Here's this from a homosexual rights blog:
A few weeks ago I was getting dozens of emails about President-elect Barack Obama's Change.gov website and its lack of any mention of the words 'gay' or 'lesbian'. That has now changed, and the site, which echoes Obama's campaign positions, features a civil rights agenda for LGBT Americans more comprehensive than anything we've seen from an incoming president. There is no doubt, however, that demands for marriage equality from the masses will only grow stronger, and at a certain point the leader of this nation will need to take the proper route and stand behind equality in action and name for all Americans.In other words, Obama's gay rights agenda does not include a plank on the promotion of gay marriage, so we'll harass his administration with intimidation and mayhem until he toes the line to our extremist agenda.
Folks can quibble with the significance of Obama's proposed gay agenda (which includes repealing "don't ask, don't tell," a surprisingly bad idea politically, considering the ghosts of the Clinton White House now haunting the presidential transition), but what's important in the context of the current gay marriage protests is Obama's pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA).
The DOMA says that the federal government will not recogize same-sex marriages as coequal to traditional marriages, and it holds that states need not recognize same-sex marriages that have been lawfully authorized by legislatures of other states.
Should the Obama administration repeal DOMA, the gay marriage movement will become legitimized under a creeping federalism of No on H8 intolerance, as more and more states recognize same-sex weddings across the nation - that is, an Obama administration will give the green light to the destruction of this country's traditionalism by legitimizing claims to homosexual marriage equality.
This would be a huge step toward consolidating a national religion of secular humanism at the federal level of American government and politics. Indeed, this is exactly the outcome demanded by radical same-sex activists. We will see a new national polity built on an ideology of cultural relativism, no longer that great shining City on a Hill, but just one more run-of-the-mill postmaterialist industrial state with an anything-goes program of amoralism nationalism.
Here again, are the stake before us the the nation's future.
See also, "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right."
5 comments:
No big surprise. The man just BSed his way into the White House. If he had proclaimed his true feelings does anyone think that he would have received 52% of the vote ?
The "don't ask, don't tell" controversy ruined Clinton's first year in office; and we if conservatives have any brains we should make this flip flop into the ruination of Obama's first year.
"The man just BSed his way into the White House."
That pretty much sums it up, Norm. Thanks for visiting.
This is the most ignorant post I've EVER read in my life. Do you really believe this?
No one is FORCING abortion or homosexuality on anyone. However, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON EVERYONE ELSE.
YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN AND FURTHERMORE YOU DO NOT REPRESENT CHRISTIAN BELIEFS. YOU ARE UNEDUCATED, IGNORANT AND A RACIST BIGOT.
What gives you the power to speak for God? Did you write the bible, or for that matter, have you honestly read it? The whole book?
Your readers are just as ignorant as you. McCain did not win the election. Get over your bitterness.
You are NOT GOD! Nor do you speak for him, and if you keep trying to, I hope he sends you where the fires burn bright!
You should be in an asylum!
"Traditional values in America"...What, like the 50% divorce rate that you want to blame on the gays...You are the biggest group of ignoramuses imagineable. We had to deal with 8 years of a Theocracy, now get over it..The tides are changing...
Gay marriage/civil unions are about having the same rights,tax status, wills, etc nothing to do with morality...Some religions hold that a JP wedding isn't real either, so by your definition, I guess they shouldn't have equal rights either?
Post a Comment