Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Indiana Dem Senate candidate runs from Obama on gay marriage

Indiana Dem Senate candidate runs from Obama on gay marriage

If you want a sense of how Obama’s cynical, money-driven gay marriage evolution ploy will play in key states Obama won in 2008, look not only at North Carolina’s vote Tuesday, but also at how fast Joe Donnelly is running away from Obama on the issue:

U.S. Senate candidate Joe Donnelly reiterated his position Thursday that marriage should be between a man and a woman, saying he didn’t feel pressure to change his views a day after fellow Democrat President Barack Obama said he supported same-sex marriage.

His campaign released this statement:

Joe believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He believes it is an issue that each state should decide, and he is opposed to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Udpate 5-11-2012:  Ed Morrissey, Romney unites social-conservative base through … evolution.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

BannedbytheGuardian | May 10, 2012 at 10:10 pm

Iowa 2010. Voters threw out those Gay Marriage Justices that were up for re election.

Can’t be a winner in the Rust belt.

T

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | May 10, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    There is another one who is up for re election in 2012.

    If they piggy back both Presidental & state Judicial then as a state wide -against local where some judicial supporters were re elected – the Iowa could be lost for Obama.

does anyone realize that the President has endorsed an anti-Christian position on the subject of sodomy?

    wodiej in reply to landesmann. | May 11, 2012 at 7:26 am

    Are Christians also against sodomy between heterosexuals, married or not? How many Christians are against their children living with someone unmarried, having a child out of wedlock, eating meat on Friday’s and favor stoning disobedient sons? How many Christians show Christ’s love by not judging others and being tolerant? Not many from what I’ve seen.

      spike in reply to wodiej. | May 12, 2012 at 11:06 am

      Woodie,I can only speak for myself—yes I find the act of sodomy disgusting no matter who it’s between.My kids knew my thoughts on living with someone before marriage and the fact that I wanted my grandkids to have both parents,married to each other.I don’t give a damn what you eat on Friday!Yes my sons and daughter were punished if they misbehaved,no stones, a small switch was very effective, I try not to judge anyone,my name is not GOD!

First, I acknowledge that this is Obama pandering to his donors and distracting from the economy.

That said, I’m pretty sure the Left plans to use the judicial system to impose gay marriage on the country. It may take a Constitutional amendment to preserve the right of the states to decide.

And since the Left is playing a take-no-prisoners game, I can’t criticize reasonable socons too much for seeking an outright ban.

(My attitude: on the merits, I’m skeptical but not adamant against. My opposition is based more on the Left’s obvious bad faith, and on a sense that we should not be too cavalier about reversing tradition.)

    LukeHandCool in reply to gs. | May 10, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    (My attitude: on the merits, I’m skeptical but not adamant against. My opposition is based more on the Left’s obvious bad faith, and on a sense that we should not be too cavalier about reversing tradition.)

    —Well said, gs. That’s pretty much how I feel, too.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to LukeHandCool. | May 10, 2012 at 11:17 pm

      My objections are for future generations of American celebrities who will not be able to go on “Who do you think you are”.

      Lets face it -birth & marriage records are going to be mighty weird .

      On the other hand there will be definitely lesss of hem . It is mighty hard to get born if both your parents are gay.

Cowboy Curtis | May 10, 2012 at 10:39 pm

They always go to pains to avoid the crux of the matter- will they do all they can to prevent its legalization?

Democrats in red states have a longstanding tradition of saying they oppose X or Y, by which they mean they won’t actively (or at least publicly) support it. The promise I want to hear is that they will actively and energetically work to stop it, both in public and private. You never hear them say that on issues like this. Or abortion, for that matter.

One promises nothing more than to be a bystander. The other promises to get in the game. I don’t trust politicians who want leave to stay out of the game.

Does anyone get the feeling that the administration realizes that they may be in trouble come November? I wonder if the path chosen on this issue and other liberal hot tickets is their way to take, (their version of), the high road?

Of course all of this does suppress the real issue of the day, the economy.

This circus has another six months to run and it doesn’t look to be one of integrity on the part of the democrats…

    wodiej in reply to GrumpyOne. | May 11, 2012 at 7:23 am

    I think Obama knows he will not win over the majority of voters or is too close for comfort. So he is trying to appeal to major donors like Hollywood to buy the election.

huskers-for-palin | May 10, 2012 at 11:53 pm

In a word…this man is TOXIC. No sane candidate (except those in DEEPLY blue districts) wants this man to campaign for them. All he’ll do is suck up funds destined for you then leave with bad vibes for you to fix up.

Compare that to Palin, Demint, Levin and, when he was alive, Breitbart who’ll be (minus Breitbart, who will be there in spirit) at various conferences, speaking circuits, fund raisers and has a batch of conservative candidates & groups who’ll want them.

huskers-for-palin | May 10, 2012 at 11:56 pm

Obama has essentially abandoned the white, middle class voter. He will solely focus on driving up the votes for several groups: Gays, minorities, unions and those chronically on the dole. His base will be narrow yet deep.

That is a very nuanced answer. He “…is opposed to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” My questions are:

1) In the absence of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, does he support allowing the states to place their decisions on the subject in their constitutions?

2) Would he vote to confirm judicial nominees that seem inclined to find that
(a) the U.S. Constitution, without further amendment, supports/mandates same sex marriage, and/or
(b) the states’ constitutional amendments are prohibited or overruled by the U.S. Constitution’s silence on the issue.

I would expect most Democrat candidate’s (and probably Mr. Donnelly’s) answers would be “no” and “yes” respectively (and could fit easily withing the bounds of the nuanced stated position), but I doubt that many/any would publicly answer such specific questions, preferring to finesse their positions through nuance.

One thing is certain. When the Mourdock-Donnelly debates begin, same sex marriage will not be one of the subjects. Time to tee it up and swing for the second green.

He’ll just be dismissed from (D) table and deincentivized by intolerant radical gay activists.

Oh he is running against Tea Party Mourdock for the Indiana Senate seat. He’s not going to say or do anything radical before then.

Drudge has a big “Backlash” title up with a report Romney 50-Obama 43

We do not wish to offend people of certain religions, so perhaps we should rename “pig” to “goat”.

Of course, some people will argue with the butcher about the meat, but let’s face it, they are swine-o-phobes…or is it goat-o-phobes.

Maintaining a several millennial definition is hardly bigoted. When a person who only knew of goats first saw a pig, he did not call it a goat.

Redefining marriage as proposed is simply a political move. Inventing a new word and giving it the desired definition would be quite acceptable.

[…] Jacobson reports on Indiana’s Democrat candidate for US Senate running away from Obama as fast as he can: If you want a sense of how Obama’s cynical, […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend