On Gay Marriage, Media Gives Obama a Pass

Print
6 Comments
Post a Comment
|
Email
Tweet

By Larry Elder (Archive) · Thursday, January 19, 2012

Why does President Barack Obama enjoy a no-fly zone on gay marriage?

The Republican presidential contenders, with the exception of libertarian Ron Paul, have never supported gay marriage. Barack Obama, on the other hand, in a span of 16 years, has gone from supporting it, to "undecided," to opposition, to a position that he currently describes as "evolving."

Obama, right now, opposes gay marriage -- just as does Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. In 2008, presidential candidate Obama sounded Santorum-like when he said: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ... it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."

When Santorum, the pro-life, anti-gay-marriage former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, was challenged in New Hampshire by pro-same-sex-marriage teenagers, he attempted to use the Socratic method to explain his opposition:

"How does it affect you, personally, if two men or two women get married?" Santorum was asked.

"Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry?"

"Yes!" shouted the crowd.

So anyone can marry anyone else?" Santorum asked.

"Yes!"

"So anybody can marry several people?"

This elicited some silence, mumbles and a few "no's."

"So if you're not happy unless you're married to five other people, is that OK?" Calling the crowd back to order, Santorum continued, "If your point is, people should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy, right?"

"As long as they don't harm other people," a young woman replied.

"Who determines whether they're harming people or not?"

"Well, anybody can understand that."

"Everybody can understand it. ... So we're not going to have courts?" said Santorum.

"This isn't, it's morals, like ..."

"So there is some objective standard?" asked Santorum.

"It's morally right for two men to have the same rights as a man and a woman."

"If it makes three people happy to get married, based on what you just said, what makes that wrong and what you said right?" said Santorum.

"That's irrelevant. ... That's not what I'm talking about."

"I know. ..."

"I'm talking about the basic right that you give you and another woman."

"OK. You know, it's important if we're going to have a discussion based on rational, reasoned thought, that we employ reason. OK? And reason says that if you think it's OK for two, then you have to differentiate with me as to why it's not OK for three."

The young people wanted nothing to do with Socrates.

"Santorum Compares Gay Marriage to Polygamy," blared the next day's headlines across the country. Santorum, of course, did not "compare" same-sex marriage. He merely raised a legitimate issue. Where, if at all, does society draw the line? If one rejects society's consensus that, until now, confined marriage to a man and a woman, why limit a marriage to but one spouse? What argument prevents someone from declaring his undying love for three people and insists that the law permit him to marry all three?

The real story should have been this: Why did the teen get away with simply saying, in effect, "I'm not talking about more than one spouse"? Does that end the discussion?

Obama, as a candidate for the Illinois Senate in 1996, responded to a questionnaire from the newspaper Outlines (now the Windy City Times): "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." Two years later, in an Illinois legislative survey, Obama was "undecided" on whether Illinois should recognize same-sex marriage.

Obama reversed Don't Ask Don't Tell so that one cannot be expelled from the military solely because of sexual orientation. And Obama refuses to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage, at the federal level, as between a man and a woman and allows any state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage entered into in another state.

Given these "pro-gay" measures, how much of a leap is it for Obama now to assert his support for gay marriage? New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer came out last year in support of gay marriage. So has former President Bill Clinton. Instead, Obama said his position on gay marriage is "evolving" -- and he gets away with it. The media seem unbothered by Obama's reversal on the question of same-sex marriage. Santorum, however, is pressed to explain his opposition.

Does Obama, like Santorum, worry about boundaries and limits if he were to support same-sex marriage? Does Obama's religion, like that of Santorum's, still inform his position on gay marriage? If so, how is that any more tolerant than the "hostile-to-gay-rights" Santorum?

Santorum actually praised the citizens of New Hampshire for the way it went about legalizing gay marriage. The people of that state, said Santorum, legalized gay marriage "the right way -- they passed it through the (state) legislature, they didn't have the court impose it like they did in other states."

Santorum, like it or not, is clear -- and consistent. Why does Obama get a pass?

Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.

Print
6 Comments
Post a Comment
|
Email
Tweet

Comments

Army Officer (Ret)

"Why does Obama get a pass?"

From the MSM? Rhetorical question, I assume.

As an American, I find it hard to think of any compelling reason why anyone needs the government's permission to do anything that doesn't harm someone else. If the government has a compelling need to know what my living arrangements are in order to perform one of its LEGITIMATE functions, they can just ask me.

Santorum's question was perfectly legitimate, and the bumbling questioner was a doofus (then again, as a current product of the public school system, why would we expect her to understand logic?). My response to Santorum would be something like this: "Yes, Rick, everyone should have the right to do whatever they want that does not involve the initiation of force or fraud against someone else. Anything more opens the door to tyranny. By the same token, the state should not be in the business of issuing licenses for personal living arrangements."

Posted January 19, 2012 at 12:20:25 PM

Holmes Simons

News Flash - Obama vacillates on political issues?

Perhaps his confusion on gay issues stems from his teenage indoctrination by mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, the homosexual, Communist pedophile, who taught him how to lick an ice cream cone, so he could get his only known job at B&R. Or, maybe, its from all the days Obama spent "socializing" with his slippery friends and victims in the steamy steam rooms at Man's Country. Or, maybe, it's his intimate encounters with three suspiciously murdered choir members at Reverend Wrights "Down Low Club"...I mean, church. Or, maybe he hasn't yet been invited to a sleepover at Arne Duncan's pad. Or, maybe, it's his warped psychological conditioning from his endurance of abandonments by his two foreign fathers and white trollop mother. Or, maybe, after being abandoned at a very young age, he found himself in a mixed-race body without any parental, racial, or religious identity in a racist society. Or, maybe, his white communist grandparents failed to tell him about the birds and bees. That's it....a communication problem, or, perhaps, he just didn't understand the meaning of different sexes.

As with every issue, Obama lacks the proper perspective to make a decision.

Hence, he prefers vaseline to concrete, when civil unions solve all of the marriage issues that may be distasteful in the "eyes of God". Of course, if one thinks he is God, with all of the choices, there just has to be a lot of confusion with an upcoming election around the corner. I mean, really, what must one do to con 3% of the population out of their votes? Grovel?

...Oops, we're not in Saudi Arabia anymore, Doroth

Posted January 19, 2012 at 1:06:20 PM

pete

Can't wait for same sex marriage to be legit, then this country impose sharia law. Skip down to the local Court house, flip thru the marriage records and take down names, waltz over to the property rolls, find out were the same-sex couples live, send out the goon squads.

Population control at it's finest.

Posted January 19, 2012 at 2:31:33 PM

cheute

This is precisely why the libertarian position makes so much sense. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Gov't has anything directly to do with marriage and family? Perhaps in a State Constitution, it is addressed. Then that State can and should "manage" marriage. Until very recently (from a historical perspective), marriage was dealt with only at a highly local level, and most often within the guise of a local Church. Certainly society (by extention the Government) benefits by marriage - the commitment it has (or had) of one spouse to another, and the joint raising, educating, and promoting of morals and ethics to the children. Therefore, society (again by extension, government) should encourage marriage, but except at the local level, not regulate or manage it. The Federal Government has no business in doing more than promoting or encouraging strong, nuclear families. I'd hazard a guess that the US government had no laws regarding marriage until laws were passed (in the 1860s?) because of the moral outrage against the Mormons - what might now be argued as laws interfering with one's right to pracice his religion. Ergo, with such a position, there is nothing to defend. If San Francisco wants to allow and promote homosexual marriage (I prefer not to use the word "gay" in this context), let the experiment begin. Since no society has yet to thrive that encourages or facilitiates homesexual marriage, I suppose it would fail - as families fail, so does society.

Posted January 19, 2012 at 2:35:15 PM

JAC

Holmes: Good points!

Posted January 19, 2012 at 3:21:29 PM

Mike Schuerger Sr.

Well cheute, I would guess the "Federal" interest comes from the US Constitution:

"Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Therefore, according to the Constitution, a "marriage" in any State should be treated as a "marriage" in all States.

I think this is why quickie Vegas divorces used to be popular, before all the States got into the "easy divorce" mode.

Posted January 21, 2012 at 1:24:46 AM

Patriot Headline Report

The Right Opinion

More Opinion

Grassroots Commentary

More Commentary

Policy and Analysis

Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher

The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund

Name	(required, displayed)
Email	(required, not displayed)
Comments

Navigation

Options