Skip to comments.“Leading from Behind” On Same Sex Marriage:
Posted on 05/10/2012 4:21:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
President Obama is a thorough-going man of the left obsessed with power and thus in re-election, so his decision Wednesday to declare for same sex marriage is hardly a surprise. The only surprise is that his timing was so nakedly political and reflexive. The president was pushed into declaring his support by his Vice President and his Secretary of Education, and no serious person disputes this.
Leading from behind the famous White House description of the presidents Libya policy retailed by the White House to the New Yorkers Ryan Lizza--now has found its expression in domestic politics.
Of course Obama was for same sex marriage before he was against it and before he was for it again. Hes a weather vane on this issue, and his genuine ideological extremism had led him to support same sex marriage long before Gallup announced days ago it had become a preference among a majority of Americans, but the president had abandoned his earlier support when it became an inconvenient truth for him while running for president.
No matter. Every state electorate but one that has been asked to vote on the issue has voted for traditional marriage, and the vast, vast majority of supporters of traditional marriage are not anti-gay or anti-lesbians. They believe, as I do, that marriage between a man and woman is ordained by God for the happiness of humankind and the building up of society, and that it is to be preferred to any other situation for the raising of children.
This is not to say that single parents, or same sex couples cannot be terrific parents. They can be, often far better at it than married couples who are terrible, horrible parents from whose care children must be removed.
Rather it is to say that, as an organizing principle, societies can hold up as the ideal one father and one mother, joined for life in a sacred bond, committed to each other and their offspring. No child of a situation other than that ideal for society is any less a valued member of society born or unborn, ordinary or disabled in some waybut equal love for all life is perfectly consistent with the conviction that the society is best served by keeping traditional marriage as the recognized best situation for the vast majority of children.
Well meaning people can and do disagree with this, but solid majorities of Americans still vote this way, most recently on Tuesday in North Carolina, and, to repeat, the vast majority of those people are not in the least bigoted towards gays or lesbians.
The president has now declared his strong opposition to their political preferences, and this will be an issue in the fall for some voters. Some will vote for him because of his support for same sex marriage despite the havoc he has unleashed on the economy, and some will vote for Mitt Romney despite the fact they support same sex marriage because they know that four more years of President Obama will cripple the country and the West. It is hard to say how the issue will cut in the November election..
What cannot be said, at least by serious people, is that the president is on the right side of history. If that were the case, how could he have casually abandoned Iraq where there are forces gathering that are not merely opposed to gay marriage and indeed for freedom or even life for gays? How can he be inviting the Taliban to sit down and reason together when their return to power will be a death sentence for gays and lesbians in that country? Unless they mean the "right side of history" for privileged elites in the west. That is a very narrow view of history.
Of course the president isnt consistently on any side of history, or on any side of anything at all, except his own side at all times. He is a pure man of the hard left, and his contortions in search of re-election will neither surprise nor shock.
The debate over marriage will continue, however, next in Minnesota, where another marriage measure is on the ballot in November.
If you are not ready to declare that the oldest institution of the Western world marriage between one man and one womanhas been proven obsolete or in need of casual experimentation, then you can contribute to the Minnesota for Marriage campaign via the Act Right button at HughHewitt.com.
If youd like to deepen your understanding of the issue, you can read the relevant sections of Dennis Pragers magnificent new book Still the Best Hope.
If you are on the fence about the issue, it is possible to consult the best writing and arguments on both sides. Jonathan Rauch's Gay Marriage is probably the best case for same sex marriage.
But you cannot trust the president for guidance or leadership on this or any other issue, and you ought not to applaud him for his "courage" on the issue, even if you support his (current) position. If he thought it would get him re-elected, hed switch back to opposition tomorrow.
Whatever the outcome of the debate, understand that there is no predetermined outcome, just as there is not predetermined victor in the conflict between radical Islam and the West. If you agree with my latter statement, by the way, you must agree with my former assertion, though you may have to think about that for a bit.
