NOM Promises to Defeat Obama


The National Organization for Marriage, a merry collection of bigots and halfwits, is outraged — OUTRAGED, I tell you — at Obama’s support for marriage equality. And they’re promising to defeat him at the polls in November, and lying in the process:

“President Obama has now made the definition of marriage a defining issue in the presidential contest, especially in swing states like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Nevada,” Brown said. “Voters in all these states, and over two dozen more, have adopted state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. President Obama says that although he personally supports gay marriage, he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. However, that is completely disingenuous. His administration is already trying to dismantle the nation’s marriage laws by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. All the state marriage amendments and laws are at risk under a president who actively wants to change the definition of marriage. NOM will work ceaselessly in these swing states and across the nation to preserve traditional marriage because it is profoundly in the public good to do so. God is the author of marriage, and we will not let an activist politician like Barack Obama who is beholden to gay marriage activists for campaign financing to turn marriage into something political that can be redefined according to presidential whim. The definition of marriage was already headed for the ballot in four states this fall; now it will be one of the defining issues of the presidential election. No state in this country has every voted for gay marriage. Just yesterday North Carolina voters sent a clear message that America wants to preserve marriage. We intend to win the marriage debate this November.”

Except Obama also said that the issue should be left up to the states to decide (still showing political cowardice, even while getting the larger issue right).

Comments

  1. tubi says

    Except Obama also said that the issue should be left up to the states to decide (still showing political cowardice, even while getting the larger issue right).

    Every time I think about this, it pisses me off more. I appreciate that he did come out and say that thinks that SSM is OK, but to then say that states should get to decide is absurd and kind of a pussy move.

    It’s like saying that black students should have the same educational opportunities as white, but that states should get to decide the issue. And then 50.1% of Illinois voters think Negroes are too dumb to benefit from college, so they should not be eligible for state tuition assistance. Would Obama be OK with that?

  2. says

    @Ed:

    NOM doesn’t care about reality. They’re spinning the president’s words for the people who’ll pay them money. Those people don’t care about reality, either. It’s bald-faced lying, and the ones who are being lied to will not look into the claims anymore than just accept what NOM said as truth.

    @tubi:

    (psst, “pussy” is a gendered insult, please avoid it)

  3. Tualha says

    “No state in this country has every voted for gay marriage.” – LIE. Vermont did.

  4. Michael Heath says

    This belongs in the wingnut Hall of Fame:

    God is the author of marriage, and we will not let an activist politician like Barack Obama . . .

  5. Tualha says

    By the way, notice how the right is always going on about how this is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY, except when the helots are on their side?

  6. tubi says

    @tubi:

    (psst, “pussy” is a gendered insult, please avoid it)

    Agreed. My apologies.

  7. jws1 says

    It never dawns on these people that marriage is civil right, and that civil rights are never up for a popular vote. They actually think that they get to decide who gets what rights. Point this out to them, point out that it is a fascist way of thinking, and they act like you just called their momma everything but a dog.

    Psst: for those of you who are pussies, sorry I used the word “momma.”

  8. Moggie says

    …and we will not let an activist politician like Barack Obama…

    activism: (n) Policy of vigorous action, esp. for a political cause.

    When did activism become a negative? Does NOM prefer passivist politicians? Or is “activist” only a dirty word when the politician is active in support of policies you disagree with?

  9. says

    “And they’re promising to defeat him at the polls in November…”

    Oh dear, did Obama lose the anti-gay constituency? I thought he had those people all wrapped up.

  10. MikeMa says

    Its not like this group of wingnuts was waffling on whether they’d be supporting Obama this fall in any case. Their lack of support changes nothing.

    Civil rights left up to the states? We’d still have slavery. And women wouldn’t be allowed near a polling station except maybe to serve coffee.

  11. bahrfeldt says

    doesn’t the OT God authorize polygamy, at least for one gender? Is NOM thus blasphemous?

  12. tomh says

    @ #2

    The problem with Obama’s statement was not that he said it is an issue for the states, states have always set marriage requirements. The federal government never defined marriage until DOMA was passed. The problem with Obama’s statement was that he didn’t point out that states cannot enforce unconstitutional laws and that the state laws banning same sex marriage will be decided in the courts, just as state laws banning interracial marriage were. Even if DOMA is found unconstitutional that won’t settle the question of whether states can ban same sex marriage and refuse to recognize other states’ marriages. The state laws must be found to be unconstitutional for that to happen.

  13. tubi says

    @#14

    That’s true, and he should have said that. He should have said (paraphrasing), “I think SSM is OK, and states should not be passing laws or amending their constitutions to ban it. It’s unconstitutional for the majority in a state to deny rights to the minority.”

    I still say he punted on really committing to a position.

