Monday, February 28, 2011

President Obama--"The Gay Community Got To Him"

The New York Times is addressing the implication of President Obama's recent action to undermine marriage, even though many socially conservative leaders are skipping the whole matter for "more important issues."

And the Times is pointing out that the Bush and Cheney family is helping in the effort to redefine marriage.

The New York Times reported this weekend that President Obama's decision to abandon natural marriage and his legal defense of DOMA---the Defense of Marriage Act, which is federal law, has "Generated only mild rebukes from Republicans hoping to succeed him in 2012."

Sad, but apparently true.

They say, in the hours that followed Obama's announcement to abandon DOMA and natural marriage, "Sarah Palin's Facebook site was silent," Mitt Romney, "was close mouthed," "Tim Pawlenty released a web video---on the labor union protests in Wisconsin--- and waited a day before issuing a marriage statement saying he was 'disappointed.'" Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour took their time weighing in "and then did so in the most tepid terms."

The Times gleefully reported that Mitch Daniels, who earlier called for social conservatives to take a "time-out" on such moral issues as marriage and abortion then said he was misunderstood, told the press through his spokesman that he would not be commenting on the issue at all. "With other things we have going right now, he has no plans to comment," his office said.

No comment.

The Times says Obama has been emboldened by the largely positive response to his recent and successful push for Congress to repeal "Don't ask---Don't tell".

Did any potential political candidate speak out against the President's action?

Yes.

Mike Huckabee said the administration's decision was "utterly inexplicable."

Indeed.

My point is not to promote Huckabee but to point out the silence---deafening silence of those who seek to lead the nation by obtaining the votes of people of faith and social conservatives by assuring us they are one of us, while acting as though fiscal issues are far more important and unrelated to moral issues.

The Times concluded, to no one's surprise, "Although President Obama drew much criticism from gay rights advocates during his first two years for dragging his feet on their most important issues, they now see him shifting his positions as he looks at the 2012 elections."

And they and the homosexual activists think that is a good thing.

"The President," the Times says, "has calculated that the benefits of responding to his base out weigh the risks of upsetting conservatives who wouldn't vote for him anyway."

The President has said his views on homosexual marriage are "evolving."

Relativism is a wonderful thing for someone who lacks core beliefs beyond their own personal ambitions.

Win-Win, as they say.

Some Republicans believe if they abandon the "social" moral issues for a while, they might win an election because they are neutral on moral issues. Do they not know that many social conservatives and people of faith will not vote for them for that very reason? Do they think far left secular progressives will pass on a candidate who embodies their secularist views and is now doing their biding, to vote for a Republican, possibly a former socially conservative Republican?

I'm not sure why Palin was silent, she is generally very strong on moral and social issues but Barbour, Daniels and others are not only practicing silence, but advocating silence on what many of us believe to be eternal principles and the basis for the blessing and prosperity America has experienced.

While President Obama and his far left, secularist base "remake" America, we are to remain silent on moral issues in hopes that we can sneak in a win.

The founder of a pro-homosexual activist website, who had previously called Obama's actions or lack thereof, "despicable" and "homophobic," now says he is "much happier."

He told the Times, "I think the gay community got to him."

Probably. Or did he believe in homosexual marriage all along. Was he playing us---or them? And who got to the Republicans? The gay activists?

He has "calculated the benefits."

Some take away thoughts:

* The press will continue to find, report and support those who subscribe to the "social and moral issues aren't important" plan being put forward by some Republican leaders.

* Some, maybe many, Republican candidates will try to duplicate the very thing Obama seems to be doing. Saying he supports marriage as between a man and a woman, while stepping out of the way of those who seek to override federal law and destroy the institution itself.

*President Obama will continue to "wrestle" and "grapple" with the question of homosexual "marriage" while he stokes the fire of homosexual activism, while they seek to re-define marriage, the family and the culture itself.

*By election time Obama's view of marriage will have "evolved" to conclude that homosexual marriage is the only "fair" thing to do.

*How much "evolution" of morality will you accommodate? How much silence will you consent to? How much compromise will you allow a candidate, for the sake of maybe winning, on fundamental moral issues?

*Washington State will very likely have opportunity to make that decision regarding the next Governor's race. While he "charms the church" through those who crave a seat at the table, social and moral conservatives will be told how this candidate is their candidate. We have seen this before. You will see it again.

God help us if we choose politics over principles.

Does integrity in an elected official matter? Do moral principles matter?

Be Vigilant. Be Very Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Very Discerning.

Thank you for standing for what is right.

_______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

11 comments:

  1. Multiple entries about the same thing. As we know from the repeal of DADT its the legislature that has to ultimately do something, the president doesn't control them.

