June 3, 2013 | 8 comments
May 28, 2013 | 0 comments
May 24, 2013 | 10 comments
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
Let’s get this straight: Joe Biden’s latest gaffe forces Barack Obama to “come out” in favor of gay marriage, something he might have done anyway, but not as soon. The media jumps into the frenzy, hoping to make people believe that the 2012 elections are about families with “two mommies” rather than families with zero jobs.
As if that’s not bad enough, barely hours after Obama flip-flops on the issue — just in time for a big Hollywood fundraiser where megamillionaires no doubt think that gay marriage is on the top of everyone else’s mind as well — the Obama campaign releases the bombshell that Mitt Romney was a prankster in high school.
Seriously, they are trying to make the case that Romney, who may have been involved in a 1965 prank in which a male student’s long hair was cut, was (and therefore still is) anti-gay.
Remember, Romney was in high school almost 50 years ago. Even when I was in high school, a little more than 25 years ago, the issue of someone’s sexual preference was far less thought of than it is today, not least because people of all ages stayed “in the closet” far longer and more completely than they do today.
I offer no judgment on people who want to keep such things private; the point is that the idea that the victim of a high school prank would have been “presumed homosexual” in the early 1960s just because of long hair borders on the ridiculous. Fox News reports that the sister of the person whose hair was cut, who died several years ago, has no knowledge of the event ever happening; she believes that the man “would be furious” about the story were he alive today.
That said, even if presumed homosexuality were a factor in a high school prank, what part of “high school” and “nearly fifty years ago” do Democrats think will make this an issue for the electorate?
A note on hypocrisy: Barack Obama, who supports federal domination of every aspect of human life, argues that the issue of marriage should be left to the states. Indeed it should be left to the states, but hearing that argument from Obama who clearly does not believe in federalism should invite great skepticism as it shows Obama yet again trying to have it both ways with the politics of the issue.
Similarly, Mitt Romney who, as a Republican, tends to favor federalism has said he is for a “national standard” defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Either you believe in federalism or you don’t, and Romney’s hypocrisy on this issue is little better than Obama’s.
Every one of these politicians should get their policies and their thoughts out of other people’s bedrooms. The issue should indeed be left to the states, and the states should allow any two people to make any contract they want to that does not harm others. The state should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religious institutions. And gays would do themselves a favor by discussing the issue in terms of anything other than the word “marriage” which, as many people have said, does indeed have millennia of specific meaning to most cultures within the human race. That meaning may change over time, but it will be a process, not an event. Votes on “gay marriage” across the nation prove that, even as public opinion drifts toward equal treatment of gay and straight relationships.
The big news of the past few days is not Obama’s view on marriage, nor is it Romney’s high school shenanigans. It is that politicians of both parties remain uncomfortable and inept on the issue — which is the most likely outcome whenever government gets involved in an issue in which it has no business.
In the short term, Barack Obama is probably getting the better of the discussion. In the long term, few people will cast votes based on this issue, especially as unemployment remains high, economic growth remains weak, and Democrats remain without a plan to improve anything that people actually care about.
Finally, I wonder when anyone in the “mainstream” media will mention that we now know more about Mitt Romney’s record in high school than we know about Barack Obama’s record in college or graduate school.
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.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?