Today, on a special edition of Register Radio, Thomas Peters, cultural director with the National Organization for Marriage, and Michelle Bauman, Washington, D.C. correspondent with Catholic News Agency/EWTN News joined us for the entire show for a post-election roundtable discussion on the election results, the Catholic vote, and the outcome on various ballot initiatives.
Bauman began by providing a breakdown of the electorate and whom they voted for. She pointed out that President Obama received the majority of votes from minorities, such as Latinos and African-Americans, as well as single females, the youth, those who were unmarried, and the religiously unaffiliated. By comparison, Mitt Romney won the white vote, the rural vote, the married vote, and those who attend religious services at least once a week.
On the Catholic vote, Bauman noted that it was identical to the general electorate, with 50% voting for Obama versus 48% voting for Romney. Both Peters and Bauman noted, however, that Catholics who attended Mass at least once per week, were more likely to vote for Romney.
Peters said that there was a significant shift in the Catholic vote. He indicated that Obama's nine point advantage among Catholics in 2008 was reduced to a two point advantage among Catholics this election. He attributed that to the U.S. Bishops efforts to educate voters on issues such as religious liberty and the HHS mandate.
"I was disappointed with the results," admitted Peters. "We have to pray for a legal reprieve. The president is against those who are pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-religious freedom. He may get the change to change the makeup of the Supreme Court. We're facing a serious generational problem."
"The Affordable Care Act will never be repealed," added Peters. "It will continue to exist as an entitlement of the liberal state."
Thom Price asked whether the election losses were attributed to a lack of communication.
"It's a lack of activation, not communication," said Peters, who noted the disparity in the number of volunteers working against Minnesota's marriage amendment in comparison to the numbers supporting the amendment. He suggested that Catholics need to be far more active in the process. "Our opponents start by voting, and then spend months phone-calling, door-knocking, and getting the word out."
On the issue of marriage, Peters noted that traditional marriage lost in all four states - Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington.
"In Minnesota, we tried to pass a marriage protection amendment so that marriage couldn't be redefined by judges. In Maine, voters approved same-sex 'marriage.' In Maryland and Washington, referendums to try to overturn gay marriage failed," said Peters. "We were outraised by 4 to 1, and 8 to 1 in some cases. Yet, in every one of those states, more people voted for marriage than voted for Romney. Traditional marriage lost by only a small margin. The message this sends to Christians is that marriage will not win if it's not defended."
Amidst all of the bad news, Bauman and Peters did see a bright spot.
"The 'death with dignity initiative,' to allow terminally ill patients to receive a lethal dose of medication from their doctors, was defeated in Massachusetts," said Bauman. "The Church and Cardinal Sean O'Malley did a good job of educating voters on that."
"I've heard a lot of people saying that this is a time to refocus during this Year of Faith," said Bauman.
Quoting an article written by Benedictine University's Tom Hoopes for Catholic Vote, Peters said, "'God's plan throughout history involves losing battles, but winning the war.'"
As always, to hear the full interviews listen to today's show at 2 p.m. EASTERN Friday on any EWTN Radio affiliate or Sirius/XM Satellite Radio. The program re-airs at 7 p.m. EASTERN on Saturday and 11 a.m. EASTERN on Sunday, and is also available on the Register Radio web page, and via podcast.
Comments
Post a Comment
“On the Catholic vote, Bauman noted that it was identical to the general electorate, with 50% voting for Obama versus 48% voting for Romney. Both Peters and Bauman noted, however, that Catholics who attended Mass at least once per week, were more likely to vote for Romney.
“Peters said that there was a significant shift in the Catholic vote. He indicated that Obama’s nine point advantage among Catholics in 2008 was reduced to a two point advantage among Catholics this election. He attributed that to the U.S. Bishops efforts to educate voters on issues such as religious liberty and the HHS mandate.”
Or maybe the majority of American Catholics have stopped listening to any bishops at all. They’re ignoring bishops who harangue them on social justice as well as those who harangue them on right to life and religious freedom issues. In other words, they vote exactly like the general electorate, and for the same reasons.
