Why did Democrats like Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton, and Harry Reid (to say nothing of Dear Reader and GaffeMaster Flash) say they would never support homosexual marriage?
The new Democratic advocates for SSM fall into two camps. The first consists of people who always liked the idea of this but worried about losing national elections. In his memoir, Democratic consultant Bob Shrum remembers John Kerry fretting that the Massachusetts Supreme Court had forced Democrats to talk about gay marriage before they were ready to. “Why couldn’t they just wait a year?” he asked Shrum, mournfully. The second camp consists of people who really do oppose the idea of gay people getting married. Republicans argued that this second camp was tiny, and that liberals were hiding behind it. They were right!
As it turns out, the promises of these Democrats mean nothing and their words are vacuous. Or in other words, normal-normal.
Should the Supremes rule that marriage is not limited to the centuries-long natural marriage model that’s stood the test of time—until now—how about these to save some money on your Obamacare charges: consider lawsuits to allow for polygamy, multi man-woman-child “marriages,” or even to have entire multiple families “marry” one another?
With such lawsuits—if upheld—one member of the “marriage” could pay the “family rate” for the Obamacare premiums and everyone else could ride free as a “wife, husband, or partner” of some sort.
Why, extend the thought, ad infinitum: whole towns could “marry” one another, or even states, or even all Americans. Think of the possibilities, with all Americans—or even the whole world!—united to one another in holy matrimony! Exciting!
(To say nothing of the incredible economies of scale we’d no doubt see with nearly free world-wide healthcare! Such a program would likely save the global economy, disprove the “free lunch” theory, and debunk the bogus claims of anti-Keynesians once and for all! Exciting!)
“But that’s all absurd,” you say. Perhaps, but as long as foundational terms are being redefined, why stop with same-sex “marriage”? Why not a rabbit and a man (as pictured above)? Why not a man and a man and a pig (and ponder the predictive power of Deliverance)? Or an entire women’s softball team? After all, where is the love, or where is the love (Seventies version), or even if loving you (all) is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.
“But it’s against the law,” you say. “There are laws, conventions. It’s just not been done.”
Good point. As was sodomy once upon a time.
Rob Portman was against homosexual marriage before he was for it. The apparent reason for his changed position: he has a child who claims to prefer homosexuality. From Portman:
I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.
Love and compassion are Biblical themes. Homosexual relations, let alone homosexual marriage, aren’t.
In an unrelated secular hypothetical, would it be that Portman would be for underage drinking and legalized marijuana if one or more of his children were found to be users? Or how about if Mr. Portman had a daughter who wanted to be married to two men—or a son who wanted to be married to two men—would he be ok with that? After all, where is the love?
While people have the right to change their minds, on what basis are moral choices—and “evolved positions”—made?
Both expediency and cognitive dissonance come to mind in Portman’s case and Biblical teaching does not.
Why is it so many in government—especially in this Administration—are in favor of abortion, homosexual marriage, increasing taxes, and gun control?
In a word, power.
Based on their words and actions, it would seem many in government feel normal people are too stupid and irresponsible to make their own decisions, ergo, government (made up of people with alleged extra doses of intellect and good intentions, making them far better-than-normal) should decide on their behalf. As you might expect, the people in the government make decisions and take actions which increase their power and avoid decisions and actions which mitigate the same.
The power of the state is enhanced when, for example, the power of the family is diminished and the power of the family is diminished when the government provides your paycheck, your food stamps, your education, your medical care, and your retirement. The state’s power is increased when the natural family is diminished and “alternative” forms of family become government condoned.
Basically, government becomes less powerful when alternatives to government power are available. And of course, the power of the state grows when the power of the individual is lessened. Gun control, anyone?
Government’s power is increased when it forces, coerces, and/or bribes people to follow its way regarding personal choices and market interference. The power of government grows when it is allowed to determine your morality and diminish your choices. Examples: Twinkies are bad but seat belts are mandatory; tobacco is evil yet homosexuality is a great way of life; recreational drugs are dangerous while state-licensed alcohol is a good thing; illegal gambling is dangerous while state lotteries are good; growing the economy with ever more police, firefighters, and teachers would be good yet doing the same with the military is bad (they don’t vote reliably Democrat… yet). Armed government bureaucrats and wanna-be SWAT teamers are desirable while an 8-round clip in New York is criminal.
Especially threatening to the government’s power are the Church and the natural family, two institutions of moral standing which challenge the government’s power through voluntary affiliation and in-lieu-of substitution. For example, when the government subsidizes fatherlessness, it is making a choice that works to diminish the power of the family; when the government subsidizes homosexual marriage, it works to increase its own position (and the position of lawyers).
If ever-more government was the solution to our problems, moral and otherwise, shouldn’t the Soviet Union or Communist China be our role model?
Imagine a society that’s childless, fatherless, and Godless: it wouldn’t last too long, would it? While the government (that is, the current Administration) might say they’re opposed to such things—they could hardly say otherwise—their power grabbing actions speak louder than words.
