home
RSS
Obama's gay marriage support riles religious conservatives, but political effects not yet clear
President Barack Obama addressing a gay rights group in 2011.
May 9th, 2012
04:55 PM ET

Obama's gay marriage support riles religious conservatives, but political effects not yet clear

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) – U.S. President Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage on Wednesday outraged conservative Christian leaders, who vowed to use it as an organizing tool in the 2012 elections, but the move is also activating the liberal base, raising big questions about who gains and loses politically.

“It cuts both ways - it activates both Democratic and Republican base voters,” said John Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron. “The most likely effect is that it makes an already close election even closer.”

In an interview with ABC News, Obama said, "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."

The announcement puts Obama at odds with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage and who voiced that opposition in an interview on Wednesday.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

"Considering that 10 of the 16 battleground states have marriage amendments that could be overturned by the president's new policy position on marriage, today's announcement almost ensures that marriage will again be a major issue in the presidential election,” said Tony Perkins, president of the the conservative Family Research Council.

“The president has provided a clear contrast between him and his challenger, Mitt Romney," Perkins continued. "Romney, who has signed a pledge to support a marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution, may have been handed the key to social conservative support by President Obama."

Obama stressed in the interview that his support was personal and that he would leave the issue of marriage to the states. But many conservatives chafed at the idea that the president's personal views would not affect public policy.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, released a statement saying the president's comments were "deeply saddening." Dolan's statement continued, "I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

Bishop Harry Jackson, the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church outside of Washington, DC, said that "I think the president has been in this place for awhile and that he chose this time because he thought that it might shift the balance of power." Jackson has long campaigned against same-sex marriage.

Ralph Reed, a top organizer among religious conservatives, said Obama’s announcement was a “gift to the Romney campaign.”

Romney, a Mormon who has evolved to a more conservative position on hot button social issues, has struggled with his party's largely evangelical conservative base in the primaries. But Reed said Obama’s gay marriage support would help Romney in many battleground states.

“The Obama campaign doesn’t have to worry about New York and California,” Reed said. “They have to worry about Ohio, Florida and Virginia and I don’t’ see evidence that it’s a winning issue in those states.”

Green said that public opinion about gay marriage has been shifting dramatically in recent years, with some polls showing more support than opposition. Green said that in many battlegrounds, including Ohio, it's impossible to nail down current public opinion on same-sex marriage. A Gallup Poll conducted this month found that 50% of American adults support legal recognition of same-sex marriage, while 48% oppose it.

Reed noted that same-sex marriage bans have passed in virtually every state they have appeared on the ballot, including in North Carolina on Tuesday. That’s a typically red state that Obama won in 2008 and that is the site of the Democrat's 2012 convention.

Many liberal groups were ecstatic over Obama’s support for gay marriage. “Congratulations, Mr. President, for making history today by becoming the first sitting president to explicitly support marriage for same-sex couples,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

In his interview with ABC, Obama talked about squaring his decision with his personal religious faith.

“We are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others,” Obama said, referencing his wife, Michelle.

“But, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule,” he said. “Treat others the way you would want to be treated.”

One key Obama constituency that may be angered by his Wednesday announcement is African-Americans, who tend to be more religious than whites. Though they hew heavily Democratic, African-Americans are generally conservative on social issues like gay marriage.

- CNN's Eric Marrapodi, Shannon Travis, and Mary Snow contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: 2012 Election • Barack Obama • Gay marriage

soundoff (2,108 Responses)
  1. Fr33th1nk3r

    The subject of gay marriage gives the Catholic church a great tool for distracting people's attention away from their embarassing revelations about priests and young boys.

    May 10, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Not to mention that it give the Conservatives a great tool to stir up the idiot religious nuts, get them to vote, and then proceed with business as usual once elected.

      May 10, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
  2. PaulC

    You can be assured the Repugs will be against anything Pres. Obama says or does.
    Repugs are for smaller gov. except when it involves your body and bedroom.

    May 10, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      True that.

      May 10, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
  3. gregr

    do gay people pay taxes? then they have equal protection under the law.