I wouldn’t attribute much influence to Catholic bishops. Here in Minnesota, the Archbishop of Minneapolis/St. Paul became very involved with the anti-gay marriage amendment, which failed. His presence only stoked up anti-Church and anti-clerical sentiment and resentment, and may well have contributed to the defeat of the amendment.
Peters is still having trouble accepting the fact that the people have spoken. In all five states where NOM was fighting marriage equality, marriage equality won. In addition, NOM made it clear that the President’s support of marrusge equality would have an impact on Election Day. And they were right - it helped him get reelected to a second term. That’s a pretty clear message fromthe American people to the likes of NOM and the FRC. The people have rejected your bigotry. I realize that Peters is getting nervous. He’s a young gay who’s built a career on anti-gay bigotry - with thousands of never-to-be-deleted tweets, Facebook statuses, and blog posts as a permanent record. But we know, from polls and election results, that the country is moving forward rapidly.. Good luck with future job searches, Mr. Peters, you’re gonna need it!
Hahaha correction. - young guy. Or maybe I was right the first time.
I, like others, have grown weary of the shrill, angry tone used to defend the religious stance against same-sex civil marriage. The scare quotes, the doomsday predictions, and the suggestions that people I know to be good friends, colleagues, and neighbors are somehow trying harm my family have become absurd. Two years ago I was on the fence, but NOM and the like have pushed me off that fence and firmly onto the side of marriage equality.
What kind of legal reprieve does Peters want to look for, and when does the harassment end? We took this issue before the courts, and you accused the judges of activism. The people’s duly elected representatives passed marriage equality in Maryland and Oregon, and you still dragged us out to the ballot crying “Let the people vote!”. The people voted. Now what? You want to go back to court? When does it ever end?
If these folks had the courage of their convictions, they call themselves “anti-gay”. It’s what they are. They’re not “pro-marriage”.
I find the attitude of Mr Peters towards the poor quite illuminating.
His grievance about the affordable care act shows how little he and his kind care about the well being of his fellow citizens.
As a secular humanist, the one element of christian mythology that I admire was the alleged Jesus’s* concern for the poor. I think any christian who identifies with Mr Peter’s might want to ask themselves: if Jesus had lived, whom would he have supported? The millionaire who doesn’t care about the plight of the poor, or the President who is trying to provide good health care for all?
From the point of secular humanism, I believe that reducing suffering is a human responsibility. That is just what the affordable care act does. Mr Obama got my vote for that and for many more reasons.
* I wrote alleged Jesus because I’m not convinced there was a historical Jesus. The evidence for a historical Jesus is very thin and easily countered.
Mike asks “When does it ever end?” That’s a good question. I guess it ends when the people currently keeping it going move on to new jobs because pushing anti-gay hate no longer pays the mortgage. Nov. 6 was evidence that that day may come sooner than we all thought it would.
The “Biblical definition of marriage” is irrelevant. The United States is not a Christian theocracy. It is not the job of government to uphold the Bible, but rather to uphold the Constitution. And unless you think the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law applies only to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), there is no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
The victories for marriage equality in Maine, Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland tell me one thing: Americans are learning to make better value judgments.
Why is it that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability of even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay. It looks like American voters are starting to accept that.
@Jim - As with many other brands of Christianity, the Catholic Church has basically been absorbed into the Republican Party. They’ll oppose anything that the President does, even when it is in principle more aligned with Catholic teachings because political opposition to Democrats has become the church’s number one priority.
First off, a big thumbs up for Chuck’s comment. Perfectly said. Until NOM acknowledges that there IS such a thing as secular civil marriage, and that non-religious straight couples have always had access to it, they will be dismissed outright whenever they inject religious beliefs into this discussion.
How can the president be against those that are “pro-marriage” when he supports ALL Americans having the right to marry? That’s the definition of pro-marriage. This is not an either/or scenario. If gay couples can marry, straight couples will continue to marry. You, on the other hand, support marriage discrimination. You believe that just because someone happens to be straight, they are entitled to more civil rights than those that are gay. That is wholly un-American. Our Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law, and civil marriage is under the purview of the government… not the church.
Ok, where are they getting this “out-raised 8-to-1” number?