My theory regarding homosexual marriage is that it was a Trojan-horse operation concocted by the divorce lawyers. The homosexual marriage agenda addresses at least two basic needs: the homosexual community wants acceptance (and benefits) while the lawyers want money.
The coulda-predicted-it result: homosexual marriage leads to homosexual divorce and provides billable hours for the legal profession, a veritable money machine.
In unrelated news, the President has directed the Justice Department enforce his new Executive Order, The Defense of Homosexual Marriage Act. Both Hollywood and the homosexual community have applauded the President’s move.
Har Mar Superstar—a performer and not a lawyer—was only yesterday cheerful, bright and gay in a cover I’ve come to appreciate more than the Gilbert O’Sullivan original.
I now have a theory why GaffeMaster Flash, AKA Joe Biden, got out in front of the President on the oxymoron known as homosexual marriage: it’s a play he thinks will keep him on the ticket for 2012.
How so? Because the homosexual community, the traditional media, and Hollywood will all be in favor of the bold, principled position Biden took, one which forced the President’s political hand. Biden now has serious pro-homosexual bona fides.
The homosexual community and Hollywood provide money and the traditional media provides top cover. Although the President is polling poorly versus Mitt Romney at the moment, imagine how much worse he’d be doing if the traditional media better reported the news.
And how scary is it to concede that Joe Biden is the thought leader in the Administration? I’ll answer my own question: it’s beyond terrifying.
While many think the extreme non-statesmanship and general idiocy of Biden would make him incapable of such a premeditated political act, a second hypothesis emerges: on occasion, even a deaf, dumb, and blind squirrel can find an acorn.
What explains the alleged rising support for the oxymoron known as homosexual marriage? There are at least three factors at work.
Lying to pollsters.
Living in blue states/areas.
Finally, not having seen the picture to the right.
Obama once said his Christian faith prevented him from supporting homosexual marriage.
Now, he’s flipped and does. But that presents a few disconnects.
Is it uncouth to point out that in 2004, when it was politically convenient for him, Obama argued that his religious faith dictated that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Now his faith dictates the opposite. What has changed during the last eight years isn’t the Golden Rule or the words and teachings of Jesus, the New Testament, or the Hebrew Bible; it is what is most politically expedient for a certain politician from Chicago.
Here are some other possible explanations: (Christian) faith no more? Full-blown cognitive dissonance? Maybe an extra-Biblical divine revelation?
And what does the President think Jesus Christ would have said about homosexual marriage?
President Obama has come out of the closet and now says he favors homosexual marriage.
So as this revelation is parsed out, a few of options are worth unpacking.
First, the President could be taking what he thinks is a genuinely moral stand on what is apparently a change of heart—his evolution—on the topic.
Second, GaffeMaster Flash, AKA Joe Biden, could have forced Obama’s hand and continuing to live the lie was just too difficult (and distracting).
Third, Obama could have come to an understanding (say, as suggested by internal polling) which posits he won’t be battered by Black or Hispanic voters for endorsing homosexual marriage. That is, They’re going to vote for me anyway.
Unless, of course, they don’t.
Fourth, Obama could have figured the homosexual community’s push-back would be more severe (as suggested by the same internal polling) both money and vote-wise than anticipated had he not approved.
Finally, he might mistakenly think he’s supporting a Muslim-held position on the subject. The caption in the cartoon above has two married—to each other—men whispering of muskrat love. Draw your own conclusions.
Given the voting results in from North Carolina, the whole spectacle seems to serve as another reminder the President remains out of step with the populace.
Normally, the constant parade of Joe Biden gaffes are ignored. Since one Biden gaffe is generally not much more simple-minded than any another, where would the media—if they were interested—start?
But sometimes—like when Joe says something true—the problem becomes too great for the media (and hence, the Administration) to ignore. Like Biden’s inconvenient position on being “absolutely comfortable” with homosexual marriage. (Note: there’s a serious double entendre to be teased out of Joe Biden is absolutely comfortable with homosexual marriage, but I won’t go there.)
Of course, homosexual marriage itself is an oxymoron: if not homosexual marriage, why not government sanctioned incest, polygamy, arranged marriages, and more?
It’s against the law, you say. So what? Homosexuality was recently illegal as well. Is there a slippery slope here? You bet. If there are no absolute rights or wrongs, what’s illegal yesterday can be condoned tomorrow. Laws can be changed (or ignored) as convenient and the underlying morality drained like yesterday’s bathwater (how’s that for an analogy?)
So while Joe Biden is out breaking lots of homosexual marriage glass for the Administration to sweep up, President Obama is trying to run away from the issue as fast as he can. If avoidance fails, the President’s next issue will be to backtrack. In doublespeak this is called clarifying one’s position. Should that fail, expect to find Biden somewhere under the bus. Hey, everyone knows Joe’s damaged goods anyway.
Since the President’s Justice Department is already ignoring the enforcement of federal law like The Defense of Marriage Act (as well as their apparent non-problem with illegal immigration), the logical follow up to non-enforcement is endorsement.
Why would the President run away from the issue? Voters. Voters of all types, but especially Blacks and Hispanics.
Prediction: until the fall election, the President will do his very best to vote present on the issue of homosexual marriage.