    May 10, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • Fr33th1nk3r

      They pay the same taxes, but do not receive the same benefits.

      Apples and oranges....

      May 10, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "YeahRight has bought the lie that parents do not have any effect on how their children turn out."

      Poor fred has to continue lying proving they're not a real Christians. The experts have proven you wrong over and over again, yet you continue trying to spread your lies and hate, you are nothing like your Christ.

      May 11, 2012 at 11:17 am |
  4. gregr

    thank you Karl Rove for continually putting social issue referendums on state ballots so as to distract the public from jobs jobs jobs. 2010 election was a farce.

    May 10, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
  5. johnnylingo

    You can't vote on a law of nature. I can't vote if a boy cat is a girl cat. I can't. A boy cat can have children with another boy cat.. It can't. The human race can't and continue if the family is all messed up like that. It can't.

    Marriage is between a man and woman and It always has been, you can't vote on that. You can't legislate a law of nature. If you try, it won't work and is a disaster. This is not a matter of human rights or not only about religion, this is an issue about reality – "the family." I want my future children to grow up in a home that is stable and has a mom and a dad. Allowing legalized gay marriage would indeed bring a stain upon what I want to teach my children. Think about it, 1st – Society says its alright 2nd – Schools teach my children that it is "alright by the law." – I don't want my children thinking that. Other people may believe it, but it is a violation upon my family and my role as a parent to allow something like this. It is literally imposing upon my ability to be a parent and teach my children if the very society you live in is glamorizing sin. I refuse to let my children be stained by these philosophies that have crept up in the past couple of years.

    May 10, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • YeahRight

      “You can't vote on a law of nature.”

      Homosexuality has been documented in over 1500 other species, it’s totally natural.

      This is not a matter of human rights or not only about religion, this is an issue about reality – "the family." I want my future children to grow up in a home that is stable and has a mom and a dad.

      The experts have proven that gay and lesbian homes are stable and that the children turn out the same as straight couples.

      “Other people may believe it, but it is a violation upon my family and my role as a parent to allow something like this. It is literally imposing upon my ability to be a parent and teach my children if the very society you live in is glamorizing sin. I refuse to let my children be stained by these philosophies that have crept up in the past couple of years.”

      What the experts have proven is that everything written about gays in the past were done by bias and prejudice people. You sound like a white person from the past who didn’t want to abolish slavery or allow interracial marriage. Your prejudice is not founded in facts and when your children find that out you will be a disgrace. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured.”

      May 10, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • fred

      Yeah Right
      I cannot imagine growing up in home where dad and dad or mom and mom have no effect on my development. That is a bunch of nonsense. Where does an intelligent society come up with this stuff? I know you claim proof that parents have no impact on how their children turn out. The scary thing is that you believe that.

      May 10, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • johnnylingo

      I don't care what the "Experts," say. The experts are who? Dr. Phil? CNN poll staff? The lesbian person who writes his own book? The "experts" are those who don't hold the same views and I do anyways. There is only one expert in my life and that is "God." It is his book and his statistics that I choose to read. People are free to read their own books and can believe and practice what they want to. However, imposing your "Expert," upon another is another thing. Tolerance vs. In-tolerance right.

      Example of Tolerance: I like this lemonade, this lemonade is the best and nothing is better! = OK
      Example of In-tolerance: I like this lemonade, this lemonade is the best, you need to have it! Here take it! What you don't like it? I am offended that you don't want it! here let me shove it in your face! Ok you still don't want it, here are some statistics on why it is the best, Take it!! Take it Now!! Lets Make a law that teaches all people in school to learn about the philosophy of why lemonade is alright so they can try it if they want to! comon comon!! = BAD

      I don't consider people "mental or bad," if they are gay. Just please don't define through government an legislation what is right, wrong, or tolerant, when it should be parents doing that.

      May 10, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "That is a bunch of nonsense. Where does an intelligent society come up with this stuff? I know you claim proof that parents have no impact on how their children turn out. The scary thing is that you believe that."

