How can Obama woo black base and young voters when they disagree on same sex marriage?

In 2008 Obama won the presidency partly due to the votes and energy of the college-age crowd, a majority of which favor same-gender marriage.  But Obama will also need the black vote to win this year’s race and most African Americans oppose segregating genders in marriage.

Executive director of National Journal Hotline, Josh Kraushaar explains why Obama doesn’t support same-sex marriage.  Not because Obama worries about “upsetting conservatives.  It’s that he can’t afford to lose black voters who overwhelmingly oppose it.” 

The Atlantic reports:

“For those wanting to understand why the political deliberation over gay marriage is such a sensitive subject for this White House, look no further than the fact that it splits the two core constituencies that make up President Obama's base: college-aged voters and African-Americans. 

. . . college-aged voters are only part of the president's coalition. The bigger element consists of African-American voters, who are solidly opposed to gay marriage. California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage passed in 2008 thanks to overwhelming black support; 70 percent backed it, according to exit polls. Recent gay marriage legislation in Maryland drew opposition from leading Democratic African-American legislators in the state. The same ministers organizing get-out-the-vote efforts in black churches for Obama are also railing against gay marriage. 

It's as much about politics as principle.”

‘Weird politics’ of Rick Santorum not the problem, government is

 Best selling author, political analyst, and human rights activist, Mark Steyn confronts Rick Santorum’s weirdness head on:  "Even to those Aussies of a conservative bent, the weirdness of Santorum is a given."

Regarding social values, Steyn backs up Santorum by pointing out the importance and cost-effectiveness of the traditional family.  Underneath the surface is:

“where all the business that really engages Santorum is — and he's not wrong on most of it. As Congressman Mike Pence said a year or two back, "To those who say we should simply focus on fiscal issues, I say you would not be able to print enough money in a thousand years to pay for the government you would need if the traditional family collapses."

Steyn agrees that social values impact government directly, including its size and spending.  After all:

“Single women are the most enthusiastic constituency for big government . . . One can argue about whether the death of marriage leads to big government or vice versa, but simply raising the topic shouldn't put one beyond the pale, should it?”

“Let's take it as read that Rick Santorum is weird. After all, he believes in the sanctity of life, the primacy of the family, the traditional socio-religious understanding of a transcendent purpose to human existence . . . .”

Santorum believes men should marry women?!  Weird, right? 

Here’s the real weird: 

"Our fiscal crisis is not some unfortunate bookkeeping accident that a bit of recalibration by a savvy technocrat can fix. In the United States as in Greece, it is a reflection of the character of a people. The problem isn't that Rick Santorum's weird, but that a government of record-breaking brokeness already busting through its newest debt-ceiling increase even as it announces bazillions in new spending is entirely normal."

Steyn is the kind of speaker who elicits rip roaring laughter . . . from himself.  Give yourself a treat and read his entire essay.

'For Greater Glory' movie trailer: Viva Cristo Rey!

The movie 'For Greater Glory' about the oppression of the Catholic Church in Mexico opens on June 1st.

From their upload on YouTube:

What price would you pay for Freedom? In the exhilarating action epic FOR GREATER GLORY an impassioned group of men and women each make the decision to risk it all for family, faith and the very future of their country, as the fim's adventure unfolds against the long-hidden, true story of the 1920s Cristero War, the daring people¹s revolt that rocked 20thCentury North America.

Academy Award® nominee Andy Garcia headlines an acclaimed cast as General Gorostieta, the retired military man who at first thinks he has nothing personal at stake as he and his wife (Golden Globe winner Eva Longoria) watch Mexico fall into a violent civil war. Yet the man who hesitates in joining the cause will soon become the resistance¹s most inspiring and self-sacrificing leader, as he begins to see the cost of religious persecution on his countrymen . . . and transforms a rag-tag band of rebels into a heroic force to be reckoned with.  The General faces impossible odds against a powerful and ruthless government.  Yet is those he meets on the journey ­ youthful idealists, feisty renegades and, most of all, one remarkable teenager named Jose ­ who reveal to him how courage and belief are forged even when justice seems lost.

Just in time to inspire Christians, Catholics and other people of faith in the United States uniting against the Obama administration's assault on freedom of religion with the HHS mandate.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Breaking news: European Court of Human Rights affirms same-sex couples do not have right to marriage

Pro-gender marriage advocates received great news today from Europe:

“With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ [two women] legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.”

 Exactly.  Two women are different from one man and one woman regarding marriage, sex and fatherhood.

The Daily Mail reports:

"Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled. 

Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives. 

The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.  

The French civil partners, Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, tried to secure marriage rights under clauses that prevent discrimination and protect privacy and family life.
But the Strasbourg judges said there had been no discrimination against them because they were lesbians.

 Thankfully Europeans understand the difference between gender and sexual orientation. 

"The Strasbourg ruling won praise from campaigners against same-sex marriage. 

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘For too long campaigners have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires. 

He added: ‘The ruling from the ECHR will embolden those whose concerns about same-sex marriage and adoption are not inspired by personal hatred and animosity, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of children and the welfare of society." 

 This certainly puts a wrench in the works for same-sex marriage activists in the UK.

"The ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples.
It means that if MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the Coalition’s promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless."

Mitt Romney on same-sex marriage: flip-flop or rock?

President Obama has explained that he is “evolving” on the issue of marriage for same-gender couples.  Is Mitt Romney also evolving, but in the opposite direction?

Romney has been criticized by conservatives for passing same-sex marriage when he was the governor of Massachusetts.  Mass Resistance researcher Amy Contrada wrote:

Mitt Romney has claimed that he “took every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage.” This is simply not true. In fact, all he had to do to prevent “gay marriage” from beginning in 2004 was follow the clear separation of powers laid out in the state Constitution. But instead, he kowtowed to the state high court’s dream of “gay marriage” in its 2003 opinion, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

But Romney has been endorsed by other conservative Republicans, including NJ governor Chris Christie who recently vetoed same-sex marriage in his state. And co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage, Maggie Gallagher wrote an article, “Mitt Romney Never Flip-Flopped on Marriage:” 

"Mitt Romney didn't just oppose court-ordered same-sex marriage with words, he fought hard, including behind the scenes. 

And on the federal marriage amendment? In June of 2004, Romney testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of the federal marriage amendment. 

Romney's new mailer in Iowa says he opposes same-sex marriage and supports a federal marriage amendment. 

This is not a flip-flop; it's the truth. On gay marriage he's been a rock."

But NewsMax has a little more background:

In December 2006, Bay Windows, a Boston-based gay and lesbian newspaper, republished excerpts from an interview it did with Romney in which he stated that the gay and lesbian community "needs more support from the Republican Party" and that it should be up to the states to decide whether to allow same-sex marriage.

Does this mean that Romney has evolved on the issue?  Or did Romney simply consider it safe to leave the question of SSM to the states, little dreaming that nine years later he would be governor of Massachusetts precisely when that state’s supreme court decided that preserving marriage for gender-integrated couples was unconstitutional?

"When Romney made the comments in 1994, gay marriage had not yet become a serious issue. But in 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that marriage in the commonwealth would no longer be limited to unions between men and women, Romney pushed for an amendment to the state constitution that would outlaw gay marriage."

From Mitt Romney’s website:

“…it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.”

 Why all this contradiction and confusion?  Romney believes Americans should not be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.  And, traditional marriage does not discriminate; it is available to both genders.  



More from the Newsmax article:

"I can tell you this, which is I believe gay individuals should enjoy tolerance and respect," Romney says. "They should have equal opportunities in housing and employment. We shouldn't discriminate against people based upon their sexual preference or orientation. . . At the same time, I believe that marriage should be reserved for a relationship between one man and one woman. For me, that's not a matter of discrimination."

Is that the crux of the matter?  Do some activists on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue not understand that one can oppose discrimination against people with same-sex attraction and at the same time oppose redefining marriage to include gender-segregated couples?  

Republican woman likes Santorum because of his ‘awe at the mystery of womanhood’

On Hotair, Tina Korbe explains why polls show Santorum numbers increasing with women when liberals expected his numbers to tank after the HHS birth control debacle.

