and Minnesota, businesses vehemently opposed bans on same-sex marriage.

Statement from President Clinton:

“Hello, this is President Bill Clinton. I’m calling to urge you to vote against Amendment One on Tuesday May 8. If it passes, it won’t change North Carolina’s law on marriage. What it will change is North Carolina’s ability to keep good businesses, attract new jobs, and attract and keep talented entrepreneurs. If it passes, your ability to keep those businesses, get those jobs, and get those talented entrepreneurs will be weakened. And losing even one job to Amendment One is too big of a risk. Its passage will also take away health insurance from children and could even take away domestic violence protections from women. So the real effect of the law is not to keep the traditional definition of marriage, you’ve already done that. The real effect of the law will be to hurt families and drive away jobs. North Carolina can do better. Again, this is Bill Clinton asking you to please vote against Amendment One. Thanks.”

And, believe it or not, Glinda the Good Witch of the North. . .and many members of WICKED are also set to push to end this attempt to write discrimination into the constitution of North Carolina:

On Monday, May 7, members of Broadway’s biggest blockbuster, WICKED will work the phones and mobilize North Carolina voters against Amendment One, a constitutional amendment on the May 8, 2012, North Carolina primary ballot that would ban relationship recognitions and threaten protections for the state’s unmarried couples.

Cast members including Tiffany Haas (“Glinda”) and Michael Rose (ensemble, u/s for “Fiyero”), crew and musicians from the second national tour of WICKED will be on-hand at the Durham Protect All NC Families headquarters (201 West Main St. Suite 200) from 3 to 6 p.m., to man phone banks, talk to volunteers and get the word out against Amendment One.

The company is currently performing at Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC) and is onstage through May 27. Following each performance of WICKED between May 3 and May 6 cast members, crew and musicians are disseminating information about Amendment One, talking with patrons about the amendment, and encouraging them to vote against on May 8.

For more information about joining a virtual phone bank for Protect All NC Families, please visit, http://www.protectallncfamilies.org/vpb.

WICKED has “cast quite a spell” (Washington Post) throughout North America, breaking box office records in every city that it has played, including Toronto, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, DC, Philadelphia and Boston to name a few. Called “a cultural phenomenon” by Variety, WICKED continues to thrill audiences around the world. There are currently seven productions of WICKED worldwide: New York; London; Japan; Holland; Australian/Asian Tour; and two concurrent North American National Tours.

The whole piece is worth reading because it is an unflinching conservative reckoning with the forces of modernity. Much of its core argument I made in the third chapter of “Virtually Normal”: that once middle class gay people have emerged in a middle class society, simply refusing to tackle the subject of how to integrate them was not a long-term conservative proposition; and the alternative – more religiously-based repression against a minority rapidly gaining acceptance – was reactionary and spiteful. The point was simply that marriage was the obvious conservative solution: bring gays into this architectonic institution under the Burkean banner of conservative reform. That’s what I tried to argue for on conservative and libertarian grounds. Sadly, the neocons and theocons decided to ratchet conservative policy back to the 1950s. It was Bill Kristol who attempted to bring reparative therapy into the conservative mainstream in response to our progress in integration. It was as disgusting a move as it was utterly cynical.

McCarthy writes in his article:

Same-sex marriage is a radically new notion; its apologists have to stretch exiguous evidence to find any foreshadowing in past societies. This should not be surprising, since homosexuality itself, as a thing parallel to heterosexuality, is a recent invention. Homosexual activity may be as old as civilization, but the idea of a category of person whose sexual identity is primarily defined by same-sex attraction, yet who is otherwise quite like the mainstream of society, is of recent vintage. That people in this group are not negligible in numbers—amounting to perhaps 5 percent of the general population—has also been a slowly dawning realization.

. . .

For the better part of 2,000 years the meaning of marriage was stable because the authority of Christianity was constant. In an age when the Church no longer supplies the institutional framework for family life, the definition of marriage has become radically uncertain. Into this fluid environment—in which individualism or atomism is once again rising to the fore, as in the Roman Empire—the new fact of homosexuality was gradually introduced. The result, same-sex marriage, has shocked conservatives. But this innovation has moved so far so quickly only because it is not at all out of step with the institutions and ideas of our time.

McCarthy is only broadly correct. Homosexuality and heterosexuality only dates back to the very late 1800′s- around 1870 to be more exact. However, he is incorrect in a number of manners. Many cultures have had what we, today, would call same-sex marriages. In fact, the difference between what some would call “homosexual marriage” and “same-sex marriage” is not just terminology, but reality. Almost all Native American cultures had a form of same-sex marriage, as did- it appears- the Celts. Marriage has also not had as stable a meaning as McCarthy claims since that has changed repeatedly over the centuries- including it should be noted cousin marriages, and certain consanguinary marriages.

Finally, McCarthy is incorrect about the percentage of lesbians and gays in the population- there are about 7.5-8% who are willing to admit to being lesbian or gay, and the probability is that about 10% of the population is lesbian or gay.

Still, McCarthy is right about something- the world is changing. I am not convinced he understands the why, but the reality is that we no longer have a society that is based on the farm, or in the world of male supremacy.

Public Policy Polling notes that support for Amendment One has dropped down to 54% while opposition is up to 40% with about 6% undecided. This is the best set of numbers since PPP started polling back in October. What is more, they found that support among Black voters had dropped some 10%. Democrats oppose the amendment 38% in favor to 56% opposed.

PPP director Tom Jensen told TPM that “The against side has an advantage in terms of tv air time and grassroots momentum and for the first time this week I really believe there’s a chance the amendment could fail. I never would have thought that until now. I think opponents of the amendment should be very encouraged and if they do every little thing they can in the final days to make sure voters are informed the potential for a seismic upset is there.”

