Barack Obama has gone down in history (or, as some say, in infamy) as the first sitting US President to endorse same-sex “marriage”. But he wasn't always amenable to it.
It is on record that while running for the Illinois state senate in 1996, Mr Obama responded to a questionnaire making it clear he favoured legalizing homosexual “marriage”, stating that he “would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” In 2004, he said he opposed homosexual “marriage,” based on his faith, and didn’t consider it a civil right.
For the record, homosexuals have the same rights of citizenship as the rest of us. What they want is the special right to redefine a foundational institution. But putting that aside, sources reported that Obama’s stance changed again (when in fact it hadn’t). Some politicians will say anything for a vote, and Obama falls into that category.
On May 8, 2012, 61 percent of voters in North Carolina (Billy Graham’s state of domicile) chose to amend the state constitution to keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. After Vice President Joseph Biden publicly stated that he was “comfortable” with homosexual “marriage,” and Amendment One won at the polls, Obama supposedly was under pressure to make a public statement.
An excerpt from his groundbreaking flip-flop-flip on the subject: “This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and [Michelle], you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.”
Forget being “at odds with the views of others” for a moment, Mr. President, and focus on what God has said about marriage and homosexuality. If he’s a Christian as claimed, he’d stay with the fact that God instituted this union between a man and a woman, who become one flesh; it’s no mere trifle.
It is part of His divine, created order, and homosexual “marriage” is outside that order. The Apostle Paul calls homosexuality unnatural and shameful, and those who commit the acts bear the punishment. Why punishment? Because homosexuality is a sin -- like myriad other missing-the-mark acts – but only worse because those caught up in it flaunt it and systematically bully the bulk of the populace to accept the abnormal behaviour as normative.
How does Obama, “correctly handling the word of truth” of the whole of Scripture, find support for his politically-correct latest stance?
Obama conveniently ignores the context of the Golden Rule. In His Sermon on the Mount, Christ gives us an exposition of the law and a call to faith and repentance (i.e. change your mind and turn away) from sin. The concept of the “rule” goes back to before Christ and means we ought to treat others the way we’d want to be treated. It doesn’t mean that because heterosexuals can marry, we should redefine the word and upend the institution so that two men can call themselves “married.”
With an eye toward the presidential election, Obama, who claims he’s a Christian, invoked Scripture -- which he is on record to have mocked as insufficient and irrelevant to modern realities -- to support that which the Bible clearly condemns.
The question is moot to ask of Mr Obama: does the “Golden Rule” require us to change the definition of marriage to mandate legalized “marriage equality” (or “civil Union equality” for that matter) for bi-sexuals? How about polygamists (and those whose preference is polyandry) and other -- consenting adult -- multiple partner “marriages”? How about same-sex sibling or adult same-sex parent-child unions? If they want it, does the “Golden Rule” mean we must give it to them?
Against all such there can be no objection, going by Mr Obama's logic, once those ones are able to build up to threshold level the groundswell of support required, through unrelenting agitations as did the same-sex crowd, to demand that they also deserve to be extended such "rights".
As he seeks to justify his position on same-sex marriage and other issues that are either questionable at best or deny Scripture at worst, President Obama might be said to be preaching another gospel. This could possibly lead to a fissure in his solid support among African-Americans, costing the president votes in November. It will also likely galvanize the culture warriors. Minorities mostly vote for Democrats, but they don’t like their faith denied. That could cause some of them to stay home on Election Day, or even vote for Mitt Romney.
The negative reaction the president received from some of the African-American ministers he called shortly after declaring his support for same-sex marriage could serve as a sign of things to come.
.jpg)