No matter which way the debate over marriage goes over the next few decades and over the map of the world, however, it will forever be recorded that Barack Obama did not reach a principled decision on the issue, only a political one, a lurch driven be expediency and triggered by underlings. History is indeed unfolding, but it cannot be convincingly rewritten.
You can't make this stuff up!
0h0m0 flip flops and leans "forward" on the subject because he "loves" to lean "backward. Just ask Reggie.
Yet ANOTER reason not to vote for the cretinous sumbeech.
Yeah...he is in BIG TROUBLE when he feels he has to try to snag the votes of an infintessimal segment of the population.
“Leading from Behind”.. visualize that... Nevermind!
specially in the context of “gay marriage”
“Gay marriage” has always failed a plebiscite in any state it has had one in. Even the screaming liberal ones. The net result of Obama “dividing” like this will be to multiply the number of potential Obama voters who will simply sit out November.
Biden and Duncan's performances were just cover for that.
THe industry is independent of the jungle, it has no dog, by definition, in the jungle’s race to be the fittest top wolf and predator. The industry leaves the jungle to be.
However, the jungle dependent predators see the industry island as a prey. Their jungle is also not working and dangerous. And, in fact, man as a chief primate or wolf like predator within it would indulge and destroy it.
Thus, politics, leftist politics in particular, are the antithesis of protection of the environment. They say they would redo a jungle and an industry partnership etc... This is total utopia and delusion.
Politics of mankind oppose science and ecosystems ultimately, cheating them via a third dimention that the regular jungle does not afford, living in the “green wall” like low relief pictures seen in the caves of Neaderthals, and the leftist is the proud All Politics animal of them all, PC or not.
However, politics of treachery and 3 dimentionality is a hell hole liberals cannot even live in, truth be told. They are in a living hell they do not know how to make sense of, one with a greater level of indeterminism. That is why they depend on welfare so much or go defeatist suicidal. They cannot manage what they worship and what they are from.
They live in hell and they remain there for ever in the end because they cannot accept and believe that there is a better way that transcends all this, that they are fools. So their solution is to bring up this sort of National Consensual murder-suicide scheme of Obama, PC fascist and “realistic” or “rational”.
And if Obama had stood pat? Maybe it would embarrass his gay pals how little true influence they had after all the tantrums had passed.
Obama is committing political harakiri almost every day.
Strange that he is committing political harakiri now while running for a second term.
Either he figures that his corrupt organization has the election in the bag or he figures that he is going to get beaten like a red headed stepkid and will cause as much destruction as he can while he can.
It parallels the biblical description of the devil’s desperate rage during the latter part of the events predicted in Revelation, when he “has but a short time.”
The Democrat strategy seems to be to make Mitt Romney look as wonderful as possible by contrast, go home with their tails tucked between their legs, then come roaring back with someone more competent in the 2016 contest.
“Obama was “forced” into it by his homo campaign cash bundlers.”
oh... the evil thoughts that I could post, rephrasing this in the context of the topic... oh well.
I’ll “leave it as and exercise to the reader”.
You refer to Rev 12:12. Easy enough to remember that vs number. Check out this bit from God’s Word, with regard to 0bama being forced to show his hand:
2 Tim 3:1-9
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
Don’t see how that happens because the obama regime has spend their first term putting in place the whole infrastructure for dictatoral rule.
Don’t see them giving up power even if they lose the election.
They ignore the laws on a daily basis. When it comes down to surrendering power, I really doubt that they will pay attention to the results or to any legal action to remove them from power.
The US people still have some sanity left, and Obama’s probes at the country’s underbelly will still fail... I think this gay marriage thing, frowned on by over 50% of every state’s population, marks his official entry into Waterloo... but the devil is still out there instigating trouble and with no plans to quit until forced.
They’d like to do that, but there are still too many bitter clingers to make it feasible. Democrats retreat then regroup. Mitt Romney had better actively promote the GOP brand and not be overly modest about it like George W. Bush has, if he doesn’t want a second Obama to come on the scene.
George W. Bush has => George W. Bush was
To put it another way - 0bama won’t lose a close election. Since 2000, DemocRats never do.