Gay marriage loss in Maine had NOTHING to do with Obama.

[RBInMaine]

First, I am disappointed as I voted to support gay marriage, sent a donation, wrote a letter to the editor, and my parents phone banked a lot. (I had to work like hell on the NO ON TABOR (right wing tax cap initiative) campaign which we SMASHED to pieces ! YAY !)

Here is why gay marriage lost:

1) AGE DEMOGRAPHICS: Maine is one of the oldest if not THE oldest state in the nation. UPHILL from the get go. The older folks don't like to buck tradition on issues like this.

2) OFF YEAR CYCLE: Good turnout for an off-year, but still too many younger folks and liberals did not engage, enhancing the older demographics advantage on the other side.

3) CHURCH ORGANIZATION: The churches organized heavily here. Many Dems and moderates voted their religion on this instead of "liberal" as they do on most other issues.

4) NEGATIVE ADS: The anti-gay folks ran hard-hitting ads claiming gay marriage would seep into school curricula, even in the lower grades. It was effective, much as the other side tried to counter.

5) RURAL DEMOGRAPHICS: Maine is a rural state, and many are pretty darn conservative on some social issues. Pro-gay marriage only won (I think) three of our 16 counties.

Put it all together, and the pro-gay marriage folks should be pleased that they tried so hard and were able to win over 47% which would have been inconceivable even five years ago. It did not fail because Obama didn't publicly endorse it. It failed for the reasons I've stated. I think the best bet is to bring it back as "civil union" or "domestic partnership," and then it would probably win as it did in Washington. Too many are just not ready for it being called "marriage."

[eShirl]

1. The thing is, we'll never know for sure.

Would Obama's fierce advocacy have encouraged enough otherwise non-voting people in #2 to turn out and vote? Possibly?

[Unvanguard]

3. I think it would have, if only by emphasizing the issue's importance to liberals.

Nate Silver pointed out yesterday that there might still be an enthusiasm gap when it comes to same-sex marriage votes. There were a whole series of polls that had ten-point or so margins for "No", but they all overestimated the proportion of liberal younger voters who would bother to vote. Obama's name would not have persuaded anyone, but it might well have brought some of those people out.

[Zenlitened]

4. Exactly. Imagine if he'd commented on Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire .

Saying, for example, "it's a proud milestone for America," that sort of thing. What a boost that would have been. Instead he remained silent. An opportunity lost.

[Unvanguard]

7. That, actually, I don't mind. There was nothing at stake in those states; we had won.

I'm all right with his politically convenient support for full-rights civil unions instead of marriage equality, as long as it doesn't cost us anything: the federal government can't force and can't stop same-sex marriage. But when it comes to a real fight, like in California or Maine, where Obama has strong enough approval and got a large enough share of the vote that he has no good reason to be hesitant... it's inexcusable.

[Zenlitened]

13. But commenting right then and there would been about momentum...

... about adding philosophical weight and energy to the idea of marriage equality in general. A loud, proud "Hey, that's great!" from the president could have been profoundly important in a whole host of intangible ways.

[Unvanguard]

14. I don't think it would have persuaded many people.

People tend to overestimate the powers of any president as a persuader; public opinion (beyond short-term shifts) is a pretty stubborn thing. Turnout boosts are one thing; getting more states to enact marriage equality legislatively is another, and seems more far-fetched to me.

You might be able to make the case that a clear, public, federal push for marriage equality would have a lot of symbolic benefit as an affirmation of the equal legitimacy and dignity of same-sex couples, but I don't think the nation as a whole is ready for that. We have to be able to win in places like California and Maine first.

[Zenlitened]

16. Sadly, we'll never, ever know for sure. - n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

73. His fierce advocacy certainly didn't help Jon Corzine

[Unvanguard]

2. Maine already has some domestic partnership rights. But "sorta-kinda equal" is not good enough.

And will never be.

[customerserviceguy]

19. I'm curious why you say that

The path that Vermont followed, with civil unions for ten years, followed by the legislating of equal marriage laws that simply add a title to the relationship, is a much smoother path than most of the rest of the country faces in making this change. Over thirty state constitutions are stained with anti-equality law that are either going to take a majority vote to overturn, or a US Supreme Court decision to overcome.

Going for it all in one fell swoop with the courts has produced a backlash that will take years to undo.

[Unvanguard]

20. "Not good enough", I said. Not "an unworthy short-term goal."

