PORTLAND, Maine — President Barack Obama’s support for gay marriage has emboldened activists and politicians on both sides of the issue, setting off a flurry of political activity in a number of states and serving as a rallying point in others where gay marriage votes are being held this fall.
With the nation divided on gay marriage, Obama’s declaration this month — a day after North Carolina voters approved an amendment to the state constitution affirming that marriage may only be a union of a man and a woman — has added a wrinkle in the political debate on a touchy subject.
Obama’s stand has put wind in the sails of gay marriage supporters, while providing political fuel to opponents, said Kamy Akhavan, president of ProCon.org, a nonpartisan California-based nonprofit that researches pros and cons on controversial issues.
“It has altered the national discussion to some degree,” he said.
Same-sex marriage is now legal in six states and the District of Columbia.
Thirty-one states have passed amendments aimed at banning it. The issue is expected to come up in at least four ballot measures this fall:
• Maine’s ballot question asks whether gay marriage should be legalized.
• Minnesota is asking whether a ban on gay marriage should be part of the state constitution.
• Maryland and Washington are expected to have ballot measures seeking to overturn same-sex marriage laws that were recently passed by the legislatures.
In Maine, the announcement has invigorated activists who favor and oppose November’s statewide referendum seeking to legalize same-sex marriage. The Maine Legislature passed a gay marriage bill in 2009, but it was overturned by 53 percent of the voters in a referendum that fall.
David Farmer, spokesman for Mainers United for Marriage, said Obama’s description of his personal evolution on gay marriage illuminates the conversations that supporters are having in door-to-door and phone discussions with residents — talking about their “personal journeys” and people they know who are gay.
“A lot of people who agree with the president got a burst of energy, that feeling of momentum, about the first sitting president of the United States endorsing a cause that they support and are working very hard on,” Farmer said.
Obama’s words also made referendum opponents realize they have their work cut out for them, said Bob Emrich, chairman of Protect Marriage Maine and pastor of Emmanuel Bible Baptist Church.
“It’s deepened people’s awareness that this is a major issue that isn’t going away and we need to have more people involved in it,” Emrich said.
It’s not just Maine where Obama’s words have energized gay marriage supporters.
In Illinois, Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn said he “stands with the president” while announcing his stepped-up support for gay marriage, vowing to work with state legislators to legalize same-sex marriage there without waiting for the courts to act. Illinois currently allows civil unions, which afford couples many of the rights of marriage.
In Rhode Island, which allows civil unions but not gay marriage, Gov. Lincoln Chafee signed an order proclaiming the state will recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; Chafee, an independent, said Obama’s announcement is positive momentum. Maryland’s highest court ruled Friday that same-sex couples can divorce in the state even though Maryland does not yet permit gay couples to wed.
Former Nebraska Gov. and Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat who is again running for the Senate, voiced his support for gay marriage this week. And in Minnesota, gay marriage supporters say Obama’s position is galvanizing opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban it and should help fundraising efforts.
Obama’s announcement has also drawn response from gay marriage opponents.
In Oklahoma, the state Senate recently voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution reaffirming opposition to gay marriage, even though there’s a ban already enshrined in state law and the state constitution. Republican Sen. Clark Jolley said he introduced the resolution in direct response to Obama’s position.
A Democratic state senator accused Jolley of introducing the resolution because he has “a difficult re-election campaign coming up and needs promotional material for the God and gays section” of a campaign leaflet.
In Colorado, the Republican House speaker accused Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper of “reading straight from President Obama’s campaign playbook” in calling for a special legislative session to vote on civil unions a day after Republicans had killed a bill. The resurrected legislation was again killed during a special session this week.
In Minnesota, Minnesotans for Marriage spokesman said Obama’s announcement “demonstrates why marriage needs to be protected and put in the state Constitution where politicians can’t get at it.”
In New Hampshire, the sponsor of a failed bill to repeal gay marriage sent out an email calling Obama “arrogant and out of touch” with his announcement.
Frank Schubert, political director for the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay marriage, said Obama’s opinion will continue to have ramifications as November’s elections close in, particularly for Democrats who don’t share his view.
“I think he’s scrambled the omelet quite a bit here and made it complicated for Democrats, in swing states in particular, because it puts them in position of having to, sometimes publicly, distance themselves from the president,” he said.
Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Steve LeBlanc in Boston, Sean Murphy in Oklahoma City, Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis, Ivan Moreno in Denver, Rachel La Corte in Olympia, Wash., and Brian Witte in Annapolis, Md.