TPM notes that:

The “against side” Jensen alluded to is the Coalition to Protect NC Families, the organization powering the opposition campaign. On Monday, the coalition debuted its first two television ads with the intention of purchasing more air time before the May 8 vote. One ad features a mother who expresses fear over her daughter potentially losing health insurance benefits if Amendment One passes, while the other spot centers around a victim of domestic violence who explains how passage of the amendment could preclude her from legal protections against her former significant other. Both ads encapsulate the opposition campaign’s central message: the amendment would yield sweeping implications. Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for the Coalition to Protect NC Families, told TPM that he has tirelessly stressed that point to voters.

“We have found that our message moves people, that they are concerned about the far-reaching consequences of this amendment,” Kennedy said. “These messages get us within striking distance of victory here.”

Misconceptions have frustrated opponents ever since the measure was approved by the Republican-controlled general assembly last fall. PPP has consistently found that large percentages of North Carolinians are unaware of what ultimate passage of the amendment would actually mean. Many believe that it would simply outlaw same-sex marriage, unaware that it would also deny legal recognition to all civil unions and domestic partnerships. Kennedy said the campaign has emphasized that gay marriage — already illegal under North Carolina law — will be unaffected by either outcome.

“What the other side says is that it’s just about marriage and protecting marriage, but what we’ve been saying all along is that it’s about much more than marriage,” Kennedy said. “Why would we be so irresponsible to amend our constitution in a way that would strip families of benefits and domestic violence protections?”

In recent days, likely after the polls were conducted, one sponsor of the amendment has actually come out against it saying that he would vote against the amendment itself. This statement was issued on camera and has been distributed widely. Opposition to the amendment has also been growing lately including among professionals who work with children. They are concerned that such an amendment could greatly injure the children of LGBT residents of North Carolina.

Protect All NC Families notes that:

Sen. Hagan says she opposes Amendment One because of its far-reaching consequences for North Carolina’s families, children and communities. “I do not believe we should amend our state’s constitution to take away people’s rights,” says Hagan. “Amendment One harms our resolve to make all people and all families great.”

Hagan also highlights the economic harms of Amendment One, pointing to pervasive constituent concerns from North Carolina’s business community.

“We have seen and heard from business leaders from across North Carolina who are worried about our ability to compete with states that are not passing such divisive amendments,” said Hagan. “In this competitive environment we simply cannot afford to pass Amendment One.”

Hagan’s concerns about Amendment One’s impact on North Carolina’s business interests and competitiveness comes the same week as the premiere of the WRAL documentary “The Amendment,” which was unable to find a single CEO who would speak in favor of the amendment. “We tried to find a CEO who supports Amendment One to interview. We worked with the two lead organizations campaigning for it, the North Carolina Family Policy Council and the North Carolina Values Coalition,” said WRAL’s David Crabtree. “They could not find a pro-amendment CEO willing to be interviewed for this documentary.”

Protect All NC Families underscored the importance of Sen. Hagan’s statement against Amendment One. “This powerful new video from our U.S. Senator reflects clearly all that’s at stake as voters consider Amendment One,” said Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for Protect All NC Families. “Those impacted by Amendment One are indeed our friends, neighbors and loved ones, and as people head to the polls this week, it is our hope that Sen. Hagan’s voice joins the rising chorus of trusted leaders who can inform North Carolinians’ votes against in the continuing effort to protect North Carolina families, children, business and the reputation of this state as whole.”

Nagel said “It is very rare that the Catholic Church allows such political activity on her property (you may remember a similar process some years ago regarding an initiative on abortion). It only happens when the political issue touches upon a clear and important teaching of the church.”

Which is a lie, of course. As much as Nagel wants to claim that this is going to be about religious freedom, it is actually about opposing religious tyranny.

Nagel also stated that those who oppose legal civil marriage for same-sex couples ““are being called ‘bigots’ by some,” but he maintains that they are “two completely different ways of looking at the issue. The Catholic Church does not believe that people with same sex attraction are inferior. It is sometimes said to support the charge of bigotry that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons are ‘disordered’. That is not true.”

He went on to say “It is true that the sexual DESIRES for persons of the same sex are disordered. That is, such desires are not ORDERED, or aimed, at the right end or goal. But we all have disordered desires — in terms of sex, food, power, money, etc. That is because, although made in the image and likeness of God, we are also fallen creatures.”

Here in is where he mistakes what bigotry is about. When you call the natural actions and desires of someone disordered, you call the individual disordered. That is bigotry. It is no different than calling Catholics evil because they practice ritualized cannibalism, and that has no basis in natural actions or desires, but religious beliefs.

According to SeattlePi.com:

Nagel argued that “homosexual persons” already have “the legal benefits of marriage” — thanks to the Domestic Partnership law enacted when Washington voters approved Referendum 71 in 2009.

“So our opposition to redefining marriage is not now a matter of denying anyone legal rights,” Nagel told parishoners.

He acknowledged that the Washington State Catholic Conference opposed the 2009 Domestic Partnership law, as “obviously” a step toward legalizing marriage and “in part because we don’t believe such sexual relationships encourage the best lives and greatest happiness for homosexual persons.”

“The Catholic Church believes that creating this new legal and social institution of domestic partnerships is, on balance, not wise,” Nagel said. “But it is doable. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, believes that Gay MARRIAGE is simply not possible.”

“Like the Resurrected Body of Jesus, so the definition of marriage as necessarily between a man and a woman, is an objective fact: part of the reality of the universe, whether we believe it or not.”

“Marriage is not a man-made institution, as domestic partnerships are. Marriage was created and defined by God. It’s not changeable in this way, even if human law says that it is.”

