Barack Obama | Clay Aiken | Family Research Council | Gay Marriage | News | Ted Olson

BigGayDeal.com

Clay Aiken Tells Hate Group Leader Tony Perkins He'll Be Ashamed of His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage: VIDEO

Aiken_perkins

Brandon posted a shorter clip of yesterday's Face the Nation segment in his round-up last night, but the whole thing's worth watching because it also includes segments with Ted Olsen, Newsweek contributor and Bush advisor Mark McKinnon, and Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson.

Family Research Council's Tony Perkins leads off the segment on Obama's same-sex marriage endorsement.

Says Perkins: "I don't think the president did a political calculus to do this because if he did, he needs to go back to the calculator because it's a bad formula."

T_olsonAfter a few minutes of Perkins' evangelical talking points, Aiken weighs in (he's become a polished pro).

Said Aiken:

“Between the time of 2003 and today, we’ve seen — as we’ve seen with gay marriage polling — we’ve seen minds changing. We’ve seen people become more open and understanding of homosexuality....I want to address the fact of what you just said here. When my mother married my stepfather, she went to a church — a Baptist church — and since she had been divorced, they wouldn’t let her get married there. So, churches are able to decide who gets married in a church regardless...Obviously, you’ve got people who make the argument that interracial relationships — back in the 70s, people made the same arguments against interracial relationships as they are making against same sex marriages today. So, I feel — I really strongly believe in the next 20 years, we’re going to look back on this and be sort of ashamed of the fact that we’re against this, just as we are ashamed today that we didn’t let people of different races get married.”

MckinnonMcKinnon thinks Obama's move shows he's principled and voters will respond to that:

"President Bush won reelection in 2004, not because people liked him necessarily, or even agreed with his policies. They voted for him because they thought he had core principles that they'd fight for consistently."

Adds Ted Olson: "The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln. Equality and independence and people that love one another, that wish to form a stable bond, are part of our economy, are part of our community - that should be a conservative value."

Check it all out, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. According to the lastest Rasmussen poll, Obama is now 8 points behind Romney among likely voters 42-50...Romney has reached the magical 50% mark...It's over, I think Romney will win in November in a landslide. Obama winning in 2008 was essentially a fluke and many whites aren't up for a repeat of that. Obama is going to be beaten soundly come November. Believe me I wish it wasn't true, but I am a realist. The next President is going to be a Mormon homophobe. A man without any principles who will cater to the worst of his party. I am already girding my loins.

    Posted by: Pedro | May 14, 2012 7:33:34 AM


  2. Natural Law! LOL. Hey Tony, is this 1750? Don't you have an *actual* argument?

    Posted by: TJ Parker | May 14, 2012 7:34:22 AM


  3. Can someone please explain to me why hate group mouthpiece Tony Perkins is accorded respectability by the mainstream media?

    Posted by: Christopher di Spirito | May 14, 2012 7:40:50 AM


  4. wow pedro, since you pay attention to rasmussen (republican leaning) polls, maybe you realize that they are ridiculously inaccurate.

    Posted by: jacksonhumboldt | May 14, 2012 7:52:39 AM


  5. Pedro,

    Stop watching FIXED News. It isn't healthy.

    Posted by: Christopher di Spirito | May 14, 2012 7:54:50 AM


  6. the thing that struck me - was when Ted Olsen said he plans on Voting for Romney - I wanted to Throw up.

    Posted by: Disgusted American | May 14, 2012 7:55:31 AM


  7. Clay Aiken is now our spokesperson?

    Was Lady Gaga booked somewhere else already?

    Posted by: B-rod | May 14, 2012 8:10:37 AM


  8. Clay Aiken did a respectable job discussing the issues.

    Posted by: Dan | May 14, 2012 8:56:38 AM


  9. Clay Aiken's made a rather great point about his mother's married outside of her faith. It reminded me of a horror re: In the death of my friend and her baby in Pittsburgh in the late 70's. The Cat Church almost did not perform the funeral due to mix-marriage

    ---"those Catholics"-----
    I did a quick cut and paste.

    Mixed marriage poses “an obstacle to the full spiritual communion of the parties” (Pope Paul VI, Matrimonia Mixta). Despite their sharing a common faith in Christ, the scriptures, and other elements...............

    For the permission for a mixed marriage to be granted or for a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult, there must be a just and reasonable cause (canon 1125), such as the spiritual good of the faithful.

    Posted by: anthony | May 14, 2012 8:56:45 AM


  10. @Pedro, Mitt won't win.
    Traditional marriage, again. What do they mean?

    Posted by: Matt26 | May 14, 2012 9:31:57 AM


  11. Pedro, I think that this could be a challenging election and we know that Romney, Rove and their Super PACS will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to distort the President's record. Certainly I think we all need to actively support the President's campaign as nothing will impact the future course of our struggle for equality as much as whether it is the President or Romney who appoints the next few Supreme Court Justices and scores of other federal court judges.

