Obama agrees that same-sex couples cannot get married!

[Ogopogo]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham ... s-are-race

NPR Caller: Gays Are a 'Race'

By Tim Graham | May 14, 2012 | 12:28
4
Change font size: A | A
Tim Graham's picture

The liberal callers lined up to applaud President Obama's gay-marriage proclamation on Thursday's Talk of The Nation show, but one of them really stood out.

A gay man from San Francisco claimed "we are a race of people, not a type of person," and that is all Obama has to say to shut down any objections or debate: "this whole conversation ends."

NEAL CONAN, host: Let's see if we go next to - this is Tim. Tim with us from San Francisco.

TIM: Hey, thanks for taking my call. There is a part of the gay-lesbian-transgender conversation that is happening in San Francisco that's not happening on the radio with NPR or any other station. And there are many gays and lesbians and transgenders who believe that we are a race of people. And the way that we are a race of people, is we're distinctly different than any other race in the idea that we do not sexually identify as heterosexual. Now, if you take that idea of 10 percent of the population of the world, we equal 300 million people. That's the population of the United States.

And with that amount of people, we are a race of people, not a type of person. And I don't believe Barack Obama has gone far enough. All he has to do is say that the LBGT people are a race, and this whole conversation ends. We no longer have a difference between us and them. We are a race of people, and it needs to be addressed and it needs to be talked about.

CONAN: Tim, thanks very much for the call.

Forget for a minute that calling the LGBT folks a "race" isn't at all racial. The old "ten percent" claim isn't even made by gay advocates any more. One recent estimate was 3.5 percent.
Share this
About the Author
Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Tim Graham on Twitter.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham ... z1utR1WgrH


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/14/fr ... ?hpt=hp_c1

02:14 PM ET
Share
Comments (1,093 comments)
Permalink
From first black president to 'first gay president'?

As if becoming the first black president wasn't momentous enough, Barack Obama has just been handed a new title: "First gay president."

A Newsweek magazine cover bestowed that distinction on Obama this week with a picture of the president and a rainbow halo. If you view that as a naked attempt to grab your attention, capitalize on the moment and have you pick up a newsmagazine, you might be right.

But that illustration – along with a New Yorker cover showing the columns of the White House lit up in rainbow colors – certainly shows how the president’s public support of same-sex marriage has pushed the issue back into the spotlight.

The magazines’ choices also speak to the broad cultural impact of Obama's announcement and pose questions about whether this moment may become a lasting part of his legacy.

That's not to say the president's announcement is necessarily a watershed moment. It earned him kudos and criticism despite the fact that he left the legal standing of same-sex marriage in the hands of the states and made no policy changes.

The issue also is far from resolved in the African-American community, and some conservatives say Obama's announcement comes at a political cost.

CNN.com's John Blake writes that some suggest the black church may punish Obama for announcing his support for same-sex marriage.

As millions went to church this weekend after the president's announcement, clergy across the country offered their opinions, with the words of black pastors – a key base of support for Obama in 2008 – carrying special weight in a presidential election year. But black pastors were hardly monolithic in addressing Obama's remarks.

Blake points out that a backlash by some African-American pastors, a campaign worry following the announcement, can be seen as historical irony. Black church leaders arguing against same-sex marriage are making some of the same arguments that supporters of slavery made in the 18th and 19th centuries, some historians say. Both groups adopted a literal reading of the Bible to justify withholding basic rights from a particular group.

Patrick R. Tull, a Lumberton, New Jersey, iReporter and Obama supporter, said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman and that the president has alienated a big section of his supporters in the black community who have not "evolved" as the president has.

"The fact is many Americans, which includes Democrats, have not 'evolved' on the issue of same-sex marriage," Tull said. "Mr. President, you should have stood your ground and said, that you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but you are against discrimination of any kind. Individual states should decide what's best for their state. It is a free country and people are free to love whomever they want and that's OK with me, but I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman."

Vera Richardson, also an Obama supporter, said the president’s stance on same-sex marriage will be his undoing for re-election.

“I am confused, I cannot vote for (Mitt) Romney, and I know Obama needs our vote, but he has caused anxiety in the black community," she said in an iReport.