Actually, marriage is a man-made institution, and has been practiced in some form among almost every single culture on the face of the planet, and long before Christianity even sought to define marriage some 500 years after the birth of Christ. There were those among the early founders of Christianity who argued that marriage was sinful and should be abolished. In the United States, it was not until the founding of the nation that Catholics could get married since British law prevented non-Anglicans from marrying anywhere other than in the Anglican Church, and that meant converting to Anglicanism, which many Catholics would not do.

Almost every attempt to define marriage has come with this attempt to limit it to Christianity. This is a very ethnocentric view of marriage, and is completely incorrect.

This Sunday 22^nd April french voter will choose between 10 presidential candidates. The polls are currently giving the socialist Francois Hollande and the right-wing candidate Nicolas Sarkozy winner of the first round. Out of the ten candidates three of them are women: the extreme left-wing candidate Nathalie Arthaud, the green party candidate Eva Joly and the extreme right-wing candidate Marine Le Pen. However, according to the polls none of them will be present for the second round.
The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans topic has not, as often, been considered as an important societal issue. During this campaign candidates used the fear of the other The association Sos Homophobie in its annual report of 2011, shows that there the last few years, the number of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender has increased. Compared to year 2010 there is 18% more testimonies. Since last year, internet has been the first play where homophobic discrimination takes place. Assaults in public places has increased 43% between 2009 and 2010. However, these numbers are only the tip of the iceberg. They represents the number of cases identified and reported and not all other victims. The fact that there is still discrimination based on your sexual orientation should remind us on the importance of the next presidential elections. It is the opportunity to make mentalities change.

In the context of the presidential election this same association submitted to the candidates twelve questions on equal rights, the fight against discrimination related to sexual orientation and gender identity. Each party answered to the questions, which shows an effort to take in consideration the LGBT’s rights. Anyhow, the results of the questions shows us that all political parties are not willing to do much more effort. As usual, there is a strong contrast between the left and right parties. None of the right-wing parties are open to same-sex marriage and equality in access to parenthood. On the other hand, all left-wing parties are in favor of equal rights between heterosexual and homosexual people. There is just one question on which they all agree on, which is to help and support people victim of homophobia.

It seems hard, if not even impossible, to fight homophobia if the States doesn’t give the right message to the people. A start would be to give equal rights to everyone. By refusing to give homosexuals the same right of marriage and parenting it puts them in a different category. The heterosexuals are considered better, more worthy. This creates and encourages discrimination based on sexual orientation. Nonetheless, these issues are not considered as essential in the campaign. Even though all the parties have expressed more or less their opinion, only few plans on actually realizing it. Four candidates, the socialist Francois Hollande, the left-candidate of Front de Gauche Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the anti-capitalistic Philippe Poutou and the green candidate Eva Joly wants to give same marriage rights for all couples. The centrist candidate, Francois Bayrou, agrees with them concerning equal parent rights for everyone. The other candidates say they only agree to give same-sex couples the right to a civil union which would be comparable to the marriage. That is still discriminatory towards LGBT people.

With the eleven other questions the candidates continue to draw the difference between the left- and right-wing parties. One question concerned the blood donation. In France, if a man has had once a sexual intercourse with an other man it is enough for lifetime ban on blood donation. This to prevent the risk of HIV contamination. The green candidate Eva Joly and anti-capitalistic candidate Philippe Poutou are both saying that the selection should not be based on prejudice, but on real medical facts. Nicolas Sarkozy talks about only refusing it to people who have had sex in less that a year. Marine Le Pen expresses herself all against. Once again, refusing blood donation from gay people because of the “risk factor” reinforces a negative image of gay people assimilated to sickness.

The conclusion of these twelve question is that the difference between left and right is more than ever accurate when talking about minorities issues. Only the left-wing leader of Le Front de Gauche: Jean-Luc Mélenchon and the green leader of Europe Ecologie : Eva Joly answered positively on 11 out of the 12 questions. The Green party represented by Eva Joly is already, since 2001, the first political party to have claimed the recognition of LGBT parents/families and equal rights with different sex families. Already then they also suggested the right for adoption for same-sex couples. In contrast to them, Marine Le Pen answered negatively to all questions except one, which concerns assistance to young people victim of homophobic attacks.

For the french people, who takes the gay issues into account for the elections, have suddenly narrowed their choice. Even though some of the right-wing candidates promises changes, it is not one of their main issues. Nicolas Sarkozy, when elected in 2007, promised to give more financial rights to gay couples, nothing ever happened.

With only a couple of days left before the first round of the French presidential election, the polls estimates the socialist Francois Hollande and the right-wing leader Nicolas Sarkozy winners. The first one suggests, in addition to the equal rights, a ministry of women’s right conducted by a women. This in order to reduce the gaps between men and women in the society.

Which is not so much of a surprise. What is surprising, on the other hand, is the great popularity of Marine Le Pen, who is estimated to have around 15%. She is representing the extreme right-wing party: Le Front National. This party collects the people’s fear and then distributes a message of hate and discrimination. What is frightening is the normalization process that goes along the fact that this party is fighting for the third place at the elections. More and more people identifies to what the party represents and says. More and more people therefore convey this message of hatred.

This years campaign feels like it only started three weeks ago. And even since then, there haven’t occurred any debates (that because the top runners wanted to wait for the second round). When it concerns social issues it seems like it is always the same. The left-wing parties puts the focus on these issues, while the right-wing parties knows their existence but does not put a priority on solving them.

Even though some have started to refuse to be involved, the Archdiocese is saying that the majority of churches in Western Washington have begun to collect signatures. Still, Barbara Guzzo, who organized Catholics for Marriage Equality in Washington, feels that this move from the archbishop is driving people away from the Catholic Church. She stated “I think this is just another way that we say to people that you really aren’t welcome. Some people are going to feel nervous about even going to church: Are there going to be petitions? Do I want to sign? Do I not want to sign?”

