Gay Patriot Header Image

Sally Field Offers the official gay Democratic response to Obama’s comments on gay marriage

It doesn’t matter what he does or hasn’t done; it does matter that he likes us.

Obama’s cynical gay marriage move:
Trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to his gay supporters

Judging from my Facebook feed and anecdotal evidence from friends, many gay people today are celebrating their imminent procurement of the Brooklyn Bridge.  Expect them to soon increase their down payment toward that celebrated span.

This swoon, to borrow an expression from Jennifer Rubin, “will take up the political oxygen for a while.”  What exactly will this accomplish save to give gay Democrats, already eager to support Obama, a reason to really ’round the Democrat?  Will Obama do what he didn’t do when his party had majorities in both houses of Congress, work the phones and otherwise buttonhole legislators to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — as LBJ did in 1964 on behalf of the Civil Rights Act?

Why did he wait until after North Carolina voters passed Amendment One to issue his statement?  Today’s comments, quips Christopher R. Barron, Chief Strategist and Co-Founder of GOProud are “cold comfort to the gay couples in North Carolina.”  Heck, he didn’t even cut a radio or TV ad opposing the ballot measure.

He even canceled a scheduled visit to the Tarheel State on primary day.

Wonder if this sudden change of heart had something to do with money.  A few weeks ago, Ed Morrissey noted that “Obama remains significantly off of his own 2008 pace of fundraising, and way under the Democratic donation performance of that cycle.”  And as Dan Eggen reports in the Washington Post:

Many of Obama’s key financial supporters are gay–including finance director Rufus Gifford and Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias–and the campaign has regularly held fundraisers focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender donors.

A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay.

It’s all about the money, friends.

Obama’s self-referential statement included no specifics about what he means to do. It, Philip Klein writes, “has no tangible policy impact — [Obama] still thinks the issue should be left to the states” — pretty much the same position Dick Cheney articulated in the Vice Presidential Debate twelve years ago. And I didn’t hear my gay friends singing hosannas then.

Some gay Democrats just need a token gesture to get all googly-eyed about a Democrat.  And the White House’s waffling words on gay marriage had caused much consternation among his gay supporters.  Simply put, the president moved to quiet a political firestorm in order to raise some much needed campaign cash. (more…)

Obama’s gay marriage decision: product of campaign politics?

Perhaps Barack Obama really did “evolve” on gay marriage. But, this poll on Yahoo! (no conservative platform that) suggests that those responding take a more, well, jaundiced view of the Democrat’s sudden change of heart:

As the above shot indicates, I’m one of those who think it was a cynical political decision — and that will be the subject of my next post.


Maybe he decided to come out in favor of SSM now because he knows it’s more popular than he is. Back in 2008, he probably had the same position he does now, but he probably thought he was politically better off showing nominal opposition then, and now, he needs to do something to shake things up since his reelection is so tenuous and he needs to make the election be something other than the economy.

Emphasis added. Heh.

Most Rapid Evolution In Mankind

Obama in 2004: ‘I Don’t Think Marriage Is a Civil Right’

OBAMA: “No. I think there are a whole host of things that are civil rights, and then there are other things–such as traditional marriage–that, I think, express a community’s concern and regard for a particular institution.”

Q: “So, marriage is not a civil right, as far as you’re concerned.”

OBAMA: “I don’t think marriage is a civil right, but I think that being able…”

Q: “Is it a human right?” 

OBAMA: “But I think that being able to transfer property is a civil right. I think not being…” 

Q: “Do you think marriage is a human right?”

OBAMA: “I think that not being able to, not being discriminated against is a civil right. I think making sure that we don’t engage in the sort of gay-bashing that, I think, has unfortunately dominated this campaign–not just here in Illinois, but across the country–I think, is unfortunate, and I think that that kind of mean-spirited attacks on homosexuals is something that the people of Illinois generally have rejected.”

Wow… quite the “Constitutional Scholar” that Obama is, eh?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)


Posted by Bruce Carroll at 4:32 pm - May 9, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging

My Twitter avatar evolved today.  Thanks to the handiwork of a fellow Tweeter, TresHall.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Obama: Profile in Courage…. or Cowardice?

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 3:31 pm - May 9, 2012.
Filed under: Gay Marriage,Obama and Gay Issues


President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.

As I said on Twitter a few minutes ago…

First Obama co-opts the Bush policies in the War on Terror and now he co-opts Dick Cheney’s position on gay marriage.  Progress!

I bet his supporters fighting for months to defeat Amendment One in North Carolina are real impressed that he let them hang out to dry until after the vote.  Charming.

