A fun little detail I only just noticed, in the final ten seconds the video deliberately leaves vague whether they're using "us", the pronoun, or "US", the abbreviation of the country's name. An old trick now that I think on it, but one I never consciously noticed before.

The Republican Achilles Heel.

"Don't Get Me Started."

They are so far to the right that when social issues show up, they have to attack. Getting further away from the economy, the issue they know they need to drive hard on in order to win. But a consequence of years of doing nothing on "jobs, jobs, job," and pushing radical social agenda means that they have plenty of places of built up "Crazy."

"Don't Get Me Started."

It's interesting that both in the case of contraceptives and the war on women, and the case of Marriage Equality, it's not a matter of the administration charging ahead, the contraceptive coverage was hardly radical, and in any case was passed a long time previous, and the Equality debate was spurred by Joe Biden talking about Will & Grace.

"Seriously, Please, Don't Get Me Started."

It's a study in political Martial Arts, not attacking where the opponent is strongest but instead, I'd call this, "Defending, where the opponents attack is weakest." We're baiting them into unleashing all their pent up "Whacko." We're tapping into their strategic reserves of "Cuckoo."

Give them enough rope and let them swing.

"Don't Get Me Started."

Because that's what we really need to do, isn't it. We need to get them to talk about their crazy prejudices and hates in the sunlight, because, "it's those people they're the ones ruining the country," works wonders for them as a subconscious urge, but when we force them to actually say it, it withers in the light.

As unpleasant as it may be, we need Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, we need to hear how they really feel, we're not going to get anything done until we let these childish thuggish minds rant and show their hands, so that everyone can see how truly vile they are.

It's going to be messy, but we're going to have to start popping these GOP pimples and letting the pus run out in the open. Where it can finally be washed away.

So we get them started.

3000 years of human history?

In other words, whatever happened before the year 1000 BC... that doesn't matter.

Historical idiot.

I really believe that Neanderthals probably had more reasoning skills than than these right- wing Reps.

Three thousand years of history, he says. Should we go back to stoning? Should we go back three thousand years and begin bartering goats and a girl for a husband? Should the marriage ceremony be a financial arrangement? Should we go back to arranged marriages? It's as if what they did in the Bronze age is all ok and we shouldn't change it?

Honestly, the twisted thinking makes me want to drink!

The 'defense of bigotry act' gets too much light shone on it on a national level. Of course that is why Mitt wants it decided state by state, those sheep are easier to herd.

Why didn't the President come out a day earlier when he could of had an influence on the North Carolina vote?

If you view opposition to same sex as a bigoted view, then the President support of states deciding the issue means he's for bigoted laws if the residents of that state supports them?

This just is seeming less and less courageous or of substance to me.

Rachel, I am commenting because I think that you are much smarter than me.

I totally agree with everything the President said yesterday and support marriage equality but I am concerned about the possible negative impact on his election. We know that his opponent will decrease not increase rights. I also understand that some see a loss of religious freedom.

So it seems to me that our constitution is based on a separation of church and state yet we use the term marriage in both realms. There are civil laws that spell out the rights and responsibilities of marriage but there are also religious references that spell out the rights and responisiblities of marriage.

So I wonder if there is a way to resolve this civil/religious dicotomy. What if ALL civil unions were called something other than marriage? even civil marriage? Might votes in NC and elsewhere be different if we could distinguish between civil rights and religious rights? Might we actually be able to move equality further faster if we could figure out a way to distinguish the civil rights from the religious freedom?

The whole defense of marriage talk is specious. By 2008 statistics 41% of 1st marriages end in divorce. A few thousand homosexual couples getting married will not change the fact that marriage is not working as well in a mobile society as it did when many more people lived and died in the same limited area.

"If the president's campaign team is nervous about the political risks associated with embracing marriage equality, they're hiding it well."

I have no doubt there was debate behind the scenes on this. I'm sure there were advisers telling him that endorsing gay marriage would cost him votes. I'm glad he made the right decision despite that, though, and I'm convinced it will ultimately prove to be smart politically as well.

I cannot believe the outrage of the GOP with President Obama's announcement approving the rights of gay Americans marriage rights. How soon they forget that Mary Cheney, a gay activist was the Director of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign and was paid over $2700/week for her conservative agenda.

