GOP: Gay marriage an issue but not like economy
Photo
In this May 8, 2012, file photo National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown stands in front of projected election results in Raleigh, N.C., for the passage of a North Carolina constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama delighted his liberal base by coming down on the side of gay marriage, but he cheered the opposition, too.
Republican activists now want to use Obama's stance on the issue — public opinion is about evenly split — to paint the president as a flip-flopper and to boost Mitt Romney's image in the eyes of conservatives who are still warming to him.
Yet, across the Republican Party, from leaders to activists interviewed since Obama's announcement, there's been wide agreement to use the gay marriage issue selectively — in battleground states that have banned gay marriage, for example— and keep the GOP's national political focus on Obama's stewardship of the economy.
"I'm going to stay focused on jobs, thanks," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said repeatedly when asked about Obama's announcement on gay marriage. "The president can talk about it all he wants. I'm going to stay focused on what the American people want us to stay focused on."
Romney is taking a similar approach, avoiding any discussion of the issue unless he's questioned about it and focusing on the economy.
"It's hard right now. It's real tough," he said Friday in Charlotte, N.C. "It's because of the wrong policies. The right policies are going to put America back to work and make us the economic powerhouse we've always been."
While Republican activists acknowledge that the economy is the top concern for voters, they also see the night-and-day contrast between Obama and Romney on gay marriage as being too good not to exploit at the right times, in the right places. On questions of whether Romney's sufficiently conservative, for example. Or on the subject of consistency.
Particularly appealing, some activists said, was the White House's notion that Obama's "evolution" on the issue is somehow different from flip-flopping.
"This is one situation where Obama looks like the flip-flopper and Romney looks consistent," said Ralph Reed, president of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, a conservative, grass-roots advocacy group. "So much for the notion that Romney's the one with no core."
Romney has taken heat from Democrats and some Republicans for changing his position on some issues, such as abortion. But the former Massachusetts governor has not done so on gay marriage. He has been consistent in saying he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
Obama held an identical position through his 2008 election, but he said in late 2010 that his views were "constantly evolving." Feeling pressured by events this week, Obama announced his new position Wednesday.
Before Obama went on record in support of same-sex marriage, Vice President Joe Biden last Sunday pronounced himself "absolutely comfortable" with men marrying men and women marrying women. Then on Monday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said he supports gay marriage, too. The next day, voters in North Carolina approved a constitutional amendment banning gay nuptials, making it the 30th state to do so.
Besides the political and financial value of the issue, Republicans see a geographic benefit since several of the states that will decide the White House race have banned gay marriage in some form. In Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Virginia, for example, highlighting Obama's embrace of gay marriage and Romney's opposition to it could help energize conservative constituencies and win over right-leaning independents.
"This isn't going to be the No. 1 issue in the campaign, but it's going to mean a point or two in some of those selected states," said Richard Viguerie, a longtime conservative fundraiser. "Conservatives are going to be methodical about it, working in the churches and doing groups on the ground."
Activists are racing to turn emotions into contributions for grass-roots organizing and ads and, in November, votes.
"President Obama has made this an issue in the campaign and we are confident that Mitt Romney will eagerly defend the voters of these states against the president's attempt to impose same-sex marriage on the nation," said Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.
Groups focused on a broader portfolio of issues say gay marriage will be one of several social issues on their agendas but that none will be emphasized as prominently as Obama's performance on the economy.
Before Obama's announcement, Reed's Faith & Freedom Coalition was preparing a voter guide and social media campaign that included gay marriage with other social issues.
"The only thing that's changed now is that we can say that Obama himself has come out and stated that he's for single-sex marriage," Reed said.
Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America, a conservative grass-roots group, didn't need Boehner's counsel to know that Obama's support for gay marriage shouldn't play a leading role in the election. She's seen the polls that show America roughly split over gay marriage, although with support for it growing, as well as surveys that leave no doubt voters remain jittery about the economy and their personal finances.
"I don't want to see the election just based around social issues," Combs said. "You can't keep Americans' minds off of the economy."
May 15, 2012 at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
thekai asked, "I am still wondering where the rational RAF has gone."
He's out looking for lemmings, trolls, sock puppets and red herrings. Early this morning he said, "I Looked and couldn't find any..."
May 15, 2012 at 4:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
No2 not sure what to make of your comment first, the fact you finally are admitting something about yourself or just another of your many unoriginal postings.
May 15, 2012 at 4:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
You won't find my ideas under your bed, RAF. Look in my comment section. If you need help finding that, it's near the intersection of Lemming Lane and Troll Trail.
May 15, 2012 at 1:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Posted below is the total list of all poobah's ideas and original postings.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I Looked and couldn't find any...
May 13, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
A leading conservative pollster is suggesting that conservatives must evolve on equal rights for gays. Can you imagine that? It's truly encouraging that at least one conservative is capable of evolving.
Taken from: "Bush Pollster: GOP Must Evolve On Gay Rights" [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/... ]
'Republicans must evolve on gay rights or risk political extinction, a top GOP pollster warns leading establishment figures in a revealing new memo. Jan van Lohuizen, who polled for President George W. Bush in 2004, finds that support for gay rights — including same sex marriage — is rising at an accelerated pace among members of all political affiliations. He calls on Republicans to acknowledge the shift in the way they talk about the issue.
Remarkably, Lohuizen advises Republicans to re-frame gay rights as a conservative value.
“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone,” he advises Republicans to say. “This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”'
May 13, 2012 at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce, that's your opinion about the "false facade" and you're entitled to it. I think my comment is very relevant, but you, of course, will have your own opinion on that as well. One thing you can't twist and bend, however, is that from 1996 to 2012 is "at least 18 years" as you have stated twice.
May 13, 2012 at 11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yes I read your retort. It however facilitated the false facade put forth in the article. The president has had the same views for at least 18 years. The only thing that changed was what he has told the media and voters who didn't question his earlier stated position.
Your addition comments offer nothing but red herrings to the issue at hand. The presidents stated position has nothing to do with your views on what you think of other peoples views.
Reference my first post if you get lost again.
May 13, 2012 at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce said, "Still nothing to counter what others provide."
I guess you need a refresher of my comment, RAF. Unlike comments that only counter what others provide, my comment offered an original perspective for readers. Here goes; enjoy it again, RAF:
Thank you, President Obama, for discussing the evolution of your thinking on same sex marriage. The struggle for equal rights for homosexuals has been a long, long process of evolving attitudes. This evolution is both individual and collective as a society.
When brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends and co-workers find the courage to come out as homosexual, their decision has a profound impact on family, friends, co-workers and neighbors. It's the courageous steps of people who risk ridicule, discrimination, injury and death in living as openly gay persons that powerfully evolve attitudes of people on homosexuality and same sex marriage.
Perhaps those assigning motives to Obama's discussion have not yet had a family member, friend or co-worker come out to you. I hope that when it's your child, grandchild, nephew, niece or other loved one that tells you they are homosexual, and you begin to evolve your thinking on homosexuality and same sex marriage, others aren't so quick to assign motives to your evolution of thinking on the issue.
May 13, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
liberal piggies (@)(@) oink oink oink
May 13, 2012 at 10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Very original troll. Still nothing to counter what others provide.
May 13, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Who really cares about this? Live and let live. If you do not like it, don't do it. If it is your inclination I do not care.
May 13, 2012 at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sock puppets, red herrings, trolls and lemmings!
On Milwaukee mayor to face Walker in Wis. recall
Posted on May 13, 2012 at 9:43 a.m. by RetiredAirForce
"poor troll" [...] "lemming"
On GOP: Gay marriage an issue but not like economy
Posted on May 13, 2012 at 9:39 a.m. by RetiredAirForce
"troll this isn't a term paper."
On Milwaukee mayor to face Walker in Wis. recall
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 8:07 a.m. by RetiredAirForce
"More deflection and adding another red herring"
On Milwaukee mayor to face Walker in Wis. recall
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 7:20 a.m. by RetiredAirForce
"Just more deflection. Ignoring what I stated and comparing to red herrings."
On Barrett: Race to boil down to jobs
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 9:06 a.m. by RetiredAirForce
"everything you attemptes to provide till now was nothing more than red herrings."
On Ryan reiterates US debt crisis warnings at Janesville listening session
Posted on May 8 at 5:12 a.m. by RetiredAirForce
"Spoken like a true sock puppet"
On Who's who? Obama, Romney projecting mirror image
Posted on May 8 at 3:37 a.m. by RetiredAirForce
"spoken like a true sock puppet"
On Mischievous voters are unlikely during primary
Posted on May 8 at 1:30 a.m. by RetiredAirForce
"I suspect the faux posters and sock puppets will all vote for the fake republican...fakes stick together."
