Dear America,
headline: "why did Obama change his mind now?"
when, in fact, it's way too late to be asking that kind of question.
way more accurate: why did Obama change his mind in 2008?
But be that as it may -- the answer -- for both -- POLITICS.
Cue interview with Obama, from The Weekly Standard (circa 2004):
Q: “Excuse me, but as far as, why? What in your religious faith calls you to be against gay marriage?”
A: "Well, what I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it's not simply the two persons who are meeting. But that doesn't mean that that necessarily translates into a position on public policy or with respect to civil unions. What it does mean is that we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved, but I also think we have to make sure that gays and lesbians have the same set of basic rights that are in place. And I was glad to see, for example, that the president today apparently stated that he was in favor of civil unions. This may be a reversal of his position but I think it's a healthy one. I think, on this, President Bush and I disagree, apparently, with Mr. Keyes on this, because I think that that kind of basic ethic of regard towards all people, regardless of sexual orientation, is a valuable thing.”
Never mind the overwhelming amount of gibberish -- that was 2004.
That was then, this is now, and in between we had the election in 2008.
When he told a pastor, Rick Warren, this :
O: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix...
because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view."
[full transcript of Rick Warren interview, go here.]
In 1996 -- Obama was totally for it, as he was just starting out on the ground floor of politics, and wishing to represent the Hyde Park area of Chicago. Answering to a questionnaire, he writes, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
Again, it's politics; he's in like Flynn, or Flint, it doesn't really matter -- you pick -- I mean really, who really knows the difference anymore, right?
The thing is -- this morning -- I THINK this is how I feel [not really sure] [I'm distracted by my own evolution, you know] [and rather dizzy].
I'm Taxed Enough Already about this matter.
Besides saving dolphin, and whale, and that little bug in Texas -- let's add marriage.
Perhaps it is time just to take it out of the equation.
Let's protect it, honor it, and love it even more now; let's cease and desist, and stop allowing traditional MARRIAGE to be dragged through the mud slings of politics. Let's take it out of circulation. And let it be the Right that leads the way.
Enough.
Perhaps the Right should unexpectedly give a little and pull a runaway vibe.
There is just no way to "re-define" traditional marriage as anything goes; and then to further violate it, playing fast and loose with what it means and what it looks like, just adds another level of mockery.
We seem to all agree that same-sex couples have the right to such things as community property, hospital visits, taxation benefits/liabilities across the board. Nobody seems to say "I don't" to that.
But if you could bear with me -- even when this could be so wrong I don't wanna be right --
But picture this sketch, if you will:
If we simply take the term "marriage" out of the dynamic for all of us -- bowing to the use of the secular phrase of "Civil Unions" -- we can save it. The empowerment of either being "for it" or "against it" is totally taken away. It can no longer be used as a political ploy and toy.
Marriage should be protected -- at least, in the sense of what is left of it.
Removing the agenda, the activism, the fraud of flip flopping on political whim and fancy, allows Traditional Marriage to be saved overall -- in essence, choosing to lose the battle to win the war (as it's the Good War).
It's the movement, the constant bombardment, of same-sex couples to take something that is simply not genetically possible as their own, and re-defining the sacred, cultural, family structure that begins at a marriage of a man and a woman. In the process, all civility gets lost in the translation, in the conversation, and we are reduced to in-fighting, forcing a great divide between us.
If the goal is to be ONE people, assimilating, working together, speaking the same language, living under one roof (under God) then we should all accept the fact we are at a crossroads. And that, sometimes, when in a civil union, it is better to agree to disagree and move on.
I believe it would be overwhelming healthier, and happier, to allow marriage to stand alone at the alter, protected under long standing tradition and integrity; and thereby allowing churches and temples to continue honoring the ceremony of marriage as we know it well into the future. [and yes, I hear you -- there is the principle of it -- there is that -- and again, is this really want we want to spend our time fighting over?]
The future of America does not hang in the balance of making a "politically" "correct" "decision" between gay and. traditional marriage -- no matter how many times we flip on it -- heaven's no.
It's just not worth it.
It diminishes the personal meaning and attachments built over time, as a people, as a community, as brothers and sisters.
The immediate concern upon the horizon shows far greater, and seemingly irreconcilable, issues. Pending the rise of rather foreign doctrines -- capitalizing on the redistribution of wealth, big government, and growing generations of barbaric, wretchedly dependent populace -- with the sunset of America's ideals of smaller government, free enterprise, and real individual freedoms are at stake.
If you really want a happily ever after, then we must fix these things first and foremost.
But go ahead, President Obama, ring around the rosy away and keep talking in circles; the longer you spin, the greater the chances of you falling down and going boom. But then, I guess you are counting on a certain voting block to pick you back up. [but who's to say, right, as he is really not changing a thing -- round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows]
Truth is, for the rest of us -- this is just an evolution backwards, to a time and place of where you started sixteen years ago (which is funny -- usually when speaking of an "evolution" we are normally referring to something moving forward....cue the snarky snare: badump ba)
Make it a Good Day, G
headline: "why did Obama change his mind now?"
when, in fact, it's way too late to be asking that kind of question.
way more accurate: why did Obama change his mind in 2008?
But be that as it may -- the answer -- for both -- POLITICS.
