Written on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 by Nick Adams
It’s the economy, stupid.
Sure it is. This election is about the economy. More central to voters right now than anything else is fiscal policy and unemployment.
And there are key election fault lines on economic matters such as financial reform, the automobile industry bailout and healthcare.
But President Obama in May created another fault line, perhaps the deepest of all, that in the midst of America’s economic woes, has been left virtually unnoticed since its initial identification.
During an interview with Robin Roberts from ABC’s Good Morning America, the President made the following statement (5/9/12):
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-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 are 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 same sex couples should be able to get married.”
In doing so, he gave unequivocal support to gay marriage in the middle of an election year.
He’s made an unequivocal statement on gay marriage in the middle of an election year before. On August 18, 2008, in an interview with Reverend Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, just two months before his historic electoral victory, he stated:
“ I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. For me, as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. You know, God’s in the mix.”
How the unequivocal backed by personal faith can so quickly become a different unequivocal is strange; it is for you to decide whether the then Presidential candidate was being truthful.
But in his apparently “newfound” support of gay marriage, he did make it clear that it was a matter for individual states, and not the federal government. How very generous of him; he suddenly rediscovered the Constitutional rights of states. And how courageous of him; to make a symbolic statement yet make it clear he could and would do nothing.
Maybe the President’s campaign team saw the announcement as a potential “shot-in-the-arm”; a way to energize the young people no longer so enthused as they were in 2008. Maybe it was donations that they were seeking.
Whatever the case, it should mobilize the strong religious elements of many swing states, and move the socially conservative base. With Governor Romney riding high in the polls, he may not need this issue but I would have thought that this unprecedented support for the redefinition of marriage by the POTUS, shows just how out of touch this President is with the average American.
Contrast this with Governor Romney’s statement in the Iowa Republican Presidential Debate on August 11 of last year:
“I believe we should have a federal amendment in the constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and woman, because I believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and a dad.”
The choice is clear.
Americans should be concerned at having a President in the White House that does not support or subscribe to traditional family values. While the mainstream media might have coached many to believe otherwise, a re-definition of marriage is radical and would tear at the social fabric of America.
Gay marriage is not a matter of freedom, or rights. It is a moral question. Sadly some Americans have forgotten that the sole reason for this institution, in principle, was the social regulation for the obligations associated with procreation. This is not to suggest that those marriages of man and woman incidentally unable to conceive due to age or infertility are irrelevant; in principle definition, they are included. But a marriage of two of the same sex is, in principle, impossible, redefining the institution to the point of removing the need.
Yes, that’s right. To permit the marriage of the homosexual removes the very need of the institution of marriage. Not to mention such an act is contrary to the moral character of the American nation or a commitment to God’s best.
In the event of a Romney win, I suspect we will never quite know the impact of this issue in securing victory. But if he doesn’t get across the line, it may be seen as a missed opportunity to mobilize and energize the base and many who didn’t intend on voting, by appealing to the visceral, not just the hip pocket.
America, you deserve a President that believes in the traditional family, and recognizes that the institution of the family is the bedrock of society.
You don’t mess with it.