by Patrick J. Buchanan
It took Joe Biden’s public embrace of same-sex marriage to smoke him
out.
But after Joe told David Gregory of “Meet the Press” he was “absolutely
comfortable” with homosexuals marrying, Barack Obama could not maintain his
credibility with the cultural elite if he stuck with the biblical view that God
ordained marriage as solely between a man and woman. The biblical view had to
go.
Obama had to move, or look like a malingerer in secularism’s next great moral advance into post-Christian America.
Consider. Obama had an appearance coming up on “The View,” where Whoopi
Goldberg would have demanded to know why he lacked the courage of Biden’s
convictions. He has a $40,000-a-plate fundraiser at George Clooney’s, where the
Hollywood crowd would want to know why he does not end discrimination against
homosexuals.
He has appearances lined up before gay activists raising millions for his campaign. Monday, his press secretary was pilloried for his feeble defense of Obama’s now-abandoned position.
He has appearances lined up before gay activists raising millions for his campaign. Monday, his press secretary was pilloried for his feeble defense of Obama’s now-abandoned position.
His hand was forced. Yet the stand Obama took could cost him his
presidency. Same-sex marriage may yet be a bridge too far, even for a dying
Christian America.
On the plus side for Obama, his decision is producing hosannas from the
elites and an infusion of cash from those who see same-sex marriage as the
great moral and civil rights issue of our time.
But Obama may also have just solved Mitt Romney’s big problem: How does
Mitt get all those evangelical Christians and cultural conservatives not only
to vote for him but to work for him?
Obama, by declaring that homosexual marriages should be on the same
legal and moral plane as traditional marriage, just took command of the forces
of anti-Christian secularism in America’s Kulturkampf. And Nov. 6, 2012, is
shaping up as the Antietam of the culture war.
Obama’s second problem is that he may soon be seen as America’s champion
of same-sex marriage, but an ineffectual advocate. For Obama can do nothing, as
of now, to impose homosexual marriage on the American people.
Thirty-one states have voted to outlaw it. A constitutional amendment
supporting same-sex marriage could not win a majority of either house of
Congress, let alone the necessary two-thirds of both.
Hence, Obama is going to spend six months winning cheers by calling for
same-sex marriage. But the price of those cheers will be the rallying of
millions of opponents of homosexual marriage, who will fight this battle where
they are winning it, at the state level.
Only six states have approved homosexual marriage, while 30 have imposed
a constitutional ban. In North Carolina, a ban not only on same-sex marriage
but also civil unions, though opposed by Obama and Bill Clinton, carried on
Tuesday with 61 percent of the vote.
Republican turnout in North Carolina’s primary was up half a million,
the highest in history. And this is a state Obama carried in 2008, a state
whose largest city, Charlotte, will host Obama’s convention.
Even in liberal California in 2008, while John McCain was getting a
smaller share of the vote than Barry Goldwater in 1964, Proposition 8,
restricting marriage to men and women, won.
How does Obama propose to win this battle?
He has one path to victory — the Supreme Court.
The New York Times, declaring that homosexuals’ right to marry is “too
precious and too fragile to be left up to the whim of states and the tearing
winds of modern partisan politics,” is looking to the court as the last, best
hope to impose same-sex marriage on the nation.
Can’t trust voters, can’t trust elected legislators, can’t trust
Congress. Homosexual marriage, says the Times, is too important to be left to
democratic decision. The republic must be commanded to accept it by unelected
judges who serve for life and against whom the people have no political
recourse.
That process of judicial tyranny has begun. A California judge has
overturned the decision of California’s voters to ban gay marriage, and his
ruling is headed for the high court.
The Supreme Court thus will tell us whether this issue is to be decided
democratically by voters and their elected state and federal legislators, or
dictatorially by themselves.
Four liberal activists on the Supreme Court — Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor — are probably ready to declare
that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right, as their predecessors
declared abortion to be a constitutional right.
But Obama needs one more justice. If elected, he will get it, and
same-sex marriage will be forced on all of America. If Romney wins, the Supreme
Court will likely leave the issue of same-sex marriage to be decided by the
people and their elected representatives.
Thus everything is up for grabs this November: the House, the Senate,
the presidency, the Supreme Court and whether we still call the United States
of America God’s country.
Game on!
No comments:
Post a Comment