      You're ego just can't handle the fact that you've been proven wrong and your prejudice has blackened your heart. Social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents—concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people—are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.

      May 10, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Just please don't define through government an legislation what is right, wrong, or tolerant, when it should be parents doing that."

      You're kind have been proven WRONG over and over again through out history. You're children will recognize you for the prejudice bigot you are and be ashamed of you. The experts throughout the world have proven you wrong.

      May 10, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Just please don't define through government an legislation what is right, wrong, or tolerant, when it should be parents doing that."

      P.S. This is about civil rights moron. Gay couples and their families deserve the same civil rights you have.

      These rights include:

      Tax Benefits
      -–Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
      -–Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

      Estate Planning Benefits
      -–Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
      -–Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
      -–Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
      -–Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

      Government Benefits
      -–Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
      -–Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
      -–Receiving public as-sistance benefits.
      -–Employment Benefits
      -–Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
      -–Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
      -–Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
      -–Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

      Medical Benefits
      -–Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
      -–Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

      Death Benefits
      -–Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
      -–Making burial or other final arrangements.

      Family Benefits
      -–Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
      -–Applying for joint foster care rights.
      -–Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
      -–Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

      Housing Benefits
      -–Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
      -–Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

      Consumer Benefits
      -–Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
      -–Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
      -–Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
      -–Other Legal Benefits and Protections
      -–Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
      -–Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
      -–Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
      -–Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
      -–Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
      -–Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

      May 10, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      Fred..where does a intelligent society come up with a god of which there is no evidence? and you believe it ???? no one has said that parents don't have an influence on their children,, I would say that the it would be the intolerance of those who dislike gay folks, mainly on unfounded religious grounds, are the ones who would affect the children life in a more negative way and cause them the most anguish..

      May 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • sam

      johnny, believe whatever you like. Go on about 'sin' for anything you don't agree with. It doesn't matter. I was raised by someone who thinks just like you do, and I managed to think for myself all the same. Hopefully your kids will go out into the world, see it for what it really is, and outgrow your limited worldview. The best families are often the ones we make for ourselves. It's not for you or your book to tell people what family means.

      May 10, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • fred

      EvolvedDNA
      YeahRight has bought the lie that parents do not have any effect on how their children turn out. We do not need a study on this and the studies claimed skirt the real issue that the children have been changed by the exposure. If you read the fine print in all the studies we find the disclaimer that only certain attributes were examined and long term implications cannot be determined.
      Yes, thank you as your statement points to the fact parenting does affect children. Parents who hate and teach hate will produce a greater number of negative children. Parents are to model relationships and do model relationships good and bad. Kids watch and listen very close and their surroundings are imprinted on them.

      May 10, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      johnny, it's hard to believe you manage to get through the day. Do you really think that denying gays the right to marry will make them go away? Do you really think that they choose to be gay and could easily choose to be attracted to, love and marry someone of the opposite gender if only they decided to do so? You nitwit, you didn't choose to be straight, did you?

      What are you going to do if one or more of your children happens to be gay? Think you can stop him or her from being gay?

      May 10, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      fred, here's a simple challenge for your simple mind: show proof that children raised by gay parents are negatively affected. Go ahead. Find a study and cite it. Don't even bother pretending that Focus on the Family or some other wing-nut organization has done any legitimate study, dear.

      May 10, 2012 at 7:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, and fred? How do you explain the fact that straight parents have raised most of the children who happen to be gay? Think modeling straight behavior had any "effect" on them? Of course it didn't.

      May 10, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
    • fred

      Evolved DNA
      You do not need to drag God into this. YeahRight was pushing a lie based on socialist ideology where the state or as Hillary would say the villiage is very capable of raising our children (Parents behavior and life style does not impact children).

      May 10, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Prove that it does, fred. Prove that gay parents raise only gay kids. Prove that straight parents raise only straight kids. Prove that parents who never use drugs or alcohol don't have kids who abuse either or both. Prove that parents who are wonderful have wonderful kids.

      How ridiculous. Do you not get it? There is so much that is hard-wired in humans. Parents can provide an excellent model and still have kids who become criminals, drug users, ra-pists, and bums.

