Michigan Governor: The 300 Same-Sex Marriages That Took Place This Weekend Are ‘Moot’

BY ZACK FORD/Think Progress

About 300 Michigan same-sex couples tied the knot this weekend during a short window before Friday’s marriage equality ruling was temporarily stayed. Because of that stay, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) believes those marriages are “moot,” though he won’t clarify whether or not it to legally recognize them.

Snyder spokeswoman Sarah Wurfel told the AP that the administration is simply not weighing in yet:

We are not saying that we aren’t or won’t recognize the marriages that happened on Saturday, but that we’re awaiting further court or legal direction on this complex, unusual situation… Either way, this can’t be construed one way or another as not recognizing the validity of the same sex marriages.

The order is stayed (at least until Wednesday), [so the] issue is moot at this point until resolved.

The question is not moot, however, for the couples who married and are unsure of the legal validity of their unions. One couple, Jennifer Chapin-Smith and her spouse, filed their state and federal taxes jointly on Saturday before the stay was issued. They were previously married in Maryland, so the federal government would have already recognized their union, but they also married Saturday in Michigan, so the state will have to decide whether their marriage there is valid — most likely well before the case is resolved in the courts. If the state is “awaiting” further development, it is arguably not recognizing the marriages int he interim.

In Utah, after 1,300 couples married before a Supreme Court stay of the marriage equality decision there, the state decided not to recognize the validity of those marriages. The federal government and several other marriage equality states said that they would, however,recognize those marriages. A separate suit is now playing out in Utah as those couples seek recognition while the case challenging the state’s ban proceeds.

Fox's Starnes Boycotts Pro-Equality Restaurant After Condemning Chick-Fil-A Boycott

LUKE BRINKER/Media Matters For America:

Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes is outraged that a Manhattan barbecue joint will no longer rent space to an anti-gay church and vows to boycott the popular restaurant. Starnes' strong condemnation of a private business's actions contrasts sharply with his spirited defense of Chick-fil-A, which faced boycotts over anti-gay statements last summer.

In a July 24 post for FoxNews.com and in a series of tweets on July 25, Starnes denounced Hill Country Barbecue for its decision to stop allowing The Gallery Church to conduct services in the restaurant. Hill Country Barbecue's action followed mounting pressure in the neighborhood for the restaurant to stop renting space to the church after Pastor Freddy Wyatt gave a sermon series on same-sex attraction.

Starnes blasted Hill Country Barbecue's decision as "[a]nti-Christian," vowing that he'd never set foot in the restaurant again:

One year ago, when Chick-fil-A was under fire for anti-gay statements by President Dan Cathy, Starnes took a slightly different tack, instructing his Twitter followers patronize the chain and referring to boycotts of the chain as "anti-capitalism." He criticized media outlets for launching a "brutal assault" against the restaurant and warned that Chick-fil-A was "under siege" by "militant gays."  

Writing for FoxNews.com on July 31, 2012, Starnes criticized the very principle of criticizing private businesses based on the political or religious views of their owners:

There's something about the public flogging of Chick-fil-A by government officials that seems un-American - lawmakers hell-bent on destroying a privately owned American company simply because of the owner's personal opinions.

[...]

There are efforts under way to shut down Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country. Student groups are launching similar campaigns on university campuses.

Lost in their outrage over a belief held by a majority of the American public, is the fact that Chick-fil-A employs thousands and thousands of people.

And with unemployment hovering around 8.2 percent, you have to wonder what sort of message Democrats are trying to send to the nation.

Perhaps the party of President Obama believes it's morally better to be unemployed than to be anti-gay marriage? [emphasis added]

For Starnes, businesses should be free to make their own decisions when it comes to LGBT issues without having to worry about being criticized or boycotted - just as long as their decisions always line up with Starnes' personal biases about LGBT people.

UPDATE: Pastor Freddy Wyatt of The Gallery Church issued a statement on the church's website distancinghimself from Starnes' article, writing:

We recently shared through a blog post a short account of our church being asked to no longer meet at Hill Country Barbecue Market. Additionally, we have shared this story with three different radio shows. We shared our story so people would know how they can pray for our church, and how they can support our church financially during a time of need.

