Barack Obama has a marriage problem.
No, not that kind. To all appearances, Barack and Michelle Obama are happily married. Rather, this marital malady concerns one state, California, and one political movement, the push to redefine marriage.
It began May 15 when the Golden State’s top court struck down a voter-approved marriage law and culminated June 16, the date when same-sex couples could legally marry.
Media conglomerates from across the country covered the historic day. The party atmosphere grew (San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told Time magazine the mood around city hall was “electric”) as county clerks opened their doors and began issuing marriage licenses June 17. After tying the knot, homosexual couples were only too willing to pose for cameras and have their moment broadcast around the world.
“I see before me people who personify love and commitment. I see people who are the personifications of joy and celebration,” said actor George Takei, Sulu on the original Star Trek, just before he and his partner got a marriage license.
Journalists triumphantly chronicled the same-sex nuptials via hundreds of human-interest stories. AP writer Malia Wollan wrote about two men — one dressed in a kilt, the other “a white jacket adorned with feathers,” both wearing pink orchid leis around their necks — who married in Contra Costa County.
The San Francisco Chronicle described a group of eighth-grade graduates who went to see their history teacher marry her partner. One student said her class had been learning about LGBT rights in school, and that it was “cool” to see it for real.
A reporter for the Edmonton Sun predicted an economic boom for California from this “summer of love” caused by the influx of gay nuptials.
If nothing else, the stories reveal one fact: social liberals are euphoric. Civil rights upheld, the economy blossoming, kids getting a well-rounded education — all is good in the world.
Right up until Barack Obama opened his mouth.
IN AN INTERVIEW with ABC News’s Jack Tapper, Obama denied that the homosexual marriages taking place in California bothered him, but then he committed the cardinal faux pas of liberal doctrine by restating the traditional definition of marriage.
“I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property,” he said.
Big mistake. The liberal media and blogosphere pounced, hard. In a blog post tastefully titled “Shut The Hell Up,” Sara Whitman, a self-described suburban lesbian housewife, called out Mr. Change for his rhetoric.
“If I hear ‘Marriage is between one man and one woman’ one more time from Obama’s mouth — or any Democrats mouth — I’m going to scream,” she wrote. “How is this change? Leadership? Hope? Or do only straight people get to hope?”
The online homosexual publication Queerty had some advice for Obama, too. The editors warned that “Whitman’s anger clearly indicates that Obama and his campaign could be in dangerous territory with some gays — clearly, Obama should keep his gay explanations to a minimum.”
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?