Obama's coming out definitely in favor of marriage equality is a big freaking deal. Politically, it's going to be impossible to predict how this will play out, but it is still very significant. For many years we've been living with a stable dynamic: Republicans are always definitely against equality of any sort for LGBT people, while Democrats are always squishy when it comes to the highest-profile measure of equality. If this were a battle using 18th-tactics, Republicans would be lined up neatly and Democrats would be scattered all over the battlefield. Battle is never really engaged because one side hasn't been presenting a clearly-defined line to the enemy.

Now, through Obama taking a clear stand, Democrats now have the chance to form up ranks. It's like the four-minute mile--to savagely mix metaphors--where the major barrier had been psychological. Before now, it was seemingly inconceivable that Democrats could openly take this kind of stand. Now, it's not only possible. It's the new normal. The party platform fight that was thought to be shaping up over a marriage equality plank is now only the formality of nailing it in place.

I think, but don't yet know for obvious reasons, that this shifts momentum away from the right and to the left on this issue. I don't really see how the right can really be on offense any more, even though they may carry on as if they were. The Fox News attempt to characterize Obama's newly-clear stance as a flip-flop seems to be defensive. More seriously, it's really a defense of Romney's most blatant characteristic in the guise of criticism of Obama. There's not even the pretense of going after the issue on any substance. I'm sure there will be a regrouping after some initial confusion on the right, but I think they've lost the initiative completely no matter what they eventually come back with.

The politics seem to be turning out, for now, exactly the opposite of what everybody thought. Obama is not hiding it, but rather advertising his position rather strongly for equality. (Which from other readings seems to help in the fundraising category. $1 million yesterday after the interview came out). Romney, on the other hand, is trying to run from it. Yet another example of how CW could be proved completely wrong.

I have always been amused by the idea of defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. This asserts that gender has a simply binary state. This is not the case. There are several genetic/congenital anomalies which make gender ambiguous or indeterminate. The most common and best known is hermaphrodism. But there are several other conditions, some quite rare. In the old days, hermaphrodites were often "forced" to be male or female using surgery and hormone therapy. More often now, fortunately, they are left to assume the identity with which they are most comfortable, regardless of what may be indicated by their chromosomes or physical characteristics.

What, then, happens if an hermaphrodite wants to marry? Who will decide whether s/he marries a man or a woman. Perhaps a medical evaluation would determine the individual has predominantly male characteristics, but has lived as woman and wishes to marry a man? Will she be permitted to do so? Who will decide this?

This applies equally to transgendered individuals. A man who becomes a woman is still genetically male. So whom is he permitted marry? If he marries a man, you have a marriage between two men! Can't have that! But if he marries a woman, it looks like two women getting married. Makes my head spin.

I only wish journalists would simply ask: How do you apply "one man/one woman" to hermaphrodites and transgendered persons.

How about it Rachel?

Given the debate about the political ramifications of Pres. Obama's newly-declared support for gay marriage, it struck me today that Obama could put Romney in a difficult position by taking advantage of Romney's explicitly expressed view that "domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate..."; see the quote below that I have taken from Ed Kilgore's article at WashingtonMonthly.com:

"Romney was asked Wednesday morning about the failure of a ballot measure that would have allowed same-sex civil unions in Colorado. In an interview with Denver-based KDVR-TV, he said, “I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” Romney said. “My view is the domestic-partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.”

Given Romney's statement, all Obama would need to do is say something like:

"I welcome Gov. Romney's expressed support for 'domestic-partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like...' I think that Gov. Romney has just said something very positive and important, and so I think that he and I should now join in endorsing a bill in Congress that would do exactly what he just said he supports: write these provisions into federal law. Accordingly, the Justice Department has, at my direction, drafted a modest bill to do precisely this, and it will be introduced in the Senate and House tomorrow by Representative xxx (D of __) and Senator yyy (D of __). I endorse this bill and I invite Gov. Romney to do the same. With our joint support, this simple bill could be approved by the House and Senate within the week, and I promise that I will sign it if approved in largely this form."

If the bill were indeed deliberately modest in scope -- but still enshrining in law some very important legal provisions (domestic-partner health benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc.) -- it strikes me that several different things might happen, all of them good for Obama and the country in one way or another:

1. Romney endorses the bill, the bill gets passed -- mirabile dictu! -- and some real, if modest, good gets done. Obama gets some credit for doing something worthwhile (though it would contradict his expressed preference for letting the states do their own thing...), and Romney gets some credit for not being quite so medieval. The issue-related status quo ante (on gay marriage itself) between the two candidates is basically maintained, but some real if modest good gets done.

