On Gay Marriage, Media Give Obama a Pass

Pages: 1 2

“Santorum Compares Gay Marriage to Polygamy,” blared the next day’s headlines across the country. Santorum, of course, did not “compare” same-sex marriage. He merely raised a legitimate issue. Where, if at all, does society draw the line? If one rejects society’s consensus that, until now, confined marriage to a man and a woman, why limit a marriage to but one spouse? What argument prevents someone from declaring his undying love for three people and insists that the law permit him to marry all three?

The real story should have been this: Why did the teen get away with simply saying, in effect, “I’m not talking about more than one spouse”? Does that end the discussion?

Obama, as a candidate for the Illinois Senate in 1996, responded to a questionnaire from the newspaper Outlines (now the Windy City Times): “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Two years later, in an Illinois legislative survey, Obama was “undecided” on whether Illinois should recognize same-sex marriage.

Obama reversed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell so that one cannot be expelled from the military solely because of sexual orientation. And Obama refuses to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage, at the federal level, as between a man and a woman and allows any state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage entered into in another state.

Given these “pro-gay” measures, how much of a leap is it for Obama now to assert his support for gay marriage? New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer came out last year in support of gay marriage. So has former President Bill Clinton. Instead, Obama said his position on gay marriage is “evolving” — and he gets away with it. The media seem unbothered by Obama’s reversal on the question of same-sex marriage. Santorum, however, is pressed to explain his opposition.

Does Obama, like Santorum, worry about boundaries and limits if he were to support same-sex marriage? Does Obama’s religion, like that of Santorum’s, still inform his position on gay marriage? If so, how is that any more tolerant than the “hostile-to-gay-rights” Santorum?

Santorum actually praised the citizens of New Hampshire for the way it went about legalizing gay marriage. The people of that state, said Santorum, legalized gay marriage “the right way — they passed it through the (state) legislature, they didn’t have the court impose it like they did in other states.”

Santorum, like it or not, is clear — and consistent. Why does Obama get a pass?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • Ann

    we need to start putting it back in his face and bringing up all his crap—everyday in every way—never stop—never!!!

  • Hyhybt

    "The real story should have been this: Why did the teen get away with simply saying, in effect, “I’m not talking about more than one spouse”? Does that end the discussion?"

    It ought to end that branch of the conversation, yes, and steer it back onto the topic of whether *same sex couples* (not just any arrangement of people and/or things you can imagine) should marry. The purpose of bringing up polygamy *at all* is either to invoke the logical fallacy of a slippery slope, or else to serve as a distraction so you wind up arguing over whether polygamy is a good idea or not when that's not even on the table.

    Whether the person you marry may be of either sex is a totally different question than how many spouses you may have. It's logically equivalent to insisting that a discussion over whether to raise the speed limit be focused on the disadvantages of letting people drive on whichever side of the road they want. Anyone who tried that would rightly be shoved back on-topic, and there's no reason the gay->polygamy crowd shouldn't be treated the same way.

  • Bobby

    The difference is President Obama is not calling for a constitutional amendment banning Gay marriage and Mr Santorum is. They do not hold the same opinion despite attempts to portray them as the same.

    • Hyhybt

      Indeed. Whatever the details of Obama's stated position, he's against an anti-marriage amendment, against removing gay marriage where it exists, and in favor of repealing DOMA to the point that he refuses to have the DOJ defend it in court. Santorum is as far from that as it is possible to be, short of calling for a reversal on Lawrence v. Texas.

  • http://www.whycanadamustend.com Tony Kondaks

    There are 6 or 7 states in which community property is law。This is a holdover from both the previous Spanish (California, Nevada,etc.) and French (Louisiana) regimes.

    Well, see the ’60s era movie “Hawaii” starring Julie Andrews and you'll see that prior becoming part of the U.S., Hawaii had a centuries old tradition of incest marriage amongst Hawaiian royalty。 Thus,there is more legal, historical, and traditional precedent in U.S.history for both incest marriage and polygamous marriage (Utah and the Mormons) than there is for gay marriage。

    • Hyhybt

      …none of which negates the fact that “which sex” and “how many” are different questions.

  • Wayne Lela

    Thinking people have known for centuries that homosexual activity is immoral and a bad legal precedent. Heterophobic homosexuals should not be deemed normal. "Gay rights" (sad wrongs) is not a cause that deserves support. That's just the way it is.

  • LesbianNproud

    the LGBT community rocks, and one day we all with have equal rights. And I will laugh in the faces of all bible thumpers!

  • Steve

    First off, our Constitution states two things very clearly: first. ALL people are created equal, and second, we have Freedom of religion. With that said, what part of “ALL” is it that you do not understand? And just to drive the second point home, your religion, or religious views and beliefs DO NOT trump mine!