Threevolution

    In the spring of 2012, shortly after his hand was forced by Joe Biden, the White House called Robin Roberts to set up an interview to explain President Obama's evolution on the latest social trend in the institution-formerly-known-as-marriage.  I have slightly revised the president's comments in the Robert's interview to project what the president could say to explain a future iteration of his views on marriage:

But I have to tell you that over the course of-- several years, as I talk to friends and family and neighbors. When I think about-- members of my own staff who are incredibly committed, in [polygamous] relationships, [poly-sex] relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about-- those soldiers or airmen or marines or-- sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf-- and yet, feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is gone, because-- they're not able to-- commit themselves in a marriage.
At a certain point, I've just concluded that-- for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that-- I think [poly-sex groups] should be able to get married.
When I meet gay and lesbian [thruples], when I meet [poly-sex thruples], and I see-- how caring they are, how much love they have in their hearts-- how they're takin' care of their kids. When I hear from them the pain they feel that somehow they are still considered-- less than full citizens when it comes to-- their legal rights-- then-- for me, I think it-- it just has tipped the scales in that direction.

    I wish I could say that I am considering this topic on an entirely theoretical basis.  However, this article appeared recently in the British newspaper, The Guardian:

Three Brazilians in love have their nation up in arms over whether their relationship, now enshrined in a three-way marriage, is legal. The public notary who conducted their marriage says there's no reason the threesome – or "thruple", as the internet has charmingly labelled it – shouldn't enjoy the same kinds of rights imparted upon two people who get hitched. 

Is there anything in Obama's evolution towards same-sex marriage endorsement that could not be applied here?  One who is sliding down a slippery slope begins to pick up speed, and the same is likely to happen here.  Once the definition of marriage is changed, once "traditional marriage" became a pejorative to be mocked, all bets were off.  Just as redefining "life" to not include the unborn has led to the extremes of abortion, even to the point where our current president once rejected legislation that would have outlawed allowing babies who survived botched abortions to die, so redefining marriage will lead to extremes.

    Much speculation exists about what a second Obama term would hold.  Even I doubt that we would see Obama fully embrace polygamous marriage within another four years.  But how much more damage could be done to an institution that is already staggering under the weight of divorce, living together, and now same-sex marriage?  The bottom of that slope is looking closer every day.

Passport to a Brave New World

    In a recent post, I wrote about how the Obama campaign has been touting the strides it has made on behalf of the "transgendered", the "T" in LGBT.  One such stride dates back to June 2010, and receives not one, but two mentions on the LGBT page of the campaign website under the heading "Trans Equality" [emphasis mine]:

• Ended the Social Security Administration’s gender “no-match” letters and allowed for true gender passports
• Ensured that transgender Americans can receive true gender passports without surgery

    It is unclear why this accomplishment is listed twice.  But even though the repetition would seem to indicate its level of significance, at the time the White House ignored this development.  There's no press release or statement about it on the White House website in June 2010 or since.  Even when President Obama addressed an LGBT Pride Month reception in the East Room at the White House on June 22, 2010, just 13 days after the State Department announced the rule change in a "Media Note," he made no mention of the new passport rule.  However, the change was reported more heavily in the media than the SSA's dropping of gender "no-match" letters that I noted in my previous post.  Time and CNN, for example, both covered this story.  So why the initial soft-sell from the administration?
    I believe it is part of an overall strategy (though not an organized conspiracy) to move the country leftward on social issues.  Conservatives and Christians must recognize that this slow but relentless push for amorality is not a slippery slope, but a carefully planned and staked out rainbow path to virtually complete sexual license.  Pioneers like Gore Vidal (as Albert Mohler wrote about the other day) are sometimes brash and confrontational, but the broader movement often follows a slow Obama-like"evolution", trudging down the path, dragging American culture and social mores behind them.  Unfortunately, the weak moral principles of much of American society and even American churches often do not even require dragging.  We simply lollygag back further on the path until fear of being completely left behind and labeled as intolerant haters goads us into reluctantly catching up.
    The increasing profile of transgendered issues follows President Obama's and Vice President Biden's switch on same-sex marriage.  Now that that bomb was dropped, it's time to deepen inroads in other areas.  The emphasis on the passport rule is a good example of the strategy.  The LGBTer have borrowed a page from the pro-choice handbook by couching transgender issues as "medical" matters best left to the individual and his/her doctor.  The State Department rule change says:

It is also possible to obtain a limited-validity passport if the physician’s statement shows the applicant is in the process of gender transition. No additional medical records are required. Sexual reassignment surgery is no longer a prerequisite for passport issuance.

