If you believe the Washington Blade, James Buchanan was actually America’s first gay president. Or maybe that distinction belonged to Abe Lincoln, whom the Log Cabin Republicans and others have tried to turn gay from the grave. Honestly, it’s hard to keep track.
While that gets sorted out, we know Barack Obama can’t be the first black president, even though he is, because Toni Morrison gave that title to the very white Bill Clinton.
Not that there’s anything wrong with any of this, as they might have said on Seinfeld.
Obama is an ideologue and an amateur, who is in over his head even when following his destructive leftwing ideas to their logical conclusions. That’s what the election is likely to come down to: Do you want another four years like the last four? Hopefully most Americans won’t. Obama doesn’t want us to enter the voting booth with that question or any related questions in mind.
What some Americans will want is some answers. Such as, what does Obama’s old/new stance on gay marriage mean for policy and for the millions of Christians in the country who may not agree with him and who understand the true worth of his word? The president is reaching out, to some, to reassure.
In the hours following Mr. Obama’s politically charged announcement on Wednesday, the president and his team embarked on a quiet campaign to contain the possible damage among religious leaders and voters. He also reached out to one or more of the five spiritual leaders he calls regularly for religious guidance, and his aides contacted other religious figures who have been supportive in the past.
The damage-control effort underscored the anxiety among Mr. Obama’s advisers about the consequences of the president’s revised position just months before what is expected to be a tight re-election vote. While hailed by liberals and gay-rights leaders for making a historic breakthrough, Mr. Obama recognized that much of the country is uncomfortable with or opposed to same-sex marriage, including many in his own political coalition.
The issue of religious freedom has become a delicate one for Mr. Obama, especially after the recent furor over an administration mandate that religiously affiliated organizations offer health insurance covering contraceptives. After complaints from Catholic leaders that the mandate undercut their faith, Mr. Obama offered a compromise that would maintain coverage for contraception while not requiring religious organizations to pay for it, but critics remained dissatisfied.
Flag on the play: The “critics” remain “dissatisfied” because the president’s “compromise” didn’t change anything at all. It was a trick. His word is worthless, and his promises all expire. It’s important to keep that in mind.
Among those he called was one of the religious leaders he considers a touchstone, the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of a conservative megachurch in Florida.
“Some of the faith communities are going to be afraid that this is an attack against religious liberty,” Mr. Hunter remembered telling the president.
“Absolutely not,” Mr. Obama insisted. “That’s not where we’re going, and that’s not what I want.”
Flag on the play: When dealing with the left, things never work so that they get what they want and then stop pushing. It doesn’t happen. When they get what they want, they just push for more. Refer back to the ObamaCare abortifacient debate. While the mandate left churches out, Nancy Pelosi indicated that churches should also be forced to comply. Obama has gone after church staffing in other policy. If ObamaCare stands, it’s only a matter of time before she or someone else pushes for exactly that: Forcing churches to comply with the abortifacient mandate. Liberals win ground, and use that ground to win more ground. Their undefined definition of progress doesn’t have borders, only frontiers. Why should the marriage issue be any different than any other issue? And why should anyone take Barack Obama’s word on this? Unless his Julia cartoon comes to pass, he won’t be president forever, and the left will need some new excuse to call everyone not with the left “backward” or haters or whatever the insult of the day turns out to be. Marriage is as good an issue, from their point of view, as any other to turn into a weapon.
I’m curious about a few things. Will the president’s new/old stance have any impact on the elections? I think it’s still too early to tell. After the elections, if he wins, what will he do on this and other issues when he feels empowered with more flexibility? There’s still room under the Obama bus for millions. He seems to be throwing the entire capitalist system under there. Why is the president open to federalism on marriage, but not on health care, voter ID standards, border security, environmental policy, energy policy, or, well, just about any other policy?Why is federalism fine on the one issue, but not the others?
“Or maybe that distinction belonged to Abe Lincoln, whom the Log Cabin Republicans and others have tried to turn gay from the grave. Honestly, it’s hard to keep track.”
So gay Republicans are a some kind of problem for you? Honestly, it’s hard to keep track.
You must be a liberal -
Unable to see the point when it’s right in front of you? Check.
Unable to write a grammatical sentence? Check.
Obsessed with meaningless minutiae? Check.
Thanks for playing!
That’s what you get out of this article? Sheesh.
You’re completely correct about “progressives” (I prefer to call them “regressives”) always pushing for more and never stopping. They’ve been pushing and pushing since the 60s (and long before that, if you take into account all the leftist movements around the world). Look what a mess they’ve pushed us into now: global economic collapse just waiting in the wings, and an existential war with two quasi-religious totalitarian ideologies (ecomarxism and fundamentalist Islam).
I fear things will get worse before they get better, but they WILL get better. It’s going to hurt, though.
That’s the basic problem conservatives face in trying to maintain traditions and the basic tenets set forth in the Constitution. We’re happy with our American system of individual liberty and the rule of law. We just want to be left alone to get on with life, raise families and pursue excellence.
The left, by it’s very nature, is not happy with individual liberty and sees the legal system, not as a way to preserve our freedoms but as a way to advance their agenda outside of the legislative process.
While we try to avoid government, they are continuously working to expand it. Since socialism/communism is contrary to basic human nature, it takes a constant effort, like water against a dam, to enact it upon a free society.
They make constant progress through incremental advances, while we only wake up every few years or so to yell “stop” when they go too far. Then they pull back, regroup and get back to work while we go back to sleep. That’s how we’ve lost so much of our freedom over the past several decades.
They only way to counter them is to adopt their methods.
I am actually incredibly agnostic on this issue, but my gut belief is that the left will in no way stop until things are such that there comes a time, as Mark Steyn I think has somewhat said, when six-year old kids routinely decide to choose to become trans-gendered because it seems so cool and hip, and society universally–and I do mean universally (if you know what is good for you)–applauds.
It’s NEVER enough with the Movement.
Many here are old enough to remember the Brezhnev Doctrine:
-All communist states must eternally remain communist. Any subversion of such states is “against history” (evil.)
-All non-communist states are open to ‘liberation” (subversion.)
Many here also know well the distinction between the Dar-al-Islam, the House of Peace where Islam rules, and the Dar-al-Harb, the House of War where Islam does not yet rule.
The Progressives follow the same drumbeat. Forward!!!
– it was reported that Obama regularly reached out to these ministers, but now we are told that he called them after his decision to explain himself since they were taken by surprise. I suppose Obama at least prayed over it with Pastor Axelrod.
“Will the president’s new/old stance have any impact on the elections?”
No. Michael Barone goes into this today but if the economy continues on the path it has been (or gets worse) it’s going to be a re-run of 1980. The race will be back and forth all summer but when voters get into the voting booth and ask themselves if they want another 4 years of the kind of crap they’ve just had, the answer will be “NO!” As much as they “like” (or tell pollsters they like) Obama, there will be a mass movement away from him in the last weekend. And like 1980, nobody in the MSM will see it coming.
– Barone who after immediately after the 1980 election explained that voters in the booth said to themselves, “I’m not going to reward four years of failure!”