"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~Frank Dane
Barack Obama's recent announcement of support for the oxymoronic "same sex marriage", in my mind, is a blunder, if he wants to be re-elected.No doubt he thinks he's pandering to his base with this announcement, but, the fact is, Same sex marriage legislation has been soundly defeated in every state where the matter was voted on by the voters. The only time it has been legalized was when the Constitutional voting process has been bypassed by the courts or by politicians who mistakenly believe the majority of their constituents actually want same sex marriage to be legal.
While some polls would seem to indicate the majority of Americans support same sex marriage, when the legislation comes up for a vote by the voters, it becomes clear they don't. Obama may indeed garner some support from the homosexuals and their supporters, but they are still a minority in this country, and most of them probably voted for him in the last election, anyway. Many of the independents and more Conservative Democrats who voted for him in 2008 could well drop their support for him solely because of this issue.
I don't believe his announced support of gay marriage is going to make a significant difference.
Additionally, the recent Democratic primaries would seem to indicate Obama has lost a lot of support even among the Democrats. In West Virginia's Democratic primary, an imprisoned felon in Texas took 41% of the Democratic votes away from Obama, carrying 10 counties.
All of this is good news for Republicans, but the election is still far off. There is still plenty of time for Obama's campaign operatives to dig up dirt on Romney, and if they can't find anything serious enough to sully him, they will make something up.
But, he has definitely blundered.
20 comments:
"There is still plenty of time for Obama's campaign operatives to dig up dirt on Romney"
umm... you mean like Romney playing barbershop with the presumed homosexual kid in high school..
The problem is that all the young people who may have been ambivalent will now follow what they have been brainwashed by their profs to follow - a president who stands for "equality."
But, really, will it change anything? He's already done more than any president in history to promote the homosexual agenda, and even has a brag site for his campaign.
https://my.barackobama.com/page/share/progress-for-lgbt-americans
So the only people changing will be the fence-straddlers who see him as now being more "equitable." However, he may now get more campaign funds from the homosexualists.
Exactly, Parkie, and I see you've already bought into the propaganda.
It's just as I said. Obama's campaign will start to dredge up all these scandals that don't make a bit of difference and gullible people like you will swallow the lies, hook, line, and sinker.
And you think you're so smart.
Glenn, I suspect that what many of these "ambivalent" ones say publicly and what they believe in their hearts are two different things. It's just like the polls. Polls say 60% of Americans support homosexual marriage, but when those same 60% go to the polls, they overwhelmingly vote against the gay agenda.
"bought into the propaganda"
Mark, there is a difference between finding information and using that information to make a decision. Its irrelevant that Mitt comes off looking like a tool. After all, this was in his high school and college days. Sadly, he comes off as lacking sound judgement for his poor apology.
You seem a bit riled up about equal rights. This is an ongoing theme with you.
Hey Park boy, When Mitt did his thing, it was a few years before Obama snorted Cocaine. If you can reference obscure pointless facts about Mitt, I can reference obscure pointless facts about Obama, and Obama still comes off worse than Romney.
Why don't you and your socialist buddies stick to the point, which is the colossal economic failure of the Obama administration?
Oh, that's right. Because if you did, you'd lose.
I, too, see Obama's statement as another blunder. As you said, Mark:
Obama may indeed garner some support from the homosexuals and their supporters, but they are still a minority in this country, and most of them probably voted for him in the last election, anyway.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that Romney's position on "homosexual rights" is what most would term as reasonable -- in other words, Romney is not a "homophobe."
I well remember when gays wanted only civil unions and basically promised that they'd never ask for gay marriage. Well, over time, the LBGT movement has gone over the edge and started DEMANDING gay marriage. I have wondered if these recent demands have something to do with inheritance rights: a widow or widower inherits the estate of the deceased spouse free of tax.
What the LGBT folks may not realize is that, upon marriage, all assets of both parties in a marriage are at stake if a medical catastrophe occurs with regard to one partner of a marriage. Keeping assets in separate names and using certain kinds of sheltering trusts are to no avail when medical bankruptcy occurs for a married couple.
As the wife of a disabled spouse, I know all too much about how medical bankruptcy can happen -- even WITH health insurance, which doesn't begin to cover custodial care.
PS: Obama may indeed now get more funding form the LGBT community.