Now you may all discuss…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): This headline may help explain things, Gay Money In This Election Has Replaced Wall Street Money.

UP-UPDATE (also from Dan):  This is a cynical move from a position of political weakness.  Will elaborate later today as time allows.

Why do certain news/polling organizations oversample Democrats?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:18 pm - May 9, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Media Bias

When, writes Michael Barone, “you get the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls and the Politico/George Washington University Battleground poll all showing Mitt Romney leading Obama by 1 point, an Obama victory seems far from inevitable.

Some polls, however, don’t show a contest nearly that close.  Yesterday, Allahpundit wasn’t all that worried about a Reuters survey that put

Obama up seven on Romney nationally — thanks chiefly to a sample with a 12-point Democratic tilt (excluding leaners). Elections guru Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard had a laugh over it on Twitter earlier and noted that even in a poll this blue, O’s job approval stands at just 50 percent.

Not a good sign for the president if his approval stands at just 50 percent in a poll with a greater sample than the electorate that turned out in November 2008.

Seems that our friends in the media may well want to great the impression that Obama’s reelection is, well, inevitable.

Watchers of Weasels — 2nd nominations of May (2012)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:05 pm - May 9, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Conservative Ideas

Council Submissions

Richard Lugar’s loss: a victory for small government principles

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock yesterday defeated 36-year Senate veteran Richard Lugar in the Hoosier State’s Republican primary.  This Tea Party favorite who has defeated an establishment Republican has, unlike other such victors, a better than even shot of winning the seat for the GOP.  Mourdock is very much in the mainstream of his state’s politics, an accomplished public official who has served on Vanderburgh County’s Board of Commissioners and in his current position.

His opponent, “the longest-serving Senator in Indiana’s history”, recently celebrated his 80th birthday and was first elected to public office when the 60-year-old Mourdock was 13. Lugar doesn’t seem to have maintained a residence in Indiana, the state he has represented in Washington since Barack Obama was in high school.

It does seem time for him to retire to spend time with his grandchildren.

Not only did Mourdock defeat an octogenarian legislator, but he did so by running on on the principles which secured Ronald Reagan’s rise, favoring a smaller federal government with fewer regulations.

Although “a lot of pundits have been prematurely writing the obituary to the Tea Party,” writes Philip Klein in the Washington Examiner, “Mourdock’s victory demonstrates that the movement still has a lot of power.” Indeed.

UPDATE:  Jennifer Rubin echoes — and builds upon — my point:

At first blush this might seem to be a repeat of 2010: Diligent, moderate incumbent taken out by wide-eyed Tea Party loony. But Mourdock is no Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell. And Lugar had gotten out of touch with his constituents and had long ago ceased to be an effective reformer or constructive player in the Senate.

Read the whole thing.

North Carolinians overwhelmingly approve Amendment One

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:50 am - May 9, 2012.
Filed under: Gay Marriage,State Politics & Government

North Carolina voters yesterday overwhelmingly approved Amendment One, so adding a provision to the state’s constitution to ban state recognition of same-sex marriages — and even civil unions.  Winning over 60% of the vote, the measure passed in all but seven of the state’s 100 counties, failing only in the Raleigh-Durham area, Charlotte (Mecklenburg County), Asheville (Buncombe County) and Watauga County:

According to FoxNews, “church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham, who at 93 remains influential even though his last crusade was in 2005, was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.”  The church-going population of the Tarheel State seemed thus instrumental in the amendment’s passage.

At least in North Carolina, Americans still define marriage in traditional terms, as the union of one man and one woman.

Interestingly, “more than 500,000 voters had cast their ballot before Tuesday, which was more than the 2008 primary when Obama and Hillary Clinton were fighting for the Democratic presidential nomination.”  And given that the contest for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination was more hotly contested than than for the Republican, a greater proportion of Democrats may well have showed up at the polls yesterday.

Given the high proportional of evangelicals in the state (North Carolina ranks 7th nationally in church attendance), perhaps opponents had little prayer of defeating the measure.  Opponents did seem to have done a better job of reaching out beyond the traditional Democratic interest groups than did their counterparts in California four years ago (but then I write from California not having witnessed the campaign up close).

Demographics apparently worked against amendment opponents.

National opinion polls notwithstanding, while Americans have become increasingly accepting of homosexuality in our culture, all too many are not yet ready to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Kristie takes issue with my title:

I wouldn’t say North Carolinians “overwhelmingly approved Amendment One” considering the fact that out of the 6,296,759 registered voters in the state of NC 4,132,865 of them did not cast a ballot at all. (more…)