Who Obama Lost with Same Sex Marriage Endorsement

1. Independents President Obama's marriage announcement elated his base, but more moderate voters may be leaving him at the altar. According to Gallup's latest polling, the President's endorsement of same-sex "marriage" is a costly one--especially among Independent voters. Forty percent of adults say his position will affect their votes--and not the way Democrats had hoped. Of the 40%, 26% of adults said  they would be less likely to vote for Obama. What hurts more, from a campaign standpoint, is the number of Independents the President stands to lose from his "evolution." Twenty-three percent were instantly turned off by his new position and said they would be less likely to vote for him in November. As far as Gallup analyst Jeffrey Jones is concerned, the agenda is a "net minus" for Obama. Liberal ally Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) agrees. There was "no political calculus in this," she said on Fox News Sunday, "because it's not smart." 2. Black Christians And according to a growing number of black pastors, it's not biblical either. From Rev. Emmett Burns's church in Baltimore to Dr. Ken Hutcherson's in Washington State , the message from the pulpit was simple: we respect the President, but we cannot support what he has done. In an article about the storm brewing between the President and the African-American church, the New York Times highlighted a call that the White House made to pastors after his endorsement. "About two hours after declaring his support for same-sex 'marriage' last week, President Obama gathered eight or so African-American ministers on a conference call to explain himself... The ministers, though, were not all as enthusiastic. A vocal few made it clear that the President's stand on gay marriage might make it difficult for them to support his reelection." Even Republicans are starting to remember what a potent issue marriage can be in the electorate. Leaders like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) showed some strong reaction over the weekend to the President's agenda. "It did kind of bother me... that he used the justification for [redefining marriage] in a biblical reference... And I'm like: What version of the Bible is he reading?... We understand sin, and if we believe it's sin, we still understand that people sin. And we understand that we are not out there preaching some sort of hateful dogma against people. But that doesn't mean that we have to go ahead and give up our traditions. We've got 6,000 years of tradition. There's a lot of stability, even beyond religion, there's stability in the family unit. Just from an anthropological point of view, the family is a really important thing. We shouldn't just give up on it." 3. Marriage Supporters As the President's grasp on voters slips, so does his team's grip on campaign ethics. The Wall Street Journal is uncovering some shocking details about the intimidation tactics the President is using against Romney supporters. Last month, the Obama campaign launched a hit list called "Keeping the GOP Honest," aimed at destroying the businesses of Republican donors. One by one, the website listed Gov. Romney's largest contributors and publicly smeared them, and in some instances posted the citizens' personal information. "The attacks are working," said businessman Frank Vanderslook, whose business lost hundreds of clients after the Obama campaign accused him of being "a bitter foe of the gay rights movement." While these dirty tactics may help the campaign in the short-term, the damage  to the republic is irreversible. Our system of government works because people are able to participate in the voting process and the public square. When you cut citizens off with threats and marginalization, as the Left attempts to do, it undermines the effectiveness of the peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. It also undermines the President's credibility. "The dirt-digging exercise," which was so sleazy it included rummaging around donors' divorce files, "reflects the character of President Obama's reelection campaign," the Journal criticized, "as well as what's really behind his drive for more 'transparency' in political donations."