Gay Marriage and Equality

In the land of liberalism, portraying Obama’s timid conversion to gay marriage support as the sort of principled, bold action that no other executive would ever take (kind of like choosing to go in and shoot Bin Laden) is a trump card.  In fact, Obama is now playing his conversion up for all it’s worth, acting as though he’s the Martin Luther King Jr. of the homosexual movement.  Cash-wise, it’s paying big dividends.

However, reality may soon kick in.  While Obama’s conversion is symbolic, it doesn’t change anything anymore than when Dick Cheney came out in support of gay marriage.  Obama himself admitted that he still prefers to leave the issue up to the states, which puts his view in company with most other conservatives.

Obama thinks he’s so original

In addition to nothing changing policy wise, and Obama filling his campaign advertising with gaudy rainbows, Obama is in danger of losing votes in several swing states who have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage.  For example, Colorado, California, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan and Virginia are among the states that have defined marriage in their constitutions.  Perhaps Obama’s coming out of the closet won’t lose him California, but it will have an effect in North Carolina and Florida where traditional marriage won with super majorities.

There is a debate brewing in the country now over how Obama has framed the gay marriage issue.  Is gay marriage a requirement for true equality in our country?  There are two issues that conservatives must be clear on with this question.

The first is the question of legal rights.  Can homosexuals be considered equal if they don’t get the same tax treatment, however favorable or unfavorable, as traditionally married couples?  By the way, as a tax accountant I’ve been able to save some gay couples more money by filing them both as single than I would if I had to file them as married filing jointly.  Just sayin’, in case you are reading this, homosexual, and think you are missing out on all sorts of great tax benefits because you can’t file jointly.

The question about equal legal rights can easily be defeated by testing if the individually truly cares about equality or is just using that argument to advance their agenda.  Ask them if they support a progressive tax system.  The progressive tax system that taxes rich and middle income earners at higher rates than the poor is a staple of liberalism, and a clear antithesis to equality.

The other question is whether the government should be telling homosexuals what marriage is and isn’t.  What many call the government defining marriage, others call the government banning all other forms of marriage.  But what is in a definition?  Fortunately, we have a prominent liberal Democrat who has demonstrated the importance of words and their definitions.

If you’ve heard the name Elizabeth Warren, then you know what I am talking about.  Warren, the liberal candidate who said the rich should pay higher taxes because they only reason they are rich is that the government gave them education and roads, lives what she preaches.  She gave herself a leg up both in school and career by claiming she is a Cherokee Indian.  Harvard touted Warren as adding diversity to their staff. Turns out she is about 1/32 Cherokee, and her ancestry has more Indian killers than actual Indians.

But that brings up an interesting question: can we all call ourselves Cherokee Indians in order to achieve equality and have a better shot at employment at Harvard?  Is it the government that is banning me from being a Cherokee Indian?  Perhaps you find that argument offensive.  Let’s back up about 60 years when there was a true battle for equality taking place in our country.  Should blacks have been given the right to be called white in order to achieve equality?  Of course not.  There is no need to redefine the word “white” in order to achieve equality.  Same with the word “marriage”.

Still, now that the war on women angle has failed, as has the war on the poor, the next play is the war on equality.  Be prepared to be accused of opposing equal rights for all if you are a Republican.  Suddenly the candidate who admits he was forced into revealing his gay marriage support has become the champion of equal rights simply by endorsing redefining marriage.  Romney will need to find ways to connect with the voters who have overwhelmingly voted to protect marriage in every state they’ve been given a chance, and he will need to win this debate.

Editors Note: As with any post on, the opinions expressed in this post are the opinions of the author and represent the site only in as far as they represent the views of this particular author.  These views may not be representative of the site as a whole.

Trunkline 2012: Friday’s Campaign Trail News – 10/07/11

 Bookmark and Share

Bookmark and Share

Gore/Clinton 2012 Fading, but Hillary is Golden

Back in mid June, I wrote this.  Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would be successful primary challengers to Obama.  I think this very early prediction may need some adjusting.

Al Gore has recently joined the quickly backfiring liberal trend of charging opponents with racism in any context.  Gore, whose own father voted against the Civil Rights Act, said that global warming deniers should be treated like racists.  So, Mr. Gore, as a global warming denier myself, I’ll be expecting a gift-wrapped tie on Father’s Day.

Of course, Gore’s timing is terrible.  This is also the week that Andre Carson declared that TEA Party members would like to see blacks hanging from trees.  The constant charge of racism, especially towards a multi-racial group like the TEA Party, is getting stale and ridiculous.  At this point, Democrats who make charges of racism every time someone disagrees with them have lost credibility.

Enter Hillary 2012.  Back in June I didn’t think Hillary would have success at the head of the ticket because she lost in 2008 and has worked for Obama ever since.  In fact, hiring Biden and Clinton were probably the smartest things Obama has done politically. Now, I think she may have a better chance.