Reinforces the wisdom of allowing SSM. Grandstanding by the opposition would be comical if it wasn’t so serious.
Reinforces the wisdom of banning SSM. Grandstanding by the opposition would be serious if it wasn’t so comical.
Jolley wasn’t grandstanding? The unamed critics in CO, MN and from MOM and NOM?
….
Your right, but every state has voted on this, well most. Some passed, some not. I will vote for this
—-
I’ll say it again. When this country no longer has a 54% straight marriage failure rate, then I will consider the “sanctity” of marriage argument. Until then, those against SSM should worry about their own marriages and work to save them.
Supporters of same-sex marriage have a habit of pointing out the 54% failure rate of heterosexual unions. If the failure rate of man/woman marriages is 54%, why point it out in an argument for homosexual marriage? I can only assume that homosexuals are inferring that their unions would have a much higher success rate than heterosexual marriages…..and if that is the inference, why do they believe that?
I don’t have the plethora of gay friends that some of these heterosexual couples (married for years on end and support same-sex marriage) do, but I worked with gays and lesbians who changed partners as often as heterosexuals do. I suspect their rate of successful and failed marriages will match the same rate as the general population.
There also appears to be the myth that gay couples have superior parenting skills than that of heterosexuals. They don’t. Parenting skills of gays and lesbians is no better or no worse than heterosexuals.
Heterosexual marriages don’t fail because they are heterosexuals. Same-sex partnerships don’t fail because they are homosexuals. They both fail for the same sad and woeful reasons.
What has Obama said or done that changes anything??? Ya all know the answer to that.
It’s interesting that the ongoing reports about the president’s stance on same-sex marriage never touch on a simple detail that both his supporters and detractors realize: that his previous position was a lie for the sake of political expediency. That just may be news worthy in an election year.
But what about all the pain and suffering inflicted upon straight people by gays getting married?!
LOL
This president lacks the maturity never mind the morals to lead a nation such as ours. It’s time we stop this nonsense with a clear and resounding message at the voting booths this fall. Never in the history of any nation has immoral permissiveness not lead to the decay of society.
“Never in the history of any nation has immoral permissiveness not lead to the decay of society” cp444 can you prove that statement?
I am not sure what “immoral permissiveness” you are talking about that will “lead to the decay of society”. Maybe it is the adultery and permissiveness seen in heterosexual marriage? Maybe it is the joke and decay that many opposite sex couples have made of marriage with their million dollar 60 day or less nuptials? I mean I can’t believe that you would be talking about two loving same sex adults wanting to make a life time commitment to one another with all the civil benefits granted to their friends and family so they can raise their children in wedlock not out of wedlock!! I mean that would just make no sense at all, so yes let us get to that voting booth and do the moral thing for these couples and families!!!!
“This president lacks the maturity never mind the morals to lead a nation such as ours.” Can you prove this statement cp444?
It seems that 52.9% of the electorate disagreed with your assessment in 2008.
Yes, but 53 % of the electorate agree with it now!
And can you prove that.
You seem to ask that question a lot. Your like the kid in school that wants all the other kids to give them the answers to the test questions. If you are going to keep posting on here you might try studying more.
The latest Gallup Poll shows that President Obama’s approval rating is at 47 %. You can do the math.
The reason I ask Mountain is people often just put stuff out there without any research, sourcing or pro0f.
Take your claim that the ” latest Gallup Poll shows that President Obama’s approval rating is at 47 %. You can do the math.”
See the Gallup poll you refer to does not say 53% Disapprove of the Presidents job performance. It says 48% Approve and 46% Disapprove. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html and http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
If you are going to keep posting on here you might try being more intellectually honest in your posts.
You’re asking someone to be more honest??? Could you be anymore hypocritical?
You should try it sometime…you will find it very refreshing.
He only cares about the gay vote !! think it his job he trying to save it all political..
Care to comment why votes in favor of gay rights far exceed the number of gays?
that’s a stupid comment ….it’s because those are the sinners amoung you..I believe that even those who support SSM know in their hearts that is an abomination, a sin, but they find ways of justifying this behavior… no matter how you cut it, or how you rewrite the bible.. it’s still sinful and there just is no way of changing that…
like i said its all political.as for gay rights i will vote my heart.
Nice timing don’t ya think! This guy is a piece of work…I will vote for SSM but Obama has not supported this in the past and just before the election season gets into full swing he decides to make this grand announcement. He’s an actor and he’s using the Presidential platform to do so. I have supported Obama but I don’t support his blatant disregard for the SSM issue and is just using it to gain votes.