I'm all right with having civil unions when marriage equality is out of reach. But the ultimate goal has to be marriage equality.

[customerserviceguy]

83. I'm for marriage equality, too

But it seems obvious that it needs to be approached gradually, to give the fearful time to get used to the fact that the sky will not fall if same-sex couples are granted the civil rights that opposite-sex couples have enjoyed for centuries.

The Washington State situation shows us that including seniors in domestic partnership for opposite sex couples diminishes their resistance to the concept. We already have younger people on our side, someday their lack of prejudice will prevail, but in the meantime, having laws like what Washington has will streamline the path to full equality. I lived thirty-seven years in that state, I predict equal marriage there by 2020, probably sooner.

Those hoping for relief from the Supreme Court are grasping at straws; given the current makeup of the Court, and the simple fact that a majority of states have rejected equal marriage at the ballot box, I feel they are bound to be disappointed.

[joeycola]

5. Obama never tried so HOW would you know if it would have made a difference ( had

he put some time into Maine--say a visit?).

[Teaser]

10. I still remember your very first post

nothing has changed.

[joeycola]

15. Gay leaders blame TV ads, Obama for loss in Maine. Nothing has changed with Obama either...

He is still sitting on the fence allowing second class citizenship to continue.




http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2009/11/04/gay_leaders_blame_tv_ads_obama_for_loss_in_maine/

Gay leaders blame TV ads, Obama for loss in Maine
By Lisa Leff and David Crary


SAN FRANCISCO—Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads -- and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement -- for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate.
.................


Gay activists were frustrated that Obama, who insists he staunchly supports their overall civil rights agenda, didn't speak out forcefully in defense of Maine's marriage law before Tuesday's referendum. The law was repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.

"President Obama missed an opportunity to state his position against these discriminatory attacks with the clarity and moral imperative that would have helped in this close fight," said Evan Wolfson of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "The anti-gay forces are throwing millions of dollars into various unsubtle ads aimed at scaring people, so subtle statements from the White House are not enough."

The White House, asked about the criticism, had no immediate comment.................

[ClarkUSA]

37. Meow.

[joeycola]

48. You are such a nice lttle puddy cat.

:smoke:

[ClarkUSA]

53. I recall your first post here at DU, too -- so full of vitriol and blame towards President Obama.

You're not fooling anyone here. Still bitter, eh?

[joeycola]

64. Such vitriol from the little kittly. Have a nice day. bye bye.

[ClarkUSA]

68. lol! The hate from your keyboard towards Pres. Obama since you arrived is a matter of DU record.

You aren't fooling anyone. We all know you're still bitter. It's so obvious.

[joeycola]

78. What a silly assumption you make. I

do not hate people esp. our President. I will be critical of his policies or lack thereof.

[ClarkUSA]

79. Your constant attacks on Pres. Obama from your first DU post onward indicate otherwise. nt

[joeycola]

42. self delete.

[vaberella]

6. So Obama's to blame for this too? Wow.

[Teaser]

8. Obama the Obamian. Obama the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms.

"During the rectification of the Vuldrini, Obama the Traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for Obama: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"

[msallied]

76. LMAO! I love people who quote Ghostbusters.

[jonnyblitz]

9. yes we know. nothing bad ever has anything to do with Obama,

only the good things.

Seriously ,of course he isn't to BLAME. on the other hand, his SILENCE on the matter was duly noted. No fundraiser money or photo ops were to be had so why bother, I suppose.

fierce advocate my ass.

[VMI Dem]

11. Gay marriage victories will also NEVER have ANYTHING to do with Obama.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. Got ya. But please stop calling it "gay marriage".

Tarnishes what is otherwise a pretty intelligent analysis.

If they called it "gay marriage", I'd be inclined to vote aginst it myself... and I'm gay.

Makes it sounds like something different from what everyone else in the population is entitled to. Almost *cultish*, really. And it's not.

"Marriage equality" or "equal marriage"... is what *I'm* pushing for.

[freddie mertz]

17. I think he could and SHOULD be doing much more.

By "leaving it to the states" he is essentially abandoning the gay rights movement at the federal level.

Add to this the complete failure to act on DOMA and DADT, and there is a lot to be disappointed about.

[KittyWampus]

18. since you're from Maine, did any of the Pro-Gay/Civil Rights ads label these bigots as outsiders?

Were there ads running showing the whole thing was coming from out of state?

edit- I'm just really curious what ads those for Marriage Equality were producing.