Every type of abortion, from the earliest abortificents such as RU-486 to post-birth/partial-birth abortions, has been justified by a "health of the mother" exception.  "Health" has, of course, been expanded to cover mental, emotional, physical and any other type of "health" abortion advocates can squeeze in.  So labeling transgender as a medical/health issue says, "Hands off.  It's my body.  It's between me and my doctor."  As the faux religious compromise on the HHS insurance mandate shows, "medical" needs (birth control, abortifacients, sterilization) trump religious liberty in the Obama administration.  How long will it be before religiously affiliated institutions or even churches are barred from discriminating against the "medical" needs of the transgendered?
    While it was encouraging to see free speech and freedom of religion largely defended, even by some on the left, in the recent Chick-Fil-A dust-up, note this:  Chick-Fil-A and many of its defenders were quick to point out that Chick-Fil-A does not discriminate against customers on the basis of "sexual orientation," and regarding employment, Chick-Fil-A is "an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in employment decisions based on any factor protected by federal, state or local law."  But how far can those laws be pushed?  When will the North American Man-Boy Love Association break through and receive acceptance from the experts in the medical community?  Will we kick and scream for a few decades before falling into line?
    And does anyone think that "LGBT" is really the end of the line?  Try Googling "LGBTQIA".  That's right, 119,000 results as of today.  "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersex, and Asexual."  And there are still 19 more letters in the alphabet.  Brave New World indeed.  But who will be the brave?

Defining Definitions

    For those who do not believe the definition of marriage matters comes this from Argentina:

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) -- Argentina's president personally delivered the nation's first identity cards on Monday to people who legally switched their genders under a law that sets a global precedent.
President Cristina Fernandez said she's proud of setting a new global standard with the gender identity law, which overwhelmingly passed congress, enabling anyone to change their gender without first having to win approval from judges or doctors.
Argentina is showing the world that equality is just as important as liberty, she said.

Our country's Declaration of Independence famously declares, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."  Now Argentina can't even affirm that all men are created men.  How will such a culture ever hold onto the definitions of "equality" and "liberty", the very concepts they purport to be championing?

Race to the Bottom - Divorce Equality

    Do we Marylanders live in a progressive state, or what?  Our state Court of Appeals has just ruled that, even though same-sex marriage will not be legal in Maryland until January 2013 (unless a ballot initiative is successful at blocking it), same-sex couples may divorce in our state now.  The AP reports:

Maryland's highest court ruled Friday that same-sex couples can divorce in the state even though Maryland does not yet permit same-sex marriages.  The Court of Appeals ruled 7-0 that couples who have a valid marriage from another state can divorce in Maryland.  The case involved two women who were married in California and denied a divorce in 2010 by a Maryland judge.   "A valid out-of-state same-sex marriage should be treated by Maryland courts as worthy of divorce, according to the applicable statues, reported cases, and court rules of this state," the court concluded in a 21-page ruling.

You've got to love the phrasing: "worthy of divorce."  It's barely been a week since the President made his announcement voicing his support for same-sex marriage, or "marriage equality" as the advocates are calling it.  Robin Roberts of ABC News should stay by the phone in case the President wants to make a similar endorsement of the equally cherished right of "divorce equality."  And Maryland is blazing the trail.

Planned Parenthood and Same-Sex Marriage

    Curiously, Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood recently released a statement in response to President Obama's endorsement of the concept of same-sex marriage:

“Planned Parenthood applauds President Obama for his historic announcement on marriage equality today. This president has been a steadfast ally for women’s reproductive health and rights and for the rights of all men and women to participate fully in society.

“Planned Parenthood believes that reproductive rights are deeply connected to civil rights for all Americans. We have long stood with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the struggle for full equality – many of whom turn to Planned Parenthood for health care, information and education – and today we join LGBT communities to celebrate President Obama’s commitment to equality.” 

It is unclear why PP found this proclamation by the President worthy of public comment given the tenuous connection between same-sex marriage and PP's "Who We Are" statement:

Planned Parenthood delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide.

Other press statements are much more closely linked to "health"-related issues, abortion, and funding of PP. The obvious answer is that this is a political statement.  Whatever pretense PP likes to try to maintain that the organization is all about health and reproductive rights, they clearly follow the path of the political left.  What makes the current statement so risible is the degree of praise that PP is willing to bestow on President Obama for a purely cosmetic announcement of his position.  His administration has made no policy changes, nor are any planned.  Imagine if you will if the President had said the following in the context of abortion:

"Well-- well-- well, what I'm saying is is that different states are coming to different conclusions. But this debate is taking place-- at a local level. And I think the whole country is evolving and changing. And-- you know, one of the things that I'd like to see is-- that a conversation continue in a respectful way." [Source: ABC News]

 Does anyone believe Cecile Richards would have been so sanguine as to "celebrate President Obama’s commitment” in that case?  No, neither do I.

