Gay Blade Obama Stabs Himself

Obama's stance on same-sex marriage will hurt him far worse than he thinks.

So Barack Obama has finally come out and said what everybody has known for a long time: he supports same-sex marriage.

Well, sort of:

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... I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage.

In other words, President Obama is saying that he personally believes it doesn't matter who or what you marry, but really, it's not a federal matter, the states should choose.  He didn't dare point out the fact that in every single state where the question has been put before the people, the voters decreed that marriage has been just fine the way it is for the past six thousand years and is no particular need of an overhaul.  The handful of states permitting the unprecedented practice of same-sex marriage do so because judges declared it into being by fiat or, occasionally, an elected legislature passed a law, which is at least democratically legitimate.

So if Obama personally thinks homosexual unions are fine, but doesn't think it's a job for the Feds - a position which happens to be identical to that of Dick Cheney of all people - and the vast majority of the states wants no part of them, what difference does it make?

Quite a lot, actually.  Just as everybody believed Obama was for same-sex marriage all along even though he said otherwise, everybody also believes his paen to federalism is as phony as, well, a same-sex "marriage."

Very - but only for a few more months.

Permission Granted

This matters.  Not only do a large majority of Americans have extreme distaste for meddling with marriage, the most fervent opponents of this startling new innovation are precisely Obama's most loyal supporters - namely, blacks.

The very same day in 2008 that saw Barack Obama elevated to the highest office in the land also saw more than 70% of California blacks voting in favor of Proposition 8 which attempted to ban same-sex marriage.  53% of Latinos did the same thing.  Of course, the overwhelming majority of these voters also pulled the lever for Mr. Obama himself.  He'd publicly and loudly proclaimed his support for traditional marriage.  Given his fib, supporting both traditional marriage and Mr. Obama wasn't a contradiction at the time.

This November, it will be - and while blacks voted for Obama with Soviet-style majorities, they also are well-known for devout church attendance, many of whose pastors have already registered outrage as vehement as Catholic outrage at being forced to pay for abortions.

Does this mean they'll support Mormon Mitt Romney instead?  Probably not.  Does this even mean that they won't support Mr. Obama and instead will stay neutral?  No, not necessarily.

But it may not matter.  Because what Mr. Obama's sudden public position has done is given voters, and particularly black voters, a legitimate non-racist reason not to vote for him.

I'm Not Racist, I'm Homonauseated!

Ever since the name Barack Obama rose to public prominence, his advent has been surrounded by pandemonious calls that any opposition must, by definition, be racist.  From Jimmy Carter on down, the entire liberal commentariat has been hammering home the notion that there's no reason whatsoever not to fall on your face in gratitude and adoration before The One, The Bringer of Hope and Change despite the self-evident fact that he's brought nothing but destroyed hopes and changes for the worse.

Nobody likes being called a racist, but everyone can understand the idea of not liking same-sex marriage.  The liberal media ridicules that view too, but accusations of homophobia do not have anything like the life-destroying power that being accused of racism has.

How many unhappy, unemployed, hopeless Democrats and moderates are there, far from eager to support Mr. Obama but unwilling to be tarred with the "racist" brush?  With one grand stroke, Mr. Obama has gifted them with a legitimate, understandable excuse to do what they've wished they could do for some months or years: not vote for him next time 'round.

Yes, donning the purple triangle will win him many millions in contributions from effete Hollywood elites.  Combined with the rest of his horrendous record as president, it will lose him far more votes, and that's what counts.

Our first gay president he may be, as Newsweek put it, but neither he nor they will be very gay this November 7.

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other articles by Petrarch or other articles on Partisanship.
Reader Comments

Brilliant! I was nodding like a bobble toy and laughing hardily the whole way through.

The other thing Obama's campaign won't see coming is the disgust of the middle over the obvious fawning the media is doing. The Newsweek cover is just one of many. The idea that this is "the first gay President" in any sense of the word is hysterical. Read his rambling, hesitant, almost-apologetic "support" for gay marriage again. "Um, uh, yeah, I should go ahead and affirm..." Huh? How about "yes, I think gay marriage is great!" if you really believe in it. And the media proclaims THAT some wonderful thing? The whole thing makes me laugh.

May 18, 2012 11:17 AM

This whole gay question is an odd one, made murkier by the outrageous bias in the media. I remember reading an article making the point that, even more than usual, opinion polls depended heavily on exactly how the questions were asked. If the question was phrased in such a way as to emphasize freedom and personal choice, numbers were overwhelmingly supportive "of gays." But if the questions used words that would tend to make the responder think of actual homosexual sex itself, support dropped precipitously. Notice the extensive use of euphemisms - nobody ever comes right out and says exactly what is at issue here, for the obvious reason that it makes lots of ordinary people want to barf. Much like the "choice" debate - they try to avoid the word "abortion" much less anything resembling an accurate depiction of what it entails.

May 18, 2012 11:47 AM

obama has support from the blacks and Latinos primarily because he has bought them off with 99 week unemployment checks. I suggest that if unemployment checks were cut to 6 weeks his popularity would fall like a rock dropped from the Empire State Building.

The same sex marriage endorsement is just another of obama's in-your-face type of ruling from on high. This was dine to set obama up for post presidency speeches to this crowd. He is doing the same thing with other groups. He knows down deep that he probably won't be re-elected and as a result he is hyper pandering to gays, unions, lawyers, women, etc. in an effort to show them whose side he is on. The result will be post election plenty of positive press, plenty of speeches and a lifestyle of the rich and famous. He, with his narcissistic personality, needs this to survive. Also as an bonus for him he can still raise plenty of money while being president, the bankers, etc., want access should he pull off a miracle and win. Let's say he raises $700 million, he spends $500 million on the campaign and has $200 left over in his campaign war chest. If he is like other politicians he can convert this money to his personal holdings, pay the taxes and it's all his, enough for he and his family to continue their bi-quarterly vacations around the world.

May 18, 2012 11:59 AM

Why does the author presume marriage has been fine for only the last six thousand years ?
What did humans do before that... mate without any formality?
Given the scripture based practices in Deuteronomy, I doubt marriage, legal or otherwise, was bliss for women in Hebraic society anyway-- certainly not slaves.
Those of us who think domestic bliss is not a government issue realized that probably by the time we were of legal drinking age — that politicians, Puritans and hacks have abused us all on the issue only points out how eager the pseudo-moralists are to shove their hate down our throats.. or elsewhere.

May 18, 2012 2:09 PM

Hey, Bassboat, are you saying that blacks who voted for Obama were thinking of what he'd give them from taxpayers? Blacks cost a lot of tax money - welfare, crime, jail, drugs, etc. Do blacks make a positive total contribution to US economy?

May 18, 2012 7:40 PM

'ol redneck, I'm not sure where you are coming from with your comment. Mine was meant to point out that these two groups, which were the groups that Petrarch was talking about, would dump him if the money was cut off. Blacks and hispanics are like everyone else, they do what is in their best interest. Point being they will vote for him as long as he gives them money, when that stops they will look elsewhere for solutions. He won't quit giving them money because he has no viable solution. people that are on the 99 week deal think short term, if they ever understood how they were getting screwed in the long run both in money and opportunity they would never vote democrats into any office. One day the blacks and hispanics will vote overwhelmingly republican. That is my prediction.

May 18, 2012 10:41 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...