January 22, 2013 | 46 comments
July 11, 2011 | 102 comments
April 8, 2011 | 47 comments
February 25, 2011 | 229 comments
November 11, 2010 | 27 comments
Surprise, surprise! He’s for same-sex “marriage.”
In yet another move designed to distract attention from his abysmal record, the sluggish recovery, and continuing dismal unemployment data, President Obama confirmed what anyone who paid any attention to his actions and past statements already knew: the president supports same-sex “marriage.”
Mr. Obama’s historic announcement is a watershed moment for the nation. Across cultures and throughout history, marriage between a man and a woman has been, as Cicero put it, the “first bond of society.” Never before has a president endorsed a position that would so “fundamentally transform” America. But wait, that is what he promised to do in his 2008 campaign. His first term as president has been evidence of fundamental alteration of the basic aspects of American culture and society. Some think that Vice President Biden jumped the gun — that Mr. Obama might have preferred to time his announcement a bit differently. President Obama might possibly have preferred to wait until after his hoped-for re-election before publicly embracing such a controversial issue, but things are not going so well in his 2012 campaign, what with him drawing only half-full stadiums and lagging contributions. Plus, even Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post was calling the president “weak and evasive” as he tried to avoid stating the obvious.
It was an open secret that the president supported legalization of same-sex “marriage” — on the record — as early as 1996, so his comments about his position “evolving” put him in an untenably wishy-washy position vis-à-vis his LGBT supporters. Further, his 2010 statements about the “sacred” nature of marriage and the importance of God being “in the mix” ring hollow in light of his actions undermining marriage: He overturned “don’t ask, don’t tell,” signed “hate crimes” legislation, stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act, and extended domestic benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees. If he is re-elected, the sad undermining of holy matrimony and the disintegration of the family will continue until these pillars of American society shrivel into weak ruins of their former strength.
Clearly, the president had no choice but to “come out” for same-sex “marriage”; it had become a matter of character and integrity. Even his staunchest supporters were tired of the “wink-wink and nod-nod.” Others believe the big announcement was carefully orchestrated. First, he sent out Vice President Biden to test the waters and extend the media life of his announcement. Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, quickly chimed in to agree. David Axelrod, the president’s campaign manager, affirmed that the president did, indeed, agree with the vice president. When the president spoke (typically, out of both sides of his mouth and trying to have it both ways), he also said it was a matter for the individual states (in conflict with his position of not enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act). And, of course, reporters like Amy Walter, ABC’s political director, quickly declared the decision to be a personal one, not one with a “political agenda.”
Sorry, Amy. The politics of the decision are clear. The president is having a hard time raising money and generating enthusiasm for 2012. At this point, he needs a big boost in both money and enthusiasm.
After his big announcement — which was news to no one — he raised $1 million in 90 minutes, not exactly chump change, but not an avalanche either when he’s looking to raise a billion dollars to fund his campaign. Analysts say that one in six of the president’s major fundraisers is openly homosexual. Obviously, homosexual activists will work even harder and will dig deeper into their deep pockets to ensure his re-election. Andrew Tobias, treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, said, “Within minutes, people were calling with their credit cards. They’re thrilled.”
Some pundits are trying to claim that the president’s calculated endorsement of the homosexual agenda will not hurt him with black voters. The latest polls, though, confirm that blacks and Latinos are among the strongest supporters of traditional marriage. Further, traditional marriage has prevailed in all 32 states where the issue has been put to a vote before the general public. In those states where same-sex “marriage” has been instituted, it was either by judicial fiat or legislative action. The president and all his advisors might just discover that the nation is more pro-marriage than the elites would like to think.
The president claimed that the marriage issue is “generational” (older working-aged people, having gained both wisdom and self-sufficiency, are not among Obama’s base). Sadly, Mr. Obama used members of the military and his daughters as emotional fodder for his televised statement, claiming that their desire for equality is “the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.” The president also linked his endorsement of homosexual “marriage” to his campaign theme of “forward” by claiming that the presumptive GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, would “take us back.” In contrast, Mr. Romney, during one of the televised primary debates, said, “3,000 years of human history shouldn’t be discarded so quickly.”
The nation’s “progressive” elites think that they should be allowed to re-write cultural mores and morals to suit their more enlightened “change of perspective.” The risks of further deterioration of marriage are clear in the social science research. With 41 percent of the nation’s children being born out of wedlock, America is reaping the whirlwind from the very predictable negative outcomes of the decline in marriage and the breakdown of the traditional family — nowhere more evident than on display on a drive through Detroit or other major cities. It is a very sad day for America when our president chooses to put his short-run, short-lived benefit of getting re-elected ahead of the long-run well-being of the nation’s priceless children who will bear the brunt of his support for the unleashing of rapacious special interest groups whose appetites for self-indulgence knows no limits.
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?