  14. thalwen says

    They want to preserve marriage by making sure less people can get married? Oh and by associating the term “traditional marriage” away from tacky gowns and tackier bridesmaid dresses to bigotry. Well I guess that’s family values – from some really messed up families.

  15. tomh says

    @ #15

    The problem is that nothing is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is. That’s going to be the sticking point. And if Romney gets an appointment in before it’s decided it will set the whole thing back a generation.

  16. cptdoom says

    That’s true, and he should have said that. He should have said (paraphrasing), “I think SSM is OK, and states should not be passing laws or amending their constitutions to ban it. It’s unconstitutional for the majority in a state to deny rights to the minority.”

    Well, if you look at his past positions on the actual Amendments, he has come out against them and his DOJ, with his full approval, is arguing in court that sexual orientation should be granted the same level of scrutiny as is applied to race or gender. That does not add up, IMHO, to someone who supports the rights of the majority to dictate to the minority.

    Where the political cowardice – or at least pragmatism, if you are less harsh – comes in is Obama’s refusal to call for national legislation to support his beliefs, but I, as a gay man, thinks that’s a saavy move. We know that marriage equality is not universally accepted, and Obama’s position is basically “I’m not going to rock the boat.”

  17. Michael Heath says

    cptdoom writes:

    Where the political cowardice – or at least pragmatism, if you are less harsh – comes in is Obama’s refusal to call for national legislation to support his beliefs, but I, as a gay man, thinks that’s a saavy move. We know that marriage equality is not universally accepted, and Obama’s position is basically “I’m not going to rock the boat.”

    I agree it’s not currently prudent for this president to argue for federal legislation to legalize gay marriage. However I do see it as an act cowardice that he doesn’t argue the courts have an obligation to defend gays’ 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendment rights. [Has the DOJ weighed-in on the prop. 8 case yet?]

    I think President Obama should also make a persuasive case on why the court’s obligation to protect gays’ right to marry also obligates the court to defend the rights of children by establishing gays’ right to marry. Precisely because in 2007 or so Mitt Romney made the incoherent argument that gays’ equal rights are inferior enough to a child’s right to two hetero parents it justifies the prohibition of gays exercising their marriage rights. That same interview showed Mr. Romney expressing visceral contempt at the very idea some people, in this case the justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, thought gays had equal rights. Cite (start video at 5:15): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9yAL6lDiCg0

  18. tomh says

    @ 19

    I do see it as an act cowardice that he doesn’t argue the courts have an obligation to defend gays’ 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendment rights. [Has the DOJ weighed-in on the prop. 8 case yet?]

    House Republicans are putting up as many roadblocks as possible. Last week the House approved an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill to prevent the Obama Administration from taking legal action against DOMA or any of the state constitutional amendments that ban same sex marriage. It would prohibit spending any money on legal action.

  19. dingojack says

    Ed – ‘merry’ perhaps but certainly not ‘gay’. :)

    Brown said: “…making the definition of marriage a defining issue…”
    Well, yes of course it would be – by definition.

    Katherine Lorraine – “(psst, “pussy” is a gendered insult, please avoid it)”
    No, no it isn’t

    Dingo

  20. peejaybee says

    Except Obama also said that the issue should be left up to the states to decide (still showing political cowardice, even while getting the larger issue right).

    To be fair to NOM, they acknowledge that, but aren’t impressed:

    President Obama says that although he personally supports gay marriage, he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. However, that is completely disingenuous. His administration is already trying to dismantle the nation’s marriage laws by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

    I think they have a point there, though I don’t think that would be a bad thing…

  21. tomh says

    @ 23

    I think they have a point there

    They have no point. DOMA is still being enforced by the Administration, since it is still the law of the land. And, until DOMA was passed there were never any federal laws defining marriage. The idea that Obama is dismantling something is bogus. States define marriage any way they want, until their definition runs up against the Constitution, as bans on interracial marriage did. What Congress did with DOMA was to define marriage in such a way as to deny federal benefits to legally married couples, an obvious equal protection violation, and that’s the part that’s being challenged in court. More important will be whether the state laws banning gay marriage are found constitutional or not.

  22. Chris from Europe says

    Katherine Lorraine – “(psst, “pussy” is a gendered insult, please avoid it)”
    No, no it isn’t

    Don’t come with that nonsense again. It’s used and felt mostly as a gendered insult. That it’s actually wrong because it’s a folk etymology doesn’t matter at all.

  23. dingojack says

    Nope, try again.
    ‘Pussy’ derived from ‘pusillanimous’ c 13 century. (As in the cited example).
    ‘pussy’ as female pudenda* c 1880-90’s.
    Offense by false etymology.
    Dingo
    —–
    * I sure you’re all up in arms against Salix discolor too

Leave a Reply