The Archdiocese has said that this was a request to parishes to participate, not a directive; however, as anyone who has ever worked in a place where there is a capricious work environment and few workers rights know that a suggestion is often a directive no matter what you want to believe. The Archdiocese’s spokesman stated “There’s no question that people are divided on this issue and each pastor is being given the authority to decide at the local level how best to handle this issue.”

Guzzo applauds the parish leaders at the three who have refused saying “I agree with them that having petition gatherers at church is very divisive.”

We have learned via JoeMyGod that Brian Brown’s personal Twitter account was hacked:

And- OF COURSE- we have these lovely letters going out from NOM begging for money:

In the midst of a vicious barrage of media attacks parroting the propaganda of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), HRC’s publication of stolen NOM tax returns, illegal hacking of NOM’s online accounts, and new legal action taken by NOM to defend ourselves and the rights of marriage supporters throughout the country, I don’t want to forget the wonderful and important work taking place down in North Carolina.

Our theme this week has been “We Stand United!” And nowhere is that more true than in North Carolina where the African American church has provided stalwart leadership in speaking out for God’s truth about marriage.

But if we are truly united, we must all stand with them, not just in word, but in deed as well. In just 24 days, North Carolina voters will go to the polls, making North Carolina the 32nd state to vote on same-sex marriage.

And that is why I am asking you to please make your most generous gift today to help secure victory for marriage in North Carolina!

Donate now

Our opponents in North Carolina have raised millions of dollars and amassed mountains of cash—and they are openly suggesting that they could defeat the North Carolina marriage amendment.

If all of this stuff is illegal- where are the police investigations? Where are the FBI agents crawling all over the computers of NOM? How could Brian Brown not change his Twitter password after the main account was hacked? The answer is simple- none of this actually happened. They were not hacked. They did not have someone else leak their IRS information. They did all of this deliberately- and it’s a long standing manipulative trick that they have used for decades on the Right.

It’s time that NOM stopped these lies. Either that, or the police need to investigate.

Where In The World You Can Get A Starbucks

The National Organization for Marriage has decided to take their DumpStarbucks campaign international. This might have something to do with the fact that they are desperate to actually have a victory, but aren’t actually able to achieve one in the United States since, apparently, their decision to boycott Starbucks has resulted in people staying in droves.

Heck, apparently, Starbucks is actually gaining customers in the US.

Starbucks has 5,500 stores in 58 nations. It should be noted that the majority of those are in places that aren’t Egypt, China, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait.

NOM wrote:

“In our first week, we gained 25,000 pledge signers in the U.S. alone; today we go international, expanding DumpStarbucks.com campaigns into Mandarin, Arabic, Turkish, Spanish, and Bahala (one of the chief languages of Indonesia),” announced NOM President Brian Brown. “DumpStarbucks.com online ads will also start running in Egypt, Beijing, Hong Kong, the Yunnan region of China, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait.”

“What happens in Seattle won’t to stay in Seattle,” Brown continued. “By making gay marriage core to his brand, Starbucks CEO Howard Schulz is telling millions of customers and partners who support traditional marriage in the Middle East, China, South America and North America that they aren’t truly part of the Starbucks community.”

“The National Organization for Marriage is in this for the long haul,” said Jonathan Baker, head of NOM’s Corporate Fairness Project. “Here’s our goal: If Howard Schultz and his insular Seattle liberals hear from enough of us, management will move to a more genuinely inclusive attitude toward its customers’ and partners’ diverse views on marriage. People should be able to drink or serve a great cup of coffee without betraying their own core values on marriage.”

Starbucks as a company recently endorsed gay marriage in the state of Washington, and signed onto an amicus brief asking U.S. courts to overturn the federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman. NOM’s DumpStarbucks.com protest campaign was launched after Starbucks President and CEO Howard Schultz confirmed that gay marriage is “core” to the Starbucks brand.

The National Organization for Marriage will continue developing the DumpStarbucks.com campaign.

It seems like the only ones who are deluding themselves are NOM here. You see. . .Starbucks has had problems transferring their business overseas because of not being as adept at adapting to local customers. What is more, the social politics of the United States aren’t going to really matter to the average Egyptian who is already facing pressure not to go to Starbucks because of anti-American sentiment.

Simply put, NOM is getting desperate for a victory- any victory, and this isn’t going to happen here.

According to ThinkProgress “Individuals who take the pledge are encouraged to refer to the freedom to marry as a ‘special right,’ a ‘hellish’ and ‘evil’ doctrine, and an ‘attack by demonic forces.’” Of course, my demonic alter ego seems to actually be a lot less wild than I am. . .

Here are some excerpts:

I pledge that I will:

1. Go to the polls and vote NO on Sodomy Based Marriage in November.

3. Use the term “Sodomy Based Marriage” and avoid the deceptive terms “same sex or gay marriage.”

4. Inform my friends and neighbors that the term “same sex marriage” contains two contradictory terms, and is therefore, illogical, false, and absurd.

5. Marriage is a Covenant that is entered into between two people and is based on a difference in gender; and there can be no moral or legal right to a practice which defies logic, common sense, and the Natural Law itself.

9. Reaffirm the Christian Church’s teaching that a child must never be denied the right to have both a mother and a father. Oppose the hellish doctrine that parents of the same sex make better parents than parents of the opposite sex, an evil doctrine which is now being advanced by the homosexual rights movement.

11. Pray that God will deliver our State and Country from this attack by demonic force, and that marriage between man and woman will be restored to its rightful place of honor, to the glory of Almighty God.