So what kind of support would you (or have have you) get from the other side of the political fence? Be carful for what you ask (or whom you vote for).
It fascinates me the way conservatives in general seem to be making two broad statements:
1) Everybody hates the idea of gay marriage.
2) President Obama is supporting gay marriage to win votes, because most voters favor gay marriage.
come on liz… that’s a blah blah moment for you… no one I know hates gay marriage.. we hate the sin that is gay marriage… we didn’t make the rules God did.. and as for supporting gay marriage.. I don’t know if most voters do or not.. I suspect that if you could actually do a poll and get real answers from real people that you would be off base on that one.. but I don’t really know…. the Catholics don’t support it, the Christian population generally don’t support .. 30 states have laws voted on by the people that outlaw it… gee it just doesn’t sound like most voters are in favor of gay marriage.. our bible tells that marriage is between a man and a woman.. so I guess God most be against it too… it was punishable by death in the old testament… a rather strong statement wouldn’t you say ? so again, just because it’s not one of the 10 does not mean it’s not a sin. it was then and it is now…. so support whatever you want.. at your own peril.. isn’t that how it’s supposed to be… why try to make every one else go along.. that in itself is another sin…man you people are going to have a lot to talk about when you time comes….
Dear me–I hope you never eat shellfish or wear clothing that’s made of a blend of two types of fabric (cotton-poly?). You could be subject to death by stoning (another rather strong statement), if you follow the Bible exactly.
I dont disagree with you that this seems convenient to garner votes, but remember, there is many more states that do not allow gay marriage than that do, even though the tide is shifting in that direction, it would be a pretty risky gamble. Dont you think that four years ago, Obama probably felt this way as well but didnt dare to risk it so he chose to support civil unions instead? I dont look at Obama as really changing his views. I believe that he has always been for gay marriage, but i do believe that he has come “out of the closet” so to speak by finally adressing it. He crossed the race barrier when he was elected this country’s first black president, now he has done it again, being the first president to support gay marriage. Look down on him for that if you choose but i dont believe anyone can say that this president is not willing to help lead us in change. Now if he can only start taxing the rich and lead us to some economic prosperity instead of recession and depression.
you really need to bring it up a notch… tax the rich.. more you mean.. those who already pay 80% of the tax.. you mean them… ugh… watch them all leave the country and take the jobs with them.. talk about recession and depression you have seen nothing .. tax those who provide the jobs more and they will leave you can take that to the bank, if you can find one open… and as for your comment that the tide is shifting toward SSM… wrong…what is actually happening is the Christian community is organizing for the first time… this has gone far enough… God says it’s a sin, good enough for me , but apparently not good enough for you.. just another picker and chooser… just because it’s not in the list of 10 doesn’t mean it is not sinful…. or that the Mosaic Convenant is over.. that didn’t change the sin either… it was a sin in the old testament and it’s a sin in the new testament… can’t see how all can get around that.. Obama’s reference to the ” golden rule ” was and is misguided as is most of what he says.. depends on what he gets out of it, as to what he has to say and to whom… don’t forget that he, too, is gay.. so that’s no big surprise is it
====
It will not be long before SSM will be a non-issue and be legal and recognized at all levels of government across this nation. The right wingers know this and all their hand wringing and venom spewing will not prevail. It is only a matter of time people, only a matter of time.
Gay marriage is nothing more than a club with which to attack christians in this country. These people hide behind the veil of “fairness” while they attack, vilify and harass anyone and anything religious in this country. I myself am not a religious person, but I recognize the danger these leftist anti-religion bigots represent. The pilgrims came to this country hundreds of years ago to escape being attacked for their religious beliefs. Where will those who wish to worship God go next? There is no place for them to run to next, no new-new world so we will have to fight for our right to freedom of religion here. And we will. Gay marriage is nothing but a wedge issue used by the left to antagonize religious Americans.
So, Christians (note capitalization) need some cause to fell persectuted again? Attacked? Vilified? Harassed? Oops, isn’t that’s what been happening to gays for years/ Decades? Centuries? A lot of it by “Christians”? I fail to see the peril.
From a hetero male, happily married for several decades, with several gay friends and relatives.
Why did the Pilgrims come to the New World? That has been a question that has many answer and “freedom to worship” was only one piece of the puzzle.
When the Pilgrims left England it is true they left to practice their own religion and not that of the Church of England. They settled in Holland for a period of time (12 years) and left for the New World not for “religious freedom” but due to the fact that their children were adopting Holland customs, etc…So the Pilgrims pulled up stakes again and set out for the New World in 1607.