But for Andrew Sullivan, the writer of the Newsweek article and also a gay man, Obama's announcement meant everything for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

"For gay Americans and their families, the emotional darkness of Tuesday night became a canvas on which Obama could paint a widening dawn," Sullivan writes. "But I didn’t expect it. Like many others, I braced myself for disappointment. And yet when I watched the interview, the tears came flooding down. ...

"I was utterly unprepared for how psychologically transformative the moment would be. To have the president of the United States affirm my humanity – and the humanity of all gay Americans – was, unexpectedly, a watershed. He shifted the mainstream in one interview. And last week, a range of Democratic leaders – from Harry Reid to Steny Hoyer – backed the president, who moved an entire party behind a position that only a few years ago was regarded as simply preposterous."

And for one Republican, the announcement swayed him toward supporting Obama.

“I'm very happy with Obama's decision because at the end of the business day I can see my partner and feel hopeful,” said iReporter David A. Seaman of Lansford, Pennsylvania. “I never would have thought he would do something like this. Just this decision alone made me swing way left to vote.”

While that analysis may be true for some, others wondered if the Newsweek cover went too far in enshrining the moment and its significance.

It's not entirely unprecedented to bestow such a title to a sitting president. In the '90s, Bill Clinton was dubbed America's first black president.

"African-American men seemed to understand it right away," Toni Morrison wrote in The New Yorker in 1998 about the Monica Lewinsky scandal that rocked Washington. "Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."

And in many ways, the shared connections or perceived ones that earned Clinton that title, mockingly or not, is part of why Sullivan has bestowed "First Gay President" upon Obama.

Sullivan writes that a black president who likely had to go through a period of self-discovery growing up as well as struggle for equality shared in some way the plight of gay Americans. As Obama eventually shattered the barrier of office to the "White" House, his announcement will allow gay Americans to shatter the stereotypes placed on them, Sullivan argues.

“Barack Obama had to come out of a different closet. He had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family," he writes. "The America he grew up in had no space for a boy like him: black yet enveloped by loving whiteness, estranged from a father he longed for (another common gay experience), hurtling between being a Barry and a Barack, needing an American racial identity as he grew older but chafing also against it and over-embracing it at times.”

This week's column in The New Yorker, headlined "Wedding Bells," argues that Obama's announcement is on par with the importance of abolishing laws against interracial marriage in the 1960s.

Writer Margaret Talbot points to the Supreme Court's 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, saying the acceptance of same-sex marriage is inevitable.

"One day, not long from now, it will be hard to remember what worried people so much about gay and lesbian couples committing themselves to marriage," Talbot writes in the New Yorker.

"And, eventually, the Court will do the right thing on same-sex marriage, just as the President did last week. As in the Loving decision, the Court will reaffirm that the 'freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.' And it will finally uphold that freedom for gay and lesbian Americans."

[Ogopogo]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/our-f ... president/

FEATURED ARTICLES


Our first gay president?
Published: 5:34 PM 05/14/2012

Newsweek has proclaimed Barack Obama to be America’s “first gay president.” This, of course, is a play on Bill Clinton’s image as the “first black president” and is not meant literally. But it begs several questions. First, who was the first actually gay president? Second, was Obama’s statement that he personally supports gay marriage in fact “historic,” as liberals have claimed in the days since the president’s “Good Morning America” interview with Robin Roberts? And third, what is the real motivation behind Obama’s move, and should Americans pay any attention to it (this article notwithstanding)?

The first actually gay president was probably either James Buchanan or Abraham Lincoln. Both men were accused by contemporaries and later historians of being at the very least bisexual. Buchanan, who was elected in 1856, was a life-long bachelor. He was engaged as a young man to the daughter of a wealthy Pennsylvania family, but he spent little time with his beautiful fiancée and is rumored to have had several affairs during the engagement. She believed the rumors, canceled the wedding, and died shortly thereafter of a laudanum overdose, apparently induced by a broken heart and hysteria. Buchanan wrote that his interest in the fairer sex died with his fiancée. Though he continued to court for several years (possibly in an attempt to “marry up” for convenience), there were whispers that no woman would have been able to corral Buchanan’s heart.

Buchanan lived in Washington, D.C., for 15 years with William Rufus King of Alabama. According to Buchanan, the two men shared a special relationship, and he was devastated after King died in 1853. Andrew Jackson referred to Buchanan and King as “Miss Nancy and Aunt Fancy” while Aaron V. Brown, postmaster general in the Buchanan administration, named the two “Buchanan and his wife.” Buchanan and King were labeled “Siamese twins” around Washington, a slang term for same-sex couples in antebellum America, and King was often branded “Mrs. James Buchanan.” President James K. Polk privately called Buchanan an “old maid.” The correspondence between King and Buchanan was destroyed by their nieces after their deaths, possibly in an attempt to cover up the relationship. The press wondered if the rumors were true, and in 1844 when Buchanan was away from King for an extended trip in France, he wrote that he had gone “wooing to several gentlemen” for companionship and fretted that he should simply marry “some old maid” who could nurse him and provide him suppers as long as she did not require much romantic affection.

As for Lincoln, the evidence is more circumstantial. Lincoln had a strained relationship with his wife, and though the two had four children, there were always questions about the affection and intimacy the two shared. Lincoln was frequently depressed and melancholy, traits some historians have attributed to his difficult personal life and perhaps an internal struggle with his own sexuality.

Lincoln was close friends with Joshua Speed, a man considered effeminate by contemporaries, and the two shared both living quarters and a bed for four years. This was not highly unusual for the time, as men often slept together because of a lack of money or space, but the relationship may have been more intimate than a deep friendship. Lincoln wrote what many consider to be a homoerotic poem about Speed, and Lincoln broke off his engagement to Mary Todd when Speed left Illinois to concentrate on his own marriage and business pursuits. It was only after a respite from work and his personal life at Speed’s plantation in Kentucky that Lincoln reconsidered marriage. This certainly does not prove Lincoln was bisexual, but the circumstantial evidence points in that direction.

Additionally, Lincoln’s bodyguard, Captain David Derickson, reportedly shared a bed with the president when Lincoln’s wife was out of town and had a close personal relationship with Lincoln that extended beyond business. Again, this was a rumor, and some historians have discounted it as hearsay, but the fact that Washington society was aware of it might indicate an element of truth. Interestingly, Lincoln’s supposed homosexuality led to the establishment of the Log Cabin Republicans, a modern political organization predominantly comprised of homosexual Republicans dedicated to same-sex issues.

But the important point isn’t whether Buchanan and/or Lincoln were gay. Regardless of the rumors, both men had successful political careers in a time when homosexuality was certainly more taboo than it is today. How is that possible? Simple: It was possible because their personal interactions had no bearing on their jobs in Washington. Marriage was an issue for the church and by default the states in 1856 and 1860, and just as today was outside the purview of the federal government. Obama said as much in his “historic” interview. His personal opinion may have “evolved,” but Obama cannot make law by decree (even if he wants to) and the states still have the final say on this issue. Obama didn’t say anything to the contrary. Neither the Congress nor the president has any control over what constitutes marriage. Such is not an enumerated power of the general government, and as I pointed out in my book “The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution,” never was under the original so-called “Privileges and Immunities Clause” of the Constitution. This is how most Americans see the issue and Obama’s “evolution” does nothing to change that.

Most important, Obama’s “historic” move is a perfect example of deflection. The United States is headed over a financial cliff, the dollar is being run into the ground, the debt tops $100 trillion with unfunded liabilities added to the mix, unemployment is at Great Depression levels, the economy cannot and will not rebound under the Democrats’ failed policies, and Obama knows it. Same-sex marriage is a distraction from the real issues at hand. Obama would love nothing more than for same-sex marriage to take center stage for the next six months. That would allow him to rake in millions of dollars from his Hollywood friends, print catchy T-shirts and political propaganda, and avoid talking about his destructive economic policies.

