Is Gay Marriage Hurting Obama Among Black Voters?

North Carolina could be a bellweather for other problems to come (from Morning Jolt):

The Mystery of Obama's Poll Drop among North Carolina African-Americans

So . . . how much stock should we put in this?

President Barack Obama is rapidly losing support among African-American voters in North Carolina, a new poll out today from the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling shows.

The poll finds that Mitt Romney would get 20 percent of the African-American vote if the election were held today, compared with 76 percent for Obama. Overall, Romney has a 48 percent to 46 percent lead on Obama in the crucial swing state.

Obama received 95 percent of the support from African-Americans in North Carolina in the 2008 election, compared with just 5 percent for Republican nominee John McCain.

One of PPP's analysts is a little wary:

Jim Williams, a polling analyst at PPP, said it could be "statistical noise" that comes with a small sample (only about 200 African-Americans were surveyed). But he said it was not something the agency has "ever seen before."

Survey USA had an 84 percent to 8 percent split in favor of Obama among African-Americans in their last poll, so this would be a jump . . . but not thatamazing.

In the Corner, Maggie Gallagher has a theory: "A lot of black pastors are pretty upset with President Obama for endorsing gay marriage (see the Coalition for African American Pastors), and it looks like some of their flocks are as well."

Black voters rejected gay marriage in California with a 70% vote in favor of Prop 8 in 2008. I think we can assume similar if not greater numbers in most other states, and given the large black population in North Carolina, this issue could certainly swing that state away from Obama. He narrowly won it in 2008 and can't afford to lose any part of his base.

Obama Comes to L.A. To Tap the GayTM

There was never any doubt that Obama's sudden embrace of gay marriage had more to do with campaign money than an "evolution" in his principles.  Today, just as thousands of hockey fans are making their way to the Staples Center for Game 4 of the Stanley Cup Finals, Obama will be arriving to further screw up traffic and take some big bucks from his GayTM:

Whatever political risk President Barack Obama might have taken by unambiguously endorsing same-sex marriage this week, it’s already clear that he’ll reap the benefits of expanding and energizing his Hollywood fund-raising base.

The president already is scheduled to attend an LGBT gala and concert in Beverly Hills on June 6. Now, in addition to that event, The Hollywood Reporter has learned that Glee co-creator Ryan Murphy and his fiancé David Miller will host a separate dinner that night to raise additional money for the Obama campaign. In the wake of the president's Wednesday endorsement of gay marraige, the event is expected to generate millions of dollars.

Although the tickets for this $40,000 a plate event have probably been sold out for awhile, I would think that Obama donors have to be thinking hard after last night's Wisconsin results about whether $40,000 for Obama is a good investment.

Pastor Loses 2/3rds of His Congregation After Supporting Gay Marriage

African-Americans voted against gay marriage in California 70%-30%. This church voted about 66% against:

The reverend of a St. Paul church says he needs to raise $200,000 to pay off a church loan after most of his followers left because of his support for gay marriage.

The Rev. Oliver White runs Grace Community United Church of Christ in St. Paul. The 69-year-old said he needs to raise the money by June 30.

“We lost our income when we lost a number of people from our congregation.” White said.

White said two-thirds of his followers left after he said he supported same-sex marriage, and said he was against the marriage amendment that will be up for a vote in November.

This is why Eric Holder, the ACLU, the IRS, and others are counseling black pastors in how they can support Obama in church without violating the law. Obama is clearly afraid that the gay marriage issue has turned off significant numbers of his black supporters.

The Gay Bay's Loss is L.A.'s Gain

Way back in August of 2005 I wrote a piece about San Francisco's rejection of the USS Iowa as a floating museum:

No Battleships Allowed in the Gay Bay

In a fit of anti-war and pro-gay pique, the city supervisors in San Francisco have rejected the placement of the retired USS Iowa battleship in San Francisco as a permanent museum. Wait until you read why:

The USS Iowa joined in battles from World War II to Korea to the Persian Gulf. It carried President Franklin Roosevelt home from the Teheran conference of allied leaders, and four decades later, suffered one of the nation's most deadly military accidents.

Veterans groups and history buffs had hoped that tourists in San Francisco could walk the same teak decks where sailors dodged Japanese machine-gun fire and fired 16-inch guns that helped win battles across the South Pacific.

Instead, it appears that the retired battleship is headed about 80 miles inland, to Stockton, a gritty agricultural port town on the San Joaquin River and home of California's annual asparagus festival.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a former San Francisco mayor, helped secure $3 million to tow the Iowa from Rhode Island to the Bay Area in 2001 in hopes of making touristy Fisherman's Wharf its new home.

But city supervisors voted 8-3 last month to oppose taking in the ship, citing local opposition to the Iraq war and the military's stance on gays, among other things.

"If I was going to commit any kind of money in recognition of war, then it should be toward peace, given what our war is in Iraq right now," Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said.

Feinstein called it a "very petty decision."

"This isn't the San Francisco that I've known and loved and grew up in and was born in," Feinstein said.

For once I agree with Senator Feinstein. This was an unusually petty decision, and a slap in the face of military veterans - especially those who served on the Iowa or on the many Navy ships which cruise the waters of San Francisco Bay every day.

I think the Navy should plan their own response to this nonsense. As each ship passes San Francisco, the sailors should line the rails, and then on their skipper's command, raise their hands and tell San Francisco "you're Number One", if you know what I mean.

Perhaps if the Navy can create a warship that shoots flowers out of the 16 inch guns, the city supervisors will be willing to have it as a neighbor. Of course, they'll have to paint it pink and fly a rainbow flag on the bow. That'll scare the terrorists.

Actually, it just might scare the terrorists. If they knew the ship was based in San Francisco, they'd probably run when they saw it out of fear that they might catch something.

I don't know what happened to the plans to go to Stockton (the city has financial problems so I'm sure that played a role in the decision), but this morning the USS Iowa could be seen floating off of San Pedro as it was being towed in to port:

The ship will open as a floating maritime museum on July 7th where it will be enjoyed by people who respect the Navy and the power this ship represents. It will also generate funds for the local economy.  And now that Obama has dumped "don't ask, don't tell", even the gay objections are gone.  We'll benefit from San Francisco's stupidity.

San Francisco can go sit on it.

Don't Think Popular Culture Twists Our Perception of Reality?

Let me disabuse you of that idea as you read this from Gallup:

U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian. More specifically, over half of Americans (52%) estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian, including 35% who estimate that more than one in four are. Thirty percent put the figure at less than 15%.

What are the real numbers?

Demographer Gary Gates last month released a review of population-based surveys on the topic, estimating that 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, with bisexuals making up a slight majority of that figure. Gates also disputes the well-circulated statistic that "10% of the males are more or less exclusively homosexual."

Why do you think the numbers are so high? Let me give you four of probably many reasons:

1. TV
2. Movies/other entertainment
3. Mainstream media reporting
4. Public schools/universities

If you watch TV series today you'll see a disproportionate number of gay characters to the population at large.  Movies too.  The mainstream media spends far more time on gay issues than they should based on population percentage, and schools such as in California include "gay history" in their curriculum from kindergarten up.  That constant indoctrination into gay culture is bound to have an effect on the perception of reality, especially among people who aren't paying that much attention.

Now look again at the four items I mentioned above.  What percentage of characters on TV, movies or other entertainment are Christians?  How much media reporting is favorable to Christian or traditional beliefs?  How do public school and universities treat Christians?

Seventy-six to eighty percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians (either Protestant or Catholic).  Are 80% of TV characters representative of those beliefs?  Don't make me laugh.

There's definitely an agenda on the part of the people who control those institutions.

His Superpower Is Interior Decorating

The gay agenda continues:

DC Comics plans to reintroduce a character as gay in a future issue, it has been revealed.

Co-publisher Dan DiDio previously said that the company would not change the sexual orientation of an existing superhero and would bring in a new one altogether.

But at Kapow Comic Convention in London on Sunday, he revealed that an existing character - who was previously assumed to be straight - will become ‘one of our most prominent gay characters’, according to comic blog BleedingCool.com.

Senior VP Sales Bob Wayne said DiDio’s view ‘had evolved’, comparing the shift to Barack Obama’s recent endorsement of same-sex marriage.

DiDio did not specify which character would ‘come out’ or in which issue it would be featured.

But Courtney Simmons, DC Entertainment’s senior vice president of publicity, told ABC News that it would be soon.

'One of the major iconic DC characters will reveal that he is gay in a storyline in June,' Simmons told the network.

It's amazing the extent the entertainment...and now political...industries will go to appease 3-4% of the population.

NAACP Endorses Gay Marriage to Try and Save Obama With Black Voters

Now you know why Rush calls them the NAALCP - National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People:

The board of the NAACP, one of the nation’s oldest and largest African American advocacy organizations, has passed a resolution supporting gay marriage in the wake of President Obama’s public endorsement of same-sex unions.