[Jennicut]

21. As a fellow New Englander, I must say that Maine is not like Vermont, CT, or Mass.

It is way rural. I have been there many times and all I remember is driving through woods, all woods. It is 90% covered in trees. Vermont is rural too but has a more younger and therefore liberal electorate whereas Maine has always been more middle of the road centrist. Maine is also, as the original poster above said, older. I think those two things have huge reasons to do with the defeat, more the Obama. Obama might have helped with younger liberals getting out there but Maine does not have huge cities full of young college-types. Mass and CT have huge cities (Hartford, Boston), a younger population, and slant more liberal in their views. We don't log in CT, but they log in Maine. Loggers are not liberal. It is still New England and still moderate but it is probably with NH the most conservative state in New England. If anyone wants to understand the many different types of areas in Maine read this: http://patchworknation.csmonitor.com/csmstaff/2009/1104/for-gay-marriage-difficult-terrain-ahead/. CT and Mass have more wealthy suburbs and college/career towns that support gay marriage then Maine will ever have.

In CT last year, we also defeated the ability to hold a constitutional convention and the ability to change our constitution. We don't take votes like this there.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. So you can see the future?

You know what would have been if the Fierce Advocate had bothered to speak a word? How exactly do you 'know' any of that? You don't. It is your theory and nothing more. Do you think if he spoke it would have lost bigger? That he would be harmful? That is the only excuse for silence from the man who promised us that he would lead.
And the term is marriage equality. Or simply marriage. Marriage is marriage.
If Obama spoke and it did not help, what would be the harm? And if it did help, would not the victory be great, was it not a goal you yourself worked for? Do you think that if he spoke out, the bigots would hold that against him, bigots who would otherwise support him? How long do you think my community will remember his silence? Just saying. One day, we will enter the Promised Land, and that too will have not a thing to do with Barack Obama.

[Jennicut]

23. He could have helped some but like I said in my post above, some states

will not vote of gay marriage no matter what anyone says or does. The demographics in many states are not good for a win. I wish no states would vote on it, we can't vote on it in CT unless the legislature sends us the vote.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. The margin wasw tight so helping some might have been

all that was needed. You know, when he was running, Obama clearly spoke about the need for strong leadership from the top on GLBT issues. He promised to provide that leadership, to lead the States. He promised in fact that he 'would not hesitate to use my Bully Pulpit' and he called himself a Fierce Advocate for us. He said if we supported him, he would lead, without hesitation. He did not mention that he'd not do so if the 'demographics' were not strong, he said he would not hesitate.
We still do not know what it would be like to have a fierce advocate in leadership. He is not keeping that long string of strong promises at all. It is that simple. We do not have to play prognostication games. We look at what he said he would do, and at what he has in fact done. And at what he does not do.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. And I heard all that 'demographic' talk about Iowa last year

And yet they all voted for Obama. Many said they would not, no matter what. They spouted about the Bradley effect and all manner of reasons that he simply could not win in that state with those people. But he did. And just like your demographic theories, the Bradley effect was shown to be without basis in reality. But the only way we showed that was by trying in the first place. Like they say in Lotto, you can not win if you do not play.
And let me be clear here, I'm not saying it is all his fault, just saying he did not lift a finger to help, and that help might have been vital, we will never know. The fault lies with every Democrat who voted against their neighbors, without them, these laws could not pass, in CA or in Maine or anywhere. Democratic votes put them over the top. Who leads the Democrats again? Oh, yeah....

[Jennicut]

38. Iowa actually has more college towns then Maine and is a better demographic.

But I don't totally have any answers. I think Obama could be much stronger on this issue. But I do think acceptance will come in time as the younger population of the US gets older and more in charge. I think those under 50 are more accepting and under 35 are overwhelmingly for gay marriage and equality. And putting votes to gay marriage questions is extremely dangerous and one of the worst things we have done as a country. If they did that with Civil Rights issues for black Americans we might still be segregated in the south.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. I see what you are saying

And I am happy to be in agreement with most of it. My point about Iowa, is about statistics and demographics. Back then, they did not speak of 'college towns' they spoke only of the vast white population. And they said over and over that those demographics proved he could not win. They were wrong. So the news ones might comfort, but they might also be wrong for they are theoretical in nature. What we or he must never do is allow our vision to be curtailed by some assumptions about demographics and the like. On this particular issue, we do not know what adds up to victory, as we have not had one yet. I don't know, Obama does not know no one knows. Perhaps the missing element is, as Obama said it was when he ran, strong leadership from the top. If no one tries we will never know how much or how little it would matter.