So, basically, theirs is an attempt to force others to adhere to their religious beliefs. ThinkProgress notes that:

Madore and Heath’s rhetoric is unabashedly anti-gay, but it’s important to note that all of the rhetoric fits the models offered by groups that use tamer language, like the National Organization for Marriage and Catholic Church. By framing the effort around so-called “religious freedom” and protecting children, No Special Rights PAC is fighting with fear and trying to erase same-sex families and the many faith communities that support them.

To quote Yoda “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Makes you wonder not only what side the LGBT community is on, but whether or not Madore and Heath really are…well, gay and ashamed.

On its website, Preserve Marriage Washington, the campaign trying to defeat the same-sex-marriage law, said it has collected 4,583 of the 150,000 signatures it needs by June 6; at least 120,577 of those must be valid for the measure to make it onto the November ballot.

The site links to a number of permanent locations — churches, businesses and private homes — where people can go to sign petitions.

Additionally, campaign volunteers are collecting signatures at political events across the state, said campaign manager Joseph Backholm. Petitions are likely to show up in church vestibules and foyers and be passed down the aisle during Sunday services.

In the three weeks or so Referendum 74 has been in circulation, Backholm said the campaign has received requests from 1,500 churches across the state, exhausted the first 50,000 petitions and filled orders for thousands more.

They have a lot of work ahead of them. What may, ultimately, deter many people from being willing to sign the petitions fro Referendum 74 is the fact that the names of those who sign it are well known and easily accessible. In fact, one person took that information and wrote to those who signed Referendum 71 asking them not to sign the new petitions.

The way that this could unfold could result in some very interesting results. If the referendum fails to get on the ballot or fails in the polls, it shows a slow shift away from the opponents of same-sex marriage.

MetroWeekly reports that:

According to a statement released today by Obama for America Minnesota Communications Director Kristin Sosanie, she said, “While the President does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples.”

In the statement provided to Metro Weekly, she continued, “That’s what the Minnesota ballot initiative would do — it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples — and that’s why the President does not support it.”

Minnesota, North Carolina, and Maine are all actively involved in a battle over same-sex marriage this year.

They are speaking out at the University of Maine as they kick off their annual Pride Week. The two are distributing fliers, holding press conferences and speaking out against same-sex marriage on the Orono campus. Their spot, though, it about ten yards from where the rainbow flag is being raised to kick off Pride Week.

WGME notes that “Dean of Students Robert Dana says the university encourages diverse viewpoints, as long they’re expressed in a respectful and civil manner.”

Maine voters strongly favor same-sex marriage these days, so these two have a hard job ahead of them.

Here is the interview followed by the transcript:

TAPPER: You oppose same sex marriage. ABC News in a recent poll found that 52 percent of the American people now support same sex marriage. That’s definitely the direction that public opinion is going. Do you think there will come a time when Saddleback Church needs to adjust its position on same sex marriage in the same way that churches have throughout the years adjusted their positions. For instance, on divorce. Divorce used to be, you know, if you got divorced, you were persona non grata.

WARREN: I think divorce is a much bigger problem. I do. I think it has caused far more families grief than other problems. But you know what, it’s funny, every interview I do I get asked this question as if a Christian pastor is going to change his mind. I serve a higher power, Jesus Christ. I make no apologies in saying that.

WARREN: And so I believe what Jesus says about the Bible – and he says the Bible is the word of God. Well, if the Bible is the word of God, then I don’t have the right to change it. Policies come and go over the years. And so if I’m unpopular for certain beliefs, well, then I’m unpopular for certain beliefs. And to me, the Bible is very clear that sex is for a man and a woman in marriage only.

WARREN: That makes me extremely unpopular. Why? Because I don’t believe in premarital sex. I believe sex is only for marriage, between a man and a woman, and it has a purpose there. Why? Because I believe the Bible. Why would anybody expect a Christian pastor to believe anything else?

TAPPER: I didn’t ask you if you’d change your mind. But certainly your church has members who have engaged in premarital sex.

WARREN: Oh, of course.

TAPPER: And I’m wondering if you think the church, in order to continue to thrive, might have to adjust its policy on same sex marriage?

WARREN: Actually, history shows that when the church accommodates culture, it weakens it. This is why there is a very weak church in Europe today. It’s almost non-existent in many areas.

TAPPER: When President Obama spoke here at Saddleback, he said that he opposed same sex marriage. He thought marriage was between one man and one woman. He has since said that he’s evolving on this issue. I think a lot of people in Washington think that President Obama after November will come out in favor of same sex marriage, whether he is a second-term president or an ex-president. Are you concerned at all about what his position might be in 2013 on this issue?

WARREN: I can’t control what other people believe. I just know what the Bible says.

Still, the fact that the voter veto of the same-sex marriage law lost by less than 4% (52% to 48%) and polls going into that were pretty much evenly split, this is encouraging news. Of course, polls are just a starting point, but they do not guarantee a victory in November.

Rep. Allen West

Allen West may not really like same-sex marriage, but at least he is now trying to run away from it by saying that it isn’t some gigantic threat to civilization. Now he just says it’s not important.

Last June, West stated that:

“The term ‘gay marriage’ is an oxymoron. Because marriage is a union and a bond between a man and a woman to do one thing: the furtherance of society by procreation, through creating new life. Have you ever read the book America Alone by Mark Steyn? It’s about demographics. And if we continue with a cycle of debt and punishing our unborn then it just becomes a matter of time before you don’t have society.”

Of course, as people have enjoyed pointing out, this definition of marriage would require forcing all unwed mothers to marry, banning divorce, and dissolving any union that doesn’t produce a child within five years.