Unfortunately for the Obama campaign, polling data indicate that this strategy has already backfired in several key states. Still, those on the right should ignore the issue and instead focus with laser-beam precision on the economy and the Constitution. If not, America is doomed. Social issues will not win or lose this election. The economy will.

As my friend and fellow Daily Caller contributor Jack Hunter said recently, “I would vote for a gay Obama married to Mitt Romney if he would cut government, shrink debt, bring home troops and follow the Constitution. I would also vote for a candidate opposed to gay marriage if he would cut government, shrink debt, bring home troops and follow the Constitution.” Yes.

Brion McClanahan holds a Ph.D in American history from the University of South Carolina. He is the author of The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution (Regnery History, 2012), Forgotten Conservatives in American History (with Clyde Wilson, Pelican 2012), and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (Regnery, 2009).

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/our-f ... z1utfiEfgE

[BlawBlaw]

Backing gay marriage would otherwise be a loser policy in America. However, by doing so Obama has ensured massive fundraising from liberal elites as well as continued fawning by the left of centre media (ie. just about everyone except Fox News). He just bought himself a billion dollars of free publicity that he can pump back into the war machine to defeat Romney.

[CrunchyCon]

Backing gay marriage would otherwise be a loser policy in America. However, by doing so Obama has ensured massive fundraising from liberal elites as well as continued fawning by the left of centre media (ie. just about everyone except Fox News). He just bought himself a billion dollars of free publicity that he can pump back into the war machine to defeat Romney.

That's not the only reason (sadly) it's a winning issue for Obama. The other reason is because Obama is not facing a principled opponent. By coming out now, and saying he has evolved on the issue, Obama looks principled - even if it is the wrong principles he is advocating.

On the other hand, Politico quoted anonymous inside sources who said this was the plan, namely Team Obama gambled that Romney, at one time the most pro-gay Republican bigwig in the country, would flip-flop on the issue. What Team Obama had not realized was just how badly he would flip-flop (pro traditional marriage but pro gay adoption), just how quickly he would do so (less than 24 hours), and the venue in which he would do so (Fox News while fielding softball questions).

It's a lose-lose situation for Romney. By flip-flopping more than John Kerry on a Massachusetts beach, neither side finds Romney trustworthy.

[BlawBlaw]

"Evolving" is just another way to say flip-flop. If I recall, Obama stated his position a few years ago that he was in favour of civil unions but that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Romney seems a bit incoherent on gay adoption but he is trying to frame it as a state rather than federal issue.

Of course, gay marriage (and probably gay adoption) will become a federal issue as the court challenges by gay activists, trying to have democratically enacted state constitutional amendments overturned, will wind their way through the federal court system and eventually land in the lap of SCOTUS, maybe sometime early next year.

[Faramir]

Backing gay marriage would otherwise be a loser policy in America. However, by doing so Obama has ensured massive fundraising from liberal elites as well as continued fawning by the left of centre media (ie. just about everyone except Fox News). He just bought himself a billion dollars of free publicity that he can pump back into the war machine to defeat Romney.

That's not the only reason (sadly) it's a winning issue for Obama. The other reason is because Obama is not facing a principled opponent. By coming out now, and saying he has evolved on the issue, Obama looks principled - even if it is the wrong principles he is advocating.

On the other hand, Politico quoted anonymous inside sources who said this was the plan, namely Team Obama gambled that Romney, at one time the most pro-gay Republican bigwig in the country, would flip-flop on the issue. What Team Obama had not realized was just how badly he would flip-flop (pro traditional marriage but pro gay adoption), just how quickly he would do so (less than 24 hours), and the venue in which he would do so (Fox News while fielding softball questions).

It's a lose-lose situation for Romney. By flip-flopping more than John Kerry on a Massachusetts beach, neither side finds Romney trustworthy.

You have to believe there is a substantive difference between Canadian and US voters on this issue. I'm not sure there is. But I could be wrong.

[Faramir]

Seems like there is a substantive difference between Canadians and Americans on social issues.

The Gallup poll is probably not important where it asks the question of Republicans or Democrats, as neither was gonna support the other side anyways.