[Jennicut]

52. True. I only hope it gets better over time.

I have many gay friends, starting from 12 years ago when I met them in college. It really opened my eyes and changed me as a person. I hate seeing people hurt by the intolerance and hatred. Hang in there.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. My only problem is the law

and my bad back. I am a fortunate person in many ways, and one of those ways is that I have the ability to express myself, and enough time under my belt to know that the end of this battle is preordained, the tide of history can not be stopped. Love will rule the day one day.

[PVnRT]

49. Which is precisely why it cannot be left up to the states to decide

[msongs]

24. Obama opposes gay marriage and favors wars and killing, don't expect support for this nt

[ClarkUSA]

36. Are you still hawking Obama pillowcases for profit despite your long record of hatred for Obama? nt

[Cha]

69. Don't be stupid.

[MNDemNY]

27. You are soooo right!

His outspoken support for human rights has been so evident since his taking office. The way he stepped up to push through the repeal of DADT, his tireless campaining for GLBT issues, (this was very evident in CA, with the sweeping victory to oppose Prop 8). Yup, none of it could possibly be blamed on his holiness. gobama!

[Orsino]

28. America's profound homophobia didn't end last year.

While I would prefer to see our president stand up unambiguously for equality, that might have backfired in an even bigger loss.

I don't think President Obama is really a homophobe, and it is painful to watch him having to pretend to be, but I get it. His Administration is only going to get us small gains, because betting it all on some big win is the surest way to lose; the TV and radio screamers would love to see him try it.

That's not going to change until we do. Until we stop pretending not to remember every other goddamned civil-rights struggle--and indeed until we stop pretending that it's not all one big struggle--we will continue to vote down equality.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Here in Oregon we say if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck

chances are it is a duck. Unless it is a complex game of pretend duck chess. Who asked that he 'bet it all on one big win'? He could have just said something, one tiny thing. There is a huge valley between doing nothing at all and betting it all, don't you think? I think there are as many stops between the two as a good writer can express. It is not all or nothing, never has been.
But I agree with you that the basic bigotry of the heterosexual community is largely to blame. Until they change, they will continue to oppress their neighbors for sport.

[Orsino]

67. Ducks are not politiicans, though.

Politicians are quite capable of quacking like several different species of waterfowl, all in the same day. President Obama is very, very good at this.

[Neecy]

34. oh, okay

I feel better now that he's only pretending to be a homophobe. I love comic opera when it comes to my human rights.

[Orsino]

66. Yep. I take politicians' protestations about the alleged sanctity of marriage...

...about as seriously as I do their church attendance. So much of what they do is for show, and this president, perhaps more than any other, has to be sure he gives lip service to the homophobes--or he, already viewed as The Other, will be neutered politically. America's last "safe" bigotries must unfortunately be handled the most carefully. He's defusing many bombs at once.

This is not an excuse for perpetuating old prejudices...but it is a reason. I'm only sorry that the human cost, yet again, falls on the same convenient segment of the populace.

[Neecy]

71. When did the rules change?

During the campaign, he promised he would be our "fierce advocate"...and now he has to give lip service to homophobes? If supporting us before the election didn't lose it in 2008, why would it threaten his reelection in 2012? This makes no sense.

But I agree that he's given plenty of lip service to homophobes. He made that very clear on Inauguration Day with Rick Warren, an event that we all should have celebrated but we were specifically excluded from the day. If you don't think that hurt, and that these games don't hurt, think again.

[Orsino]

74. I don't excuse him for causing all that pain.

I don't excuse delays in equality--I just acknowledge that the fault is mostly ours. To be America's president, he has to act like a part-time homophobe.

Even Bush probably didn't care enough to be the caveman he pretended to be.

[Neecy]

75. Why should I vote for Democrats again?

So they can play "part-time homophobe" to satisfy the bigots of the world??? I didn't know that. Thank you. Now I can stop voting and contributing and volunteering, because it doesn't matter one goddamn bit who I vote for. If I have to be "handled carefully" by a Democratic president I may as well sit on the sidelines.

Bush, for all of his faults, didn't have a liberal side that he displayed to all in order to be "America's president". He had his agenda, followed it, fucked it up and still won a second term. He was an idiot but he wasn't scared of his own shadow. He wasn't afraid of his base. He didn't quake in fear of offending anyone.

