Posted on 05/20/2008 2:45:19 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Barack Obama attended a private fund-raiser with gay supporters here last week where, according to this account in The Advocate [link at URL], he spoke about his position on gay marriage:
Obama said he did not think it was "politically feasible" to secure marriage rights for same-sex couples at this point. Sen. Obama acknowledged that the community wanted full marriage rights but said he favored civil unions for now while leaving open the possibility that his position might evovle in the future.
Later, Obama reportedly promised to do more interviews with gay news outlets...
(Excerpt) Read more at observer.com ...
His position might evolve to support same sex marriage in the future.
Obama supports same sex marriage - it's just not politically feasible for him to come out and say so right now.
If this is true, and if it can be made to stick by a Republican party with a pair of BALLZ, B. Hussein Obama is finished.
Another private fund raiser...
Just like the private San Francisco fundraiser where he talked about small-town voters clinging to God, guns and religion.
This one though, is about him favoring same-sex marriage later, but he just can't deliver it for gays - right now.
Ping!
He's leaving that fudge for later packing.
According to The Advocate, this is true.
Of course, this is no surprise at all. Barry has already stated he’d repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” and ask for repeal of DOMA. His church is all for gay marriage.
His position is for conservatives to bend over and grab their ankles.
Ok. . .think McCain will dismiss ‘global warming’ after Election.
What he says is this, “Lookie folks, I will say anything to get elected but once I am in power . . . . . “ He learned some politics while he was in Indonesia, to say nothing of Chicago!
Exactly!! I’ve heard him say he’s against gay marriage, but favors civil unions.
Then the question is : if he is opposed to gay marriage, why does he favor repeal of the federal law which defines marriage? Does he prefer no actual definition of marriage so a judge can define it for us?
Obama is a lying SOS. He lies just like every other liberal democrat to hide his true position on issues that he knows he is on the wrong side of.
The liberal democrats have been using the same political play book on abortion to hide that they are pro choice: they say they are personally against abortion but favor a woman's right to choose, that way they can say they are pro life and pro choice at the same time to fool idiots.
Obama is doing the same thing with gay marriage. He says he is “personally” against gay marriage but is ok with civil unions, which is a way to fool people on both sides of the issue. He is pro gay marriage like every other lying SOS liberal democrat. Be honest you lying liberal democrats.
Awesome video:
The same kind of terrorists who support Obama did this:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/
Never apologize for them.
Never appease them.
Never forget.
Some people say that homosexual rights are the next big civil rights revolution. They equate the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement of the ‘50s and ‘60s.
If that’s true that gay rights are a civil rights issue, why are so few Democrat politicians willing to say they favor gay marriage? During the civil rights movement, there were political leaders in both parties who were willing to stand up in favor of civil rights. If gay marriage is the ultimate expression of gay rights, why are people like Kucinich the only Democrats willing to say they favor gay marriage? Why is Hillary Clinton allowed to get away with saying she opposes gay marriage and that it’s just a personal position of hers? Why is Obama able to say with a straight face he opposes gay marriage?
Can you imagine if in years past, some politicos had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but favored giving other rights to minorities? That’s analogous to Democrats of today saying they oppose marriage rights but are willing to look at other policies such as civil unions and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the military. And that was the position of southern Democrats in the ‘60s who opposed civil rights legislation.
He'll wait until after he's elected and turn this country into a homosexual paradise.
The entire nation will resemble Castro Street.
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.
John 3:16Also, why don't we seize the opportunity provided by the MSM's deification of Obama to permanently de-claw the IRS and get God back into the public school classrooms?
Revelation 3:20
This post (<-click), while addressing taxes, helps to explain why government "leaders" like Obama are actually in contempt of the Constitution that they have sworn to defend, foolishly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty federal spending politics.
In fact, the article referenced below shows that Obama is the #1 federal spending proposer in the Senate for '08; Clinton is #2.
Obama, a big-shot federal spenderAnd this post (<-click) exposes how corrupt justices then began using FDR's politically correct license to ignore the 10th A. to unlawfully stifle traditional family values, including the USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade. Note that the post first references two non-abortion cases in order to show Roe v. Wade in a different, troubling perspective.
In fact, consider that the states have the constitutional power (10th A.) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th A.) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and ID, as examples, regardless that atheists, separatists, pagan-minded judges and the MSM are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.
The people need to reconnect with the Founder's division of federal and state government powers. The people then need to wise up to the major problems that, since the days of FDR's dirty politics, Congress has not only not been operating with the restraints of the federal Constitution, particularly where constitutionally unauthorized federal spending is concerned, but the USSC has wrongly been ignoring the 10th A. protected power of the states to address religious issues.
The bottom line is that the people need to get in the faces of judges, demanding that judges uphold their oaths to defend the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues - or get off the bench. The people also need to send big-shot, Constitution-ignoring federal spenders like Obama home as opposed to trying to send people like him to the Oval Office. The people need to get in the faces of members of Congress, demanding a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal spending while appropriately lowering federal taxes - or get out of DC.
Lincoln put it this way.
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
In actuality, he's playing a childish peek-a-boo game - when the child puts their hands over their eyes, they think that nobody can see them. Obama wraps his true intentions behind a mask that is just as ineffective...
“Lincoln put it this way. ‘We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.’ —Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.” ~ Amendment 10
bttt! And that we will.
“.. and there was not one major religious leader or thinker in Jewish or Christian history prior to the present generation who argued for same-sex marriage. ..
“Clergy and laypeople who stand the Bible on its head, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, are thoroughly distorting Judaism and Christianity. Intellectual honesty demands that they either support same-sex marriage solely from a secular standpoint or create a new religion from which to do so. If Judaism and Christianity do not stand for man-woman marriage and the father-mother family, they stand for nothing.” ~ Dennis Prager
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/2537
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
California Decision Will Radically Change Society
By Dennis Prager
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society
Americans seem mesmerized by the word “change.” And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.
Nothing imaginable — leftward or rightward — would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.
Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.
And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision — let alone the four compassionate justices — acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it’s no big deal. Hey, it doesn’t affect any heterosexuals’ marriage, so what’s the problem?
This lack of acknowledgment — or even awareness — of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones — and their millions of compassionate supporters — allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a “right” that had been unfairly denied to gays.
Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system — East or West — since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion — not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism — ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.
Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion — or to any past wisdom — for one’s values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America’s values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn’t they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.
Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals — the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society’s values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, “the Bible says” ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, “compassion says” ends discussion.
If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger — if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians — i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture — will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it — a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed — and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists — the terms “male” and “female,” “man” and “woman” will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, “male” and “female” are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father — the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.
And what will happen after divorce — which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.
We have entered something beyond Huxley’s “Brave New World.” All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.
Anticipating reactions to this column — as to all defenses of man-woman marriage — that it or its author are “homophobic,” i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic that a gay man or woman is created in God’s image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life’s unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person — and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.
That is why Californians must amend their state’s Constitution.
Read comments (over 200): http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society
More:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0504/prager050404.asp
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GregoryKoukl/2007/02/11/same-sex_marriage_%E2%80%94_challenges__responses
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.