But the independents show the gay marriage issue is working against Obama:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154628/Six-S ... -Vote.aspx

23% of Ind will be "less likely" to vote Obama due to this issue. (compared to 11% more likely)

[BlawBlaw]

I think Americans are more passionate about their politics and their social issues when compared with Canadians. People just sort of shrugged their shoulders when Martin went ahead with it. If SCOTUS doesn't affirm the results of the state referenda, then I wouldn't be surprised to see a more motivated attempt to have an amendment to the US Constitution to finally settle the matter.

[mindyrbusiness]

mouth taped shut.jpg (6.6 KiB) Viewed 181 times

Question:Why do Gay activists & enablers attack,demonize,intimidate,and try to silence our voices?
Answer: They don't want the public to know the truth!!!

Ex-Gays File Complaint Against School Superintendent for Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Montgomery County School Superintendent Joshua Starr Spewed Hateful Comments Against Former Homosexuals

Rockville, Md. – Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) has filed a sexual orientation discrimination complaint with the Montgomery County (Maryland) Board of Education against its School Superintendent Joshua Starr.

After PFOX distributed ex-gay flyers to high school students as part of the schools’ flyer distribution program for non-profit organizations, Superintendent Starr publicly denigrated PFOX and former homosexuals by calling the actions of PFOX “reprehensible and deplorable” and labeling the flyer’s sexual orientation content as “a really, really disgusting message.”

“PFOX’s flyers provided information on unwanted same-sex attractions, discouraged student name calling and labeling, and urged tolerance for former homosexuals,” said Regina Griggs of PFOX.

“Starr does not respect diversity and is creating an unsafe school environment. As School Superintendent, Starr’s actions make it impossible for Montgomery County public schools to provide an atmosphere where differences are understood and appreciated, or where everyone is treated fairly and with respect free of discrimination and abuse, as mandated by its Nondiscrimination Policy ACB.”

“The School Superintendent is a vital role model. When the School Superintendent promotes intolerance of former homosexuals and organizations that support them, students and teachers will follow his example and learn to also disrespect sexual minorities like the ex-gay community.”

“Superintendent Starr cannot be allowed to use his official position to display hate against any group of people because he disagrees with their sexual orientation. Starr’s flagrant violation of the Nondiscrimination Policy demonstrates that he is a prime candidate to receive ex-gay tolerance training and diversity education.”

“I am sad that Superintendent Starr has called me and other ex-gays names like “deplorable” and “disgusting,” said Grace Harley, a former lesbian who testified before the School Board. “What saddens me more is that the Board of Education has not reprimanded Superintendent Starr. If he had said the same things about gays, they would have fired him by now. But because he hates people like me, they support him.”

“I have suffered more discrimination and intolerance as an ex-gay than I ever did when I was gay. Please stop hating us. Follow your own Non-Discrimination Policy. If you stop hating former homosexuals, our students will not learn to hate either. Starr’s behavior proves that our schools need diversity training on tolerance for the ex-gay community.”


Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) promotes an inclusive environment for the ex-gay community, and educates youth with factual information about same-sex attractions.

[Faramir]

I think Americans are more passionate about their politics and their social issues when compared with Canadians. People just sort of shrugged their shoulders when Martin went ahead with it. If SCOTUS doesn't affirm the results of the state referenda, then I wouldn't be surprised to see a more motivated attempt to have an amendment to the US Constitution to finally settle the matter.

I think you are right. While American are horrified by abortion, Canadians are ambivalent. Generally Canadians are against abortion unless it happens to cause inconvenience to their lives to have a child.

[pirapoi]

But the independents show the gay marriage issue is working against Obama:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154628/Six-S ... -Vote.aspx

23% of Ind will be "less likely" to vote Obama due to this issue. (compared to 11% more likely)

So on that issue with indepedents, he is losing at 2:1.

The Gallup poll is probably not important where it asks the question of Republicans or Democrats, as neither was gonna support the other side anyways.

There may not be a lot of support switching, but I would say it is more likely that a Dem would oppose SSM compared to a Rep supporting it.

[BlawBlaw]

"Evolving" is just another way to say flip-flop..

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... p-flopper/

Charles Krauthammer agrees, a few days later.