In 2008 black voters showed up in large numbers in California to vote for Obama...and to vote against gay marriage. Exit polling showed 70% of black voters supported Prop. 8 which effectively banned gay marriage in California. Nationally a strong majority of blacks, especially among the large evangelical population, support traditional marriage. The NAACP is putting racial and liberal politics ahead of the will of the majority of black citizens.

Political Cartoon of the Day

Seen on Facebook:

In An Act of Liberal Tolerance and Compassion, The Grove in Los Angeles Bans a Boxer For Opposing Something That's Illegal in California

Gay marriage is still illegal in California, but if you oppose it one local mall will ban you:

International boxing star Manny Pacquiao denied allegations on Monday that he said homosexuals should be “put to death” after an interview that got him banned from one of the city’s most popular destinations.

Pacquiao was scheduled for an interview on Wednesday afternoon with Mario Lopez of TV’s “Extra” at The Grove in Los Angeles, but that appearance may be in jeopardy after comments he made to in response to President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage last week.

The Philippine lawmaker told the National Conservative Examiner that he believes the Bible is very clear on the issue of homosexuality and that the President’s comments are in direct contradiction to Scripture.

“God’s words first,” Pacquiao told the Examiner. “Obey God’s law first before considering the laws of man.”

Granville Ampong, the writer of the article — but not Pacquiao himself — went on to quote a passage from the Old Testament book of Leviticus, which states that “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

So, he was not only banned for his views, but for words he didn't even say. Liberal tolerance on full display.

This statement from the Grove VP is laughable:

That interview prompted a statement from Grove VP of corporate affairs Bill Reich which read, “Based on news reports of statements made by Mr. Pacquiao we have made it be known that he is not welcome at The Grove and will not be interviewed here now or in the future.

“The Grove is a gathering place for all Angelenos and not a place for intolerance,” the statement concluded.

Does the word "all" mean something different in L.A. than it does in Orange County? Apparently so, because "all" up there means "those of you who agree with our politically correct views".

Since I also oppose gay marriage, I can assume that I've also been banned from The Grove and I'll never have to spend any of my dollars up there. If you also oppose gay marriage, please consider yourself banned as well. If they want a liberal gay-only hangout, they can have it.

Political Cartoons of the Day

Whichever way the wind blows...

And this:

Political Graphic of the Day

From CBS News:

This is the second poll that shows a double-digit loss of support among Independents. That could be very, very big.

About Those Polls on Gay Marriage

It depends on how the question is asked, and other factors I'll get into in a minute:

Does a majority of the country really support gay marriage?

As is often true in polling, it depends on how you ask the question.

A Gallup poll last week showed that 51 percent of Americans support gay marriage, but a CBS News/New York Times poll out today shows that only 38 percent support it.

The difference: Gallup gave voters just two options — support or oppose — while the CBS/NYT poll added a third, civil unions.

When given that third choice, polls show that it draws significantly from both the pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage camps, but in the end, overall support for gay marriage drops well below a majority.

Mostly, though, it just shows how mushy the middle is on this issue. While there are certainly passionate supporters and opponents, there are just as many people who are lukewarm (as evidenced by a Gallup poll last week). And their responses are highly dependent on how the question is asked.

The other day I gave another reason why the polls can't be entirely trusted on this issue:

Gallup says 51% now support gay marriage, but that certainly doesn't jive with the fact that gay marriage loses big every time it's on the ballot. It's lost in 32 of 32 state races. It's on the ballot again in Minnesota and it will be close, but then it's so cold up there those people will huddle with anything warm.

Why the discrepancy between the polling and the actual elections? People lie to pollsters. They don't want the pollsters to think their bigots or homophobes so even though they don't support gay marriage some people will tell them they do just to be on the politically correct side. It's a weakness - people want to be liked. When the curtain closes in the voting booth, though, things change. If we could get the real polling numbers on gay marriage I'm guessing it would still lose by 10-15 points.

And I'm not the only one that thinks that. Here's what veteran Fox newsman Brit Hume had to say on the issue:

I just think that there is a reason to distrust the national polling that is being done on this.

You look at it and it looks like a majority of the public now supports gay marriage, but you look what’s happening state-by-state and you’re getting an entirely different picture. I think what people say to pollsters may differ – you know, this issue has emerged as a kind of civil rights issue. This is a country in which you do not want to be seen as kind of standing athwart the advance of civil rights. So you may tell a pollster one thing, but that doesn’t mean that’s how you’re going to vote. I don’t think that means this apparent support for this means that’s how people are going to vote.

Great minds.