So, of course, yesterday when asked about same-sex marriage, West just said that there “are a lot of people that try to take you down a rabbit hole to discuss things that really aren’t that important.” CNN’s Kyra Phillips then asked “Wait a minute. Are you saying gay marriage is not important?”

West went on to reply “I think if you poll the American people … I don’t think they’re going to bring up gay marriage as one of the top concerns. The American people are concerned about where they’re working.”

West is correct, to a certain degree. Most polls show that the majority of Americans are more worried about jobs than same-sex marriage. However, it should be pointed out that Republicans tend to be more worried about same-sex marriage than Democrats and Independents, and that is especially true for the Religious Right.

The letter, signed by Archbishop Peter Sartain and Auxiliary Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, rejects the idea that refusing marriage to same-sex couples is discriminatory. They say in the letter that:

“Treating different things differently is not unjust discrimination. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman because of its unique ends, purpose and place in society. The word ‘marriage’ isn’t simply a label that can be attached to different types of relationships.

“Instead ‘marriage’ reflects a deep reality — the reality of the unique, fruitful, lifelong union that is only possible between a man and a woman. There is nothing else like it, and it can’t be defined or made into something that it isn’t.”

The definition of marriage that the Catholic Church continues to rely upon has not been the definition of marriage used by the majority of people in almost more than a century.

State Senator Ed Murray, the architect of the bill, called the bishops’ use of the parishes as “fairly reprehensible.” He stated “To use church resources, in advancing a measure that promotes discrimination, is incredibly disappointing. As a gay person, and a Catholic, I can understand their refusal to perform (gay) marriages. Using the church in promoting a referendum . . . is very disappointing.”

In Maine, the Catholic Church has decided to stay out of the marriage battle because of the damage that they have done to themselves.

The Ohio Ballot Board must now review the proposed amendment before it is cleared for signature gathering. If supporters of the amendment gather the nearly 400,000 signatures they need, the measure would go before the voters in November 2013.

The measure is backed not only by Freedom to Marry, but the Cleveland chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Their president George Forbes stated “Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has there been a more important step to achieving equality for all Americans.”

Back in 2004, 62% of the Ohio electorate voted in favor of their DOMA, but a lot may have changed since then. Last year, Gallup showed that 53% of Americans supported same-sex marriage. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 49% of Americans support same-sex marriage. Statistically speaking, they are both about equal and both amount to roughly half of all Americans support same-sex marriage.

Supporters of the initiative are already preparing for the ground battle over the issue.

Related articles

• Ohio AG Turns Down Marriage Ballot Initiative (lezgetreal.com)

Lawmakers are pushing laws that would make homosexuality punishable by jail time.

Via CBS News

When a light is shined into the dark corners of American politics, it’s never pleasant to see what scurries away. Last week, a federal judge in Maine unsealed memos from the National Organization for Marriage, one of the most prominent groups fighting against same-sex marriage.

. . . .

The documents brag about its “crucial” role in passage of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage that was overturned by a federal appeals court. They describe the group’s use of “robo-calls” to scare residents in different states away from supporting marriage equality. They talk of a plan to “expose Obama as a social radical,” but the most appalling portions deal with the group’s racially and ethnically divisive strategies.

It is not surprising that NOM is busy pushing this kind of racially divisive strategy. Those of us who have been keeping an eye on them for a long time have known that this is what they are doing for some time now.

Or tried to.

Politico notes in a recent article that:

Just a few years ago, House Republicans were trying to etch their opposition of gay marriage into the Constitution.

Now? They’re almost silent.

It’s been one of the swiftest shifts in ideology and strategy for Republicans, as they’ve come nearly full circle on same-sex politics. What was once a front-and-center issue for rank-and-file Republicans — the subject of many hotly worded House and Senate floor speeches — is virtually a dead issue, as Republicans in Congress don’t care to have gay marriage litigated in the Capitol.

Politico does not think this through. Rather, they stick by the idea that the GOP aren’t really opposed to same-sex marriage any more, or are at least more focused on the economy. The reality is that many of the leadership in the GOP know that same-sex marriage as an issue is now untenable, especially since it has not been a rip roaring success for Rick Santorum on the campaign trail.

Politico also wrote:

It’s not like the GOP has become a bastion of progressiveness on gay rights, but there has been an evolution in the political approach — and an acknowledgment of a cultural shift in the country. Same-sex relationships are more prominent and accepted. There are more gay public figures — including politicians — and it’s likely that many Washington Republicans have gay friends and coworkers. Just as important — there’s also a libertarian streak of acceptance on people’s sexuality coursing through the House Republican Conference.

“In one decade, what’s shocking on TV is accepted as commonplace in the other,” said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a veteran of the culture wars of the 1990s. “It’s the same with sexual mores all over that if you look at campuses and universities, they have a lot of gay pride clubs and so there has been a deliberate and effective outreach to the younger generation about being more accepting of same-sex relationships.”

If you want, you can read the rest at Politico. The problem is that the rhetoric on the campaign trail is hardly a match to any kind of evolution. All of the GOP Presidential contenders are opposed to marriage equality- including Mitt Romney. This really is not about some evolution within the Republican Party, but more of a split within the GOP, and a desire not to go into full out civil war within the Party.

In several states, including Ohio, moves towards equality have been pushed back by the Republican Party, and the GOP has pushed two amendments to ban same-sex marriage in the states because they can. The GOP just knows that they cannot win a battle over same-sex marriage in Congress, so they aren’t willing to pursue it, and that means they aren’t going to talk about it.