The interesting thing about the Pilgrims, “religious freedom” and the New World is this. People were free to worship anyway they wished in the New World as long as it was the Pilgrim way. The Pilgrims were not a very tolerant group of people when it came to religion.
Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams in 1636 when he was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony because he wanted to practice a religion different from Puritanism.
Now that we have cleared up the “popular” beliefs about the Pilgrims, “religious” freedom and why they left for the New World I was wondering if you could answer this question…if “Gay marriage is nothing more than a club” what are the membership requirements?
Well I guess for one you must want to destroy the institution of marriage as it has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Secondly I guess you must be a leftist who holds organized religion in such disdain that you are willing to go to any lenght to destroy it all the while claiming to be “moderate” and hiding your hate behind the veil of “fairness” as the left always does. Plus you just have to be kinda dooshish. I think you will get into the club with no problems. You appear to meet all the qualifications.
I’m trying to figure out how having more people getting married could destroy marriage.
For the record, my husband and I have been married about 40 years and have always had gay friends. Seems like if their desire to marry could destroy my marriage we’d have been divorced long ago… or is there some sort of really delayed effect? Maybe it’ll hit around our golden wedding anniversary?
BDNisHYPOCRITICAL I would suggest that you go back and ask for a refund for all the history classes you took if this is what you learned.Marriage has changed depending on the time in history, the country, the society, etc…The Bible talks about one man and many, many wives. The Sioux believed one man and two wives, etc…So to say that it has been one man and one woman for “hundreds if not thousands of years”.
There are also many Christian churches that welcome the homosexual community rather than bar them at the front door. Earlier this week there was an article that mention three Baptist softball teams forced a Congregational (UCC) softball team to leave the “church” league because the UCC’s Pastor was bisexual (and he wasn’t on the team). Very open and understanding wouldn’t you say? Punish the church/team members because the Pastor didn’t “fit” their “idea” of a what a Pastor “should be”.
Oh as to me….I am a registered Republican, married 25+ years, hold moderate social views and conservative fiscal views. Have no issue with organized religion. Oh…I can also read…and that is why I can explain to you why the Pilgrims really left England and 12 years later Holland. Suggestion, before you post “popular” history try reading and discovering the real history.
Then next year we should have a question on the ballot to legalize Polygamy so you can vote to support that. Should have no problem passing since all the SSM folks who are all about equal rights will support it without question. I’m sure we can even count on the President to evolve a little more and support it! As one poster commented on here about SSM. “It is only a matter of time people, only a matter of time.”
Mountain if you want polygamy to be legal you have two things you need to do. First you will have to take it to the SCOTUS and have them reverse an earlier ruling that makes polygamy illegal in the U.S. and second, you will have to gather the necessary signatures to get it on the ballot. If that is what you want, good luck and God’s speed to you sir.
Don’t I also need to get Obama to publicly annouce that he has once again evolved and now approves of polygamy?
I see no reason why any President would need to make a statement one way or another.
Well three cheers for them! A UCC church doesn’t belong on a Christian baseball league never mind one with a perverted pastor.
Ah yes cp444 the model of the perfect “Christian”…always quick to point out where others fall short…always quick to condemn the actions of others…always quick to judge….oh, but wait doesn’t the Bible reserve judgement for God?
So tell us cp444 how does it feel to be Omnipotent?
all you have to do is reject God and commit you self to sin… instant member
Paul the Bible is not the basis of the civil laws of the United States. We are a secular society not a theocracy.
The number of Americans who say they are atheist or agnostic, or choose not to identify with a religious tradition has increased modestly over the past two decades, with Pew surveys since the beginning of 2006, finding that 12% of U.S. adults identify themselves as secular or unaffiliated with a religious tradition; that compares with 8% in the Pew values survey in 1987. This change appears to be generational in nature. The most secular Americans are those 30 and younger — sometimes called “Generation Y”
KikiEm a secular society is not defined by the number of “atheist or agnostic, or” those that “choose not to identify with a religious tradition”. A secular society is one that does not use a religious document for the basis of its laws, etc… The United State of America is a secular country and the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment backs up that up.
Yes, I see what you mean. The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There can be no establishment of an official religion by Congress or its citizens being forced to attend whatever church that might be.