    Still, as others have noted Rasmussen is a Republican polling firm and its polls should be taken with a huge grain of salt. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/ Moreover, the electoral map presently looks pretty challenging for Romney, in significant part due to his currently huge deficits with women and Latino voters. Though the Romney camp would like to believe that it could make a play for states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, current polling shows only New Hampshire among the states won by John Kerry as close and we're ahead there. Leaving out New Hampshire, that would give the President 242 votes. Assuming that New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio and New Hampshire are the swing states, they have a total of 105 electoral votes and the President would only need to win 28 of those 105 votes (meaning that Florida alone with nothing else would put him over the top) while Willard would need to win 78 of those 105 votes. In this scenario, winning Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa and New Hampshire (a tall order unless the dynamics of this race change, which they of course could) would not be enough as wins for the President in New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio (added to his base of 242 electoral votes) would put him over the top. New Mexico looks very strong for the President currently and Nevada, despite all the economic woes there, also looks pretty good, in significant part because Romney is so weak with Latino voters (frankly, Colorado also looks good for the President currently).

    There've been six polls in New Mexico over the past three months and all showed the President with a lead and only once was that lead less than 14 points.

    There've been three polls in Nevada over the past five months and all showed the President with a lead, with his average lead 7.4 points.

    There've been four polls in Ohio in the last month and, while the margins are fairly small, this is significant: the President has lead in each. The Republican governor and legislature are very unpopular and when Republicans have done well in the state they have appealed to blue collar, culturally conservative voters and those voters aren't sold on Romney as much as higher income Repugs are.

    There've been five polls in Colorado over the past three months and Romney's best showing was a tie.

    There've been six polls in Virginia over the past two months and four have shown the President leading while two (including a Rasmussen (R) poll) have shown Romney ahead

    There've been three polls in North Carolina in the past month, two showing the President with a lead and a Rasmussen (R) poll showing Romney ahead by 2 points.

    There've been two polls in New Hampshire in the past month and one showed the President with a 9 point lead and the other showed Romney ahead by 2 points.

    There've been five polls in Florida over the past month, three showing Romney ahead and two showing the President with a lead but in each case showing the candidates within 5 points of each other. Obviously, the outrageous efforts of Republicans in the state government to suppress the vote could prove significant.

    There've been three polls in Iowa in the past seven months, two showing the President with the lead and the most recent showing Romney with a lead of two points.

    Of course, some of these polls could tighten as Romney consolidates his base but it'll be tough for Willard to win any of the John Kerry states (other than perhaps New Hampshire) or New Mexico or even Nevada (there are more Latino voters than Mormons there), meaning he'd virtually need to sweep the other significant states and his problems with Latino voters pose a problem (in Colorado and Florida (mainly among non-Cubans) especially) and his problems with women and potential problems with independent and "moderate" voters do as well (in Virginia and Colorado). His problems with lunch bucket blue collar, culturally conservative voters is an issue in Ohio and the lack of enthusiasm among evangelicals could hurt him in places like North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Ohio.

    Romney's Very Narrow Path
    Washington Post: "Mitt Romney faces a narrow path to the presidency, one that requires winning back states that President Obama took from Republicans in 2008 and that has few apparent opportunities for Romney to steal away traditionally Democratic states. Months ago, Obama's campaign advisers laid out five distinct ways for the president to clear the threshold of 270 electoral college votes and win reelection. As Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and his advisers chart their strategy, they plan to target a dozen to 15 states and say that they, too, have more routes than their opponents claim. But Romney's team acknowledges that any realistic course to 270 starts with winning back three historically Republican states that Obama won in 2008 -- Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia -- and believes that changing demographics in Virginia present a challenge."

    Wall Street Journal: "Mitt Romney's campaign says it has many routes to the 270 votes needed for victory in the Electoral College this fall. But almost all of them rely on a difficult feat: Winning at least six states that went for President Barack Obama in 2008."


    *** Obama unchallenged on Hispanic media: Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney Super PAC, is up today with a $4.3 million ad buy across nine battleground states. But what’s been amazing is that even though the president is getting outspent by outside groups left and right, the one place opponents aren’t even COMPETING is on Hispanic media outlets. Republicans are not on air on Hispanic media AT ALL so far, according to NBC/Smart Media Delta. President Obama, on the other hand, is going unchecked for two weeks, spending $435,000 – and $730,000 total so far this cycle – through mid-May with Hispanic media buys in Denver, Las Vegas, Orlando, Tampa, and Miami. If the president is wining by huge margins with Hispanics and women (more on that below), the math becomes very precarious for Romney. Look at those states where the president is advertising: Colorado, Nevada and Florida. Can Romney win the White House without winning at least ONE Western state?"

    Posted by: Patric | May 14, 2012 10:44:34 AM


  12. and remember that by any definition of a "battleground state", Arizona is a battleground state in 2012.

    Posted by: Chitown kev | May 14, 2012 12:14:44 PM


  13. Perhaps Ted Olson should teach Tony what laws in a civil society are based on. Certainly not "natural laws" if he means laws of the jungle.

    Posted by: simon | May 14, 2012 2:42:38 PM


  14. Anthony, she didn't marry outside of her faith, it was because she was divorced that they wouldn't allow her to marry there. Catholics and some Episcopalian (sp?) churches do the same.

    Posted by: PeggyK | May 16, 2012 1:11:31 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Bigger Blue Marble: VIDEO« «