Posted on 06/20/2011 11:54:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Rumblings from his administration have some conservatives concerned that President Barack Obama may be planning to endorse same-sex marriage this week or next as a gesture honoring Gay Pride month.
The president has two big meetings with gay constituents coming up – a $1,250-a-plate "Gala with the Gay Community" in Manhattan this week and a Gay Pride reception at the White House on June 29.
Although he has already signed a proclamation this month, as Obama has done every year he has been in office, declaring June as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) month, many expect Obama to do something grand for the meetings.
An anonymous Democratic strategist close to the White House told The New York Times that preparation is underway in anticipation that Obama may possibly make a statement endorsing gay marriage. The move, if done, would be a complete reversal of his 2008 campaign statements that he opposed gay marriage.
The anonymous strategist told NYTimes some senior advisers "are looking at the tactics of how this might be done if the president chose to do it."
The suggestion that Obama might consider such a statement has drawn criticism from the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Albert Mohler.
"An open endorsement of same-sex marriage by an incumbent President of the United States would be a very significant and troubling development," Mohler wrote in a Monday blog post. "President Obama would not only repudiate his former position(s), he would push this nation toward the unraveling of civilization's most central institution – marriage."
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a briefing that the president is not deferring from his 2008 statement. Obama had affirmed in 2008, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.”
Despite the White House's denials, Mohler believes that the White House is well down the road of endorsing same-sex marriage.
Last year, the Obama administration successfully pushed for the legislative repeal of “don't ask, don't tell,” the 1993 ban on open homosexuality in the military. In February, the Department of Justice, with authorization from the White House, discontinued its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act's constitutionality.
Last Monday, retiring Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he would sign certification that the military is prepared to end the ban on openly gay military service if top officers agree this month before he leaves June 30.
"I think people are pretty satisfied with the way this process is going forward," he said, referring to the military's training of more than a million U.S. troops.
Obama himself has indicated that he is moving away from his 2008 statements.
He told AMERICABlog last year, "But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine. And I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents.
"And I care about them deeply. And so while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about."
The NYTimes charged that even though Obama ran for the presidency as one opposed to same-sex marriage, "he may have been for same-sex marriage before he was against it."
The news source pointed to Obama’s response to a 1996 questionnaire from a gay newspaper as a candidate for the Illinois Senate. In the survey, he allegedly wrote, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer denied on Friday that Obama filled out that questionnaire at the progressive Netroots Nation conference. White House officials have also said Obama likely made those comments in support of civil unions, which he does support.
However, the unnamed Democratic strategist said that President Obama "is clearly a president who is interested in making big historical changes . . . I think this issue has moved into that context for him."
Southern Baptist Leader Mohler says the president's aspirations shows how politics have been corrupted by sin.
“Such a move would represent nothing less than a moral revolution,” he asserted. “Furthermore, the one who makes such a move would be nothing less than a moral revolutionary.”
Funny how the Only time he addressed the gay community it involved the U.S.military.
This endorsement is outreach for votes in 2012 to the Homosexuals in this country, and their bleeding heart supporters. This, and yesterdays announcement of expanded “civil rights” enforcement are brazen electioneering.
Amnesty is next.
Check out the link below. Lots of info on Obama shady past.
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/mom-of-murdered-obama-gay-lover-speaks-up/
Actually the fudgepacker and snap-on elements of the ‘rat party are among their largest contributors and activists. Guess the tea leaves were reading that the gay cash was lagging...
Obama will follow the numbers and not endorse gay marriage.
To stir things up, distract while something nefarious is undertaken.
A story like this will suck up a couple more cycles Republicans won't have to make their case for budget cuts, on the the debt ceiling or the defend the Ryan plan "Mediscare" attacks.
Exit polls have shown gays are a less monolithic voting block and receptive to a message of strong fiscal policy. Republicans took around one-third of their votes in 2011, an increase of twelve points from 2008 (19%) and 7 points above 2006's 24%.