We enjoy friendships with the individuals who work at Hill Country Barbecue Market and appreciate their willingness to host our church for the season they did. We had a month-to-month lease with the restaurant, which they chose to not renew. Some of the news reports have used the term "eviction" - this was not our term, nor is it the best description of their decision. Though this saddened us, we understood and respected their decision.We've also been saddened by the hateful and hostile things that have been written about this restaurant as a response to hearing our story. Please join us, Gallery Church in responding with neighborly love and grace toward our friends at Hill Country Barbecue Market. We look forward to continuing our friendships, finding tangible ways to bless our neighbors, and will continue to eat at Hill Country Barbecue Market.[emphasis added]

Republicans Unanimously Approve Anti-Marriage Equality Resolution Without Debate

By Zack Ford/Think Progress

At a retreat in Hollywood, California on Thursday, the Republican National Committee caved to pressure from social conservatives and unanimously approved a number of resolutions without any debate, including one opposing same-sex marriage.

As ThinkProgress reported Wednesday, this resolution is based entirely on debunked junk science and assumptions that heterosexual relationships are objectively superior to same-sex couples. Here is some of the text:

WHEREAS, the institution of marriage is the solid foundation upon which our society is built and in which children thrive; it is based in the conjugal relationship that only a man and a woman can form; [...]

WHEREAS, no Act of human government can change the reality that marriage is a natural and most desirable union; especially when procreation is a goal; [...] therefore be it

RESOLVED, the Republican national Committee affirms its support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America.

A second resolution reaffirming the party’s 2012 platform included a similar provision opposing same-sex marriage:

WHEREAS, the 2012 Republican Platform states, “We believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.”

Last month, as part of its autopsy of the 2012 election, Republicans announced their intention to tone down — though not alter — their opposition to LGBT equality by sugarcoating how they discuss those positions. Adoption of these resolutions followed threats this week from social conservative groups that they would no longer support the GOP if the party didn’t stand strong, and even take guidance, from them on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. In particular, the Family Research Council urged supporters not to give money to the GOP if it didn’t “grow a backbone.”

Stuck between this rock (trying to recruit young people) and hard place (depending on social conservatives), the Republicans seem to have reverted to their same old positions. This is in spite of the fact there are now two Republican Senators and two Republican House memberswho support marriage equality, with others evolving. Some have also acknowledged that it’s “inevitable” that a Republican presidential candidate will someday support same-sex marriage. For now, the GOP is dismissing this destiny and doubling down on baseless bigotry.

VIDEO: Conservatives At Anti-Gay Marriage Rally Undercut One Of Their Primary Talking Points

By Scott Keyes and Adam Peck/Think Progress

WASHINGTON, DC — Nearly a decade ago, the recent debate over marriage equality entered the limelight when, in May 2004, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

In the years since, conservatives have argued that marriage equality is a “threat” to marriage between straight couples.

ThinkProgress asked attendees an anti-equality rally in Washington DC today about what impact same-sex marriage has had on their own marriages over the last decade. Nearly everyone was flummoxed by the idea that someone else’s marriage would pose a threat to their own. One man even noted that gay marriage has strengthened his marriage by bringing him and his wife together over the shared belief that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to wed.

Watch the highlights:

During today’s Supreme Court case on marriage equality, the justices pressed Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending discrimination, on how exactly same-sex marriage somehow undermines marriage between straight people. He was unable to give a cogent response.

Fox News Contributors Say Marriage Equality Would Criminalize Christianity

By Zack Beauchamp/Think Progress

As the Supreme Court weighs the merits of allowing gay and lesbian Americans the freedom to marry, right-wing anti-equality advocates are cranking the fearmongering up to 11, claiming that a world of marriage equality is one that would functionally ban Christians from practicing their religion.

Two Fox News contributors, independently and in other outlets, made dire predictions along these lines. Todd Starnes, speaking on American Family Radio, argued that “persecution [of Christians] like we have never seen it” had “already started” as a consequence of the marriage equality movement:

STARNES: You know, it’s as if we’re second-class citizens now because we support the traditional, Biblical definition of marriage, or perhaps we are pro-life, and that means we’re somehow second-class citizens who don’t deserve to be in the public marketplace of ideas.

RIOS (HOST): Absolutely. In fact, it’ll be worse than that. You know there’s going to be punishment. There will be tremendous punishment. If gay marriage is embraced by the country, if the Supreme Court goes south this week in its hearings, we are in for – of course, we’re not going to hear about it until June – but we are in for persecution like we have never seen it.