Cue interview with Obama, from The Weekly Standard (circa 2004):
Q: “Excuse me, but as far as, why? What in your religious faith calls you to be against gay marriage?”
A: "Well, what I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it's not simply the two persons who are meeting. But that doesn't mean that that necessarily translates into a position on public policy or with respect to civil unions. What it does mean is that we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved, but I also think we have to make sure that gays and lesbians have the same set of basic rights that are in place. And I was glad to see, for example, that the president today apparently stated that he was in favor of civil unions. This may be a reversal of his position but I think it's a healthy one. I think, on this, President Bush and I disagree, apparently, with Mr. Keyes on this, because I think that that kind of basic ethic of regard towards all people, regardless of sexual orientation, is a valuable thing.”
Never mind the overwhelming amount of gibberish -- that was 2004.
That was then, this is now, and in between we had the election in 2008.
When he told a pastor, Rick Warren, this :
O: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix...
because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view."
[full transcript of Rick Warren interview, go here.]
In 1996 -- Obama was totally for it, as he was just starting out on the ground floor of politics, and wishing to represent the Hyde Park area of Chicago. Answering to a questionnaire, he writes, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
Again, it's politics; he's in like Flynn, or Flint, it doesn't really matter -- you pick -- I mean really, who really knows the difference anymore, right?
The thing is -- this morning -- I THINK this is how I feel [not really sure] [I'm distracted by my own evolution, you know] [and rather dizzy].
I'm Taxed Enough Already about this matter.
Besides saving dolphin, and whale, and that little bug in Texas -- let's add marriage.
Perhaps it is time just to take it out of the equation.
Let's protect it, honor it, and love it even more now; let's cease and desist, and stop allowing traditional MARRIAGE to be dragged through the mud slings of politics. Let's take it out of circulation. And let it be the Right that leads the way.
Enough.
Perhaps the Right should unexpectedly give a little and pull a runaway vibe.
There is just no way to "re-define" traditional marriage as anything goes; and then to further violate it, playing fast and loose with what it means and what it looks like, just adds another level of mockery.
We seem to all agree that same-sex couples have the right to such things as community property, hospital visits, taxation benefits/liabilities across the board. Nobody seems to say "I don't" to that.
But if you could bear with me -- even when this could be so wrong I don't wanna be right --
But picture this sketch, if you will:
If we simply take the term "marriage" out of the dynamic for all of us -- bowing to the use of the secular phrase of "Civil Unions" -- we can save it. The empowerment of either being "for it" or "against it" is totally taken away. It can no longer be used as a political ploy and toy.
Marriage should be protected -- at least, in the sense of what is left of it.
Removing the agenda, the activism, the fraud of flip flopping on political whim and fancy, allows Traditional Marriage to be saved overall -- in essence, choosing to lose the battle to win the war (as it's the Good War).
It's the movement, the constant bombardment, of same-sex couples to take something that is simply not genetically possible as their own, and re-defining the sacred, cultural, family structure that begins at a marriage of a man and a woman. In the process, all civility gets lost in the translation, in the conversation, and we are reduced to in-fighting, forcing a great divide between us.
If the goal is to be ONE people, assimilating, working together, speaking the same language, living under one roof (under God) then we should all accept the fact we are at a crossroads. And that, sometimes, when in a civil union, it is better to agree to disagree and move on.
I believe it would be overwhelming healthier, and happier, to allow marriage to stand alone at the alter, protected under long standing tradition and integrity; and thereby allowing churches and temples to continue honoring the ceremony of marriage as we know it well into the future. [and yes, I hear you -- there is the principle of it -- there is that -- and again, is this really want we want to spend our time fighting over?]
The future of America does not hang in the balance of making a "politically" "correct" "decision" between gay and. traditional marriage -- no matter how many times we flip on it -- heaven's no.
It's just not worth it.
It diminishes the personal meaning and attachments built over time, as a people, as a community, as brothers and sisters.
The immediate concern upon the horizon shows far greater, and seemingly irreconcilable, issues. Pending the rise of rather foreign doctrines -- capitalizing on the redistribution of wealth, big government, and growing generations of barbaric, wretchedly dependent populace -- with the sunset of America's ideals of smaller government, free enterprise, and real individual freedoms are at stake.
If you really want a happily ever after, then we must fix these things first and foremost.
But go ahead, President Obama, ring around the rosy away and keep talking in circles; the longer you spin, the greater the chances of you falling down and going boom. But then, I guess you are counting on a certain voting block to pick you back up. [but who's to say, right, as he is really not changing a thing -- round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows]
Truth is, for the rest of us -- this is just an evolution backwards, to a time and place of where you started sixteen years ago (which is funny -- usually when speaking of an "evolution" we are normally referring to something moving forward....cue the snarky snare: badump ba)
Make it a Good Day, G
Posts
Einstein theorized that all objects in space are not stationary but in motion relative to all other objects, that there was a beginning, a creation and a Creator. Modern science 1980s on has confirmed relativity and rate of expansion, and computed back to Creation (Bang) was ~14.5B years BCE. Reasons.org explains the astrophysics and documents that the Bible accurately describes every major stage Universe development. The Bible also describes the formation of Earth and all living things, and is also the Operating Manual on how live together in the image of the Creator - Amen
ReplyDelete