The media and activists will try and convince us that gay marriage now has majority support and therefore Obama's newly "evolved" stand just reflects mainstream America. It's doesn't. Just watch.

Morals For Sale

Obama's endorsement of gay marriage, which may well prove to be an electoral nightmare for him, will certainly turn on the money taps of gays who apparently aren't closely paying attention:

"Gays are the next Jews of fundraising," declared Rahm Emanuel, who is now an Obama confidant, while hustling for donors for Bill Clinton back in 1992.

In that light, Obama's endorsement of gay marriage was at least the equivalent of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel -- a symbolic and controversial action that excites a donor base.

Jon Cooper, a gay Long Island legislator and an Obama fundraiser, told the Capital, a New York news site, that Obama's "expressing his personal support for same-sex marriage is going to make my life immeasurably easier raising money from LGBT donors and progressives in general."

One unnamed gay Obama bundler told BuzzFeed's Zeke Miller that after Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage, gay Obama fundraisers "across the country are raising more money than we've ever raised. And you'll see a lot more of that now."

And yet Obama's statement changed not one thing.

 Not. One. Thing.

Gay marriage is no more legal today than it was before Obama evolved. By refusing to make it a national issue Obama left the gay marriage decision up to the states...where it has been soundly defeated 32 times. He hasn't made an effort to put gay marriage in the Dem platform (though Harry Reid thinks he will - wake up, Harry). His statement reflects one man's opinion only - it has at much legal weight as if I'd said it.

But gays are emotional beings, and to them it won't matter what Obama actually does, but how he makes them feel about it. Intentions count, not results.

Dueling Headlines

Two schools of thought on Obama's gay marriage "evolution":

Sen. Rand Paul: Didn't think Obama's view 'could get any gayer'...

Bloomberg: NC marriage vote sets back civil rights...

Of course, Bloomberg is mad that Southerners still put salt on their food and he can't stop them. And they still like their guns and he can't stop that either. If you want to look for someone setting back civil rights, just try and do anything fun in New York City.

Obama Makes It Tougher for Dem Senators Facing Reelection

How'd you like to have the guy that heads your team endorse something the voters of your state hate?

Senate Democrats facing difficult reelections are breaking with President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, a sign the issue is politically dangerous in battleground states.

Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.), the two most vulnerable Democratic senators, have declined to endorse Obama’s call for the legalization of gay marriage.

Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Bob Casey (Pa.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), Democrats who have easier races but in states that could become more competitive by November, have also backed away from Obama’s stance.

They all represent states with constitutional amendments or laws banning same-sex marriage.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) predicted Thursday the Democratic Party would adopt a pro-gay marriage plank in its platform. While that may happen when delegates to the Democratic National Convention meet September in Charlotte, N.C., the party remains divided.

Given that Obama is the head of the Democrat party, his record of failure in office was already making things tough for other Democrats, but supporting a divisive social issue that's been overwhelmingly rejected in so many states just makes it worse.  These Democrats now get to dance the fine line between supporting gay marriage supporting the will of their state's voters.

Harry Reid might find himself out of the Majority Leader job by the time this is all done.

Though a Majority Say Obama's Gay Marriage Stance Won't Change Their Vote, He's Lost Support Among Independents

You can spin this as either 60% aren't bothered either way by gay marriage, or gay marriage may affect the votes of 40% of the voters.  40% is a pretty big number, and when you break it down, there's trouble for Obama:

A majority of voters say President Obama’s decision to come out in support of gay marriage will not sway their decision in the fall election.

According to a Gallup poll released on Friday, 60 percent of adults nationally said Obama’s new position makes no difference, while 26 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for the president and 13 percent said it would make them more likely to.

The numbers are similar when broken down by party affiliation — 65 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents said it made no difference, while nearly half of Republicans, 46 percent, said the same.

Democrats are more likely to say that the position bolsters their view of the president, with 24 percent saying it made them more likely to vote for Obama, versus 10 percent who said less likely.

Those numbers are essentially reversed among independents, with only 11 percent saying it would make them more likely to vote for Obama, compared to 23 percent who said less likely.

Losing 12% support among independents is HUGE. It was independents that put him over the top in 2008 and he's been losing support with them steadily since then. A one day decision costing him 12% could be a real game changer.

Gallup says 51% now support gay marriage, but that certainly doesn't jive with the fact that gay marriage loses big every time it's on the ballot. It's lost in 32 of 32 state races. It's on the ballot again in Minnesota and it will be close, but then it's so cold up there those people will huddle with anything warm.

