Posted on 05/13/2012 4:38:03 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the first openly gay member of Congress, said Sunday that he does not think President Barack Obama's gay marriage endorsement will sway anybody's vote.
Though Washington is abuzz with speculation about how the president's historic statement in support of same-sex marriage will affect his re-election prospects, the Massachusetts Democrat said the announcement leaves the race more or less the same.
"If you were going to cast your vote based on a candidate's position regarding same-sex marriage, you were already going to vote for Obama-Romney based on that," he told ABC's "This Week." "I literally don't think anybody's vote was changed by this one way or the other."
Frank argued that the Obama administration already had pushed for the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy banning gays from serving openly in the military, and already had dropped its legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
It won’t sway me.
Oh yes it will. He is losing millions of independents.
This.
“Oh yes it will. He is losing millions of independents.”
For once I agree with the congressman from Massachusetts.
Come on, to be black and gay; that’s a twofer.
Do we really think, those without jobs; college students, energy industry, now state and local government workers; are going to be impressed?
Not talking just about the unemployed. Talking about those who would seek work or start a business if they thought they had a chance.
And the MSM prattles on about gay issues, contraception, windmills and bullet trains.
Washed his hands.
Sealed his fate.
"If you were gowin' to cast you vote baithed on a candidate's pothishun weegodding same-sex meh-wij, you wuh awweddy gowin' to vote for Obama-Womney baithed on that," he told ABC's "This Week." "I wittawuhwee don't tink anybody's vote was changed by dis one way or dee uddah."
Yep, it’s been homosexual marriage week in the media, hasn’t it?
There are different angles to gay marriage. There is the politics of gay marriage, court cases, and what will happen with laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act.
There is the social issue of gay marriage, and what institutionalizing such marriage in our laws will mean.
There is the moral component, as we can discuss that we are seeing society be asked to give its approval to homosexuality itself in this manner.
And then there is the media coverage of gay marriage. I can’t remember the last time the MSM had a collective “orgasm” over Obama and his stance on some issue or other. We know the media is liberal, and tend to give him favorable coverage. But the media reaction to his announcement was so over the top as to make you think that the media talking heads and news people are all employed by the Democrat National Committee or the White House itself.
just a question.....is this mag cover / story real.....I mean of course the One is gay but the Newweak ...is this real ?
tia
Sure seems that way.
“I literally don’t think anybody’s vote was changed by this one way or the other.”
Yo Bawnee ... You’ve been in a bubble to long . Your quote is true if you were already going to vote for the alien but the rest of America ?
No Sir . You and your’s are getting bitch slapped this year .
Ugghhhh, I'd rather suck on my 357.
Actually, he said, “Obambth gay marriage endorthment won’t thway voterth.”
People in the media are so excited about our gay president because they are all gay too. That’s why they protect him so much. I think half of congress must also be gay.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It’s not for votes it’s to get donations from the pervs- and keep them from giving to Romney.
Way to distract from the point media...
We used to have fantastical stories that Lincoln was gay. Now we have fantastical stories that Obama is straight.
It all depends - there are some people who might have been on the fence for whom this issue is very important. Of course, Barney Frank would not be aware of their existence because he takes a Marxist, economic view of the world.
I didn’t get what Drudge meant by that. Is he saying the cover is fake or saying it in astonishment, like he can’t believe they would make such a cover? To me it looks fake.
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.