STARNES: Well, it’s already started.

In reality, every piece of marriage equality legislation that’s been passed around country has included legal exemptions preventing clergy members and religious institutions from being forced to provide marriage-related services to LGBT Americans. Indeed, as a recent a CAP report shows, these exemptions have become increasingly broad as marriage equality advances, suggesting more, not less, sensitivity to the views of religious opponents of same-sex marriage.

Another Fox News contributor, Erick Erickson, went further. Writing on RedState, a conservative blog that’s commonly read by Republican legislators, Erickson fantasized about a world where the United States government — with a Congress that is roughly 80 percent Christian — began terrorizing Christian institutions, shuttering Christian businesses for opposing marriage equality, and labeling Christians themselves criminals:

Any Christian who refuses to recognize that man wants to upend God’s order will have to be driven from the national conversation. They will be labeled bigots and ultimately criminals…Once the world decides that real marriage is something other than natural or Godly, those who would point it out must be silenced and, if not, punished. The state must be used to do this.Consequently, the libertarian pipe dream of getting government out of marriage can never ever be possible.

Within a year or two we will see Christian schools attacked for refusing to admit students whose parents are gay. We will see churches suffer the loss of their tax exempt status for refusing to hold gay weddings. We will see private businesses shut down because they refuse to treat as legitimate that which perverts God’s own established plan. In some places this is already happening.

Erickson here is arguing for a broad-based license to discriminate against LGBT Americans. Other than the wedding case addressed above, Erickson’s examples aren’t situations where freedom of conscience or freedom to worship in the way your religion dictates are at stake. Rather, he’s asking that schools and businesses, two of society’s most basic institutions, be given carte blanche to discriminate against gay parents or patrons merely because they’re gay. It’s the difference between the freedom to be racist and the freedom to kick black people out of your store for being black — and there’s a reason why society protects the former but punishes the latter.

Rush Limbaugh: Marriage Equality Is Helping To ‘Normalize Pedophilia’

By Zack Ford/Think Progress

Blowhard Rush Limbaugh dedicated a lengthy diatribe on his radio show yesterday to the idea that there is a movement underway to try to “normalize pedophilia” by classifying it as a sexual orientation like heterosexuality and homosexuality. Limbaugh based his claims on anarticle in The Guardian that addresses questions science still has about the nature of pedophilia, but then he drew his own conclusions that normalizing same-sex marriage is similarly going to lead to normalizing the sexual abuse of children:

LIMBAUGH: There is a movement on to normalize pedophilia, and I guarantee you your reaction to that is probably much the same as your reaction when you first heard about gay marriage. What has happened to gay marriage? It’s become normal — and in fact, with certain people in certain demographics it’s the most important issue in terms of who they vote for. So don’t pooh-pooh. There’s a movement to normalize pedophilia. Don’t pooh-pooh it. The people behind it are serious, and you know the left as well as I do. They glom onto something and they don’t let go. [...]

What is their objective? They want us to all think that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation.  You know who’s gonna fall right in line is college kids, just like they have on gay marriage, just like they do on all other revolutionary social issues.  Their own definition of the cutting edge, civil rights, freedom, understanding, tolerance. So I’m just warning you here. You think it can’t happen. “Impossible!  Don’t be nutso and wacko on us, Rush.”

Listen to it:

But pedophilia is not considered a sexual orientation. It’s considered a psychiatric disorder and a paraphilia. The issue with pedophilia is that the target of the sexual impulse is children, who can be physically and emotionally scarred by such contact. Pedophilia, like other paraphilias, violates the consent of another entity, whereas sexual orientations do not. In fact, the moral condemnation of same-sex orientations is a judgment of who has the attractions, not who the attractions target. For example, a sexual orientation toward men can present in women or in men, but conservatives have only ever objected to men having that orientation. That judgment is based on religious dogma, not any intention to reduce harm to others.

Limbaugh’s tirade is dangerous and unnecessarily conflates homosexuality with pedophilia, as opponents of LGBT equality have done for decades. There is no way to compare two loving consenting adults to harming a child. If there were a valid reason to be concerned that society was no longer interested in protecting young people from sexual abuse, Limbaugh would have a compelling argument to make and many would surely rally around his cause. Instead, his words serve only to further demonize the LGBT community with archaic myths.

Fox News Joins The Marriage Poll Distortion Band Wagon

By Zack Ford/Think Progress

A slew of polls have surveyed voters’ beliefs about marriage equality since President Obama’s endorsement last week, but the data collection is quickly becoming lazy and the interpretation sloppy.Monday’s CBS/New York Times poll has been roundly criticized for its incredibly small sample size (615) and the odd framing of its questions. Fox News unsurprisingly conducted a poll of its own in the same fashion and eagerly spun the results to accommodate its anti-equality agenda:

A majority of voters don’t support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, yet at the same time a majority also opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

According to a Fox News poll released Wednesday, 37 percent of voters believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married legally. While that’s unchanged from 2010, when the question was most recently asked, it’s nearly double the 20 percent who felt that way in March 2004, the first time it was asked.

There is actually nothing in the data that supports this conclusion. What the Fox News article doesn’t mention until its fourth paragraph is that it asked its question the same way the CBS/NYT poll did: forcing a choice between same-sex marriage, legal unions not called marriage, or no legal recognition. The true result of this poll is that 70 percent believe there should be legal recognition for same-sex couples, which was actually 8 points higher than what Monday’s CBS/NYT poll found.

But the problem with both polls is that they never force respondents to choose between same-sex marriage and nothing, creating an incomplete picture of where voters stand. Consider therecent polling from Colorado, which found that 62 percent support civil unions, but that 53 support full marriage equality as well. Forcing respondents to make an either/or choice about marriage and civil unions instead of allowing consideration for both separately creates a distorted view of where voters actually stand.

The Times’ Ross Douthat attempts to spin the interpretation the other way, suggesting that because so many “prefer” civil unions, their support for  marriage equality when not provided with an alternative is “reluctant.” And it’s because of that reluctance, he believes, that the results of ballot measures don’t match the polling. This, of course, is a conclusion that can only be drawn from the strange construction of the question in these polls, and it also ignores the reality that many complex factors impact these plebiscites. In North Carolina, the most current example, polling showed that voters were largely uninformed (or misinformed) about the actual impact of Amendment One, and thus did not realize they were voting to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships in addition to marriage — against their wishes. Plus, as Nathaniel Frank points out, polls on social issues are simply “notoriously bad at predicting [voter] behavior.”

Fox News wants to be able to claim it has data opposing the conclusion that a majority of Americans support the freedom to marry, despite consistent national polling over the past two years that shows otherwise. Any poll can be structured and framed to deliver a certain bias to the results, but the true momentum for marriage equality cannot be disregarded so easily.

The Obama Effect: Growing Number Of African Americans Come Out For Marriage Equality

By Igor Volsky/Think Progress

While African Americans are generally less supportive of marriage equality as a whole, a growing number of black leaders and community members have come to embrace the issue since President Obama endorsed the freedom to marry last week.

As Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) explained during an appearance on MSNBC Thursday afternoon, “Dr. [Martin Luther] King took a simple position. When people would ask him about interracial marriage, he would simply say races don’t fall in love and get married, individuals fall in love and get married.” “So if two men or two women want to fall in love and get married it’s their business,” he added:

LEWIS: My position is very, very simple. That I fought too long and too hard against discrimination based on race and color, not to stand up and fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation. If you’re going to provide civil rights and equality for everybody, you cannot draw a line, you cannot build a wall. We must respect the dignity and the worth of every human being whether they are gay or straight.

Watch it:

African Americans are agreeing with Lewis in greater numbers:

– 54 percent of African Americans support Obama’s position on same-sex marriage: A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that since Obama declared his support, “54 percent express a favorable view of his position on the issue,” compared to “just 41 percent of African-Americans supported gay marriage in ABC/Post polls in mid-2011 and early 2012.”

– 11 point shift in support for marriage among African Americans in NC: A Public Policy Polling survey found “a noticeable shift in the attitudes of African Americans in North Carolina toward rights for gay couples in the wake of President Obama’s announcement last week that he supports gay marriage. Our final poll before the primary last week found only 20% of black voters in the state favoring gay marriage, with 63% opposed. Now 27% express support for gay marriage with 59% opposed, for an overall 11 point shift on the margin.”

– Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) comes out for marriage equality: The highest ranking African American in Congress told MSNBC earlier this week, “I, like the president, have evolved to a point of marriage equality. I have not always been there. I grew up in a parsonage, a fundamentalist Christian parsonage, and I grew up with that indoctrination. And I have grown to the point that I believe that we have evolved to marriage equality.” “If we consider this to be a civil right — and I do — I don’t think civil rights ought to be left up to a state-by-state approach,” Clyburn said. “I think that we should have a national policy on this.”

– African Americans say Obama’s support did not change their opinion of him:A Pew Research Center survey concluded that “most African Americans, on the other hand, say the announcement did not alter their opinion of Obama.”

More black than white people oppose marriage equality, but since 2008, “the proportion of African Americans favoring gay marriage has increased from 26% to 39%, while opposition has fallen from 63% to 49%.”

Right-Wing Media Attempt To Deflect Attention From Obama's Pro-Marriage Equality Stand

From Media Matters:

After President Obama's historic announcement that he is in favor of marriage equality, many in the right-wing media are refusing to debate the substance of same-sex marriage. Instead, they are casting about for ways to attack Obama's position on marriage that ignore the actual debate.

Obama Announces His Support For Marriage Equality

On ABC, Obama Voiced Support For Marriage Equality. In an interview with ABC News correspondent Robin Roberts, Obama stated: "[A]t a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that same sex couples should be able to get married":

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married. [ABC News, 5/9/12]

In Addition To Basic Fairness, Same-Sex Marriage Has A Variety Of Other Benefits To Society

Gay And Lesbian Couples Are Denied A Variety Of Basic Rights Because Of Their Inability To Marry Each Other. The Human Rights Campaign has compiled a list of federal rights that gay and lesbian couples are denied because their marriages are not recognized on a federal level. Those rights include:

• Same-Sex Couples Are Denied Social Security Surviving Spouse And Surviving Parent Benefits.
• Employers Who Cover Same-Sex Partners' Health Benefits Must Pay Additional Taxes.
• Gay And Lesbian Couples Have Less Access To The Child Tax Credit, The Earned Income Tax Credit, And Other Tax Laws That Benefit Families With Children.
• Gay And Lesbian Couples Do Not Have A Right To Take Leave Under The Family And Medical Leave Act To Care For A Sick Family Member Or New Child.
• Same-Sex Couples Receive Worse Tax Treatment When They Sell Their Home.
• Same-Sex Couples Receive Worse Tax Treatment Under The Estate Tax.
• Same-Sex Couples Receive Worse Tax Treatment Of Retirement Benefits.
• A U.S. Citizen Does Not Have The Right To Petition To Have His Or Her Same-Sex Spouse Legally Immigrate To The United States.
• Gay And Lesbian Federal Employees Cannot Cover Their Partners Under Their Health Insurance Plans.
• When An Employer Fires A Gay And Lesbian Employee, They Are Not Required To Allow The Employee's Partner To Receive Health Insurance Via Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). [Human Rights Campaign, accessed 5/10/12]

Marriage Equality Would Create Benefits For Businesses And The Economy.  An October 2006 study by UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy titled "The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy" outlined the potential business benefits that would be derived from official recognition of same-sex couples:

We find several potential business benefits of equal treatment for same-sex couples:

• Current employees will be healthier, more satisfied, and less likely to leave their jobs if they get domestic partner benefits.
• Domestic partner or spousal benefits will increase the competitiveness of employers in recruiting and retaining talented and committed employees.
• New weddings or other ceremonies would be a $2 billion boon for wedding-related industries in the United States.
• Marriage equality would make it easier for multistate and multinational businesses to transfer employees and to create consistent benefit and salary policies. With a potential hodge-podge of growing jurisdictional requirements, business leaders are likely to crave uniformity and simplicity in responding to diverse family needs and sustaining fair treatment for all employees. [UCLA School of Law, October 2006]

Marriage Equality Has A Positive Impact On State Budgets. An October 2006 Williams Institute study titled "The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy" outlined the impact of marriage equality on state budgets:

States would spend less on public assistance, since family-level income thresholds associated with some means-tested social programs would reduce the eligibility of some same-sex couples and their children if they are treated as a family unit.

The increased spending on weddings noted earlier would also generate sales tax revenues. [UCLA School of Law, October 2006]

Marriage Equality Would Generate Economic Gains Due To Increased Spending On Weddings.A Williams Institute Study titled "Spending on Weddings of Same-Sex couples in the United States" showcased the increased  economic expenditures derived from wedding spending that would follow as a result of Marriage Equality enactment.   

The extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples  in various jurisdictions  will generate economic gains for the businesses in those jurisdictions due to increased spending on weddings. A 2004 Forbes magazine article projected that if same-sex marriage rights were granted nationwide, same-sex weddings would generate $16.8 billion dollars in expenditures, adding significantly to America's annual $70 billion wedding industry. For over twenty years, various other commentators have argued or found that the first state or states to offer marriage equality would experience a wave of increased tourism from out-of-state couples that would bring millions of additional dollars in revenue to state businesses.

[...]

[...]

Rather Than Debate The Issues Of Same-Sex Marriage, Many Right-Wing Media Figures Have Found Other Ways To Attack Obama

Free Beacon Headline: "Gay For Pay." A May 9 post by The Washington Free Beacon suggested that Obama is caving to donors who were "threatening to withhold donations over the president's position on gay rights":

President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage less than 48 hours after the Washington Post reported that prominent political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the president's position on gay rights.

"[A]t a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told ABC News in an interview. [The Washington Free Beacon, 5/9/12]

FoxNews.com: "$AME-$EX PAYOFF?" A headline on FoxNews.com stated: "$AME-$EX PAYOFF." The headline led to an article on an Obama fundraiser that claimed he is "raising Hollywood cash on heels of gay marriage endorsement."

[FoxNews.com, 5/10/12]

Fox's Carlson Asks If Obama Is "Demonizing Those Who Disagree" With Marriage Equality.From the May 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

GRETCHEN CARLSON: President Obama makes history announcing his support for same-sex marriage. But is there tolerance for both sides or is he demonizing those who disagree with him now? We're going to report and you can decide. [Fox News, Fox & Friends,5/10/12, via Media Matters]

Carlson Also Asks: Is Obama's Support For Same-Sex Marriage A "Political Ploy" To Distract From The Economy? From the May 10 edition of Fox & Friends:

CARLSON: So is this a distraction? Is this another political ploy because of November and the election coming up? I mean, let the voters decide that. But should we be now talking about this? Is this the most important issue of the day? Or should we be talking about the economy right now? [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/10/12, via Media Matters]

Cavuto Suggests The White House Came Out In Support Of Marriage Equality To Increase Progressive "Enthusiasm." From the May 9 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

NEIL CAVUTO (host): As you, I think, were mentioning earlier Ed, the White House is nothing else but brilliant political strategist and you don't get to the White House without toppling the Hillary Clinton campaign and doing all the rest. So they have calculated the potential fallout from this and the possibility of losing key states they've won before like North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana and must have crunched the numbers and said "well we pick up -- maybe -- an enthusiasm or from our base, elsewhere, enough to swing states that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

Now maybe I'm making that political leap, and this is just by accident that this happened but is there that potential that they can make up for what could be loses in those key states.

ED HENRY (Fox White House correspondent): Yes, I mean senior officials insist in private that they haven't sat down with the polls to sort all of this out, but let's face it, this White House like the White House before it is acutely aware of where public opinion polls are on any big issue whether it's the economy or same-sex marriage. Bottom line is they do have concerns that there could be fallout from states like North Carolina, but yes, they also believe they can make up for that with young voters.

Let's note the president that kicked off those rallies last Saturday, officially kick off the campaign to college campuses where you look at the college Democrats and the college Republicans often opposing each other on economic issues but largely coming together on issues like same-sex marriage. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/9/12]

CNN's Loesch Attacks Obama For Taking "A Federalist Stance" On Same-Sex Marriage. From a May 9 post on Brietbart.com by CNN contributor Dana Loesch titled "Is Obama's Federalist Stance On Same-Sex Marriage Racist?": 

The President today said that he personally supports same-sex marriage, but took a federalist stance on it:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states' deciding the issue on their own.

A states' rights stance? Remember when that was racist? A growing chorus of progressives said that states' rights were racist: people like Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, and even newspapers.  So what is their opinion now that the President has brought up states' rights as his explanation for his same-sex marriage stance? Racist, still? [Breitbart.com, 5/9/12]

HotAir's Allahpundit: Obama May Have Dropped "Cynical Charade" On Marriage To "Maximiz[e] Turnout" Among The Base. In a HotAir post titled "Breaking: Noted gay-marriage supporter finally drops cynical charade," pseudonymous blogger AllahPundit stated: "As for the politics, Karl notes in the Greenroom that Team Hopenchange may now be shifting from a campaign aimed at winning back disaffected working-class swing voters to a campaign aimed mainly at maximizing turnout among their base." [HotAir, 5/9/12]

Marriage Equality and the Black vote

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

New purist meme: All credit for Obama's marriage equality stand is belong to rich white guys

by Deaniac83/The People's View


As the surprise and history-making of the President's support for same-sex marriage sets in, the president's detractors on the "Left"aren't exactly in a celebratory mood, with some taking credit for themselves, and some even rushing to equate gay marriage with marijuana legalizatoin.

But if there's one column that largely encapsulates the reaction Obama-will-never-be-good-enough crowd on the Left to the President's courageous decision yesterday to come out in favor of marriage equality, it's this one from Scott Tucker on Truthdig. His column, featured yesterday on Truthdig, calls the President's "politically cornered," electorally calculating and "one of the emptiest suits." It berates attributing courage to the president's statement as a "bemused state of mind." But here is what it's really about:

 And the White House was definitely getting the news that major gay donors would not be signing checks until he “evolved” already.

Let's cut the bullcrap for a second, shall we? Tucker's "major gay donors" are really the major gaywhite donors. Because let's face it: it's not mostly the LGBT people of color that are sitting on a pile of cash in a position to write those big checks. In other words, translation: it was us white liberals that forced this black homophobe to speak out in favor of the gays.

Never mind that the entire story that LGBT people and their supporters were majorly holding up donations to the Obama campaign because the president had not yet declared support for marriage equality was made up. Made up, in large part, by people like Tucker and websites like Truthdig. I don't know about those with the luxury to make support for marriage a litmus test - i.e. deep pocketed white gay activists who sit on their high horses in states that already provides a great deal of legal protection for gay and transgender people, but I do know this: the vast majority of the people who care about the rights and protections of our community have a great deal more to worry about.

The vast majority of us know real life issues other than marriage that affect our lives every day: from bullying in schools to hate crimes to employment discrimination to being denied the dignity to visit a sick loved one in the hospital to access to health care to housing discrimination to being able to take a leave of absence to care for a sick loved one or a sick child to having the honor of serving our country openly. For those of us who see the president's support for marriage equality not as a litmus test but as a completion of a journey in which he's always supported our community, we have taken note of policies ranging from the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act to an administrative decision to order hospitals accepting Medicare to honor the rights of same sex partners to lifting the HIV entry ban to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell toso much more.

The discounting of all of this in favor or a litmus test on marriage from anyone who claims to care about the LGBT community, let alone be part of this community, can be described with one simple word: privilege. To go even further and claim that the withholding of donations from those who are privileged was the principal reason for the president's "evolution" is the epitome of elitism. It is a scathing belittling of not just the advancements in gay rights that have been made under President Obama but the critical problems facing the LGBT community that those advancements address. It is the refusal to understand that when a gay kid is being kicked and having his head bashed in with a baseball bat, the ringing sound in their ear as they pass out is not wedding bells. It is the utter disregard of the fact that when you want to get to the bedside of the person you love the most in this world, and when that person is suffering without the comfort of your company, the first thing you look at is not your ring finger.

This brings us to the most insidious undercurrent of much of the "Lefty" opposition to President Obama in general, and the discounting of this history-making moment in particular: the unspoken white economic privilege. Everyone with privilege is not part of the problem, of course, but way too often, and specifically in this case, it is that economic and social privilege that allows a self-described queer activist and many like him to boldly claim that the first president ever to support marriage equality and the first black president is "an empty suit." And it is that galling level of elitism that refuses to recognize that for many, the path to embracing marriage equality is a journey, sometimes as much of one as it is for a gay person to accept oneself.

The time for not-good-enough-ism is over. We are looking at a November election between a president who has the courage of his convictions and the intellect to arrive on the right side of history and a challenger who proudly pursues writing discrimination into the US Constitution. We are looking at a president who has done more for LGBT rights than anyone else ever in the federal government. You want to talk about empty suits? Anyone who gives a whiff about the rights and dignity of gay, bisexual and transgender people in this country and refuses to fully back up this president and his re-election will be the real empty suit.