Thanks for mentioning WYSL; I’ve been meaning to find a station streaming with Laura’s show. You saved me the trouble!
“But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”
Translation: “But I also think you’re right that morality evolves, especially mine.”
It is patently obvious that Obama has very few moral principles.
Bingo—You have him pegged.
“Why is he doing this?”
Why shouldn’t he? The Military and beltway Republicans have surrendered on homos. Nobody fell on their sword for DADT. He’s not going to get flogged by the MSM. This will be in the news for a few days and then go away. This is classic obama “in your face” stuff. He can preen and take the payola. Then most everyone will refocus on economic issues.
I believe you are correct.
Also - the tide is starting to turn in other ways.
Even some democrat politicians are starting to show signs of being at full gorge and starting to speak out and rebel.
The fallout from Gun-Runner could be a game changer if Obama, Holder and Napolitano can't keep the lid on.
It has been obvious from Day-1 that the Obama cabal has been in overdrive to implement their socialist, one-world, racist agenda as much as possible, as fast as possible.
But now it looks like they are going into hyperdrive with their EPA edicts, Gun-Runner scam, etc. etc.
No way will black turnout come close to 2008.
But even if Hussein lost FL, PA, VA, and NC the Republican would have still lost 27 plus 21 plus 13 plus 15 EVs, for a total of 76. Even losing those 76 votes still gives Hussein 289 EVs, which is enough to win.
Hey, CANNOT you COUNT?
Take 365 ... SUBTRACT 95 ... lessee ... ITS 270 for Obama !!!
NOW, WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE PESKY 95 VOTES ... they HAVE to be won SOMEWHERE ... OH. I know ... ADD it to 173 ... lessee ... OH MY !!! ... 268 for the GOP !!!
Like I said, ANY combination of 3 of the 4 states puts it at almost a DEAD heat - LOSE ALL 4, and it is a 152 point swing [213 DEM, 325 GOP] ...
AND, the GOP MAY NOT NEED EVEN 3 OF THE 4, SINCE OBAMA IS LIKELY TO LOSE A STATE OR 2 [THAT HE WON IN 2008] ELSEWHERE, DUE TO THE ECONOMY, ETC.
Here are the scenarios for 3 out of 4:
FL [27] + NC [15] + PA [21] = 63 x 2 = 126 point swing ...
FL [27] + NC [15] + VA [13] = 55 x 2 = 110 point swing ...
FL [27] + PA [21] + VA [13] = 61 x 2 = 122 point swing ...
NC [15] + PA [21] + VA [13] = 49 x 2 = 98 point swing ...
Correct in that the total who DO vote for him will be less.
BUT, I bet he gets 90 percent of the vote of those who do.
I fail to understand it,
What has he done for blacks Jews females fags?
I know what you’re saying, but even with those “swings”, Hussein still has 270 or more EVs.
Like I said, Hussein would have to lose all three of those plus Ohio plus another state to allow a Constitutionalist in the Presidency.
The best pickups for the Republican in 2012, as I see it, are:
Nebraska’s Omaha EV: 1
Indiana: 11
Ohio: 20
With these switches (they may have changed a bit due to the census), Hussein sits at 333, the Republican at 207.
Then, like you said...
Florida: 27
Virginia: 13
North Carolina: 15
Hussein loses these, he is at 278; the Republican is at 262.
New Hampshire? Maybe. Hussein at 274, Republican at 266.
Five more votes. Where to go? Colorado, perhaps.
New Mexico? I dunno.
Nevada, I fear, is a lost cause...if Nevada voted for that moron Reid with record unemployment in their state, then the fraud and idiot machine must be pretty strong there.
Wisconsin, if the anti-union fervor remains.
Minnesota, if Bachmann or Pawlenty are on the ticket.
Michigan, if the voters over there EVER wake up and see how dangerous liberals are to their state.
JMHO.
I use TalkStreamLive to find all kinds of talkshows.
his poll numbers are abysmal .. he needs to get his base back
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.