NOM claimed to have a lot more money than the Pro-marriage equality forces until none of the races went their way (nor did the attempt in Iowa to unseat the justice who approved marriage equality or the attempt to unseat the New York Republican who did the same.
So where did all that money go?
How’s the RCC war on gays going?
Pews Research released their latest poll numbers and the gap is getting bigger. Support for Marriage Equalty now leads the opposition by 9 points. But you could never tell by little Tommy’s rant that America disagrees with him.
What I cannot understand and that no one has been able to explain to me, is why any religious organization should have any say about civil marriage at all? The USA is a secular entity, our laws should not be influenced by canon law, any so called “holy” book or religious tradition. I used to be a catholic, a former religious and have cut all ties with the church and religion because of many things, one of which was the church’s meddling in civil affairs. The church throughout the world and especially in the USA seems to have allied itself with the right wing. I am reminded of how in former times the church was allied with repressive regimes around the world and had thought she had learned her lesson in that regard. Alas, it looks as if I was wrong. I also do not like the thought that my tax dollars are subsidizing this hatred and political meddling. It is long time that this situation be addressed and stopped.
Thomas Peters is obsessed about homosexuals. I have been out of the closet since 1985 and I do not spend as much time and effort on gay stuff as Peters does. You have to wonder why. Is it the money? The notoriety? Or does he have something he needs to deal with.
Thomas says
“The Affordable Care Act will never be repealed,” added Peters. “It will continue to exist as an entitlement of the liberal state.”
Many of us catholics are strongly supportive of a national healthcare plan. An entitlement as Thomas calls it is a basic right, heal the sick and feed the poor is central to our faith. We are not aligned with one party that is why the majority of us voted Democrat this time out. I wish he had mentioned our failure to outlaw the death penalty in california, we tried very hard as catholics to pass that too.
His partisan take on things clouds his judgement.
NOM has defeated marriage equality in blue states before, including Maine just three years ago and the bluest of blue states, California, four years ago. NOM has prevailed against well-funded opposition. Yet this year NOM lost and marriage equality won in five, not four, five states. Contrary to Peter’s claim that marriage was “not defended,” NOM fought tooth and nail in all five states. NOM lost. What changed? Money? Really? That’s all you’ve got?
By the way, NOM’s claims of being outspent have grown from 3 to one (Brian Brown), to 4 to one (Maggie Gallagher) to 8 to one (Thomas Peters) in only one week! Imagine how big those numbers will grow if NOM doesn’t meet it’s fund raising goals.
IF Jesus did exist,and IF He came back today….the supposed christians would be the Very 1st, well along with the GOP…to re-crucify him, well..not before sending him off to GITMO for some “Interogation” techniques…..you see, Jesus WAS a LIBERAL….YEP, a RAGING LIBERAL…..he’d want to close down the Mega Churches/Ka-CHING $$$$$..and well..people Like Osteen, Warren, Lively, Perkins etc - well, they’d NEVER stand for that - that would be against thier “religious” freedom to FLEECE the SHEEPLE/people….and these High & Mighty preachers (cough,cough) have gotten TOO USED to Living In the LAP of LUXURY..and well..Jesus’ Very Existance WOULD THREATEN THAT!
And here in MD I am grateful to my Catholic friends and family who do attend mass every week and voted for equality. My aunt was pissed when they put on the video at mass from the archbishop against marriage equality. She said to me the Wednesday after the election that she wishes she could wear a placard to mass saying ha ha equality won. If she has this reaction imagine how younger Catholics feel who aren’t as tied to the church. You will continue toi drive people away from the church.
I Married my Partner of 12yrs , 2yrs ago in Vermont…with NO RELIGION Needed Nor WANTED! We were married on the edge of the woods, by the Big Bear Inn…witnessed by the Inn Owners, the 8yr old son of the Justice of the Peace (a woman)..and that’s it…...No voodoo required…IT WAS A PURE “STATE FUNCTION”
Why do secular folk want to discriminate against Muslims & others who practise polygamy?Or other alternative unions between adults? Inventing some types of legal partnership may be a legitimate role of govt but why “marriage” & why limit partnerships by number if not by gender? From a secular point of view it’s not intellectually honest nor consistant.
The more I look at it, the more Ron Paul makes sense…sort of.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.