Thomas Jefferson was the father of the phrase, separation of church and state (Danbury Letter) Mr. Jefferson was not a participant in the Constitutional Convention. He was cavorting around in France at the time. The primary players were Madison and Monroe. (Hamilton is at the top of list also)
My intepretation of the 1st Amendment is different from yours. Mine is…the government cannot interfere with a person’s free practice of religion. Your take on the 1st Amendment…… there should be no manifestation or references to a “higher power” (God) in any Government entity (or structure). In that same amendment is the freedom for you and I to have differing opinions.
It seems Thomas Jefferson is frequently referenced by Liberals and Democrats. I realize he is an important figure in U.S. history..however:
Jefferson drafted a proposed Bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia that would guarantee the “legal equality of all citizens” of any or no religious persuasion in the state of Virginia. In this bill, Jefferson argued that “our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” (The Portable Thomas Jefferson, p. 252).
Perhaps Mr. Jefferson should have instructed his slave to move the lantern a little closer to his writing desk…just to shed a bit more light on that “legal equality of all citizens” phrase. Jefferson was good at turning a phrase. How did that “legal equality of all citizens” and “civil rights” apply to Sally Hemmings while Jefferson was writing his historical literary compositions? What’s my point? (again) As is true for all of us, the hero of Libs and Democrats (Jefferson) was not without his shortcomings and flawed thinking.
The state with highest percentage Catholic is Rhode Island, at 53%, followed by Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. Two Midwestern states, Wisconsin and Illinois, are also in the top 10 states in terms of the percentage Catholic.
Isn’t it frustrating when facts get in the way of your assumption?
KikiEm isn’t interesting when someone takes the time to respond to a post with information that has no relation to the post…like yours.What does the percentage of people following ANY particular religion have to do with a country being secular or not?
I guess the “folks” in Massachusetts fixed that old Puritan wagon !
Your point Kiki?
Witches weren’t the only ones burnt at the stake. Massachusetts Puritans have all been burnt at the stake…metaphorically.
No “witches” were burned to death in Salem. Popular myth but has no basis in fact.
And the Massachusetts Puritans are the ancestors of the Congregational denominations that exist today in three forms, the United Church of Christ (UCC), the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC) and the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches.
I stand corrected. They were hanged. It appears that the witch burning tales come from the European practice of burning people who practiced witchcraft.
It’s amazing how far in advance people can plan–like fetuses deciding to be born gay so they can endure decades of prejudice and vicious insults, in order to become a “wedge issue” that gets some religious people up in arms.
What truly astonishes me in your argument is that you complain of harassment and attacks, when the Catholic religion as a whole have done this very thing to gay people forever. Where was your squeals of fairness then? You and the rest of your religion dont like anything that you can no longer control. You feel that if the Gays get the same right as the rest of you, well then that is the end of a moral society..How is that exactly? Who gave you the responsibity to choose the moral compass for all of mankind?
the moral compass was developed by God… and in His book you will find the rules.. there are 10 main ones.. and then the rest of them… man does not set the moral compass.. man’s religion does not set this either… God’s Law is the only moral compass.. in His book you will find that this gay activity is an ” abomination” and in the old covenant it was punishable by ” death” in the new testament it is still a sin….. there is your moral compass.. you have choices whether to use this or make up your own.. looks like you have made up your own, while those who you accuse of making the moral compass are just using the one that God made for all of us.. but nice try..you and all those who support this activity are off the track.. you will have to account for it..
Paul the Bible is NOT the law of the land in the United States of America.
One thing to be said about gay people, Never will two men or two women be
married in the Catholic Church…You can take that to the bank…So it is said,
so it shall be written, and so it shall come to pass…
And if they are not welcome why would they want to?
If Barry had an R after his name he would be called a flip flopper. However he has a D. Therefore his position has evolved.All this talk about Barry’s support of gay marriage is taking our eye of the ball. It’s the economy stupid
I have been married to the same woman for over 30 years, and I am as straight as the day is long.
I completely support gay marriage.
I don’t feel that gay marriage threatens my or anyone else’s marriage, and those that oppose the idea have failed miserably in explaining how gay marriage threatens their marriage or any one else’s.
I don’t have the right to deny other people their happiness, which is all this is about.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shouldn’t be just lip service applying only to heterosexuals.
Either we are a country of equal justice for all, or we’re all a bunch of hypocrites who have merely learned to spout these lofty ideals, while denying the reality to millions of our citizens.
Well said, and thanks for your support!
I’m in support of giving everyone a bar of Gold… I can’t give it to you right now but I support the Idea.. Now vote for me..
I promised a bar of gold the last election… sorry folks I forgot to send them out. You will get your gold right after the next election, thats if I win..
Americans educational system at work.