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.
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?
Mike Huckabee said the administration's decision was "utterly inexplicable."
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.
Faith and Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.