Louis J Marinelli has a wonderful blog post up about how race plays into NOM’s strategy. Here are a few of the things he says, but the rest is worth reading:

For example, in an e-mail dated July 29, 2010 NOM CEO Maggie Gallagher wrote me and Eve Tushnet an e-mail referring to Bishop Battle, who was a guest speaker on the summer bus tour with the following subject line: “I need a close-up photo of Bishop Battle for the newsletter tomorrow.”

Her e-mail message itself wrote:

Does anyone have one they can send Eve Tushnet???

He’s black, he’s on our side, he’s COGIC, I need a close-up please advice [sic]. Maggie

Later on in that same e-mail dialog between the three of us, we came to an agreement about which of the photos that I took would be a good choice for the newsletter to tout the black Bishop’s role with NOM and in opposition to same-sex marriage. Maggie wrote:

great! Eve, work with Louis if nec. to figure out how to display this in the newsletter tomorrow. We’ll make a big deal of Bishop Battle and COGIC. [sic]

Maggie

…..

But the image that really caught Mr. Giganti’s eye was Image 2930. His comments wrote:

This is a great contrast shot of our people all happy and smiling (majority black, only one non-black in the picture) versus the angry counter-protesters. (Josh, this would be a good post. Luke / Colton: We may not a spot right now but keep this one close for future use – maybe a dynamic picture that rotates between positive, happy shots of our people versus our angry foes?) [sic]

That accounts for two of the photos he selected. Three more of his recommended photos were those which included the black Reverend Fauntroy and had to do with dealt his positioning in the photos and graphical issues such as cropping. A fourth dealt with a photo of Bishop Harry Jackson, a black bishop who spoke at NOM’s dismal Annapolis rally and in D.C.

It has been almost a year since that post went live, and we are all left wondering why the HRC didn’t press their advantage back then. Why not spend a year going after NOM for their racist ploys?

The Huffington Post notes that Reverent Ralph A Martino is unwilling to work with NOM even though he is an opponent of marriage equality. He noted that their tactics fan hostility and that “If this is the type of weaponry a group uses in order to stir up warfare and foster division, then we’re not part of that. This angle creates unnecessary drama and it will backfire.”

The HuffPo notes that “The drama has already begun”, but for many of us out here on the front lines, we have been seeing this for some time. North Carolina politicians pushed to get as many minority churches and pastors as possible out and visible to try and sway minority voters. They did their best to push this as a racial issue as well as a religious one.

NOM says in one memo that has now come out that:

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies,” states one of the memos. “Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots,” continued the memo, part of a set of documents that emerged as a result of a Maine lawsuit and then were leaked by the Human Rights Campaign.

If you want to read up on this, please head on over to the HuffPo. . .what we want to know is just how we have managed to get this far with these schmuks at the helm of this movement. Come on people, pay attention and stop acting like you’re asleep at the wheel here.

The documents have come to light during investigations into the Maine battle over marriage rights. Among the NOM passages include this one:

The strategic goal…is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…

The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity – a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation.

HRC President Joe Solmonese stated that “Nothing beats hearing from the horse’s mouth exactly how callous and extremist this group really is. Such brutal honesty is a game changer, and this time NOM can’t spin and twist its way out of creating an imagined rift between LGBT people and African Americans or Hispanics.”

Equality North Carolina also noted that

The documents detail NOM’s goals, including “2010 Priority: Roll Back Gay Marriage in New Hampshire, Iowa, and D.C.” and “keeping gay marriage controversial in Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut.” Marriage equality has in fact not been rolled back in either of these states or D.C. In NOM Deposition Exhibit 12, the group notes that it plans to spend $100,000 on a “study of what schools are teaching in gay marriage/civil union regimes.”

Protect All NC Families’ Campaign Manager Jeremy Kennedy stated regarding these revelations that

“While this is just the kind of cynical strategy NOM’s industry of division is famous for, it’s still shocking to know that as we’ve been building a broad coalition that unites communities in North Carolina, the National Organization for Marriage has been secretly plotting to pit our state’s voters against one another. This strategy of creating an imagined rift between North Carolinians illustrates that the only way to pass one of these amendments is by dividing the very groups that it will hurt the most. Under the auspices of promoting “family values,” we know now that NOM is simply in the business of pushing these divisive measures by any means necessary. And North Carolina voters have the right to know.”

This strategy is slowly, ever so slowly, failing. It is based on the Southern Strategy of appealing to the most hateful group of people to oppose someone else’s rights. In the Southern Strategy, the Republicans reached out to white racists in order to get them to vote against their own interests. In the NOM strategy, they have tricked Blacks and Latinos into voting against their best interests- equality.

NOM sent out a press release in which they stated:

We are urging consumers across the globe to “Dump Starbucks” because the massive international corporation has taken a corporate-wide position that marriage between one man and one woman should be eliminated and that same-sex marriage should become the norm. As such, Starbucks has declared it will use its influence and resources in a culture war against at least half its US customers, and against the vast majority of its international consumers who do not share Starbucks’ position.

Have you noticed that they are trying to claim that they are the victims here? Oh, if you missed it, it’s right here when they say “that marriage between one man and one woman should be eliminated and that same-sex marriage should become the norm.” It’s a brilliant little bit of wording, I’ll grant that, but Starbucks says nothing about eliminating heterosexual marriage and replacing it with same-sex marriage, but that is what NOM wants you to think. They want their readers to think that Starbucks is advocating the elimination of heterosexual marriage and its replacement with same-sex marriage.

In other words, Starbucks is one of those radical homosexualists who want to eliminate heterosexuality entirely.

Words are important, and what they are doing here is a mind fuck.

NOM also writes:

Unlike our opponents, we would never take action against a corporation because of the statements of one of its executives. However, Starbucks has declared gay marriage to be a corporate value and has intentionally inserted itself into the debate. Furthermore, NOM officials attended a meeting of the Board of Directors of Starbuck to bring this issue to their attention, and they did nothing.