At times, I think that I detect a sort of desperation in Obama's campaign for the November election. He's pandering for votes all over the place -- probably because, THIS time, he can't run against GWB.
Indication that Obama realizes that he blundered?
Good points, AOW, and by endorsing same sex marriage he has offended many of his strongest supporters in the 2008 elections; The blacks. Many blacks are very religious people (not the Rev Jeremiah Wright kind)and believe homosexuality is a sin, and believe me, there are a lot more religious blacks than there are homosexuals.
All one has to do to include anybody in anything is to redefine the terms.
If I define a pilot as one who drives his car to work each day and then walks from the car to the office, then I'm a pilot.
If I define a marraige as anybody who cohabitates after a ceremony and obtaining a document, the gay marraige is viable.
So, in reality, anything can be anything and we soon lose the ability to know what anyone is talking about about anything.
Joe:
Much like Bubba Clinton redefining 'is.'
Joe,
Your comparison is nonsensical.
When you say, "If I define a marraige as anybody who cohabitates after a ceremony and obtaining a document", you are defining marriage as it is today. There is more to it than that, but at it's very basis, marriage can be defined as cohabitating after a ceremony.
On the other hand, when you say, "If I define a pilot as one who drives his car to work each day", you are creating an arbitrary "definition" that no aviator will concur with. It's like saying someone who swings a bat at a ball can be defined as a golfer and shoots 68 under par if he goes four for four at the plate today.
"When you say, "If I define a marraige as anybody who cohabitates after a ceremony and obtaining a document", you are defining marriage as it is today. There is more to it than that, but at it's very basis, marriage can be defined as cohabitating after a ceremony."
Well, you're right about one thing, Jim. There is more to it than that. It's the union of a man and a woman, and THAT is at it's very basis.
But I must say that your baseball/golf analogy is a good example of what is going on with the definition of marriage. You have two people of the same gender stating they are doing the same thing as two normal people, living together after a ceremony. "It's the same thing!" they say. A golfer can say, "I'm doing the same thing" because he's swinging a stick at a ball, but it's still not baseball. Thanks for the help in confirming that words mean things.
It's the union of a man and a woman
In some states that's true. In others it is not true.
However, in every state, Joe's definition of marriage is accurate.
A golfer can say, "I'm doing the same thing" because he's swinging a stick at a ball, but it's still not baseball.
Why would he? I've never heard a golfer claim to be playing baseball on the back nine. Nor have I ever heard a baseball player hit a ball out of the park and call it a hole in one.
Thanks for the help in confirming that words mean things.
But words have to make sense, too. And yours don't.
" If you can reference obscure pointless facts about Mitt.."
So you have no inside commentary on his horse finishing last in the dressage world championships?
"In some states that's true. In others it is not true."
In all states, in all the world, "marriage" means the union of a man and a woman. In some areas of the world, municipalities of various sizes have perverted the definition to appease 2% of the population. But the word still means the union of a man and a woman.
"However, in every state, Joe's definition of marriage is accurate."
You can water down the definition of millions of words and be accurate but fall short of the exact definition. To use your analogy again, baseball can accurately be defined as a game involving a ball and a stick. But so can golf. The definition is still accurate for baseball, but it is not exact.
"But words have to make sense, too. And yours don't."
That, too, is inaccurate. It isn't that my words don't make sense. It's that you lack sense and are willing to play the game that lefties like to play regarding definitions. Another possibility is that you simply lack the ability to understand the sense of what I say. Either works for me as either is likely true of you.
FROM AN INTERVIEW IN HOLIDAY, FLA. YESTERDAY:
"The US government has confirmed the fact that Vampires exist, and has identified Mitt Romney as a practicing one.
I always thought vampires and werewolves were the stuff of legend, but had an open mind. I DO know from personal experience that Zombies exist, however, and this new revelation from the Hussein Regime gives hope that voodoo may be given the government's blessing in the near future..."--TRADER RICK
IS IT LEGAL for Vampires to marry, "jim"? By the way congrats on the frontal lobotomy. You seem calmer now, if not any more rational...
LOL! Funny, Rick!
Heh.. this is funny too!
The Romney Campaign Misspelled 'Reagan' For a Republican presidential candidate, that's the worst word you could possibly misspell. Worse even than "America," the nation founded by Reagan in 1981.
Post a Comment