It’s because he appreciates women as women: 

"I appreciate that Rick Santorum speaks up for the many women in this country who do have radically different views from the mainstream about what women are uniquely able to offer to society. For too long, feminists have pretended to speak for all of us — as though we are all eager to neuter ourselves, to obliterate gender difference, to deny our own fertility. When Santorum speaks about social issues, I hear in his voice a kind of awe at the mystery of womanhood that is sadly lacking among liberals. His awareness that women only can be mothers — and that mothering, whether physical or spiritual, is something every society needs — permeates his views about, for example, contraception and stay-at-home motherhood as one of the most important careers a woman can choose. Plenty of women never articulate their views about what it means to be a woman, but most of us sense innately that we are different from men and that, in that difference, there is also a complementarity. When we pretend to be like men to prove our equality, that complementarity is lost. When we embrace what makes us women — namely, our unique ability to give birth to the next generation (again, both physically and spiritually) — that complementarity is restored. Santorum encourages us to do just that — to embrace our womanhood. 

It’s crazy, isn’t it? That a man has, in a way, become the first in a long time to speak up for the right of women to be women."

Ladies, work that feminine mystery!

‘Much more is expected’ of Obama because he supports gay rights and is African American says SSM advocate

Author and co-host of radio’s Al Sharpton Show, Earl Ofari Hutchinson explains on the Huffington Post why President Obama can’t say “I do,” to same-sex marriage now.  Because it would be “politically suicidal.” 

“…to hold his refusal to utter the final words and endorse gay marriage now is worse than dumb and silly; it is politically suicidal.”

 Hutchinson cautions same-sex marriage advocates to be patient and wait for Obama to deliver gay marriage after the November election.  Hutchinson says there is a “near certainty”  that Obama “will eventually get it right to the total satisfaction of gay activists in full support of gay marriage.”

Hutchinson claims that because Obama supports the gay agenda and is a racial minority, he faces particular challenges:

“He is clearly a friend of the gay rights movement, and an African American so therefore more, much more, is expected of him.”

The challenge is not his ethnicity.  America proved in 2008 that race is not an impediment to the White House.  The real balancing act Obama walks is appeasing his liberal base while not alienating the large number of Americans who don’t want genders segregated in marriage or a homosexual agenda pushed in public schools.

Obama says he is “evolving” regarding same-sex marriage.  But is he simply biding his time?

Is same-sex marriage for love or for benefits?

In their guide designed to teach politicians how to talk about same-sex marriage, Third Way claims “Marriage is about commitment, not rights.”  Tell that to Attorney General Eric Holder.  

Holder doesn’t like the Defense of Marriage Act, so he decided not to defend it so as to grant medical and other benefits to same-gender “spouses” in the military.  

The Washington Times calls benefits for same-sex couples a “powder keg” in the Pentagon:

The Obama administration is withholding medical and other benefits from same-sex spouses of military members, but Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says he can no longer defend the law that authorizes the practice. Conservatives are charging that Mr. Holder is going back on Pentagon promises to adhere to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the September repeal of the ban on open gays in the military. 

Military promises to enforce DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, induced some fence-sitting members of Congress to support the administration’s push to repeal the ban: The Pentagon would not recognize same-sex marriages, thus would not extend an array of military benefits to same-sex spouses. 

However, Mr. Holder’s Justice Department stopped defending DOMA in court challenges in February 2011. 

What’s more, the attorney general last month sided with gay-rights activists in a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta demanding benefits for spouses of legally married gay service members.

This push for benefits for military personnel with same-sex attraction belies the narrative that same-sex marriage activists advance:  that it’s all about “commitment, not rights.”  Looks like they are fully committed to obtaining the right to financial benefits for monogender couples.

Gender phobia: UK to axe words ‘husband,’ ‘wife,’ ‘bride’

“Spouse and spouse: The words husband and wife will be axed from official documents under the proposed same-sax marriage reforms.”

Redefining marriage means redefining the terms.  When marriage becomes gender-segregated, suddenly words such as husband, wife, bride, and groom are too offensive and gender-specific.  In their push to advance same-sex marriage, the UK will need to rewrite legal forms and ceremonies themselves. 

The Daily Mail:

New versions of documents will ‘replace references to husband and wife with the more neutral terms spouses and partners’. The reforms . . . intend to open civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples for the first time. 

A different category – religious marriage – will be reserved for male and female couples. 

Marriage certificates could even be affected by the Coalition proposals, with rules possibly axing terms such as bride and bridegroom. 

The cost to neuter language in government forms and paperwork will be pricey.

The cost of the red tape revolution demanded by the ‘Equal Civil Marriage’ plans will run into millions, according to an official analysis published alongside the consultation paper. 

This exemplifies how the push for same-gender marriage is not just about homosexuality; rather it is an aggressive assault on gender itself. 

See:  Why we defend pro-gender marriage.