Why the discrepancy between the polling and the actual elections? People lie to pollsters. They don't want the pollsters to think their bigots or homophobes so even though they don't support gay marriage some people will tell them they do just to be on the politically correct side. It's a weakness - people want to be liked. When the curtain closes in the voting booth, though, things change. If we could get the real polling numbers on gay marriage I'm guessing it would still lose by 10-15 points.

Faith of Convenience

It must be nice to be a Catholic like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, or pretty much any of the Kennedys, because their faith can justify just about anything:

CNSNews.com) — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that her Catholic faith “compels” her to “be against discrimination of any kind” and thus for same-sex marriage.

A reporter asked Pelosi: “Many of the people that are opposed to gay marriage cite their religion as the reason why they’re opposed. You’re a Catholic that supports gay marriage. Do you believe that religion and the idea that you can support gay marriage can be separated? And how do you grapple with the idea that you support gay marriage as a Catholic?”

Pelosi responded: “My religion has, compels me — and I love it for it — to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that. ”

She uses the same twisted logic to justify abortion. Too bad most Catholic bishops are too gutless to call them on it.

Romney's "Victim" May Not Have Been A Victim At All

The Washington Post has some explaining to do:

Ashley Parker of the New York Times has a statement from the family of John Lauber, the man the Washington Post claimed Mitt Romney bullied in high school. She tweets:

From John Lauber’s family, the bullied victim in WaPo story: “We are aggrieved that John would be used to further a political agenda.”

Also from John Lauber’s family: “The portrayal of John is factually incorrect,” but they would not elaborate on how it was inaccurate.

This comes after one source for the story, a man the Washington Post says has “long been bothered” by the incident, said he wasn’t even present and had no idea it had happened until the Post contacted him.

This was a coordinated hit on Romney, coming just one day after Obama announced he'd "evolved" on gay marriage. My guess is this story had been prepared long in advance and they were waiting for word from the White House as to the timing of the release.

And just like every other attack the left has launched on Romney, this one is backfiring (Obama Ate a Dog).  A little more mining of Obama's first memoir revealed a story of him admitting to bullying a girl.  If the left wants to play the campaign this way, we're going to fight fire with fire.

Obama's Gay Marriage Stand is Just What Conservatives Needed to Unite Behind Romney

Unintended consequences:

Social conservatives who doubted Mitt Romney now have a reason to rally around him after President Obama’s embrace of gay marriage.

Despite the fact that very conservative and religious voters didn’t support Romney in the primary, their fierce opposition to the issue will give the presumptive GOP nominee a way to harness conservative enthusiasm in November.

And for Romney, whose position on same-sex marriage has been consistent over the years, conservative activists say Obama’s declaration may be a way for Romney to finally prove to his bona-fides to voters on the right who have always been suspicious that he’s not one of them.

“President Obama just ‘evolved’ himself into a one-term president,” said Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage. “This is a disaster for the Democratic Party: the reality is that the exact states he needs to win are the states that have overwhelmingly passed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”

“What I’m hearing from folks around the country is ‘game on, we’re in, we will do whatever is necessary to elect Mitt Romney now because Obama has shown where he really stands,” Brown said.

Thank you, Joe Biden. Conservatives have been desperately looking for a reason to support Romney. Now they have it.

Franklin Graham: Obama is Shaking His Fist At God

Franklin Graham speaks out:

In another provocative comment aimed at Barack Obama, evangelist Franklin Graham on Thursday accused the president of having “shaken his fist” at God by changing his position on same-sex marriage.

“It grieves me that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more,” Graham said in a prepared statement.

“This is a sad day for America. May God help us.”

The main difference between Obama and God is God doesn't think he's Obama.

Yesterday I posted this about Obama's "evolution":

So, what happened in the last 24 hours to bring this evolutionary cycle to a sudden end? Gay marriage advocates got their bouquets and boutonnieres handed to them in North Carolina last night when the state voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Inconveniently for the Democrats, their presidential nominating convention is scheduled in Charlotte this summer. Talk about awkward.

My guess is that the phones have been ringing off the hook at the DNC and the White House demanding some sort of reparations to the gay community for this outrage, and in order to save the big buck donations the Democrats get from gay groups, the president finally had to be dragged over the line.

The Franklin Graham article pretty much confirms my suspicions:

On Tuesday, North Carolina became the 31st state to ratify a constitutional amendment designed to block same-sex marriage.

The next day, amid an online clamor to move the Democratic National Convention from Charlotte, the president changed his longstanding position against same-sex unions.

It's all calculated...every bit of it.