    The issue is again a constitutional one that has nothing directly to do with same gender licensing of marriages by state. For example, this could just as easily be a situation where the federal legislature passed a law that said the federal government weren't going to acknowledge any marriage contracts with participants who were first cousins (the majority of states allow first cousin marriages, Washington does not). That would be just as 'illegal' of a law since marriage is a state's right issue and the feds don't issue marriage contracts - its up to the states to decide who is and isn't licensed, not the feds.

    In an article with the Advocate, a gay magazine, candidate Obama laid out what he would and wouldn't do as far as marriage equality goes. He said he would NOT be its advocate but he would be one for equal treatment under the federal law of civil unions and domestic partnerships. He also said that regardless of how he felt on the matter if THE STATES decided they wanted marriage equality he would let them do what they thought right. And Republicans who are '10thers' and believe in state's rights really can't say 'Oh but on this issue we think the feds should be able to violate the 10th amendment and the states that allow this can't be allowed to' without being totally hypocritical.

    States have decided that they think licensing married citizens with their spouses regardless of their gender should be available and have made them so. Fine, its then the feds obligation to treat all those so state licensed citizens equally. Its a simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gary, your questions are truly the questions of the day!

    The battle was lost in Spokane, the "conservative" part of the state by 1980. yes 1980, Spokane was having students know and explore all the sexual orientations (fetishes/perversions and illegal sex acts) while not telling students that the acts had consequences or that they might be illegal. Those students are now the parents of high school students. Changing attitudes accelerated statewide when the HIV/AIDS education legislation was passed and classrooms openly and equally discussed the use of the almighty condom in anal, oral and vaginal sex. All acts were equal, all people deserved protection therefore, the lifestyles of others couldn't not be assessed or consequences considered.
    Today, WA has the new WAPREP Plan that will systematically force all institutions to teach "comprehensive" contraceptive/abortion education that is required to teach and embrace the information needs of LGBTQQI students. Become familiar with those initials because that is the new definition of what is normal and what is family.
    HB 1284 in this session is asking for students to at least hear the consequences of underage sex. This is commendable but a small token of what is needed in light of; sexting consequences, human trafficking, sexually transmitted disease costs, state funding of abortion and the new plan that uses federal dollars to dictate radical sex education in schools, juvenile detentions, drug treatment programs, after school programs, community programming and foster care. Can we ask for letter/calls of support for HB 1284?
    Louisa M. Alcott

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do not believe the battle is lost. There are always highs and lows in national morality. Look at the Old Testament. If we stand in the gap for what is right, God will hear and answer our prayers. Thank you Gary for being a clear, dependable voice for biblical truth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why are pastors not addressing these kinds of issues from their pulpits? I have not heard this in my church at all.Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm wondering if Obama has any core beliefs at all. He seems to be in conflict with what most most Christians believe on a number of issues including the biblical teaching that Jesus is the only way to God. I agree Gary, God help us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oshtur your matter of fact lecture does not seem to match up emotionally with the new York Times, which is a champion of your cause. This is not an academic excercise. It is an attack on marriage and the family. You can try to make it an academic, no big deal, all you want, but it is what it is and the NYT is calling it what it is. It's a big win by gay activists, aided by so-called leaders on the right. Thank you Gary for keeping the lights on and telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is an attack on marriage and the family.
    Letting more people license with their spouses is the oddest kind of 'attack' imaginable. As to families, there are far more families in heaven and earth than dreamt of in your philosophy it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you Gary for keeping this issue before us. It is important and I think the only thing we have to do to win on the issue is stay alert and interested in the issue, which you are helping us do so a big THANK YOU again :-) I agree with what one other person has said, that the battle is not lost - in fact I think it's far from lost. The media likes to make it sound like marriage is on the verge of being re-defined when in fact it is not, despite what President Obama has done. I think it is pandering to his base. At any rate, we definitely need more education about this issue at the grass roots level, in our churches. People seem afraid to talk about it, and they also seem unaware of what re-defining marriage really means. So we have education work to do. The Republicans are my preference, but we have to remember they are in the end still politicians. They understand 2 things: reward and punishment. Until people are willing to reward them at the voting booth for standing up for marriage, they will not take a strong stand.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gary will hang onto this issue for as long as it raises money. It has been his cash cow for years.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gary has no cash cow. I serve on the board of Faith and Freedom and know the personal sacrifices Gary and others make to do the work they do. You are either very uninformed, dishonest or simply attempting to smear, liable or slander. I'll assume it's uninformed.
    A board member.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 9:52

    State's rights was a Civil War issue, guess who lost? States
    have rights as long as they don't promote behavior or conduct
    that is injurious to the well-being of the nation as a whole.
    It's as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.