Obama’s Gay-Marriage Evolution Sham

Obama’s Marriage Masquerade
By Joshua Foxworth  May 11, 2012

This issue of marriage is not as simple as it seems on the surface.  It is not simply about allowing two people to have the same rights with respect to hospital visitation or property rights.  Marriage involves the role of the federal government and the states, the classification of rights with the U.S., and the rights of Americans to hold their own viewpoints.

President Obama’s views on marriage do not merely affect what he calls two people of the same sex who chose to remain in a committed relationship.  His views show a marked change in legal and constitutional theory that has tremendous implications.

Prior to becoming president, Barack Obama repeatedly asserted that marriage was not a “civil right.”  This goes back to his debate with Alan Keyes in 2004, in which he clearly and repeatedly asserted that marriage was not a civil right, but that property matters and hospital visitation were.  After becoming president, Obama compared the struggle for marriage to that of the civil rights struggles of African-Americans.  Since Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage, the White House website now clearly classifies marriage under the civil rights tab.  Thus, marriage was not a civil rights issue before Obama was president, and now it is.

In multiple interviews and debates, Senator Obama asserted that the issue of marriage was one to be decided by the states.  He noted that the federal government simply did not have a constitutional role in marriage.  However, not long after assuming office, the president endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act.  While the White House website asserts that this legislation is intended to prevent the federal government from denying rights to same-sex couples, simply reading the summary of the bill shows that this is not the case.  The legislation clearly states that it would repeal the parts of DOMA that allow a state to decide for itself how to define marriage, and force a marriage carried out in one state to be recognized in all states.  Thus, marriage was a states’ rights issue prior to the Obama presidency, and now it is not.

Finally, there is the issue of faith.  In 2004, State Senator Obama clearly and articulately denoted his view that his faith dictated the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.  In his interview to endorse gay marriage, the president asserted that his faith dictated that we should treat others as we would like to be treated.  Without addressing the problems with this assertion and the questions it raises about the president’s knowledge of his faith, consider this: as little as three years ago, the president’s faith told him that marriage was between one man and one woman, and now it tells him the opposite.

So within the time-span of three years, President Obama has changed his views on where marriage falls within the realm of rights, changed his views on state and federal jurisdiction on marriage, and changed his religious and moral views to go from defining marriage as one man and one woman to maintaining that it is something else.

Now that the scope of the president’s evolving views has been established, the question remains as to whether the president has always supported gay marriage — or have his views legitimately changed?  Neither of those possibilities is good from a political standpoint.

First, if the American people believe that the president lied to them about his views, then the 2012 election is all but over.  Consider the president’s actions after taking office: he pushed for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; he issued two memorandums, one for establishing the same rights for same-sex couples where one was a federal employee and the other for preventing hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid from preventing visitations to same-sex partners; he supported the Respect for Marriage Act; he spoke often to the LGBT community about “the goal” and his desire to see it reached; and he has now classified the matter as a civil right.  Most of these things were done before the president’s supposed change of heart, and there seems to be no defining issue or moment by which the president can state he was prompted to have this evolution in his view.

Additionally, the entire roll-out of this new view point is contrived.  First, the education secretary admits to supporting gay marriage, and then the vice president lets it be known that he supports it, and finally the president admits that his views have changed.  This series of events was not accidental.  Arne Duncan was used as a tool to introduce the issue, and he and Vice President Biden were used as softeners to ready the American people for the idea of a pro-gay marriage president.  They were buffers to get the American people talking about the issue and an excuse to raise it with the president.  By doing this, the president is not questioned as to what prompted the change or when it happened.  He can simply point to the people around him and assert that his views have “evolved” just like everyone else’s.

If the Republican Party can cement the belief that President Obama lied about his view to get elected and has been pursuing a pro-gay marriage agenda since he came to office, then the idea that he is lying about other facets of his ideology will be an easy sell.

The second option is that the president had a legitimate change of heart.  The obvious problem this raises is that if he can change his mind on this issue from both a moral and legal point of view, he can surely change it on other issues.  Thus, nothing the president says in his campaign speeches or literature can be believed.  However, if you are shocked that the president can change his mind on matters, I have hours of health care debates on CSPAN for you to watch before you go to your “shovel-ready” job that cuts the deficit in half.