2. Romney rejects the bill (saying that it goes too far, should be done only by the states, etc. -- which is why I think the bill should be quite modest in scope), and thus makes himself look hypocritical for having mentioned his support for hospital visitation rights, etc. in the first place. The GOP members in Congress reject the bill, and make themselves and Gov. Romney look worse. Advantage: big-time for Obama.

3. Romney endorses the bill, but the GOP members in Congress reject the bill. A wedge is put between Romney and the GOP on this social issue, irritating social-conservative voters, plus Romney looks ineffectual inside his own party. Romney gets some national credit for being at least slightly reasonable, but nonetheless: Advantage (if only modest) to Obama.

Overall, I don't see much downside to Obama proposing and getting such a bill submitted to the House and Senate. It would also keep national attention focused on social issues and Romney, and off the economy for a while, which may play to Obama's advantage, and stir up conflict and dissensus inside the GOP as well. Am I missing some political costs for Obama if he were to do what I propose?

I suspect that Romney's biggest and most effective dodge would be simply to say that this is a matter for the states, "just as President Obama stated it should be in his Wednesday interview with ABC." Of course, Obama could respond by saying that, "If Gov. Romney were really a committed federalist, he should endorse repealing the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) since it imposes a federal view on what the Governor has just stated should be primarily a state matter. So which way do you want it, Gov. Romney? Pass my bill or endorse repeal of DOMA. You can't have it both ways..."

I am inclined to think that this would be a much more promising tactic than the ENDA route that Senate Democrats are currently contemplating, as described by Steve. ENDA does not take advantage of what Romney said he supports, and the bill that I am suggesting might well be a more useful policy change if actually adopted. The ENDA bill will go nowhere, as everyone knows (due to the expected GOP filibuster, and probable support for the filibuster of some southern and western Dems), and it does not put Romney in any kind of box.

Forgive the right their fear of all things, they just like living in the dark as fanatics feed them @!$%#.

Rachel, please consider the following on your next show:

The good people of North Carolina have passed the following measure (text which voters saw): "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

A strict reading of this amendment means that one man can marry one woman and then neither is eligible to marry again. Not after divorce. Not after death of the spouse. Never. To allow remarriage the law would have to include a provision for conditions in which a man could marry a second woman, or vice versa.

I hope that activists will start crashing weddings in which one or both parties are marrying for the second time (or more: Rush Limbaugh has done the deed four times) and at the moment the preacher says, "If any person here can show cause why these two people should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace," they should wave the amendment in the air and say, "this person has already been married and cannot have a second spouse!"

Sounds far fetched but it would make an interesting brief......

The Right is forcing the argument to be framed in a religious context, and Liberals are allowing that to happen by arguing religion with them. The issue of same sex marriage is a civil rights issue ONLY. It is about the rights of individual under the law of the land. In this context, there can be no arguement against any discrimination. ALL of us are created equal UNDER THE LAW. The religious aspects of personal decisions are a matter between the individual and his/her religious beliefs. Whatever these are, whatevere moral or spiritual consquences are assigned to personal choices are to be faced by the individual alone in a reckoning with their creator. Meanwhile, UNDER THE LAW of the UNITED STATES, every individual should enjoy the same constitutional guarantees, rights, and obligations as any other individual under similar or like circumstances.

And once we avoid the religious arguments by sending these to their respective churches, we are free to be FREE under the LAW!!!

We sent this message to the White House and our congressional representatives:

We support the recognition of same-sex marriage. At the bare minimum, we detest the discrimination and denial of human and civil rights LGBT couples receive. The following are some observations on same-sex marriage opponents:

Folks who oppose “marriage” by same sex couples overwhelmingly argue/justify their positions in two ways.

1) They claim an edict proclaimed in scripture. I’m not sure exactly where such an exclusionary edict resides within the Bible. For argument’s sake, let’s say there are passages that can be interpreted or spun in a way that “supports” such a stand. Now, having hypothetically conceded that point, let’s take a step further for consistency’s sake. If those folks are willing to and at peace denying human and civil rights to others based on the Bible, are they also willing to and at peace denying others human and civil rights based on the Biblical sin of adultery and fornication? I would dare say that there are few of the anti-gay contingent who have adhered strictly to the concept of intercourse solely within the confines of marriage. The hypocrisy prevalent within the intolerance is the beast in the room that ate the formerly dominant elephant in a single bite.