      Really, do you have ANY experience in parenting? If you did, you'd know that.

      May 10, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      Orientation is not something that can be taught at home or anywhere else. What you do with your orientation is taught and subject to cultural norms.

      May 10, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So gays should simply live celibate lives, never have families, never love anyone?

      Says who? You? Who do you think you are to decide what's morally right for others?

      May 10, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Come on , freddy, where's a single study that shows that children raised by same-s#x couples are negatively affected in any way? Hurry up. You're so sure it's true there must be multiple studies that show evidence for your beliefs.

      May 10, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      At some point even you draw the line for yourself that no man or beast should cross. Certainly, you would draw lines for others as well and acknowledge it is only right. If nothing else a little taboo gives us something new to do.

      May 10, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Translation: fred's got nothing, as usual.

      You're such a loser.

      May 10, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I really love how freddy the doofus manages to mangle what Hillary said. She never said a village was "capable" of raising a child. She said that it "takes a village to raise a child."

      The difference is a subtlety freddy is incapable of discerning.

      May 10, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      Where do you get the idea I suggested kids are negatively affected by dad and dad? I only commented that Yeah Right studies cannot show children are not influenced by their parents. In short we do not know what the impact is but, it cannot be neutral.

      May 10, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      Actually, she said “it takes the Village People” to raise a child but the editors caught it before release.

      May 10, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You really are desperate for attention, aren't you, freddy? The studies have shown no negative effects whatsoever. Care to prove otherwise?

      May 10, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, and as to "not be neutral"? You're right there. Studies showed that children raised by lesbian couples did better on standardized tests for reading.

      Care to find anything negative to counter that?

      Betcha can't.

      May 10, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      “ lesbian couples” ! OMG two moms ragging on you get your homework done and clean up your room. Of course test scores would be higher. How about the higher average education level and income level for lesbian couples? How about the fact they don’t believe in talking snakes?

      May 10, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Troll away, dear.

      May 10, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      This study?:
      Perrin says. "And, the children of lesbian couples are less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more inclined to play with both boy's and girl's toys

      Perfect little liberal kids will assure victory for the democrat party for generations to come

      May 10, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You poor baby. You must be SO disappointed.

      May 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      This is confirmation you couldn't find a single study that showed that gay parents adversely affected their offspring in any way, huh?

      Game over, freddy. Thanks for playing.

      May 10, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
    • Fr33th1nk3r

      We are all still waiting on your "evidence", Fred. Over a dozen posts, and you have yet to prove a single one of your biased claims....

      At this point, it would not be premature to consider your viewpoint as "intellectually bankrupt". You cannot support ANY of your views with anything resembling an empirical study on the matter.

      You should just quit now before you make a bigger fool of yourself....

      May 10, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "A bigger fool" of himself? Well, that right there would qualify as a miracle, wouldn't it?

      Ferdie couldn't BE more ridiculous if he was facing a firing squad demanding it.

      May 10, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • Fr33th1nk3r

      You are still dancing around the fact that you HAVE NOTHING TO BRING TO THE TABLE IN THIS DISCUSSION.

      Still waiting on that evidence....

      May 10, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • fred

      FreeThinker

      "On the hot topic of $exual orientation, the only long-term study of le.sbian-headed families reports 64 percent of the young adult children saying they've considered same-$ex relationships (compared to 17 percent with het.ero$exual parents)—

      Compared with young adults who had het.ero$exual mothers, men and women who had le.sbian mothers were slightly more likely to consider the possibility of having a same-gender partner Tasker FL, Golombok S. Growing Up in a Le.sbian Family: Effects on Child Development New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1997

      – There are scant data about the gender ident-ity of adult children of gay fathers. In the most extensive study available, 9% of sons of gay fathers identified as bi$exual or ho-mo$exual in orientation- Bailey JM, Bobrow D, Wolfe M, Mikach S. $exual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. Dev Psychol.1995;31 :124– 129

      May 10, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
    • YeahRight

      This got posted in the wrong section...

      "YeahRight has bought the lie that parents do not have any effect on how their children turn out."

