The last time we heard about sex in a headline-catching manner from the White House, it was Bill Clinton denying having had a sexual relationship with that woman, Monica Lewinski. Until now.
In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, President Barack Obama made a statement of his personal view on same-sex marriage. With staffers who are in committed relationships and raising kids, and having gay and lesbians serving in his military—for that matter, having friends of his daughters with same-sex parents—there’s enough reason to say that it’s time to accept the right of same-sex couples to be able to marry.
What the President did not do is to endorse a Federal measure. Rather, he did endorse states’ rights in determining their laws with regard to marriage. Even so, the pendulum will likely swing more quickly in the direction of same-sex marriage, especially in this election year with the President coming out in favor of the “institution”.
So it’s time to get behind the President.
OK, so I’m obviously NOT serious!
This was an election year stunt!
This was to bolster support for the Dems following the results of Tuesday’s primaries.
This was a man denouncing his previous faith-based stand against something—and hiding behind an unrelated mention of Jesus and a flimsy reference to “do unto others…”
He previously hid behind “faith” but back-tracked saying he thought civil union was adequate. This is like saying that murder is Biblically wrong—I thought beating the person senseless was good enough.
This is the most ridiculous situation I’ve seen occur in the White House. The acceptance of the President endorsing same-sex marriage on national TV—and against the back-drop of the Oval Office—should prompt an outcry. He was asked but certainly was prepped for the questions he’d face. The question could have been eliminated or not answered. He chose to answer it with what was a very prepared answer designed to touch on several emotional points and to engender him to the LGBT community and its supporters. The timing is no mistake, coming on the heels of Joe Biden’s widely publicized “gaffe”. I suggest that it was no gaffe but rather carefully orchestrated foreshadowing, setting the stage for today’s news.
On the flip side, the outcry against Kirk Cameron for also asking a question in a televised interview was deafening. A private citizen, in charge of only his own family, suggests that homosexuality is not natural and he is maligned by multitudes.
Perhaps the President is right. The position on same-sex issues may be generational. Those of an older generation when morals were more publicly promoted tend to oppose the issues while those who are the offspring of a liberated, free-sex, progressive generation are themselves rather permissive and accepting. Remove morals thoroughly enough from a generation and the next one is destined to view those same morals as antiquated and out of step with society. We’re there!
Just yesterday, I was in a Facebook discussion with a young woman who finds nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. She stands on the principle of not wanting to tell people who they can or can’t love. Not the point. Same-sex marriage is not about who one can love. At heart, it’s about equality with heterosexual couples, whether for taxes, health benefits, death benefits, or just feeling “normal” or “equal”.
My counter-point is this: While not in any way equating homosexuality with any other sexual proclivity that society still shuns, I am suggesting that the argument of not wanting to impose restrictions on who can marry has a logical conclusion that equates to “anything goes”.
Most anti-discrimination laws in the land include “age, race, religion, national origin, etc., etc.” Sexual orientation has made its way onto the list in some jurisdictions. So let’s apply the two in tandem: We’re not going to say a couple cannot marry because of race. We don’t have barriers for religion although some groups may choose to stay separate. Similarly, we don’t put barriers up around national origin, etc. BUT, when it comes to marriage, we do have rules on age. OK, not about the 70+ year-old and a 20-year-old, but there are barriers against persons under 16 in most states. Indeed, we have laws against sex with those past the age of majority and a minor. It’s only a matter of time before this barrier comes down too.
When we move to the left and accept more permissive positions, especially from a platform of not imposing moral guidelines on others, then when those who truly offend us want their way, we have nothing to stand on. When someone wants to marry a 10-year-old, one could say that age is just a number—who are we to say who the person can or can’t marry? A man and his dog? Again…
There have to be moral guidelines or society falls apart. Society won’t fall apart over same-sex marriage, underage sex, or bestiality. Society will fall apart because morality will be one day defined by every person for himself, herself, and itself.
So it’s time to get behind the President. Let’s get behind him and push him right out of the White House!!!
Read Full Post »