No matter which of these theories you believe, the next question to ask is the same.  It is also the most important question, and the one that no one is asking.  During the 2008 election, Senator Obama stated that it was up to churches to decide what they recognized as marriage.  Since assuming office, the Obama administration has been very vocal in its support for the “It Gets Better” program.  President Obama and numerous members of his administration have made videos for the program.  Recently, the founder of this program gave a hate-filled rant against Christians for their bullying of the LGBT community.  So the question that remains is this: “Will the president’s views evolve to a point where it is no longer a matter of choice for churches and synagogues to recognize only the marriages they see fit?”

Before you answer that question, remember the new viewpoint expressed by President Obama: marriage is now a civil right, and states should not be able to “deny” marriage rights to a couple.  No one can deny a person a civil right, and no state law can take that right away.  Thus, no one can deny a same-sex couple their civil right to hold a ceremony in the same place where traditional marriage couples hold their ceremonies.

The implementation of these policies will not be immediate or obvious.  Given the president’s citation of troops in his statement supporting gay marriage, the likely path to the establishment of national gay marriage will be a military couple married in one state and stationed in another by the military.  This situation will be cited as “no fault of their own,” and the president will assert that one state cannot deny rights to a couple whose only desire is to serve their country.  The next obvious step will be a national definition of marriage to prevent a patchwork of laws in 50 states from causing someone to lose his or her civil rights.  Once this is established, the ability to deny someone the same use of a facility as any other couple will be an easy sell.

Joshua Foxworth is the owner and editor of ThePoliticalGuide.com, a site dedicated to impartial summaries of political positions and controversies for representatives and candidates and to providing election information.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/05/obamas_marriage_masquerade.html at May 30, 2012
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/obamas_marriage_masquerade_comments.html#disqus_thread
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
vegetarian

True, If marriage is not a national concern, then how can there be a marriage penalty in taxes? And with Obama’s definition of rich as 200K for a single person and 250K for a married couple we have 2 people not being married having to wait till they make 400k to be rich and the married couple only having to wait to make 250K. That’s quite a marriage tax. So why would gays want to pay that extra marriage tax? It must be a love for national interest.

No, hating vegetables when you’re a kid and loving broccoli as an adult is an evolution. Core moral values do not change over time in a normal person.  This man can not be trusted.

VonMisesJr

This is all about socialism. It is about breaking down traditions and the “Rule of Law.” For arbitrary Dictatorial Rule to be effective, all the existing rules must be exploded.
During the Age of Reason, Rousseau’s “Noble Savage” was a concept that man is inherently perfectible. Society had taught men to be combative, violent, greedy and selfish. But if people such as Rousseau, Hegel and Nietzsche could reform society with their superior intelligence and reason, we could have Utopia.

So the first tenet of Utopian socialism is to break down all traditions, customs and morals. Then they could create their Orwellian “Big Brother” and “Brave new World” where the collective is not only preferable, but the only way. This is why liberals love big government. This is why socialist love chaos.

CTYankee

Mao was infamous for his vehement rejection of established laws and a constitution. There were only rules which were often unwritten and changed unexpectedly. The rule of law is viewed as too restrictive and a threat to tyrants who do not want to be held accountable for their actions and demand the utmost freedom to enact arbitrary policies.

VonMisesJr

CTYankee, The other reason to break down the “Rule of Law” is that rule of a tyrant is arbitrary while the “Rule of Law” conditions the people to rely on it rather than the diktat of a despot. You actually see this with public schools and with liberals in that they are taught not to think for themselves, but to remember what they are told. When you argue with a liberal, they chant and recite slogans. If you push back, they become agitated and even violent. You are stupid or evil since you break the rule obeying the ruler by not accepting the party line slogans.

CTYankee

Excellent second point and very true. All tyrannies seek, and really must achieve, absolute authority to control the masses and so tactics to instill fear of and dependence upon the ruler are continually employed against the hapless subjects. The introduction of the rule of law would empower subjects to challenge a tyrant’s egregious actions and pursue redress thus creating a sense of independence and importance amongst even the lowest ranks of society. Of course, this would undermine the legitimacy of any ruler and so would be perceived as the greatest threat to their claim to power.

The useful idiot crowd is composed of those who fervently desire dependency upon a ruling elite and will always seek that false sense of security. They are largely unfixable and so must be defeated at the polls or independent minded citizens will face despotism. Their chanting is nothing more than an instinctual behavioral reflex to enforce conformity which all of us possess in varying degrees. Tattle telling by children is the first evidence of such behavior. Unfortunately, liberals never outgrow this inclination and so just evolve more elaborate schemes to impose their will.

