First Gay Socialist, Conveniently Federalist President Does Damage Control
May 14, 2012 - 8:28 am
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?