      Poor fred has to continue lying proving they're not a real Christians. The experts have proven you wrong over and over again, yet you continue trying to spread your lies and hate, you are nothing like your Christ.

      May 11, 2012 at 11:20 am |
  6. cmaglaughlin

    I'm all for gay marriage-
    A gay man marrying a gay woman.

    May 10, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
  7. brad7watson4miami

    Pres. Obama stated his religious view is the 'Golden Rule', therefore, he supports gay marriage. The Mormon Mitt Romney replied, "My religion teaches that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman..."

    May 10, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
    • cmaglaughlin

      I believe that's a Latter Day Saints branch on the edge, NOT Mormon theology.

      May 10, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
    • johnnylingo

      That is not what mormons believe. Those are just other religions not associated with the mormon religion who try to call themselves by the name mormon. Get your facts right...

      May 10, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
  8. JWR

    Why don't the religious conservatives strive to ban all sinful behaviors such as alcohol, lying, fornication, racism, greed and the others revealed in Galatians chapter 5? All sin is sin, none greater, none smaller. By the way worship of any one or any thing other than the Holy Trinity is idolatry, where do the religious conservatives stand on that issue or do they like to pick and choose?

    May 10, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      You mean like worshiping a cross with a guy nailed to it or wearing one around your neck?

      May 10, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • Garlyn

      Don't you remember prohibition? But they don't see this about banning a sin but preserving a definition many religions define as marriage. One man and one woman. You are right, a sin is a sin. The question is why did government get involved in "Marriage" in the first place? Why not just make Civil Union contracts instead of calling them Marriage contracts which is a religious ceremony historically?

      May 10, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
  9. Reality

    IF THE PILL AND MALE CONDOMS WERE USED PROPERLY, ABORTION WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE AND OBAMA WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT MOUTHING OFF THAT HE IS CHRISTIAN.

    May 10, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • Howard

      IF GOD THREW LUCIFER OUT OF HEAVEN ... WE CAN THROW OBAMA OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

      May 10, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
    • trueblue42

      Obama is just as Christian as anyone else who claims to be one. And you won't throw him out; he's going to win re-election in a landslide. Why? Because the majority of Americans realize he's a far better choice than any of the Republican candidates. Feel free to move out of America if you like.

      May 10, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
    • ME II

      @Howard,
      that's the silliest comparison I've ever heard.

      May 10, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
    • Primewonk

      It's the JESUS YELLARS! It's the JESUS YELLARS!

      Run for your lives! Run away! Run away!

      May 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • Satan

      Fvck off Howard.
      I left that sh!t hole heaven on my own accord. So keep your scrot licker shut.

      May 10, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • Reality

      ONLY FOR THE NEWCOMERS:

      Obama says that he and his wife are practicing Christians. Not so fast!!

      Obama "mouths" that he is Christian i.e. believes in gay Gabriel and war-mongering Michael the Archangel and Satan. BO's support of abortion/choice however vitiates has Christianity as he is the leader of the Immoral Majority who are now the largest voting bloc in the country. Immoral Majority you ask??

      The 78 million voting "mothers and fathers" of aborted womb babies !!! (2012 -1973 Rowe vs. Wade = 39.

      39 x 2 million = 78 million. Abortion rate in the USA as per the CDC is one million/yr.

      And the presidential popular vote in 2008? 69,456,897 for pro-abortion/choice BO, 59,934,814 for "pro-life" JM. The population of the Immoral Majority in 2008? ~ 70 million !!!!!!

      The real "Obamacare" i.e. getting re-elected on the backs of 39 million aborted womb babies by using the votes of the 78 million voters involved in said abortions.

      And the irony:

      IF THE PILL AND MALE CONDOMS WERE USED PROPERLY, ABORTION WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE AND OBAMA WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT.

      May 10, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
  10. brad

    With a 50% divorce rate, I hardly think that the christians have a clue what marriage is all about.

    May 10, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Howard

      Thanks to traitors, like Clooney, Obama, the biased main stream media ... and, the Sodom and Gomorrah Hollywood crowd, America is falling to a new low, under the rule of immoral deviates, perverts, occupiers, terrorists, and communists. Sinners are worshipping a new Golden Calf ... his name is Barack Obama.

      May 10, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • Snow

      @Howard, that can not be any less relevent to what is being discussed in the article or the comment you replied to..

      May 10, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
  11. n8263

    It is immoral to impose your personal Sharia Law on to others. Keep your religion out of politics.

    May 10, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Howard

      OBAMA IS USING THE POWER OF THE STATE, TO FORCE HIS RADICAL VIEW OF AMERICA ON ALL OF US. IF ... GOD FORBID ... HE BUYS A SECOND TERM ... AMERICA IS DOOMED.

      May 10, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • ME II

      Wasn't it his first term that was supposed to doom America?

      May 10, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • mandarax

      Yeah, weren't we supposed to me living in a socialist, Muslim, police state by now if he was elected? It's almost as if all the right-wing fear mongering is just ... BS.

      May 10, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Fr33th1nk3r

      Yes, Howard, he is using his political power to make people treat each other equally....such a crime that is.

      May 10, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
  12. Really?

    This is such a silly issue! This has nothing to do with equal rights. Somehow people think that marriage is just about how two people feel about each other. Government doesn't care who you love. Marriage is about creating families where mothers and fathers are protected from the vulnerabilities that accompany pregnancy and raising children. Historically government only cared about marriage to ensure that children were cared for, mothers weren't abandoned at their most vulnerable, and fathers weren't excluded from raising their kids. So why do gays want our government to legally sanction a union between two people of the same gender? It has nothing to do with love and everything to do with using politics to force validation of their lifestyle on society. Any two people can publicly declare their affection for each other, but that doesn't mean government should be compelled to record and keep track of their unions. Domestic partnerships for a vast variety of relationships is perfectly acceptable, but marriage is and always should be a specific type of domestic partnership between one man and one woman for the purpose of creating a family where children can thrive

    May 10, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • BRC

      @Really?
      And just who created your deffinition of Marriage?

      May 10, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Really?

      This is the historical purpose for marriage. Arranged marriages had nothing to do with love and everything to do with children. Even non-arranged marriages have more to do with forming families than publicly declaring affection. Not my definition. This is how human civilization has always been.

      May 10, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • BRC

      @Really?,
      But you are only adressing half of their original purpose. They were very much used as contracts, to bring together the wealth/property of two families. That same purpose exists today, marriages offers legal and financial protections to the partners involved, whether or not they ever intend to have children.

      May 10, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • ahteist fred

      So maybe the marriage ban should include anyone not capable of reproducing for any reason at all, since there is absolutely no purpose for them to be married if they will not have children. Furthermore, any existing marriage should automatically dissolve once the formally fertile female reaches menopause.

      Do you see how stupid your argument is now?

      May 10, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Any male who gets a vesectomy and any woman who has a tubal ligation shall henceforth be denied the legal benefits of marriage.

      May 10, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      I agree that it's a silly issue, but for entirely different reasons.

      Historically marriage was about money and ti.tles. It had nothing to do with the safety of children, only with the continuity of the bloodline. Add to that the fact that most people didn't marry in any "official" capacity for a good long period of history, plus the fact that kids as young as 13 were once married off as part of "traditional" marriage, plus the notion that in MANY societies polygamy was considered normal, mix in the fact that we allow heteros.exual people everywhere to get married without regard to their plans to have kids, or even without regard to their ability to have kids, and your entire argument fails.

      May 10, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • JC

      I agree 100%.. Can I cut and paste your post to yahoo comments?

      May 10, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
    • Crom

      JC I think you should cut and paste whatever you like. Anonymous posters have no legal basis for copyright infringment at all.
      And CNN, even though they say they have publishing rights to these words, do not have the copyright unless they quote in context of the anonymous posting. Without an identifiable author, the copyright angle becomes moot.

      May 10, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • Grindstone

      So if a male and female marry but choose not to produce children, they should not be married at all?

      May 10, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
    • I call BS

      Really? Do cite anything in any legal code that requires that those who marry must procreate, must desire to procreate, or are able to procreate.

      Thanks in advance, you moronic twit.

      May 10, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
  13. Primewonk

    antigay wrote, "Id like to no how many heteros in this blog can watch male on male p*rnography without cringing or being repulsed? hypocracy i tell you!"

    A while back they did some research on this. They took a large group of heterosèxual men and gave them validated questionnaires that determined each man,s level of hômophobia. They then took two equal size groups of men, half of them hômophobic (like you), and half normal and they wired up their pènises with pleysthmographs – devices that measure tumescence, or state of arousal.

    They showed each man a variety of pôrn. Some straight, some lesbian, and some man-on-man.

    Both groups – the hômophobes and the normal guys – got erections to the straight pôrn. Most of them got erections to the lesbian pôrn. Now – here's the kicker – ONLY THE HO.MOPHOBIC MEN GOT ERECTIONS TO MAN-ON-MAN PO.RN. And there was a direct corellation between how hômophobic a guy was, and how much of an erection he got watching gay pôrn.

    May 10, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • ME II

      So it's more of a "don't tempt me" argument... lol.

      May 10, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • ME II

      guess I shouldn't laugh, it is a bit sad, too.

      May 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • JC

      Sure.... where the source of your info?

      May 10, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • LinCA

      Start here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

      May 10, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  14. ScienceSoma

    Once again, like being forced to watch new sequels of a bad film, our election will be about abortion and gay marriage – two wedge issues that effect a relatively small percentage of the American populace. We are not going to focus on America's economic future, how to maintain / regain our position as a world super power, how to fix our massive financial hemorrhage as a nation. No, none of those things are as important as what you think about two things that likely do not affect you personally and should be placed in the hands of those who are affected personally. We are in a perpetual cycle with this pointless conversation that intentionally distracts us from everything else that actually affects us as a whole.

    May 10, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
  15. electrovibe11

    "choose to be gay"

    At which point did you choose to be straight? What made you make that 'choice'? What kind of experimentation did you do to make sure your 'choice' was correct? Would you ever change your 'choice'?

    May 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
  16. Primewonk

    antigay wrote, "I am not ignorant and know full well some people are going to choose to be gay"

    Actually, yes you are ignorant if you think people choose to be gay. Unless, of course, you have some citations to peer-reviewed scientific research that shows gays choose to be gay.

    May 10, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
  17. DEBIE

    i think the cardinal from the Catholic church should be praying for the Catholic church instead of the President. They will deny a gay Catholic communion, but will hide a pedophile behind church doors. I say pray for the Catholic church. My wife, the President and I are doing just fine.

    May 10, 2012 at 11:56 am |
  18. W.G.

    The President of the Southern Baptist Convention and most of the conservative christians said Romney was
    not a Christian . Now the Southern Baptist President said Romney is a Morally upright man . It seems Romney´s
    "flipflopitis" is catching . While Obama isn´t the best Christian there is , his fruits Show where his heart is .
    Mr . Obama cares about the poor , the old and sick . Romney said he doesn´t worry about the poor . Romney
    said he loves to fire people that serve him , man , talk about satanic . It seems these republican christians
    are just modern day Pharasies and that they hate Mr . Obama more than they love Jesus .

    May 10, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      Well, the character Jesus said that Lot was a "righteous man" and we know how much B S that was.

      May 10, 2012 at 11:54 am |
  19. BB

    This is another sign that we are nearing the end of times. We are all doomed. Women and children first. Save yourselves.

    May 10, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!!

      May 10, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • ME II

      500 million to 1 billion years to go... unless, of course, something takes us out before the Sun does.

      May 10, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • WASP

      @me II: ROFLMFAO. i'm tossing my hat in with the meteor that is coming that because of cut funding NASA isn't going to see coming. that or an end of times nut getting elected and decides to speed things up a bit.

      May 10, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
  20. mcskadittle

    How is this differenent than them getting riled up on every other thing the President says

    May 10, 2012 at 11:47 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.