Same Sex Marriage Effort Crystallizes Obama's Deceit
My intentions, which can wait a day or two, were overwhelmed by Barack Obama’s statement this week on homosexual marriage and the ensuing breathless flutter of the media. Notwithstanding many comments that the economy was the real issue and that this one would have negligible political importance, only affirming existing inclinations, the matter was front and center on the Sunday “News” programs (the quotation marks seem especially appropriate in this case). I agree with Barney Frank, of all people (though his demeanor was typically annoying), who said that any voter who would be inspired by this assertion was already going to vote the same way. And it also looks more than likely that Obama has held this position all along and only said previously that he opposed same-sex marriage as a calculation for his first presidential election. And the advantages do not seem greatly improved today, particularly in important swing states. But Obama’s fundraising has been beneath expectations, and now it’s at least a fish for the pop-culture and homosexual contributor seals. Reports are that it provided a little push for his Hollywood fundraiser at George Clooney’s home.
But his political posturing is not the deception I’m talking about. To begin with, in social terms, particularly those of coercion that liberals adore, Obama’s assertion implied nothing at all. His fainting fans called it a historic affirmation by their President to those homosexuals beleaguered by years of being socially oppressed. Really? There is great relief in merely the words of this demigod? And, I knew homosexuals pretty closely 30 years ago. They didn’t seem beleaguered and oppressed to me. They partnered and played as they would. But they had not yet presumed that they were oppressed if the state did not issue them a marriage license. We all know or should know that the supposed civil benefits of marriage are not really what are sought today. What is wanted is the seal of approval from the state and all of the legal prosecutions that will follow. What jurisdictions actually do deny benefits to homosexual partners should allow such benefits to be allocated to any other one human being, be it a homosexual partner, a relative or a friend, though they should be granted for at least some period of time, like 5-years. And that’s for heterosexuals, too. If 5 years is foreboding for you, perhaps either this benefit allocation or particularly a marriage, is not really for you. How about telling someone, “You know, I would marry you but…5 years…wow, that’s tough.” Try to make certain you aren’t marrying a complete whack-job.
But let’s dig through the real bottom of Obama’s deception. The reason it changes nothing for society is that, suddenly, Obama became a state-rights advocate and said the individual states should be left to decide on homosexual marriage at their choosing. I agree with him on that, except A) his statement implies that in his state, he would support it. And I in my state would oppose it for failure to qualify: the same reason any license is denied. And B) when I say it, I really mean it. Why should I think he does? As Michelle Malkin pointed out on Hannity the other night, he’s not for states’ rights when it comes to voter ID, immigration enforcement and abortion. What about health-care? He’s not even letting the individual decide, let alone the states. Liberals don’t support states’ rights. They want to federally dictate everything. So, this looks like an attempt to appease supporters and contributors on this issue, while still straddling it somewhat.
But think about this. Same sex marriage supporters have been calling it a civil right under the constitutional demand of equal treatment under the law. Now, I think there is equal treatment. Every man has the equal right to marry any woman who agrees to it. But if it is a constitutional right, that cannot be left to states. Even a conservative (accurate) reading of The 10th Amendment, leaves all powers to the states and the people that are not enumerated for the federal government in The Constitution. States can’t treat any individual different than any other under the law. So what Obama is effectively saying to homosexual couples is, “I think you should have the right to marry, but constitutionally, you don’t.” If they thought about it, that should flatten the bubbles in the pop-culture champagne.