Wednesday, May 30, 2012

President Obama Still "Evolving" On Marriage

There is no question where the President stands on marriage--for now. Two years ago he said he believed it was between a man and a woman. Now he believes marriage should be redefined.


But many believe the President is not finished "evolving" on the issue of marriage.



In endorsing homosexual "marriage," he said he believed it should be dealt with on a state by state basis.

States, not the federal government, should make the decision on whether or not to redefine marriage.

We are presently dealing with the issue at the state level in Washington. Other states have and are doing the same.

The Washington Post reported last week that many on both sides---supporters and critics, don't believe he is going to stay with the state's rights position.

Relativism is a wonderful thing for hollow people without core beliefs. Other than that of winning a current election.

The Post says, "He may shift again." He may not be finished evolving.

Those close to the President say for right now he is staying with the state by state belief, however, they expect him to shift his view to one that believes "same-sex marriage is a guaranteed right under the Constitution."

No one doubts he will evolve to that view if elected for a second term, but there is a strong possibility he will be forced to stake out his position this fall, possibly before the election.

Here's why.

Theodore Olson, the lead Obama lawyer challenging California's Prop. 8, says Obama will have to decide by this fall where he stands because the Supreme Court, which reconvenes in October, will hear the Prop. 8 case.

The issue of state's rights on the issue of homosexual "marriage" is at the heart of the case.

Olson says Obama will have to, "decide whether he believes the Constitution recognizes gays' or lesbian's equality as far as marriage is concerned."

He says, "That's not reconcilable to leaving it up to the states."

President Obama assured the public his support of homosexual "marriage" is a personal matter, not a call to arms on behalf of the homosexual agenda.

Nobody believes that either.

Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action, told One News Now
"His actions illustrate -- through his refusal to exercise his duty as the executive and defend the law of the land, DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and additionally his having opposed the Defense of Marriage Act -- he clearly would prefer that the states be taken out of the loop, that they not have a say in the matter," Barber decides."

And the attorney cautions about what it would mean if DOMA is overturned "in part due to Obama's failure to defend it."

"Then I believe that he will come very clean on his position that same-sex marriage should be the law of the entire land. If DOMA is overturned, the floodgates will be opened," Barber warns.

Further he predicts, "That the 31 states that have passed constitutional amendments forbidding same-gender marriage will be nullified, "and counterfeit same-sex marriage will be imposed through judicial fiat."

This is not what we want to hear as we are working tirelessly to put homosexual "marriage" on the Washington State ballot this November, however it reveals the depth of commitment on the part of those who seek to reorder society and redefine marriage and family in rebellion toward God Himself. The Creator.

It further reveals the need for people of biblical faith to stand strong in these perilous times. Do not grow weary in well doing. In due season Truth will prevail. God's principles will stand. And He will not be mocked.

Thank you for standing with us in this ministry as we continue to speak Truth, act on behalf of righteousness and shed light in this present darkness.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

2 comments:

  1. My feeling is that he's probably in favor of same-sex marriage, but not strongly convicted about it. What he is strongly convicted about is getting re-elected. Speaking up now helps him in two ways.

    First, he was waiting to see who would get the GOP nomination before he said anything on the subject. If Santorum had been the nominee, Obama wouldn't have had to speak up on SSM, because Santorum is already seen as a stronger social conservative. Romney's more to the middle on social issues, so Obama wants to make himself out to be more liberal.

    Second, the people who write big checks to the Democratic Party do feel strongly about SSM. Obama needs all the dollars he can bring in, so he's sucking up to Hollywood donors.

    It has nothing to do with Obama's personal beliefs, even assuming he has any to speak of.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your wrists must get sore from all this drum beating Gary.

    The civil marriage contract is a state's rights issue. Maybe when a majority of states have marriage equality on the books some future Supreme Court might rule on it but it will be after both of us are dead and gone.

    As to Olson its odd he's of that opinion when the ruling he's gotten so far only apply to states that have had marriage equality and tried to reverse it of which California is the only example.

    Yes Obama maybe might change his mind but its unlikely. Despite the excitement about his 'evolution' its only a punctuation change away from the position that Candidate Obama stated in an interview with the Advocate back in 2008. The Post article, like so many they put out, is just there to stir the pot and get some hits.

    Worry about it if you want since its worry does seem to be a guilty pleasure, but the reality is that states will no more be mandated to allow citizens marriage equality than it does first cousins. (isn't it odd that as liberal as Washington has always been in these regards that we are in the minority of states that don't allow first cousins to marry?)

    Have fun.

    ReplyDelete

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