On Rep. Paul Ryan's constituents like him where he is
Posted on May 8 at 1:06 a.m. by RetiredAirForce
"I suspect GoodAmerican is just another of the many sock puppets,
put forth by a very incapable person to debate ideas based on facts."
On Barrett: Race to boil down to jobs
Posted on May 8 at 1:02 a.m. by RetiredAirForce
"Nothing but a sock puppet"
On Ryan reiterates US debt crisis warnings at Janesville listening session
Posted on May 7 at 11:38 p.m. by RetiredAirForce
"As a sock puppet you now have less credibility than mouse."
May 13, 2012 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
troll this isn't a term paper. As always when confronted with real facts you deflect.
May 13, 2012 at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF, you post four more comments after your first plagiarized comment and mention nothing about plagiarizing or Wikipedia.
That said, you have apparently never been close to family members, close friends and other loved ones of a gay person as they are making the choice to come out. This is often a time of a lot of second thoughts, gauging of reactions (some of which are violent) and full of a range of emotions and questions for all involved. I don't find it at all unlikely that a person would have second thoughts or uncertainty about their views on homosexuality and same sex marriage as I have personally witnessed this several times myself. If you were at all knowledgeable about homosexuality you'd realize that gay persons themselves often go through similar periods of questioning/doubting their sexuality. So why is it at all unusual that heterosexuals would question/doubt/evolve their thinking on homosexuality?
Another option is that you have been personally acquainted with the struggles of a gay person coming out but are so partisan that you've developed a callousness that allows you to ignore the experience.
I'm thankful the president has come to a point in his life where he feels comfortable publicly supporting same sex marriage, irregardless of the journey that evolution in his thinking has taken. For every dollar or vote this announcement generates for his campaign, rest assured the homophobes will try to match with their dollars and votes for his opponents. Unless, of course, the real reason for the homophobes questioning the motives of the president is because they feel they are on the wrong side of history, public opinion is swinging against their position and the votes and dollars won't be a wash.
May 13, 2012 at 7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
What? The president had the same position in 1996 that he claims to have today? How is it the media and followers think he has "evolved" to the same position he has held for at least 18 years?
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/l...
May 13, 2012 at 7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Another reason for distraction.
"In the first quarter of 2012 (the 3-month period from January to March), approximately 29.5 percent of the nearly 13.3 million Americans who were unemployed had been jobless for a year or more, according to data released by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). That percentage translates into 3.9 million workers, slightly more than the population of Oregon."
This is the highest since the 1960's
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/w...
May 13, 2012 at 7:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Another coincidence. The same day the new "position" on marriage was announced is also the same day the person from Obama's energy department who ran the division over seeing loans to Solyndra, announced his resignation; Arun Majumdar.
May 13, 2012 at 5:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Evolution is the new dem spin word for flip flop; at least for a stated position. Reality is his position has hardly changed it is only the discussion of his position that is important. By discussing this is allows the ignoring of all the real problems in this nation today.
May 12, 2012 at 3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dwight, I agree wholeheartedly with you. There is plenty of room for love in this world while I believe there is way too much hate and intolerance. It's nice to see people becoming more accepting of others, making for a better world.
May 12, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm sure the question of same-gay sex marriage will come up in the recallialgubernatorial debates.
We all know how Barrett will answer.
How will the Governor answer?
May 12, 2012 at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
gotoschool:
Who are the homophobes? Same sex marriage is illegal in 44 of the "57" states and the Obama while he supports it-does not believe its a right. Is he a homophobe? Same sex marriage is not recognized by the federal govt-which is Obama and its not recognized in his home state of illinois? Are the people in illinois homophobes? What about wisconsin?
May 12, 2012 at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Joe, I can't answer for why the media uses the term "gay marriage" instead of "same sex marriage." Maybe for the same reason that many "holler for the dollar" televangelists use the term; something to do with it being a great catchphrase for making money at the expense of a group of people that are only asking to be allowed to marry the person they love.
May 12, 2012 at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Homophobes are going to look like the people who thought the Sun circled the Earth.
May 12, 2012 at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Joe McC:
What do you think the difference between same sex marriage and marriage between 1 man and 1 women is?