This bedwetting is really tiresome.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

29. Since when have we ever held a POTUS to such a high standard

that they need to campaign for every Democratic candidate and every progressive initiative and speak out against everything bad that the Repubs are doing- and be held at least partially responsible for every conservative *victory*, every progressive defeat, etc.? I know that Obama is POTUS and thus carries a lot of weight but he's not a GOD and obviously can't be everywhere and speaking out about everything at once- nor will he always be able to sway some people or turn out the vote.

[VMI Dem]

33. Yeah, I remember back when LBJ said that marriage was between one man and one woman of the same race

It wasn't such a big deal back then.

[Jennicut]

39. Because he is a Dem and we want Dems to be pro gay marriage

though many of them just are not there yet. It is a generational issue to me more then anything. The under 30 or under 35 population of the US is more tolerant. Obama is 48. I don't think he fully believes in it nor do I think he wants to intentionally stop progress.

[joeycola]

41. +1

[Proud Liberal Dem]

54. I'm disappointed too that he's not more of an advocate for equal marriage rights too

and hasn't moved faster on some gay rights issues (i.e. DADT) that should be no-brainers but I don't believe that he's a closeted anti-gay bigot that some people try to make him out to be either- because of his association with Rick Warren or his administration's *defense* of DOMA and DADT in the courts. I DO believe that he is NOT trying, as you say, to intentionally stop progress. I just think that he's got his own strategy/timetable for addressing these issues and that, when the time is right, he will move forward on them. In regards to equal marriage rights, as maddening as it is, you will still not find many politicians, even Democrats, whom will come right out and say that they are in favor of equal (read:gay) marriage rights but it's still progress that more and more people and politicians support civil unions and passing laws allowing them. Yeah, it's cowardly and weasely to not just simply say that you actually support equal marriage rights and I don't for the life of me understand WHY it is so necessary for politicians to have to pander to bigots and their irrational prejudices but a step in the right direction is still progress IMHO. The cultural regressives are still (largely) successfully fighting progress towards full equality but it's a stalling action that they won't be able to maintain forever IMHO.

[Jennicut]

55. Totally agree with your post.

He takes the middle road and for some that is not enough and I understand that.
But he is not a RW bigot either. For years, I believed in Civil Unions because I thought it was a good compromise but now think it does no go far enough. I was never a bigot but I did change over time.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

60. It took me awhile to throw off my social conditioning regarding equal marriage rights

I've grown and expanded my thinking considerably and have come to believe that the state should basically adopt a more neutral policy towards marriage together as some people have suggested and basically just focus on the legalities or "contractual" arrangements of the partnership and let churches confer whatever status is desired regarding the relationship. Government really shouldn't be in the "marriage" business anyway and provide one set of benefits/advantages to people depending on what type of relationship they're in IMHO. I also don't understand how most people can be o.k. with allowing some people to be partnered together via "civil unions" (which is essentially MINO) but then freak out when some people want it to actually call their partnership "marriage". I just don't get it. It's wierd. :crazy: :shrug:

[Jennicut]

62. Marriage should have been seperated from the church a long time ago

though when I was 25 I got married in a church. Not so sure I would do that today, 8 years later.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

63. I wonder if the idea will eventually catch on?

:shrug:

[Jennicut]

65. It should! It is a great idea.

[mitchtv]

82. re Obama

part of the solution , or?

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Guess that Pulpit is not all that Bully?

Your framing sucks. It is not binary. No one is asking that he 'speak out against everything bad' and I promise you, no one of reason thinks he is a god, I don't even think he's much more than a mediocre political machine operative.
But he promised to lead on these issues and he simply does not do what he promised. He is not the Fierce Advocate he claimed to be when he wanted and needed votes, just a year ago, he wanted and needed, wanted and needed. Never seen anyone so needy, three and four requests a day for money, for time, for support. I guess 2012 is a shoe in, an easy win, with all of those 'Obamacans' and 'people of faith' standing up for him, right? He never really needed us. He just begged from us all day every day for two years.
And oddly, the President is more able to be everywhere at once than any living person, because he can summon the media, he can send a note that is the high point of their day, a simple note. He can appear on any station, in any paper that he wishes, instantly. Bully Pulpit, or just being a bully from a pulpit like Rick Warren or McClurkin?
The standard for Obama is low as can be. Any word would be met with wild acclaim. In fact, we'd praise him if he just got out of the way of progress.