Log Cabin Democrats

    One gets the sense from the Obama campaign's response to the President's announcement regarding same-sex marriage that the whole thing was like a surprise party gone wrong.  Preparations have been under way behind the scenes for months, perhaps years; the President has on more than one occasion issued unequivocal support for traditional marriage; then at other times, he gave hints that perhaps something was afoot.  But on Sunday, Joe Biden leaned too heavily on the closet door and came stumbling out into the living room.  Surprise!
    Whether or not Biden's slip was part of the plan (a matter of some debate,) within hours if not minutes of the President's interview with ABC's Robin Roberts, the Obama campaign began to release a torrent of tweets on their Twitter account, blog entries on barackobama.com, fund raising emails, and even YouTube videos proclaiming the end of Evolution - the President had arrived at the highest form of same-sex marriage positions.
    But has he?  Even though the President's supporters let fly with a million dollars in new campaign contributions almost overnight, many commentators on both sides of the political divide are unconvinced.  Rush Limbaugh spent a good deal of time on his show Thursday explaining that nothing has changed.  Everyone already knew President Obama supported same-sex marriage anyway, and his announcement on Wednesday was nothing more than rhetoric - his administration has committed to no actions to bring about the end goal.  He wants to leave the decision "up to the states," which is in itself problematic given his administration's stand on the Defense of Marriage Act.  The President's supporters are certainly used to empty rhetoric by now, but the "historic" nature of the moment seemed to have once again trumped the less promising reality.  It is even likely the President timed his coming out to follow the drubbing same-sex marriage took in North Carolina in order to capitalize on the fury its supporters felt.  The lower the low, the higher the high.
    But once the euphoria wears off, how will the President's followers view what the President himself was quick to cast as "history" being made?  It has occurred to me Obama’s gay marriage stance sounds an awful lot like Lincoln’s oft criticized letter to Horace "Go West, Young Man" Greeley.  President Lincoln wrote to Greeley in an effort to explain that as President, saving the Union took precedence over all other considerations, including slavery, regardless of his personal feelings.  Critics have tried to paint Lincoln as weak on slavery based on this letter despite the fact that soon after he wrote the letter, he signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves and paid for it with his life a few short years later.
    The modern LGBTers see themselves as the modern day slaves, oppressed by society much like blacks in the days of Lincoln.  Frankly, I find the equivalence repugnant and silly, but for purposes of comparison, let's see what the President was really saying in his announcement on Wednesday.  With apologies to Abraham Lincoln, I have slightly altered the wording of his letter (Lincoln's original words are italicized) to fit the current controversy in which President Obama finds himself enmeshed:

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.  If I could save my presidency without gay marriage I would do it, and if I could save it by gay marriage I would do it; and if I could save it by allowing some gays to marry and some to not marry I would also do that. What I do about gay marriage, and LBGT people, I do because I believe it helps to save my presidency; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save my presidency. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men and women every where could marry whichever sex they choose.

President Obama's supporters have often characterized him as a modern-day Lincoln.  On Wednesday, he played that role, but in their interpretation of Lincoln, in the least admirable way.  As it becomes clear in the coming months that the president will issue no Emancipation Proclamation of his own, perhaps those supporters will recognize the hard truth that while both Lincoln and Obama hail from Illinois, the current president is just another Chicago politician after all.

Un-Conventional Choice?

    The National Journal reports that some in the Democratic party are voicing doubts about holding their national presidential nominating convention this year in Charlotte, North Carolina for a growing variety of reasons.

• Democrats who already were queasy about the site of their national convention could be excused after Tuesday's election in North Carolina if they asked, "Tell me again just why we're going to Charlotte this year?" In fact, many Democrats privately are asking exactly that after the state's voters overwhelmingly approved a measure outlawing not just same-sex marriage -- which already was illegal in North Carolina -- but also any form of civil unions.
• [L]abor unions... are still miffed that the party decided to go to a "right to work" state and a city with few unionized hotels.
• [A]n unpopular Democratic governor who has decided not to run for another term, likely handing the statehouse to the Republicans. And don't forget a messy sexual harassment scandal that has forced the state Democratic Party's executive director to resign...
• And, oh yes, there is the fact that President Obama will be accepting his nomination with a speech at the unfortunately named Bank of America Stadium, an occasion that will lead to a run of stories about the $45 billion that the banking powerhouse received in the unpopular TARP bailout.

   Well, it seems that West Virginia is out of the running for a relocation of the convention after an embarrassing performance for President Obama in the Democratic Primary there on Tuesday.  A relatively unknown challenger and federal inmate, Keith Judd (pictured right), garnered 41% of the vote against the incumbent.  (The use of "relatively" in that previous sentence is even somewhat charitable, but regardless, one gets the impression that Judd was a stand-in for "none of the above" on the ballot in a state that is feeling less than charitable towards a president who seems to have targeted one of the state's largest industries, coal production, for extinction.)  But speaking of Judd, perhaps the Lone Star State would be a good choice for the Democratic convention since the party's newest rising star currently resides deep in the heart of Texas.  Runner-up primary candidates are often given prime time speaking roles at conventions and since Judd's ability to travel is currently, um, limited, maybe Texas is just the ticket.  Who knows? Now that his recognizance has been elevated, maybe he could get a weekend furlough.  On second thought...

"History" in Perspective

A speech to the troops before battle - August 26, 1776

Gettysburg Address - November 19, 1863

A tweet - May 9, 2012

The Chronicles of The Chronicle

    I've been following the saga of the Chronicle of High Education versus Naomi Schaefer Riley, a (former) blogger on Brainstorm, the group blog of The Chronicle, most recently in James Taranto's column today.  Riley recently wrote a scathing indictment of graduate level "black studies" programs entitled "The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations."  After a few days of controversy, Riley was fired from the blog when Brainstorm editor Liz McMillen had an epiphany that Riley's piece didn't "conform to the journalistic standards and civil tone" the readers of Brainstorm expected.
    So it is with bated breath that I now await the announcement that the next ex-Brainstorm blogger will be Laurie Essig, who teaches at Middlebury College.  Ms. Essig wrote a blog post on May 7th entitled "Amendment 1, Protecting the ‘Caucasian Race’ and a Whole Lot of Stupid," a critique of the anti-gay marriage amendment up for a vote today, May 8th, in North Carolina.  Based on a single source, a Huffington Post article ("scholarship"), Ms. Essig assails the citizens of North Carolina with rather colorful charges of not only racism, but even throws eugenics into the mix:

Of course, the amendment is not just stupid, but also completely logical, at least within the logics of racial and sexual hygiene that haunts contemporary marriage debates. According to a report in the Huffington Post, the wife of the state senator who wrote the bill, Jodie Brunstetter, said:

 The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce.

But eugenics and a highly racialized and classed order have always been the reason that marriage was protected and unmarried people were not considered full citizens in this country. 

Ms. Essig manages to smear not only Jodie Brunstetter and traditional marriage itself, but those who seek to defend marriage (which at this point seems to include about 60% of the voters in North Carolina.)
    Already it seems Ms. Essig lacks the civility and scholarship the Chronicle values so highly, but her journalistic standards may be somewhat lacking as well.  The Huffington Post article to which Ms. Essig refers contains the following update:

Jodie Brunstetter didn't explicitly link North Carolina's marriage amendment with protecting the declining Caucasian race, a woman with knowledge of the conversation now concedes. Freelance writer Kate Maloy told the Winston-Salem Journal that Brunstetter had commented that America was founded by whites, that "the Caucasian race is diminishing," and said that it was important to preserve America as established by its founders. But Brunstetter did not state explicitly that that was why the amendment had been proposed, Maloy said.

The degrees of separation on the original "quote" from the state senator's wife are stunning: Mrs. Brunstetter -> unknown conversant -> "woman with knowledge" of conversation -> freelance writer Kate Maloy -> Winston-Salem Journal -> Huffington Post -> Ms. Essig.  (The law of averages almost requires that Kevin Bacon must be involved somehow.)  But even more remarkable is that the update on the HuffPo story is date/time stamped at 12:05 PM on 5/7/12.  Ms. Essig's post on Brainstorm is 4:16 PM on 5/7/12, more than four hours later that same afternoon.  And yet there's no mention of that  caveat in her posting.
    The ball is in your court, Liz McMillen.  Upon Naomi Riley's firing, you wrote:

One theme many of you have sounded is that you felt betrayed by what we published; that you welcome healthy informed debate, but that in this case, we did not live up to the expectations of the community of readers we serve.
You told us we can do better, and we agree.

So, is the vote in North Carolina about, in the words of Ms. Essig, "moral crusaders [who want] to protect the 'Caucasian' race from the pollution of sex outside of marriage." Is this "better"?

Theology in Politics

    Rick Santorum has taken some heat for his recent words regarding the theology of President Obama.  While Santorum has clarified that he was primarily focusing on President Obama's beliefs regarding climate change and radical environmentalism when he made his comments, it's worth asking the broader question, "What is President Obama's theology?"  Back in 2008, then-candidate Obama said the following regarding same-sex marriage and civil unions:

Obama said that while he does not believe in gay marriage, he does think the state should allow civil unions that allow a same-sex couples to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other.
"If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans," Obama said.

That "obscure passage in Romans" is in chapter 1 where the Apostle Paul begins to lay out the Biblical case for the fallen state of man that he builds upon to frame one of the most well known and time-tested Gospel presentations of salvation by grace through faith.  And Rick Santorum is the one with the theology problem?

Slippery Slope

    Just when you thought the push to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland was the latest blow to traditional values, a story like this comes along.  How far have we come down the slippery slope?  Or are we already laying dazed and prone at the bottom?