Article Image Powell Gammill
Letters to the Editor • Marriage

Support Of Same-Sex Marriages: Targets OF Obama’s Split-Tongue Maneuver

     Obama is the first U.S. president to declare publicly support of gay marriage.  And the nation was shocked! I was not … and has never been, on what Obama is capable of doing at a drop of a hat. A confirmed congenital opportunist would do the same much quicker than a wink of an eye.

    What surprised me is that those who were stunned, dazed and terribly upset are so naïve about what to expect from a chameleon politician with a split tongue that changes color when opportunity presents itself.  In this case, as if the public was expecting that Obama should have at least a moral compunction to avoid plunging this divided nation into a dangerous confrontation – possibly a riot -- as the 2012 presidential election approaches … a hostile make-or-break controversy that creates emotional wounds so difficult to heal. They thought Obama would care, but they are mistaken.

    Obama didn’t care when he became the first U.S. President to bow down and kneel before the King of Saudi Arabia for and in behalf of his Islamic brethren in the United States, not just for oil. While bowing before the King, he positioned his butt in front of the TV camera for Americans to see as if to add insult to injury. 

    On national television, Obama eloquently defined the constitutional provisions on religious freedom when he defended the construction of a Muslim Mosque right on the spot in New York City where Al Qaeda terrorists buried more than three thousand dead victims of their treacherous 911 attacks.  Obama only recapitulated when the angry nation descended upon him threatening bloodshed nationwide if the Mosque construction plan were to go through.

     Don’t you think that move was stupid?  To a political opportunist that wants to placate and win the support of Muslims for his sagging public image as President , it was neither an issue of morality nor a questions of right and wrong … it was just a strategic maneuver of a political chameleon that saw a window of opportunity and took advantage of it.

    As a political opportunist, his fork-tongue shown when he speaks in public has gained such notoriety. He was against the war in Iraq while he was still a struggling politician in Congress. He crucified President George W. Bush for invading Iraq, and his political mantra was the President should order the return of our troops back home immediately before casualties mount to a shocking proportion.  And look at him now begging Congress to fund the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Instead of bringing our troops home, he sent more of them into harm’s way, the opposite of what exactly he once objected to with contempt!

       And now, specifically on May 9, 2012, Obama announced his support of same-sex marriages. He was opposed to it when he ran for president in 2008. Now he qualified this opposition by saying that he was in favor of “civil unions”, not necessarily in favor of same-sex marriages.

      The “civil unions” he was referring to pertained to marriages performed outside of the Church. He did not mean it to be a “civil union" between gays and lesbians.

      But in 2010, results of a Gallup Survey were showing an increasing trend of gay marriage supports, from 48% to 50%.  Obama and his watchdogs saw this as another opportunity to somersault out of his previous opposition to gay marriages. White House started to condition the mind of the public by saying that Obama’s stand on gay marriage was not firm or final, but “evolving”. And finally on May 9, Obama now stands firm on his new position that “gays and lesbians should have the right to marry.” This could “evolve” again sometime in the future, depending on how opportunity would present itself by then.

     At least there are a couple of reasons for Obama’s latest butterfly stunt -- targets he and his political strategists want to hit in the coming 2012 presidential election, namely:

[1] The 57% of 18 to 34 years old “energized” young voters that campaign for the right of sexually odd couples to marry. The other visible 2000 census committed gay couples in America starting from the base-figure of 601,209 within this age range, has more than threefold after more than ten years of gradual same-sex tolerance in liberal States including the lead-States of California and Hawaii. That could warp Obama’s campaign to victory and remain in power for another four years.

[2]  The 10.6 million gays and lesbians in the country 30% of which were reported to have been committed to authenticate their marital relationship by voting for Obama.

      GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney remained committed to support marriage between a man and a woman only. In my opinion, a mother and a father parenthood is his winning argument against same-sex marriages.

     The overall majority of the American population is fundamentally religious. In the eyes of God, married gays and lesbians are incapable of procreation, unlike a man and a woman joined together in a holy matrimony. Lesbians and gays could parent children only by “adoption”.., children that are not their own flesh and blood, in a home that would turn them also into either gay or lesbian when they grow up.

     In a gay marriage, a man could hardly be a “mother” to a child in many ways, and neither could a woman be a “father” to a child in many ways. If they could be, then they have to redefine a child’s “mother” not as a woman but a man; redefine a child’s “father” not as a man but a woman.  Such distortion could result to a severe mental displacement of a child in viewing life, as the child’s fragile mind matures in such a “home” environment.

    This is the outcome when you redefine marriage between a man and a woman, into something else.

    Obama’s lesbian and gay argument that marriage is about “equality” in the eyes of law, is fundamentally flawed.  Everybody is “equal” before the law, but in marriage, there is no “equality” of gender. Unless you redefine marriage again, into something else.

     Marriage is not just about one’s right to enter into a contract, to love and live together as husband and wife. But a husband is a man, and a wife, is a woman. Unless, again you change the meaning of husband and wife into something else.  Marriage is not just about love and the right to marry.

     A homosexual would argue that if you love a man and both of you have no legal impediment to enter into a contract of marriage, why should the same sex be prohibited to marry? The same way lesbians argue that if you love another woman and both of you have no legal impediment to marry, why not go ahead and get married?

    And here is the fault of this argument. If marriage is just about the right to marry, then anyone can marry anyone and anything as a matter of right. Then why do lesbians and gays oppose marrying their father and mother, their sisters and brothers, grandma and grandpa regardless of sex? Why is there no the same right to marry like lesbians and gays have when there is also love to justify that marriage?

     The problem of redefining marriage, husband and wife into something else opens a Pandora’s box.  In one of the remote villages of India, a virgin girl marries a Bull for fertility. The entire village expects an abundant harvest out of that marriage.

     Here marriage has been refined as a right of a young woman to marry not a man but a young Bull.

      Married to a bullock that cannot procreate, wife in this remote village has been redefined into something else – into a female quadruped – into a cow. And husband has been redefined not as a man but a Bull.

      I used to be a ghost writer to high-heeled politicians running for high offices in the Government. Obama’s chameleon support of same-sex marriages as a principle of equal rights similar to that of a man and a woman, can be ridiculed to that point of obscenity and insanity.

BrutosEctos

7 Comments in Response to

Comment by Conrad Krosky
Entered on:

I never dispute the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you tinker with marriage to make it between a man and a man, and a woman and another woman, stop calling it marriage -- it is a contract of reciprocal tinkering of homosexual-lesbian libido of a man who thinks a man is a woman, and of a woman who thinks that a woman is a man.  In any case, something is wrong of the mind that thinks that way.

Comment by Christopher Cellone
Entered on:

 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney remained committed to support marriage between a man and a woman only. In my opinion, a mother and a father parenthood is his winning argument against same-sex marriages.

The overall majority of the American population is fundamentally religious. In the eyes of God, married gays and lesbians are incapable of procreation, unlike a man and a woman joined together in a holy matrimony. Lesbians and gays could parent children only by "adoption".., children that are not their own flesh and blood, in a home that would turn them also into either gay or lesbian when they grow up.

In a gay marriage, a man could hardly be a "mother" to a child in many ways, and neither could a woman be a "father" to a child in many ways. If they could be, then they have to redefine a child’s "mother" not as a woman but a man; redefine a child’s "father" not as a man but a woman. Such distortion could result to a severe mental displacement of a child in viewing life, as the child’s fragile mind matures in such a "home" environment.

This is the outcome when you redefine marriage between a man and a woman, into something else.

Obama’s lesbian and gay argument that marriage is about "equality" in the eyes of law, is fundamentally flawed. Everybody is "equal" before the law, but in marriage, there is no "equality" of gender. Unless you redefine marriage again, into something else.

Marriage is not just about one’s right to enter into a contract, to love and live together as husband and wife. But a husband is a man, and a wife, is a woman. Unless, again you change the meaning of husband and wife into something else. Marriage is not just about love and the right to marry.

A homosexual would argue that if you love a man and both of you have no legal impediment to enter into a contract of marriage, why should the same sex be prohibited to marry? The same way lesbians argue that if you love another woman and both of you have no legal impediment to marry, why not go ahead and get married?

And here is the fault of this argument. If marriage is just about the right to marry, then anyone can marry anyone and anything as a matter of right. Then why do lesbians and gays oppose marrying their father and mother, their sisters and brothers, grandma and grandpa regardless of sex? Why is there no the same right to marry like lesbians and gays have when there is also love to justify that marriage?

The problem of redefining marriage, husband and wife into something else opens a Pandora’s box. In one of the remote villages of India, a virgin girl marries a Bull for fertility. The entire village expects an abundant harvest out of that marriage.

Here marriage has been refined as a right of a young woman to marry not a man but a young Bull.

Married to a bullock that cannot procreate, wife in this remote village has been redefined into something else – into a female quadruped – into a cow. And husband has been redefined not as a man but a Bull.

I used to be a ghost writer to high-heeled politicians running for high offices in the Government. Obama’s chameleon support of same-sex marriages as a principle of equal rights similar to that of a man and a woman, can be ridiculed to that point of obscenity and insanity.

BrutosEctos

Comment by George Voit
Entered on:

 If you are a man "married" to another man, don't call him your wife. If you do, your grammar is bad because a man is not a wife.  If you are a woman "married" to a woman, don't call her husband.  If you do, you said something wrong because a woman is not a husband. That's the problem if you don't understand what "marriage" means.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

 Yes, so long as they do it in the privacy of their bedroom, not in front of the "children" they adopt.

Comment by Ana Panot
Entered on:

I wonder why this fine piece is not read on the front page for better exposure. Editor Gammill could be sleeping again on his job as usual.

I am for a contract of consensual love between two men or more, and between two women or more. Only don’t call it "marriage" … call it something else. Maybe a "Partnership of Love" or a " Contract of Corporate Love" with all the privileges of a wife and a husband in marriage, including any form of kinky sexual practices they want.

Comment by Venancio Tan
Entered on:

Hello to you all out there! I am back from my recent tour of some countries in Asia and Europe. This same-sex marriage issue President Obama has stirred out of the hornet’s nest catches my attention.

This comment I read caught my undivided attention. This is as uncanny as a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman. When Obama surprised the nation by announcing support of same-sex marriages, the Internet was flooded with cynical comments, some of them oxymoron. Judging from the sound of his name, this one could have come from a Russian-American. He calls himself Zhukov: "Obama should fire his gay and lesbian advisers, starting from the Vice President, his bisexual adviser IF he LOSES the 2012 election because of their advice." [Capitalization for emphasis.]

Fire them after he lost the election?

I should not have cancelled my trip to St. Petersburg for more surprises there.

Comment by Bertha Anonimo
Entered on:

This author presents one of the most powerful arguments against same-sex marriage. I totally agree with his definition of marriage – a matrimonial union only between a man and a woman.

I endorse his eloquent argument that marriage is not just about anybody’s right to enter into a contract, to love and to cherish each other till death do they part. The writer’s point is, if you REDEFINE marriage into something else other than a wedding between a man and a woman, a lesbian could end up marrying her grandmother she loves so much, and a homosexual could wed his grandfather whom he adores more than his life, that is if he has not already married his quadruped lover -- a Bull in the "remote village of India".

What a powerful argument! Congrats, Brutos.


https://www.jmccwaterfilters.com/?affiliates=5