Previously President Barack Obama declared he would leave it up to the states to decide whether or not gay marriage was acceptable. However, things changed dramatically last year when Vice President Joe Biden took the lead and disclosed that he did not have a problem with gay marriage.http://cowboybyte.com/7392/joe-bidens-mouth-creates-gay-marriage-fiasco-for-obama/
Gay advocates as Hillary Rosen and Michael Savage had numerous access to the White House during the first years of the Obama Administration, and consequently the issue about gay marriage was displaced from the back burner and put into much higher priority.
California’s marriage initiative was placed on the 2008 docket and was enthusiastically endorsed by much of traditional marriage supporters who signed a petition that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
Support for traditional marriage was galvanized by actions of then Mayor Gavin Newsom who illegally gave city officials of San Francisco permission to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. Although an affront to the legal process, the launch point for putting gay marriage into much political debate should be credited to Newsom.http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-22/justice/same.sex_1_marriage-licenses-couples-political-career?_s=PM:LAW
Grass roots support reacted to Newsom's directive and religious and marriage traditionalist gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures which were signed by those interested in not changing the definition of marriage, but keeping marriage defined to exactly what the vast majority of people said it was.
Unfortunately a very strange adjustment was made to the wording of the original petition that nearly a million signed. The wording was changed from “one man and one woman” to “makes gay marriage illegal”. Strangely nothing was distinguished about polygamy or other non-traditional aspects of marriage. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Jerry-Brown-s-wording-may-trip-up-Prop-8-3188163.php
Allegedly the explanation was “it was done for clarity”. The negative wording did everything to incite liberals and the gay advocates to undermine the solid support of those wanting to keep the marriage definition as it was.
Supporters of Prop 8 were marginalized as “homophobic” and “haters”, however those slogans lost meaning since the vast majority of Americans felt exactly the same way about protecting traditional marriage. A new strategy had to be generated.
Spinning gay marriage as a civil rights issue became the new strategy. Without fail the Obama Administration also made it a point to claim that gay marriage was about civil rights when it was not. This will be the first time a behavior will be assigned a constitutional issue.
After repeatedly stipulating that gay marriage should be left up to each state to decide, the Obama Administration has reversed itself with the urging that the Supreme Court overturn Prop 8. This is a constitutional test without question. There are other states with marriage initiatives passed to keep traditional marriage at its current status, however Prop 8 represents a microcosm of all other state initiatives.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/11/Obama-Won-t-Fight-For-Gay-Marriage-His-Second-Term
After taking the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States the second time, President Obama has directed the Judicial Branch regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and instructed the Justice Department not to defend any more cases. This is an unprecedented move to over step the separation of powers between the Executive and Judicial branches of the government.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323940004578253782897067550.html
Not only is Obama failing to protect and defend the constitution, but he is taking an active role to adjust the marriage definition to incorporate that of a small minority of radicals that want to dictate to the majority. The purpose of the Courts is to interpret the law, not create new word definitions to satisfy a vocal minority.http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Educational/Kids_Page/11.html
The constitutional rights of same sex couples needs to be address via domestic partnerships or civil unions which are legal definitions designed to extend proper coverage under the law for those failing to meet the traditional marriage criteria. Every right needs to be extended so that equal status is given to same sex couples.
Nobody should be interested in holding back rights of inheritance, visitation, tax benefits or any other right enjoyed by the institution of marriage. But deceiving by the smokescreen of changing word definitions to make others happy is liberalism gone berserk. Words mean what the majority agrees they mean or we cannot possibly communicate.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus
Changing word definitions is dangerous stuff, particularly if you have a handful of judges determining what words “really mean” behind the bench and closed doors.
Comments