1 is regulated privilege -regulated by the state- just like a driver's license and is allowed in 50 states. the other is illegal in 44 states.
May 12, 2012 at 3 p.m.
Suggest removal
So, poobah, why does the media as referenced in the above article refer to gay marriage instead of same sex marriage ... except that the media loves the Dan Savage approach.
May 12, 2012 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Joe_McC asked, "Could someone explain to me the difference between gay marriage and same sex marriage?"
Gay marriage is the marriage of two gay persons and is perfectly legal in all fifty states as long as the gay couple are of the opposite sex - a homosexual man and a homosexual woman getting married is perfectly legal in all fifty states.
Same sex marriage is the marriage of two people of the same sex and it is illegal in most states even if the couple are both heterosexual.
Think about those two situations. They demonstrate the facetiousness of this debate.
May 12, 2012 at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
I used to be against the idea of same-sex marriage and civil unions - I have since changed my tune. Whether personal and/or religious views favor it or disagree with it, the right to be happy and the right to enjoy the same benefits and other committed couples should be the same for all. If a particular faith doesn't agree with it, don't marry them in your church - just don't act like two men or two women being legally wed will somehow affect "traditional" marriage. It won't.
May 12, 2012 at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Could someone explain to me the difference between gay marriage and same sex marriage?
May 12, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
This really isn't going to matter one bit in the election. Obama was smart to deal with this now so the whole thing can blow over in a week or two. People have short memories, what's going to matter 6 months from now is where the economy and gas prices are the day before the election.
.
Does anybody give BO grief over his senate FISA vote anymore? Of course not, but at the time you would have thought the world was about to end.
May 12, 2012 at 12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thank you, President Obama, for discussing the evolution of your thinking on same sex marriage. The struggle for equal rights for homosexuals has been a long, long process of evolving attitudes. This evolution is both individual and collective as a society.
When brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends and co-workers find the courage to come out as homosexual, their decision has a profound impact on family, friends, co-workers and neighbors. It's the courageous steps of people who risk ridicule, discrimination, injury and death in living as openly gay persons that powerfully evolve attitudes of people on homosexuality and same sex marriage.
Perhaps those assigning motives to Obama's discussion have not yet had a family member, friend or co-worker come out to you. I hope that when it's your child, grandchild, nephew, niece or other loved one that tells you they are homosexual, and you begin to evolve your thinking on homosexuality and same sex marriage, others aren't so quick to assign motives to your evolution of thinking on the issue.
May 12, 2012 at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodsman: Right. Hetrosexuals should be the only people to enjoy the agony of marriage and divorce.
May 12, 2012 at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wiki stole RAF's idea!
May 12, 2012 at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree, woodsman,
but everything is not about me or you.
At some point in your life you would do well to admit to yourself
that there are other people in the world that have different ideas than you
and that their ideas are just as important to them
as yours are to you.
May 12, 2012 at 12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce said, "Distraction is the divided attention of an individual or group from the chosen object of attention onto the source of distraction."
Still working on your autobiography? You may want to use more original material and less plagiarized material. I'll cite your source for you: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distraction... ]
What? WIKIPEDIA! The very same source RAF has called into question when others have cited it.
May 12, 2012 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
I believe marriage should only be between man & woman,this whole thing,just like going to the colleges is only a ploy for votes,these wannabe's that do nothing but lie & treat us as we are dumb hillbillies,and are so out of touch with the real world,his kind might be the minority in this country,but they rule the world,sad there are more of us,and we have no say in anything!
If there is a time for gays to be together,fine,i just don't want to see public affection,it should not be called marriage,that status should be for man & woman,call it something else and it might be more acceptable,like a commitment,marriage license is for man & woman!!
May 12, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
And Congress as well.
May 12, 2012 at 10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
"WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama delighted his liberal base by coming down on the side of gay marriage, but he cheered the opposition, too."
I guess it WAS worth $15 Million to endorse gay marriage.
I hope potus "evolves" to addressing the priority issues in this county...the economy and jobs.
May 12, 2012 at 10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Distraction is the divided attention of an individual or group from the chosen object of attention onto the source of distraction. Distraction is caused by: the lack of ability to pay attention; lack of interest in the object of attention; or the great intensity, novelty or attractiveness of something other than the object of attention.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.