Over at The Washington Post, Columnist Dana Milbank has a go at the White House over the President's "evolving" position on same-sex marriage. This little tempest in a teapot is as a result of Vice President Joe Biden on a Sunday TV Talk Show, saying he had no problem with same-sex marriage. As a result, the Press went after Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney on the status of the President's position.
The cynics might say that the President is trying to avoid taking a position so as to avoid alienating some segments of the voting public. That would suggest that those in the know believe that after the President wins reelection♠ he will be free to do as he wishes, accepting that he is going to disappoint some who voted for him in November. The cynicism.
Chris Matthews, of MSNBC, does applaud the fact that Democrats at least believe in evolution. I guess that is based on the fact that some Americans don't believe in evolution.
I note that the Black Christian Internet Network has taken note of this.
Regards — Cliff
♠ In a somewhat edgy comment at another post on this blog, Jack Mitchell of Left in Lowell has assured us that the Presidential—the US Presidential—Election is basically over and Romney will lose. Notwithstanding, I still plan on voting in November and so should you.
5 comments:
It is not cynical. Obama himself proclaims that "after November I will have more flexibility." Must that only apply to selling out to Russia???
And there is no causation of the socio-economic risks for children when fathers are absent from the home. Marriage in form and purpose can't possibly be about that, silly. sarcasm
....and thus the basis for refusing to abide by a Federal law.....the Defense of Marriage Act. Seems to me like The Exalted One is being VERY flexible.....
I would suggest strongly that there is at least some reason to posit that children with two parents, 1 of each type, tend to evolve much better than those with only 1, or none...and I am not at all certain that those with 2 of one flavor do all that well either.
I spite of the campaigns by the LGBT "community," in the known animal world, it isn't readily accepted.
Read a great blog post from North Carolia, voting on the definition is pointless unless the communities value marriage enough to reconnect dads and lower divorce rates.
Work has to be done.
http://gregtcarpenter.blogspot.com/2012/05/to-my-friends-voting-for-amendment-1.html?m=1
Whatever the President does or doesn't, we just have to move "foreward".
I enthusiastically agree with your point about "definition" being meaningless without community agreement.
One of the saddest and perhaps most telling statistics about the declining America is the plummeting number of married couples, the wildly increasing number of divorces, and the not spoken of but increasingly common number of marital infidelities that, like a cancer, affect much more than the doer....or the unsuspecting partner.
Parents....BOTH them....have to BE there....not just physically.....but emotionally, spiritually. There has to be some nurturing, some mentoring, some standard setting.
If it feels good, it doesn't mean that its okay to do it. Something that America has forgotten.
This whole subject of "enlightened" social mores calls to my mind a favorite axiom popular not long ago, "Folks who stand for nothing will fall for anything."
I find it interesting.....a watershed event....that Obama is the first President in the history of the US to proclaim the acceptability of homosexual unions and by so doing, declare their right and equality to what has been the accepted mode of marriage. Have we truly "evolved" or have we simply "devolved?" Are we about to collapse under the weight of our own moral, fiscal, and social corruption? I fear that the answer may well be "YES."
If I am right, I get no credit because by the time I am validated, it will be pointless...and too late.
Post a Comment