JBG

May I suggest that once again we are being played? Look at how everything seems to be set up and played out by this administration. There is a ‘hit piece’ in the Washington Post about Romney’s supposed cruel treatment of a fellow high school student 45 years ago. How much digging was involved in writing a multi paged story and then have it ready to go prior to the president’s ‘big announcement?’ It seems as though this president always seems to push the wrong button when it comes to choosing the correct course of action for our country. When gasoline prices kept climbing earlier this year, and Obama’s approval of the Keystone Pipeline would have done much, if nothing else to boost the spirits of the American people, Obama chose to delay. And then had the audacity to blame the republican house for it! Now this flap over gay marriage! After so many states voted against it, this administration carefully orchestrated and played a major news network into giving him a bully pulpit from which he appeared to agonize over a decision, before verbalizing what he termed the “right” decision. What a bunch of contrived ‘hooey!’

PattyMor

If it were just a battle over “rights” most of these issues could be addressed by any competent lawyer. They could draw up contracts for joint property and succession and heathcare power of attorney and visitation rights.

So what is the battle really about? Its about smashing the religious and cultural definition of marriage: one man and one woman for the care and protection of both and their eventual progeny. Once gay marriage is approved then the churches can be forced to perform their wedding ceremonies. And polygamy can be introduced. Its an anything goes and nothing to perverse or extreme. How about marriage of children to grown men?

Doctormhl1

I don’t know where that great philosopher, intellect, and theologian, Barack Hussein Obama obtains his information, but my Bible repeatedly and clearly states in the name of God that homosexual relationships are an Obamination.

Dlanor, American

If Obama was not able, before he was elected, to formulate a philosophy to guide him on such a fundamental issue as gay marriage, then how can he possibly have the character or qualifications to lead the republic in any civilized or decent respect? He is a lying conniver. It’s not that he cares about gays. It’s that he cares about himself and his cronies far more than he cares about the republic. He knows what he personally wants and who he begrudges. Apart from that, the man has no mature philosophy. There’s no there, there.

To assert that obama thinks about anything beyond his short game, his game in the paint and is bracket is to ignore all publicly known facts about this man. He is not deep thinker. What has changed are not his views but who he thinks needs to fund his campaign. His campaign clearly has idenified that campaign revenue from the gay rights product line has dropped and they have “evolved” a new and improved product to sell to the deep pockets. There was no evolution in his views and no thought.

Doctormhl1 Collapse
President Obama , the johnny-come -lately, thinks he is embarking on a modern and ground-breaking enlightened view of marriage and society. Actually, he is reverting to the old ancient practices of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. And we all know the rather sad consequences that were visited upon the perverted inhabitants who were under the impression that their “enlightened” views of sexuality were normal.
Apparently God had completely different view of homosexuality. As far as I’m aware, God is still a Higher Power than Barack Hussein Obama. (and VP Joe Biden.)

Domingo Mantoya

It’ interesting that President Obama suggests that he (government) ought to treat others has they themselves would want to be treated. This line of reasoning would then suggest that those in jail should be freed, TSA workers should no longer have a right to screen anyone against their wishes, ICE should be disbanded in favor of welcoming all into our country, (and the list goes on and on).

Sarbo23
We do not want to get into the sordid politics of a defunct polity. We just have this one question. It all started with gay rights, which became gay marriage and which became same-sex marriage. But, now, it has regressed into marriage equality. So this is the question we want the resident philosopher-king of America to answer (not that it matters much). Is the union of homosexual couples, given all the civil rights your courts will allow … is such a union on the same spiritual and philosophical plane as traditional, heterosexual marriage?

Of course not. Man and wife produce the next generation. Man and wife become mother and father and later, grandpa and grandma. So, the institution of marriage must be first destroyed. DOMA must be repealed. Only then will marriage equality be achieved. Burn and slash and call it progress.

Plain+Dealing+Conservative.

Muslims consider many things as sins worthy of death (just look at Saudi Arabia). However, homosexuality is practiced in the Middle East (a lot), but same-sex marriage would never be considered, much less talked about because of the Koran/Qur’an. While on various deployments to the Middle East (I’ve lived/worked in five countries there) I was told by quite a few Arabs (on more than one occasion) that “Man on man is for pleasure. Man on woman is just for babies.” In watching Barry/Barrack’s interview on same-sex marriage, it seemed he thinks like Arabs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s