Except that is what they are doing. The memo that they are furious over is the one that was sent out by Kalen Holmes the Executive Vice President, Partner Resources at Starbucks. In fact, she wrote, in full:

Starbucks is proud to join other leading Northwest employers in support of Washington State legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. Starbucks strives to create a company culture that puts our partners first, and our company has a lengthy history of leading and supporting policies that promote equality and inclusion.

This important legislation is aligned with Starbucks business practices and upholds our belief in the equal treatment of partners. It is core to who we are and what we value as a company. We are proud of our Pride Alliance Partner Network group, which is one of the largest Employer Resource Groups for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) employees in the U.S., helping to raise awareness about issues in the communities where we live and work.

For the last 20 years, our benefits program has offered domestic partner benefits in the U.S. These benefits include medical, dental, vision, prescription drugs and alternative health care coverage. All partners (part-time and full-time) in all work locations, whether in a store, a roasting plant or a corporate office, adhere to the same eligibility requirements for health coverage and have access to the same comprehensive health plans.

We are deeply dedicated to embracing diversity and treating one another with respect and dignity, and remain committed to providing an inclusive, supportive and safe work environment for all of our partners.

We look forward to seeing this legislation enacted into law.

As my grandfather supposedly once said “if you take care of your customers and take care of your employees, your profits will take care of themselves,” and what Starbucks is doing is supporting their workers and their employees. We are finding that many businesses are having harder and harder times getting good quality employees because lesbians and gays aren’t willing to work there without equality.

NOM also states in their little rant that “In taking these actions, Starbucks has declared a culture war on all people of faith (and millions of others) who believe that the institution of marriage as one man and one woman is worth preserving.” They fail to note that in taking these actions, Starbucks has declared their support for all of the people of faith and the millions of secularists in this nation who support equality.

To give you some idea, according to the latest polling, 162,876,480 Americans support same-sex marriage and 137,818,560 oppose it or 52% to 44%. That’s right. More Americans support same-sex marriage being legal than oppose it.

So, where is all that talk about the will of the majority now?

Here is NOM’s entire Starbucks mailer:

We are urging consumers across the globe to “Dump Starbucks” because the massive international corporation has taken a corporate-wide position that marriage between one man and one woman should be eliminated and that same-sex marriage should become the norm. As such, Starbucks has declared it will use its influence and resources in a culture war against at least half its US customers, and against the vast majority of its international consumers who do not share Starbucks’ position.

On January 24, 2012, the Starbucks corporation issued a memorandum to all “US Partners” declaring that same-sex marriage “is aligned with Starbucks business practices” and “is core to who we are and what we value as a company.”

In addition to declaring its corporate-wide position in support of gay marriage, Starbucks also used its resources to participate in a legal case seeking to overturn a federal law declaring marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

In taking these actions, Starbucks has declared a culture war on all people of faith (and millions of others) who believe that the institution of marriage as one man and one woman is worth preserving.

NOM does not take this step lightly.

Unlike our opponents, we would never take action against a corporation because of the statements of one of its executives. However, Starbucks has declared gay marriage to be a corporate value and has intentionally inserted itself into the debate. Furthermore, NOM officials attended a meeting of the Board of Directors of Starbuck to bring this issue to their attention, and they did nothing.

This is why we must urge all consumers to “dump Starbucks,” as well as Seattle’s Best Coffee and Evolution Fresh juices, which are owned by Starbucks.

In the last few days, the Roman Catholic Church and the National Organization for Marriage had pinned their hopes on reversing course and getting civil unions back in place. In fact, NOM even spent a lot of money back in 2010 getting these politicians into office in order to repeal the law.

Tobin also called it an “ill-advised social experiment,” and tried to claim that his words were not meant to be an attack on gays, but that “The promotion of homosexual marriage is an attempt to rationalize such behavior and to give it the affirmation, the ‘blessing’ of the state.”

California Supreme Court Justice J. Shenk likely meant no harm to Blacks and interracial couples when he stated “The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. The purity of the public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate, and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by positive law and subject to no evasion.”

That has been one of Tobin’s arguments several times, in fact. Reverend Gene Dyszlewkski, the chairman of the Rhode Island Religious Coalition, called Tobin’s column “divisive and uninformed” and stated “These continued attacks on our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters only further perpetuate the notion that some religious leaders are out of touch with members of their faith.”

When the First Amendment’s religious protections were put into effect, they were a social experiment.  That social experiment allowed Catholics not only the right to vote, but hold office and to marry.  Until the passage of the Constitution, it was possible for the government to limit the rights of Catholics to marry in their own churches, and not be forced to convert to Anglicanism in order to get married.

Of course, the voter’s votes would not matter very much. Apparently, Bates said that if voters got to vote in November that they wanted to keep civil unions, then same-sex marriage would be repealed, but if voters objected to repealing same-sex marriage, then lawmakers would stop any repeal from taking effect.

First of all, it is non-binding. What is more, stopping the repeal would require a legislative vote. Basically, Bates wants to obscure the situation by making it so that he wins no matter what the vote is since in order to stop the repeal, the legislature, which is already stacked against marriage equality, would have to muster enough votes to stop it.

The vote is expected to occur next Wednesday. The bill is going to get vetoed if it ever gets out of the legislature, and after that, it will die since the Republicans do not have enough votes to overturn the veto because there are many Republicans who have made it clear that they will not vote to overturn the repeal.

Still, for New Hampshirites, it’s time to flood their legislators with enough complaints to fill a few office buildings and let them know that marriage equality in New Hampshire is a done deal, but if they want a job next January, they had better get to work on the economy.

Via Daily Kos