[treestar]

81. Agreed, he can't get involved in every state issue

What POTUS ever has?

Blaming Obama for this is depending way too much on the President - where was the campaign in Maine?

[dsc]

84. actually it was one of the best run campaigns ever

it raised 68% more money than its opponents. Ran effective ads. It could have used Obama and or the DNC telling people to vote against 1. He chose not to do that even as the DNC emailed Maine voters telling them to call New Jersey voters in an attempt to save Corzine, who ran a mediocre campaign.

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. 2. CA voters approved a similar measure last year during a high turn-out election

[GoneOffShore]

31. I just rec'd your thread

Can't imagine why anyone would un rec it.

We're all Democrats, we're all liberals, we should understand what someone who is on the ground in Maine is most likely the correct view of the situation.

Don't let dislike of President Obama's other policies and non endorsement of gay marriage blind you to the good he's doing.

[VMI Dem]

35. So, overlook the bigot part and concentrate on the rosy stuff.

Uh huh.

[Neecy]

70. Oh, no, it's all okay

He's just pretending to be a bigot*


*see above

It's just amazing to me what some people will excuse.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. That is a meme I have not heard since George Wallace ran

Don't let his bigotry be all you judge him by, think of the good he has done...

[Malikshah]

40. How about spearheading an education campaign on the issue?

Too busy to do that?

Hmmm, maybe there's someone with a bully pulpit who could help?

Do no defend the indefensible. Obama and his ilk (read cowards and closet bigots) couldn't be bothered as citizens of their country were stripped of basic rights.

Public shaming goes a long way with old, lazy, lying bigots who do not live in an urban environment.

[VMI Dem]

44. Closet bigots?

I don't think so.

[Malikshah]

57. Whether they're closeted or bigots?

Mea culpa-- a clearer explanation--

Those folks in the admin, whose lack of compassion for LGBT folks stems in part from their being "uncomfortable" with it.

[VMI Dem]

58. I think they are right out in the open with the bigotry.

There is no attempt to hide it.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

46. If he had issued only just a statement, it would have helped.

Let alone speaking out about it more.

I like Obama (more than many DUers here), but on many issues pertaining to GLBT rights, he has fallen far too short.

[PVnRT]

47. They're not ready to call it marriage? Tough shit.

And are you seriously arguing that gays should be "happy" they only lost a fundamental human right by 3%? Uh-huh.

[mkultra]

50. And no BLACK people so you can stop with that smear

You know what the first thing i did when i went to Maine was?
I tagged up with the other black dude so he could go home.

This should be a lesson on this issue. blacks don't hate gays, conservative Christians hate gays. Know thy enemy.

[Number23]

80. Thank you!

"Know thy enemy." Yes, INDEED. This should be stickied to the top of this site. Not that it would do a damn bit of good anyway for those who will continue to rail and flail and don't give even the slightest crap that their numbers don't come close to adding up.

And I had no idea that you were black! I should have known.

[LatteLibertine]

56. It doesn't matter to me

if Obama's voice added to the issue would have had zero effect. The point is, he should have stood up and been counted. It was the right thing to do morally, I understand politically why some jaded sorts might advise him to hedge his bets and be silent.

[VMI Dem]

59. He has not been silent. He believes marriage is between a man and woman.

He also believes the states should decide the issue.

[Cha]

72. Thanks for working for it up there in Maine, RB~

And for your analysis.

[rasputin1952]

77. WOW...you really hit it up there...lot's of work!

As for the rest of the post, you pretty well hit the nail on the head. Some of the churches have an amazing amount of wealth when it comes to politics don't they?

I'm a secular Christian, I like what Jesus spoke of, and try not to harm anyone. I think Gandhi had a lot of good things to say, the Buddha and Confucius as well. I like the parts about love; respect; caring for the less fortunate, the sick and the dying. I like the parts that speak of honor and dignity, the willingness to sacrifice a part of one's life to help another.

I often wonder where that church money goes when it's not spent in the political arena...certainly not to those who would benefit most...:(

[earth mom]

85. Sorry but Obama could lead & influence people positively on gay marriage-it's a Constitutional issue

for the supposed "Constitutional Scholar" that Obama claims to be.

Instead Obama had that homophobic asshole Rick Warren speak at the inauguration and has dodged the gay marriage question every which way he could for almost a year.

Saying Obama has nothing to do with the gay marriage question is bullshit.

I suppose next you will say that the Obama has nothing to do with the wars overseas too? :eyes: