And This Helps Gays Why?

The announcement from President Obama that he is in favor of “same-sex” marriage has been crowned by many in the media as “historic.”

A sitting U.S. President has personally endorsed gay marriage.

Never in the annuls of “historic” events has an act meant so little.

This literally changes nothing. It may ingratiate Obama further into the good graces of the gay community and get them to open up their pocketbooks to donate to his campaign more then they already have, but, it neither helps or hurts their crusade to be treated “equally.”

They are being used. Used for votes, money, and political showmanship. They are but one more pawn on Obama’s political chessboard.

Listen to Obama twist himself into changing nothing by trying to say everything:

Hmmm.

He personally believes gays should be able to marry, but he ultimately believes states should be the ones to decide.

So, realistically, he washes his hands to the issue.

And his courageous introspection of these deeply held beliefs, this personal “evolution” of Obama’s (Which up until this exact moment in time he campaigned on and believed the exact opposite), at this time, just happened to coincide with the current public and media scrutiny of his stance on gay marriage.

It’s all so sincerely believable, isn’t it?

And Obama can thank Joe Biden, administration stooge, who plays the perfect harmless goofball to Obama’s straight-man routine.

Joe’s propensity for uttering dumb or non-scripted material has been viewed by many as a liability. His tendency to belch up seemingly senile, blubbering thoughts and positions is dismissed as “Joe just being Joe.” This may seem all very innocent (Though if he were a Republican, his credibility on issues, and by extension, the President’s credibility, would be excoriated by both the press and liberal pundits.) However, to the Obama campaign, this perception of goofiness has been shrewdly manipulated into raising the Biden factor to “useful idiot” status. Biden is a win-win for them. He provides a fail-safe excuse to float up gigantic trial balloons. If the balloon has a Hindenburg-like crash, then it can innocently be labeled as “Joe just being Joe.” But, if it stays aloft, the administration uses it to see just which way the wind blows on a subject they deem potentially politically expedient. Not important in the sense that the stance provides good policy for the country, but for whether they can gain some sort of tactical political advantage and harvest good publicity to use the issue against their opponents.

After Clueless Joe let this balloon fly, at the following White House press briefing, press secretary Jay Carney looked a contortionist, fielding and dodging questions of just what the President’s position was/is regarding gay marriage.

His main catch-phrase was that Obama’s position on the subject was “evolving.”

“Evolving.” That invokes a thought process which takes a long time.

That said, we are to believe, at this precise moment when questioning this “evolution” started to showcase his long-held position that he does not agree with gay marriage, this evolution miraculously ended within hours of this scrutiny.

Uh-huh.

It seems quite offensive that the President and his handlers believe the American pubic, particularly gays, to be so easily manipulated. (Though, in many instances it seems, that assumption is correct.)

How many stunts like this must it take for people to realize Obama is nothing more than a political opportunist? One who discounts nothing when it comes to gaining either a short or long term advantage.

Shortlink:

Posted by on May 10, 2012.
Filed under Barack Obama, Categories, Gay Marriage.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • herddog505

    Shawn MallowThis literally changes nothing. It may ingratiate Obama further into the good graces of the gay community and get them to open up their pocketbooks to donate to his campaign more then they already have, but, it neither helps or hurts their crusade to be treated “equally.”

    Bingo.  Barry could have come to No. Carolina (as he was actually scheduled to do) earlier this week to personally campaign against the marriage amendment to our state constitution, but he ducked out.  Some “support”.

    Further, it’s rapidly becoming clear just how calculated and political this “evolution” has been:

    — Barry has essentially admitted that he’d already made up his mind that he’d “evolved” but was waiting to spring the big surprise at the (ahem) proper moment, such as the convention or right before the election;

    — Sheriff Joe shot off his mouth (how liberals can call Sarah Palin “stupid” with a straight face when compared to Ol’ Joe is beyond me), backing Barry into something of corner.  Joe has apparently had to apologize for his ill-timed words.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-10/biden-said-to-apologize-to-obama-for-forcing-gay-marriage-issue.html

    — According to Barry’s campaign, the money has been pouring in since his dramatic, unprecedented, courageous, historic, totally surprising admission that he PERSONALLY thinks that gays should be allowed to marry.  No surprise as (apparently) about one in six of Barry’s big-money supporters are gay.  Follow the money…

    — Barry was very careful in how he broke the surprise, calling on a very particular reporter with whom to have an intimate chat instead of a presser.  Optics: middle-aged black female Christian reporter nodding her head and smiling in support as Barry makes the heroic, historic announcement of how he’s wrestled and struggled with his beliefs until – at last – he decided that it was just the gosh-darned right thing to say… er… do… er… announce.

    But MiniTru is working overtime to spin this thing as a heroic, unscripted move, more heroism from the same Barry who, with a steely-eyed and unflinching gaze, wrote a gutsy memo to Admiral McRaven stating that, if the bin Laden raid when wrong, it would be HIS fault.

    That’s our Barry.  We haven’t seen this kind of courage in the White House since Slick Willie bravely bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan when at the same time (coincidentally, of course) he was in hot water for turning “Lewinski” from a family name to a synonym for oral sex.

  • jim_m

    1 in 6 of Barry’s bundlers are gay.  He’s way behind on donations compared to 2008.  He needs these people.  This was a bald faced attempt to buy votes or at least donations.  

    • herddog505

      What’s next, do you suppose?  Amnesty?  Reparations?  Bringing back the ERA?  Unionizing every employee in the country?

      • Guest

        Amnesty?

        Might be some value to this, actually.  If you structure it right, that is.  

         

        Reparations?

        I’ve thought about this one, actually. If I thought we could solve all of this nation’s race issues by cutting some checks, I’d be all in favor of it.  But life, unfortunately, doesn’t work that way.

        Bringing back the ERA?

        The fight of a previous generation.

        Unionizing every employee in the country?

        A double-edged sword, but I sometime wish unions had more of their former strength.  Today’s line-level employees often don’t have as much bargaining power as their employers.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jim.zielbauer Jim Zielbauer

        Banning hetero-sexual marriage…it produces more people and stresses the environment….causes global warming…children raised in traditional household, will more than likely be educated at home or in a private religious school,  have a better chance of growing up well adjusted…not needing anything from the government largess and will have a great possibility of being  rich successful conservatives. 

    • Guest

      “This was a bald faced attempt to buy votes or at least donations.”

      Pot meet kettle…. cause Republicans are way above pandering to their donors

      In the 24 hours since President Obama announced his support for gay marriage and turned it into a hot-button campaign issue, presidential candidate Mitt Romney and other Republican leaders have chosen their words carefully.

      Romney reaffirmed his opposition to gay marriage. “I believe
      that marriage has been defined the same way for literally thousands of
      years by virtually every civilization in history and that marriage is by
      its definition a relationship between a man and woman,” Romney said
      Thursday on Fox News. But he added that same-sex couples should have the
      right to adopt children and start families, adding that the marriage
      issue was “tender and sensitive.”
      Some of Romney’s biggest financial backers — including Lewis M.
      Eisenberg, a former Republican National Committee finance chairman, and
      hedge fund managers Paul Singer and Daniel S. Loeb — have become public
      advocates for gay marriage, as have other Romney supporters, including
      former vice president Dick Cheney and former ambassador to the United
      Nations John Bolton.

      Behind the scenes, influential donors and top
      strategists are counseling Republican candidates to avoid hot rhetoric
      or stigmatizing gay people, fearing a potential backlash from voters,
      who, polling suggests, are fast growing more open to gay marriage.

      Steve
      Schmidt, a strategist for John McCain’s 2008 campaign as well as Bush’s
      campaigns, said Obama’s announcement Wednesday drew attention to “deep
      division” within the GOP on the issue.

      “This really spotlights a
      fissure in the Republican Party between the southern evangelical wing of
      the party — where they don’t mind government intrusion into the bedroom
      and into individuals’ private space — and the limited-government side
      of the party,” Schmidt said. “Looking back at this from 50 years in the
      future, people who are on the wrong side of this issuearen’t going to stand very well in history’s light.”

      • http://profiles.google.com/rtssdorsai Jeff C

        actual voting suggests American are not in favor of gay marriage …

        • Guest

          On a state basis that’s certainly true. Overall its 50% in favor and 48% against, a virtual tie. But 34 states have amendments against same-sex marriage.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Proposition 8 passed in deep blue California by 58% in the same election it voted overwhelmingly for 0bama.

          • mikegiles

             And considering that those opposing the referendum attempted to confuse the issue, with advertising saying a “yes” vote was in favor of gay marriage; there is some question as to whether the vote was even that close. Polls have placed the figure at 70/30 against gay marriage.

  • Guest

    Look at the hate just pour out of the right.

    Clearly Obama is on the right path.

    • jim_m

      Clearly Obama is on the right path.

      Wouldn’t that be “on the left path”?  But seriously, there is no hate here.  There is plenty of cynicism, however.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        And disagreement.  But then, the left has a real problem telling ‘hate’ and ‘disagreement’ apart. If you don’t wholeheartedly sign onto the meme of the day, you ‘hate’.

        It gets tiresome, after a while…

        • Guest

          No, it’s hate. When you yourself post the enlistment oath then pretend to not know what it means, that’s hate.

          And Obama is capitalizing on these displays of hate.

          I’ll explain it to you after the election, meanwhile keep on hating bro…

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Can’t teach (or even reach) someone who’s determinedly ignorant.  Saw that with the Bush AWOL crap – supposition and ignorance won out over the words of folks who actually dealt with personnel attendance in the ANG and AFR.

            If you don’t know the system, you don’t know the regulations involved, don’t know the practices – then you don’t know squat.  Re Bush – it was plain to anyone who knew the system and looked at his record that he wasn’t.  You never saw one actual analysis by a military personnel specialist that said Bush was doing something wrong – the accepted wisdom was that he WAS in the wrong, records be damned.  It made them feel smugly justified to rail on about special privilege on his attendance, when it wasn’t anything out of the norm.

            And I’m seeing that with you.  You don’t know the system, you don’t know – quite literally – what you don’t have a flippin’ clue about, you’re not here for the discussion, you’re here for your ego.  You don’t give a damn about accuracy, rules, or regulations, what you’re here for are the insults you can throw.

            No further point in tossing you food.  Might as well toss flags instead.

          • jim_m

             You don’t know the system…

            What do you expect from a man who thinks tat the military takes a personal oath of loyalty to serve the President.

            This idiot not only doesn’t understand America, but cannot distinguish it from a totalitarian state.  There are two problems with that:  1) He cannot tell that we are losing our civil rights to an overreaching government and 2) He actually wants the totalitarian government (with the left in charge of course)

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            What I expect and hope for is some form of rational disagreement, and that they’ll have actual proof to back the disagreement.  I examine proof, (or even their opinion, if they articulate the reason for their thinking) and  decide if valid or not, and discuss from there.

            What I see is someone who thinks he can exchange internet troll points for frappuchinos at Starbucks, and acts accordingly.

            (You actually can, but you’ve also got to give them cash since there’s a surcharge for redemption.  So 5 Troll Points gets you a free latte and a cookie, but they charge you $1 per point for redemption.)

            Re your point #2 – you’d think they’d learn. It never goes as expected, the death count is always much higher than forecast, and they’re usually at the bottom of the pile… having been eliminated first.

          • jim_m

             Re point #2:  They want it because they always figure that they will be the one’s choosing who goes to the gulag and who does not. 

            In the Bros Karamatzov, Dostoyevsky compares the communists to a 13 YO boy (Kolya) in their understanding of how the world works.  He’s not that far off.  The leftist thinks they are invincible and that everything will turn out as they dream it but that is not reality. 

          • Guest

            The oath is in plain english. You claim to have taken it but clearly you swore to something you didn’t understand.

            It says follow the orders of the President of the United States.

            Pretending otherwise is just plain dishonest.

            But then, when losers like you and jimbo lose an argument you usually lie to cover it up and pretend you didn’t.

          • mikegiles

            Yes, it does say you will follow the orders of the President. HOWEVER your oath is to the Constitution. And you are only required to follow lawful orders.
            “and that I will obey the orders of the
            President of the United States and the orders of the officers
            appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform
            Code of Military Justice
            .

    • http://profiles.google.com/rtssdorsai Jeff C

      kid wasn’t out in high school …  attacked ?  like Obama attack that girl you mean ?

    • iwogisdead

      So, hate was pouring out of Obumble last week, when his public personal position was against gay marriage?

    • GarandFan

       ”Hate”.  Is that more of your PROJECTION?

      As for “hate”, doesn’t Barry get on his megaphone every Saturday and tell you who to hate, despise, envy or belittle?

  • jim_m

    It seems quite offensive that the President and his handlers
    believe the American pubic, particularly gays, to be so easily
    manipulated.

    No.  He just thinks that those on the left are that easily manipulated.  And I would have to say that he is correct.

  • 914

    Gullibles travels..  Barry plays the liberals and they fall for it over and over again.. Pathetic to watch really.

  • Guest

    I guess they didn’t read the same bible you guys read.

    When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

    Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set
    in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a
    concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale
    University’s history department, discovered that in addition to
    heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical
    documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex
    Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men”
    (11th and 12th century).

    http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

    But then Christians didn’t hate as much back then…

    • iwogisdead

      And, I guess, they didn’t read the same bible as Barack Obumble, who stood publicly against gay marriage until just a few days ago, and who cited his “Christian faith” as one of the reasons for standing against gay marriage.

      • Guest

        Some people evolve and some don’t.

        • 914

          You have apparently not evolved beyond the petri dish level of intellect.

          • jim_m

             Protists and monera are highly offended by the comparison.

    • herddog505

      The link you post points to work done by the late Prof. John Boswell.  Wiki has this to say:

      Rites of so-called “same-sex union” (Boswell’s proposed translation) occur in ancient prayer-books of both the western and eastern churches. They are rites of adelphopoiesis, literally Greek for the making of brothers. Boswell, despite the fact that the rites explicitly state that the union involved in adelphopoiesis is a “spiritual” and not a “carnal” one, argued that these should be regarded as sexual unions similar to marriage. This is a highly controversial point of Boswell’s text, as other scholars have dissenting views of this interpretation, and believe that they were instead rites of becoming adopted brothers, or “blood brothers”.  Boswell pointed out such evidence as an icon of two saints, Saints Sergius and Bacchus (at St. Catherine’s on Mount Sinai), and drawings, such as one he interprets as depicting the wedding feast of Emperor Basil I to his “partner”, John. Boswell sees Jesus as fulfilling the role of the “pronubus” or in modern parallel, best man. [emphasis mine - hd505]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell

      A critic of Boswell’s, who herself accepted the rite of adelphopoiesis with a good friend in Jerusalem, writes:

      [T]o begin with, I will say flatly that neither Boswell’s reconstruction of them nor his method of argumentation can possibly support the interpretation he proposes. First, it is highly implausible that homosexual unions either in antiquity or in the Middle Ages would have been blessed by a religion that promoted ascetic devotion to the kingdom of God rather than that condition which contemporary Americans understand as the healthy expression of erotic drives. In that sense the book is, as Boswell himself admits, counterintuitive in its very premise. Furthermore, early Byzantine law codes contain extremely harsh punishments for homosexual intercourse.

      http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html

      Incidentally, the painting of Saints Sergius and Bacchus mentioned as “evidence” by Boswell may be seen here.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sergebac7thcentury.jpg

      It is, as one would expect from art in that period, crude and iconographic: it is hardly a realistic portrait of a “marriage” ceremony.  As for Christ occupying the position of “best man”, He is shown separate from the two saints, figuratiively looking down on them from Heaven.

      But let’s assume for the sake of argument that Boswell is right and that Sergius and Bacchus were not merely “blood brothers” but a gay couple.  Does this mean that the ancient Christian church accepted gay marriage?  Or could it also mean that there was merely an exception to the rule?

  • Guest

    Never in the annuls of “historic” events has an act meant so little.

    Unless you’re going for an obscure pun, it’s “annals.”

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    Looks like the first polls are in.

    Rasmussen shows Obama at 50%.

    4% 3rd Party.

    3% undecided.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    Oh, wait – I got that wrong.  ROMNEY is at 50%.

    With 7% other, this leaves Obama at 43%.

    “Thirty-seven percent (37%) give the president good or excellent marks for his handling of the economy. 
    Forty-eight percent (48%) say he’s doing a poor job. Consumer confidence has slipped four points since last week’s government report on job creation
    and unemployment. The number who believe their personal finances are
    getting better slipped from 30% a week ago to 28% today. The number who
    fear their finances are getting worse increased from 43% before the jobs
    report to 47% today.”

    Wonder what Obama’s going to try next? 

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Since Rasmussen reports economic factors instead of social – I’ve got to wonder if there’s perhaps a particular tipping point for folks who are nominally undecided, and some of his latest pandering might have shifted the balance to the point where they’re seeing Romney as the better option.

      I’ve been expecting a 45-46 seesaw for the next few months.  But then, this isn’t a typical election cycle…

    • Guest

      The “first poll” you cited didn’t even address this issue.

      Here’s one the does.

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-11/USA-TODAYGallup-poll-Obama-gay-marriage/54905424/1

      Poll: 51% agree with Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage

       

      • mikegiles

         There have been a number of discussions as to why, with a 51% approval rate, gay marriage has lost in 32 straight states when placed on the ballot. Perhaps people tell the pollster one thing, and then vote differently in the privacy of the voting booth. Or perhaps the polls are just fixed.

  • ackwired

    You are right in that it changes nothing.  I would think that you would have favored his leaving it to the states rather than sticking the federal government into the middle of it. 

    I can’t understand your refusal to believe that his positon was evolving.  The polls indicate that most people’s views of gay marraige are evolving, and rather quickly.  My own views have evolved quite a bit over the last few years as more light has been shined on homosexuality.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/ Shawn

      I do believe that it should be left to the states to decide.

      I just don’t believe him.

      I don’t believe Obama has undergone an evolution regarding this mater.  I think he’s felt this way all along.  It just hasn’t been politically expedient for him to state that.

      Now, when the electorate is not mesmerized by his fresh-faced “Hope and Change” crap, he needs every vote he can get.  And he will get it from any outside-the-main  bloc that he can. 

      It is a remarkable coincidence that he suddenly, at this precise moment, decides his “evolution” is complete, at the exact time when the issue has erupted, during an election year.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

         Problem is, he’s peaking early.  Unless there’s some further ‘good news’ coming, this won’t be a big draw come the election.

      • herddog505

        The only problem I see with letting the states decide is the issue of what happens when people legally married in one state move to a place where that union is NOT legal.

        • Guest

          It’s going to take another 20 years for this issue to get fully sorted out, but the momentum is moving towards accepting same-sex marriages…we just have to work out the ground rules. If churches fear being forced to conduct ceremonies that needs to be addressed. The rights of the churches is as important as the rights of the gays.

          • herddog505

            I agree.

          • mikegiles

             I don’t. Some people believe that because the young are now in favor of gay marriage, they will continue to be in favor as they age, But it’s been shown that people tend to become more conservative as they age.

      • Guest

        I don’t see any way the Obama’s latest position is going to effect the issue one way or the other. I don’t think it will garner him any more votes or any less votes,

        Asto the timing, clearly Biden’s foot in mouth disease pushed the question up, and once the right wing chatter machine went after Obama on this, as was reported here on Wizbang, he had to make a choice.

        • iwogisdead

          I actually agree with you on this one. Obumble’s personal opinion, the way that he expressed it, is the biggest non-issue I’ve heard in a long time. He wants to leave the issue up to the states, he doesn’t want it a part of the party platform (at least he didn’t as of the last time I looked at a news site a couple of hours ago), and it’s too late to do anything about the DOMA. No one who was going to vote for either candidate is going to change because of this.

      • ackwired

        You will fit right in with the hate and demonize Obama crowd.

    • jim_m

       I would think that you would have favored his leaving it to the states
      rather than sticking the federal government into the middle of it.

      Oh, so now the left is in favor of states rights?

      • ackwired

        It amazes me how you keep confusing me with a doctrinaire, Jim.

  • GarandFan

     ”So, realistically, he washes his hands to the issue.”

    Barry told us he is like FDR, and JFK, and LBJ, and Lincoln, and TR……and now it looks like he’s also Pontius Pilate.

    Nice to see how easily Barry’s “deeply held religious beliefs” are “flexible” when in comes to money.  You’d almost think he was just a political hack from Chicago.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Well, at least he’s proved he isn’t a Muslim! ;-)

  • 914

    We see what happens when Obaumble leaves an issue for States to decide.. Look no further then Arizona for proof that ideology, money, lust for unchallenged power and vote fraud direct this President. Not the Constitution and not whats best for America.

    • jim_m

       Indeed.  It is up to the states to decide as long as they decide in the way he wants them to.  Once they decide otherwise the full force of the federal government will be extended to coerce compliance with Dear Leader’s ideology.  Thus he creates the illusion of people actually having a say in the matter. 

      • Guest

        Welcome to Fantasy Island…

        • 914

          Where you and Tattoo can do the wild thing with or without calling it ‘marriage!!’