2) They claim that any allowance of same-sex marriage undermines and devalues the sanctity of “marriage” itself. Clearly, there are many conventional man-woman marriages that are dysfunctional and unhealthy in any number of ways. Are those anti-gay marriage folks advocating that those guilty of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse within the “sanctity” of marriage should lose human and civil rights because of the damage they do to that same “sanctity?” Regardless of the composition of the marriage partners, each marriage has to be considered on its own merits and judged accordingly. The basis for any such “judgment” resides within considerations of how members of the family are treated and encouraged to develop and grow. Such growth includes social, spiritual, moral and physical aspects and is independent of the constituency or composition of the family itself. Many single parents are capable of excellent child rearing and family development; many married man-woman couples are incapable of the same. Each and every family unit has its own unique dynamics and issues; it is how those dynamics and issues are dealt with that determine the relative “sanctity” possessed.　

This is ridiculous. Am I the only one who understands this? This whole issue about how being "gay" is such a problem or "abomination" is non-sense and I am an ordained minister. The problem here is people who make that claim are using the Holy Bible to support that position and the reason that is a problem is because they don't understand that the scriptures they use in Leviticus and the account of Sodom and Gomorrah are not applicable. Leviticus is not applicable when it says a man should not lay with another man as a man lays with a woman because that did not come from God….that came from men. God gave 10 Commandments man added the rest…that is a whole other conversation. Sodom and Gomorrah is not applicable because that town was not destroyed because of homosexuality.
The real issue is when most people and "Christians" oppose homosexuality it is because anytime they reference an individual being gay and identify it as disgusting and an abomination it is because they are thinking about private sexual matters.
The problem with that is being homosexual has nothing to do with sex any more than being heterosexual does. Here is the test for the Christian folks. If a young boy or girl, say 14 or 15 years old says to you they are gay, always have been, always knew they were but are still virgins….are they still gay? If the answer is no then there is no use continuing the conversation. If the answer is yes, the next question is, if they are still virgins are they abominations to God? Now right here a real good Christian will say once or if they do ever have sex the abomination will apply…..and here is the problem. If the sex life is an abomination and they don't have sex life yet but they are still "gay" what is everyone panicking about?
Being gay is not about sex it is about attraction just like being heterosexual is. Attraction is not something drummed up inside of us by us otherwise it could not be attraction. You cannot judge someone for who they are attracted to….so the imbecile will say, "so if you are attracted to a dog or a horse or a child…is it ok to act on that attraction?" Well it is almost an insult to even have to respond to that however, we are not having hypothetical arguments about sheep and goats and children…..and………. lust and fantasies……… and attractions………are not the same.
It has been said that children do better in a home with the mom and dad. The truth is kids with a mom and dad do better in a society where moms and dads are prevalent and they understand the dynamic of a society whose majority mainly consists of men and women, moms and dads but kids who live in a society where two moms or two dads are present, which is the world we are living in today whether we like it or admit it or not………those kids will do fine with those dynamics also.
I do believe most people who oppose a gay lifestyle do so because their mind goes straight to intimate private things that has absolutely nothing to do with them. I did not always feel this way but my youngest brother is gay. That is when I began to realize….he loves God and his life says God loves him. I have never heard of trying to "recruit" kids to be gay and he and his husband have had their kids along with other parents who have taken their kids to live with him and he husband because they are so good with kids and there has never been a complaint or issue from the parents or the kids regarding the "gayness". The kids are adults no …..most of them and so far ALL of them are heterosexual. My brother never hid or exploited his lifestyle in front of the kids. My little brother is not evil or an abomination….his life says he blessed by God, he helps people who need help and is always showing love. I am married with 5 children and have never in my life been attracted to or curious about another man. And I love the Lord as much as anyone else but if God really would reject someone like my little brother because of who he is attracted to……I would not want to follow that God anyway.
I don't really care what people who wave the bible like it is a badge say or think but I do expect that if you are going to wave it around or quote………at least know something about it or know the difference from what it says and what that means….otherwise I think they should just go away and be quiet.

A letter to a conservative political candidate Re: Homosexuality, law and the Bible

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I know you have led the fight to protect traditional marriage and is opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)