The worse things get, the more nostalgia sets in.  People start to fool themselves into thinking Hillary could be as moderate as her husband became when Newt ran Congress.  Already, 32% of Democrats are admitting they need a primary challenger.

Hillary could pull a Rick Perry, riding a wave of anti-current field sentiment and quickly becoming the front runner.  By entering the race now, she would be a fresh face.  She would carry the excitement of being something new and different.  She would bring change, the only thing more distracting to a Liberal than a shiny object.  She could offer the Democrats everything Obama has failed to deliver on, even though her similar policies would produce the same results.

If ever Hillary was going to be President, 2012 would be her year.


Will Haley Barbour’s Proposed Construction of a Civil Rights Museum Be Enough?

Bookmark and Share Being a white, Southern, Republican politician, wrongly but automatically conjures up stereotypes which normally require the need totake a defensive postureon race and civil rights. If Mississippis Governor Haley Barbour does take the plunge and dives into the national pool of candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination, he, probably more than others, will need to address his views and record on these issues. Indeed, the Governors critics recently helped to create doubts about the Governors commitment to civil rights and race relations, after he did interview in which he said that he doesnt remember things being so bad when he was a young man during the height of the civil struggle in the sixties. Barbour specifically meant that in the context of his own hometown in Mississippi, Yazoo City, but the remark led critics to lambaste the Governor and raise questions about how committed he is to civil rights.

If Governor Barbour does in fact run for President, the issue is one which he will certainly have to put to rest, especially since if he wins the Republican nomination, he will be opposing the man embraced as our first African-American President.

One argument that Barbour will be able to use to diffuse any dispute over his stance on civil rights will be his establishment of a commission that was charged with creating the plans for a civil rights museum. The idea had been tossed around by Mississippi legislators for years but in 2007, Barbour took the initiative to get the ball rolling and appointed former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Reuben Anderson and former federal judge Charles Pickering to head the commission.

To date, the museum failed to move beyond the planning stage because of a dispute over where it should be built. But now, in his last State of the State address as Governor, Haley Barbour announced that Justice Anderson and former Governor William Winter, recommended a solution that he was proposing to the state legislature. Barbour said;

I’m presenting it tonight because this is the year to get this museum going. It is the 50 th Anniversary of the Freedom Riders and the 150 th Anniversary of the start of the Civil War. Governor Winter and Justice Anderson recommended we build the Civil Rights Museum adjacent to the proposed Mississippi History Museum at the existing site in downtown Jackson. I urge you to move this museum forward as an appropriate way to do justice to the Civil Rights Movement and to stand as a monument of remembrance and reconciliation.

Barbours proposal and his 2007 initiation of the planning commission to build a civil rights museum, will undoubtedly be viewed by critics as little more than a political ploy. For those who wish to promote civil rights by hypocritically promoting there own stereotypes, its a facts be damned situation for Governor Barbour. No matter what he says or does on the issue, they will do their best to insure that he is painted as a Southern, redneck, Republican racist.

The question is will Barbour be able to avoid phrasing any remarks on the issue in a way that can make them un-twistable by left leaning talking heads, like Rachel Maddow, who did her own hit piece on the Governor several weeks ago? And in addition to that which will be manufactured to question Barbours position on race, are longstanding rumors that date back to 1982 during his failed bid for U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Senator John Stennis. According to a Boston Globe report, within earshot of the press, a campaign aide told Barbour that “coons” were going to be among the audience of their next campaign stop at the state fair. In front of reporters, Barbour allegedly warned the aide, that if the aide continued making racist remarks, he would be “reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks.” The remark has never quite been proven but be sure to hear it come up in any future Barbour campaign.

No matter what, the issue of racism will be a haunting one for Barbour, especially if he is the Republican nominee for President. But Barbour is not without respect and support from some African-Americans. In response to an article about a potential run for President in the Clarion Ledger, Scott Smith writes I am a black Democrat but I would vote for Mr. Barbour any day. Barbour is also not without his own defense in the face of accusations. Highlighting the construction of a civil rights museum during his last State of the State address will be just one of them.

In the end, the left will accuse any Republican of racism. Being one from the South just makes it easier to fit the stereotype. In recent history, it is the left and African-Americans who are usually the first to play the racecard and I suspect that the same will hold true in 2012.But will the issue have much of an impact on the way African-Americans vote with Barack Obama running for reelection? In 2008, the black vote came out for President Obama in an almost monolithic percentage that approached 97%. Or more. Does anyone expect the percentage of their vote for him to sharply decrease? The total number of black voters may be down, but the percentage of their vote for President Obama won’t be.

If race is going to again play a big role in the 2012 election, the biggest culprit will most likely be reverse racism and the proliferation of hypocritical, stereotypical portrayals of Southerners.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: