• Subscribe to Crisis

  • President Obama’s War on Marriage

    by George Neumayr

    Obama Endorses SSM

    In May 2012, Newsweek crowned Barack Obama “the first gay president” for his war on marriage. A halo appeared above his head in the cover photo. The magazine was applauding him not only for his defiance of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) but for his “evolution” in favor of gay marriage, a stance no president before him had ever taken.

    This flattering narrative about his brave and anguished transformation was bogus. He had endorsed gay marriage many years before. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight any effort to prohibit such marriage,” he wrote in reply to a 1996 issues survey from a gay magazine based on Chicago’s North Side. When this became public and threatened to cause him political damage as a state Senate candidate, his aides cast the answer as a garbled misfire. It wasn’t. He had signed the letter himself.

    His opposition to gay marriage was always a charade. In 2008, he faked up nominal opposition to it in order to win the White House, all the while intending to defy DOMA and redefine marriage. As soon as he entered office, he began holding “LGBT” receptions in the White House, telling gay activists that Americans would lose their “worn arguments and old attitudes” under his juggernaut. “Welcome to your White House,” he said. “We’ve been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.”

    It is hard to imagine a more aggressively anti-marriage administration. In his first term, he undercut DOMA at every turn, dispensing federal benefits to same-sex couples (which includes time off to take care of “children not related by blood or adoption”) , authorizing gay nuptials at military bases, and ordering the Justice Department to cast a blind eye to it all. Meanwhile, many of his agencies, no matter how lowly, operated as propaganda mills for gay marriage. The Department of Agriculture, of all places, held seminars on “heterosexism,” instructing federal employees that opposition to gay marriage is no different than racism.

    For his Department of Education, he named as “Safe Schools Czar” a homosexual activist, Kevin Jennings, who had written the foreword to a book titled Queering Elementary Education. Not long thereafter, the Department of Education boasted its first “LGBT Youth Summit,” at which plans were formed for spreading gay activism to schools across the country. “Your federal government has finally come out of the closet in support of LGBT youth,” burbled one official. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius denounced “homophobes” and promised to LGBT youth, “I want to tell you, you have a friend in this administration, who will stand beside you each and every step along the way.”

    The promotion of gay marriage hasn’t even been restricted to our own borders. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton announced in 2011 that urging countries to adopt gay rights formed a “priority” of American foreign policy. She instructed diplomats to operate like gay rights activists abroad, outfitting them with a “toolkit” designed to teach them how to dispel the notion that such lifestyle choices as gay marriage and sex-change operations are merely “Western” phenomena.

    When it comes to marriage, Obama respects neither natural law nor even positive law. What God and Congress have joined together, he feels free to put asunder.

    “In practice they can just look the other way. But this is not the way our government was intended to work,” House Speaker John Boehner has said. Indeed, America’s Founding Fathers would have regarded Obama’s open defiance of DOMA as a tyrannical act. In his inaugural oath, he promised to uphold the law. On DOMA, he is actively subverting it.

    Last week, his Justice Department filed a brief with the Supreme Court, urging it to discard DOMA on the grounds that the law violates the “fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection.” This is the chimerical catch-all phrase of liberals who want to ignore justly enacted laws and smuggle their ideology into the Constitution.

    The spectacle of the federal government filing briefs against federal laws (in this case, a law signed by Bill Clinton) is ridiculous. The Justice Department exists to enforce the law, not to serve as pro bono counsel for gay activists who seek to violate it.

    Even as he blatantly puts the resources of the Justice Department at the service of gay marriage, he claims that his support for it is only “personal” and that he considers it a “state” matter. But if it is an issue for the people to decide at the state level, why did he just announce that he is considering a legal brief against California’s Proposition 8? He doesn’t even bother to coordinate his con jobs at this point.

    Even if his Justice Department doesn’t file that brief, the fact that he publicly contemplated it shows his previous statements are meaningless. Obviously, he wants to nationalize gay marriage and prevent states from banning it. Should he get the chance to appoint one or two more justices to the Supreme Court, a national right to gay marriage, which they will conveniently discover within the “penumbras” of the text, is guaranteed.

    Obama can’t rest until those “worn arguments and old attitudes” have disappeared from coast to coast and society’s preeminent moral institution morphs into an immoral one.

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • Phil

      It’s facetious to claim that Obama is “in defiance” of federal laws because he opposes some of them – his admin is hardly the first to try to overturn existing legislation. The DOMA merely prohibits the federal gov’t from recognizing ss-marriage, it does not prevent it from otherwise supporting gay rights.

      • Tony

        You’re being facetious, I think. This president has brushed aside all the laws on the books which he does not feel like enforcing. That is different from an attempt to change the law. Back in the days when we had a legislative body that legislated — when we were a republic of laws and not celebrities — his dismissal of laws would have been impeachable. Read President Cleveland’s second inaugural address for a clear and humble acknowledgment of the need for the executive to execute the legislation passed by the legislature.

        • Phil

          DOMA is still being enforced.

        • dch

          GW Bush claimed the right has President to ignore 750 statutes in 125 bills passed by congress the use of Presidential Signing Statements. (Boston Globe, 2006).
          So this is nothing new at all.

    • Bono95

      “Kevin Jennings = ‘Safe Schools Czar’ ”
      How ironic, a Czar appointed by a Communist dictator.

      • http://twitter.com/JohnDale49 John Dale

        Jennings also showed support for NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association), a pedophile advocacy group.

        • Bono95

          Sick! In that case, I’d feel much safer with an actual czar, like maybe Ivan the Terrible.

      • Bono95

        And my dad observed that we see more of the Obama’s (both his and her highness’s) on TV, magazines, web sites, etc. than we see Big Brother’s on posters in “1984″.

    • ManWithPlan

      And may I ask, what the heck are conservatives doing to protect marriage? You’ve done scant little to stop the calamity of frivolous divorces around the country (besides blame husbands) nor have you worked to make family courts and child custody fair to both parents. Frivolous divorce is now even well-accepted in church congregations.

      One might suggest you focus less on protecting marriage from gay marriage, and more time on salvaging what’s left of marriage between men and women.

      • MarkRutledge

        While a lot must be done to restore marriage, and a lot of work is being done, there is no conflict, no competition of time and resources. We can oppose SSM and work to restore marriage at the same time.

        • http://twitter.com/thiagoupdates thiago

          Can you give any examples of that work being done?

      • Columbo1

        Marriage among the upper class is quite strong vs. the lower classes (see Charles Murray’s book, Coming Apart. There are many superb organizations around helping couples navigate through marriage such as Love and Respect and Family Life Today. My wife and I have benefitted greatly from both. The reason conservatives object to “gay” marriage is that marriage is a description of a committed relationship between a man and woman. Same-sex relationships can never be “marriage” in spite of what our ill-informed culture wants to call it.

      • John200

        Dear Mr. Plan,

        One might also correctly and emphatically suggest we not lose focus on the evil of homo”sex”ual marriage, per our author. And furthermore, one might correctly and emphatically suggest we take no advice from those who would read Mr. Neumayr’s article in its plainest sense and react by trying to misdirect us so thoroughly concerning its point.

        Equivocation does not work as well as it used to, eh?

        Let us not lose focus on the evil of homo”sex”ual marriage. It will leave a deposit of moral slime wherever it goes, like a slug walking (crawling? sidling? undulating? How DO slugs get where they want to go?) across the floor.

      • Bono95

        Frivolous divorce has been accepted in the Anglican church from the very beginning. Heck, frivolous divorce is WHY it began.

      • Anonymous

        Oh please…if you want to “save” marriage, tell your fudge packing friends to stop redefine if it for the rest of us.

        What’s next? Are you going to marry your dog? Faggot.

      • Alecto

        Every Catholic seeking to marry must undergo preparation classes. Most Christian denominations have some kind of “pause and reflect” retreat for men and women about to marry or in the married state. That’s a reaction to the decay of commitment and it isn’t a conservative versus liberal issue. Healthy marriages benefit everyone not simply conservatives.

    • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

      Boehner makes it sound like The Obama Administration’s refusal to defend DOMA is the first time the President or the Solicitor General has ever refused to defend a federal law when that is absolutely not the case.

      “This posture is unusual but hardly unprecedented. In the ordinary case, of course, the executive branch defends federal statutes when they are subject to constitutional challenge, even if lawyers in DOJ might think the Court is likely to declare the law invalid. But that is not invariably the case. As I’ve explained elsewhere, there have been several categories of cases over the years, going back at least to the Myers v. United States case in 1926, in which the Department, and the United States, have not defended — and have often challenged — the constitutionality of statutes.” – See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=157896#sthash.Q8jvvDPh.dpuf

      Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=157896

      The article he wrote previously that detailed how Chief Justice John Roberts in the past refused to defend a federal law when he was in the Solicitor General’s office can be found here.
      http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/09/john-roberts-and-sgs-refusal-to-defend.html

      I can understand that many disagree with how The Obama Administration has decided to handle the challenges to DOMA but to make it sound like an unprecedented power grab is simply not accurate. By refusing to defend DOMA, the Solicitor General is in essence leaving it up to the Supreme Court to ultimately rule on the validity of the law as is their role.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      I have become convinced that most of America on both the conservative and liberal sides, hates pregnancy.

      The liberals attack it directly.

      The conservatives would rather give tax breaks to the rich than defend it.

      And maybe most hated of all, is a pregnant belly with a permanent tan, if the careful placement of Planned Parenthood’s Teen Outreach Program is anything to judge by.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        And a quick reply to explain why I posted this here- they don’t hate marriage, which is why they want it for the gays. They hate PROCREATIVE marriage.

        • Dorothy

          Theodore, that is unkind. I don’t know anyone who hates procreative marriage. Do you?

          • crakpot

            How about the people who’ve murdered 55 million babies since Roe v. Wade?

          • TheodoreSeeber

            As a parent of a special needs child and in a Catholic sacramental marriage, I have met such people in real life, yes. Since I live in Portland, Oregon, such people are a political majority in city, county, and state elections.

            But we will outbreed them in the end.

      • Columbo1

        Maybe – Jonathan Last has written a book, “What to expect when no one is expecting”. However, we know many families who have 5-6-7 children. Our 16 member homeschool co-op has a total of 46 children in it. Conservatives want a fair tax code not one that punishes achievement as our founders articulated. Liberal aren’t happy unless everyone has the same amount or money and material wealth regardless of where they live, what they do for a living or how they choose to live,

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Conservatives should start be defining success properly. Earning money does not make one a successful human being; following the commandments of God makes one successful. Everything else is worthless.

    • orthodoxheathen

      War on Christmas! War on Religion! War on Marriage! Waaaah, waaaaah.

    • Richard Maloney

      I dunno, George, sounds to me like he’s promoting marriage all throughout the article–just not the kind you like. It’s hard to imagine a more aggressively anti-marriage columnist than the author of this article.

      • anon

        Can two dogs be married? A man and a stapler? are you a bigot?

    • MaryLF

      I’m glad to know that President Obama has supported equal rights for all citizens for even longer that I realized.

      • http://twitter.com/JohnDale49 John Dale

        You’re glad the man is a liar?

        • mally el

          What makes it worse is the fact that he is also a mainpulator who is obviously well trained in the art.

      • crakpot

        There is no such thing as a God-given right to do a wrong.

      • anon

        There is no right to evil

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ch-Hoffman/100000972628475 Ch Hoffman

      Religious marriage and civil marriage are 2 separate and distinct animals. Every religion has its own standards for marriage. And every one is entitled to its own rules governing its own sacraments, rituals, procedures, and policies.

      But don’t preach that Obama is destroying marriage; he’s expanding its boundaries, beyond yours. You’re entitled to maintain your boundaries, but the rest of society need not be limited by your belief structures

      • http://twitter.com/JohnDale49 John Dale

        Then don’t you dare tell me I can’t marry five women and a dog, you disgusting bigot.

        • supineny

          Well, SSM marriage between adult humans is a marriage between consenting adults. A dog, however loyal, however happy it might be to mate with you, is not a consenting adult. Given the fact that only you have access to its bag of dogfood, the dog is not an equal partner. I think animal rights activists would rightly raise objections. In any event, it would be impossible to say that the dog even understood that it was being married.

          As far as polygamy — well, it’s quite possible the matter should be re-examined. It’s legal in other countries and practiced in certain communities in the U.S. But other factors attend that issue and a renewed discussion of it would have to consider very different factors than would pertain to married couples.

          So your point is what exactly? That if we depart from tradition on one matter, it logically means that any other departure from tradition is equally valid? It’s a specious argument. Every other departure from tradition would be judged on it own merits. That SSM is gaining so much traction right now is because people are doing it, and it’s looking like a good thing to a lot of people.

          So if you really want your five wives and a love pooch, I suggest you get out there and start winning the hearts and minds of your peers, maybe you’ll be at the forefront of a brave new movement.

          • Bono95

            I don’t know about you, but personally, I would not want to marry 2 or more women. Come on, we all know what happens to men who forget just 1 wife’s birthday or anniversary, imagine the results of forgetting 5 (gulp) or throwing a party for the wrong wife (quintuple gulp). Or even if they guy forgot just 1 wife’s birthday, the others would probably gang up on him. Or there might be extreme envy (i.e. middle-aged wife #1 hates the guts of gorgeous babe wife #5) and the ladies fight among themselves and nothing the man can do will bring peace. And then there’s the possibility of sibling rivalry carried to extremes, disrespect for step mothers (whether or not they’re actually evil), and the tragedies these can cause in adulthood.
            Marriage between, and ONLY between, 1 man and 1 woman is good for everybody. Children of this union will grow up in a healthy environment supplied by the nurture of the mother and protection of the father.

          • mally el

            Marriage exists only when two adults of the two different genders in our nature commit themselves to each other. There is no marriage in any other human relationship.

            • Bono95

              Yeah, you can clearly see that in Genesis. Adam could not find a completely suitable companion in any of the animals, so God made a woman, NOT another man, to be his special companion and he bid them to be fruitful and multiply. In fact, until they were fruitful and multiplied, there were no other men to be had.

      • crakpot

        If they are separate, then why the insistence on using the same word?

      • HigherCalling

        Same-sex “marriage” is not an expansion of marriage. It is not a difference in scope. It is a difference in kind. It requires a fundamental alteration of the real definition. It does not add to what marriage has always meant, it falsifies the true meaning. When things are altered to such a degree, especially when those things are fundamental to a healthy society, there is always a cost in human flourishing. Such is the nature of falsehood. It is falsehood that limits, not belief structures that recognize and accept the truth of things.

      • anon

        It is not expansion. It is impossible and absurd.

      • Tony

        Wrong on both counts, CH. Marriage is natural and biological, before it is civil. Those are the “boundaries” that nature provides, and our faith merely respects nature. So — what boundaries will you set, which will not be wholly arbitrary? What criteria will you use to say, “This is a marriage,” and “This is not a marriage”?

      • Gary

        The problem with allowing males to marry one another is that this is implying that society should accept anal intercourse, which is a terrible idea. It is a sex-like act that is fraught with peril. The body, quite simply, isn’t meant for that. The spread of disease is a far higher risk, tearing of the inner skin can result, or in very unfortunate situations, the colon can tear.

        Why should the government condone a union which expresses itself regularly through that specific unhealthy act?

    • Dorothy

      Mr. Neumayr, you describe the Obama administration as “aggressively anti-marriage,” but the President no longer opposes same-sex marriage, so he is in fact “pro-marriage.” None of his policies have aimed to undermine families, and his record of achievements in supporting them has been impressive.

      As you may be aware, all the major health and social services associations in this country—as well as the World Health Organization—have repeatedly declared there to be nothing “disordered” about homosexuality. If they are correct, as I believe they are, then it should be the responsibility of all government bureaucracies, as well as public schools, to adjust their policies accordingly. To address the epidemic of bullying, children must be taught as early as possible that “gay is okay.” The Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services have done absolutely the right thing is re-educating their workforces about this and in declaring their support for LGBT youth.

      As for Hillary Clinton’s efforts abroad, I hope you will agree that Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill is a damnable piece of legislation and that the persecution of LGBTs in countries like Pakistan, Iran, and Uganda should be denounced in no uncertain terms. Or do you perhaps support the criminalization of homosexuality?

      President Obama doesn’t respect natural law? Should he? He is a constitutional scholar, and his business is with U.S. civil law, not natural law. Personally, I would be alarmed if Obama started citing St. Thomas.

      Do you really think that “society’s preeminent moral institution is about to morph into an immoral one?” Does that mean that you will have to get a divorce? Will you reel in disgust at the idea of being married? I think you exaggerate. Same-sex marriage is already legal in many jurisdictions, including 12 countries, and no ill-effects have been observed. Massachusetts, the first U.S. state to legalize SSM, has the nation’s lowest divorce rate. And its population is predominantly Catholic. Go figure.
      Your article is a little too transparently propagandistic.

      • http://twitter.com/JohnDale49 John Dale

        Other countries are not under US sovereignty. It’s none of our business what Uganda does. Are they committing a genocide? No. Homosexual activity is voluntary, so avoiding getting killed in Uganda is very simple. Don’t engage in it.

        • AntiochusEpiphanes

          Awesome! Being a Christian is voluntary, so if we make Christianity punishable by death, I expect you to take the “very simple” approach of avoiding being killed.

          Not surprising that an adherent of the mass-murdering Catholic Church would advocate murdering people.

      • http://twitter.com/JohnDale49 John Dale

        To address the epidemic of bullying, children must be taught as early as possible that “gay is okay.”

        Then they should also be taught bestiality is okay. Being into animals is not a choice, and should be taught as a legitimate attraction. Do you see how sick you people are?

        • AntiochusEpiphanes

          It is very interesting how much religious fanatics talk about bestiality. Why is this subject on your minds (such as they are) so much of the time? Is it because you grew up on a farm in Georgia?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jambe-dArgent/100003865893919 Jambe d’Argent

        Obama is anti-marriage because the sodomitic pseudogamy which he supports is not marriage.

      • Bob

        If it must be taught as early as possible that “gay is OK” then lets not discriminate and just stop there, it should be taught that all lifestyles are “OK.” The kid in school that wants to smoke pot in class, it should be taught early that he is “OK.” The kid that feels that he is dumber than than other classmates should be allowed to cheat on tests because “dumb is OK.” it should be taught as early as possible that we shouldn’t discriminate against heavy drinkers, because “drunks are OK.” some people feel that lieing to others is natural and who they are, so we then will need to teach children as early as possible that “lieing is OK.” nudists these days are protesting in San Francisco that their rights are being violated so we need to teach as early as possible that coming to school in your birthday suit is acceptable and “nudists are OK.” I don’t like cats so that I am not discriminated against we need to teach in school as early as possible that “cat killers are OK.”

        This is great Dorothy!!! I agree with you…..the world is relativistic and nothing is off the table and we need to teach our kids as early as possible that everything is “OK!!”

        Hey Dorothy, how about this one! Catholic kids that want to take 30 minutes in the middle of the public school day should be allowed to openly pray the rosary. Or dump civics class and have holy Mass instead? Because if “gay is OK”, your not going to stand in the way of teaching as early as possible that “Catholic is OK” are you? Or are you a bigot?

        • AntiochusEpiphanes

          Being gay is inherent and in no way equivalent to being a Catholic – which is a choice, and a really bad one at that.

          • Bob

            Disagree….I can argue that I’ve been Catholic even before my birth. I can also argue that being gay is a choice. And I can argue that choosing to be gay is a really bad one at that. So it looks like in this new relativistic world that both of our “truths” are correct, no one is wrong. Each man and woman a magisterium unto theirselves.

            Or are ther objective, absoluteTruths? Are there Truths that we both must live under and follow as THE correct Truths?

        • Phil

          That doesn’t make any sense. Support for gay rights isn’t borne out of relativism, it’s borne out of the notion that homosexuality alone is not harmful. Nobody in the world actually thinks as you suggest.

      • anon

        It is impossible for two men or two women to be married. It is absurd and evil.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Smith/100003051609601 John Smith

      Civil rights are individual rights–not pairwise rights. Technically, states may define marriage as a mixed-sex pair without violating civil rights because each individual person is not prohibited from marrying someone of the other sex.

    • mally el

      He is now taking his war against marriage to the Supreme
      Court. However, I believe that the Supreme Court will, once again, stand up for
      marriage as it did in the 1960s. Then it struck down the ban on certain inter-racial
      marriages. Yes, it went against this interference of marriage by politicians
      who tried to re-define it in racial terms.

      Obama is trying to get the Supreme Court to empower him to
      re-define marriage. What right does this politician have to corrupt or
      re-define marriage which is a human phenomenon that belongs to humanity?

      Hopefully, the judges will stop politicians from interfering
      with the all-important marriage.

      If they succumb to this manipulator then a precedent will be
      set and politicians in future will be empowered to re-define marriage over and
      over again as different whims and fancies make their show.

      • supineny

        You speak of this as if it’s somehow Obama’s personal idea to redefine marriage, when really all he’s doing it lending his endorsement to a cause that has been vigorously defined and fought by others. Perhaps you need a villain in your imaginary drama? But the reality is, this is not particularly about or because of Obama. It’s because of an LGBT movement that precedes Obama and will continue after he’s gone. It’s been going on so long, and they’ve fought so hard, and won so many hearts and minds that the idea that they are fighting for a random ‘whim’ or ‘fancy’ is shown to be absurd.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          The truth is not decided by advertising. Especially not false advertising.

        • mally el

          No noe id denying that there are others involved in this campaign. But, this articles was about his activism in it. Yes, this movement has been going on for a few decades now but when politicians get into the act and try to legislate a change it is an interference in an institution that does not belong to them.
          This is why in 1969 the Court ruled against political inteference in marriage by striking down their ban on inter-racial marriage. The Court clearly knew that mariiage is the union of man and woman regardless of race, class or creed.
          This is why the Supreme Court will, once again, strike down any other interference.

          • supineny

            regarding the supreme court, Obama filed an amicus brief, which does not oblige the court to do anything. The court is free to ignore it if they chose, so it is not ‘interference’ in the sense of preventing the court from making an independent decision.

            As you might know, a group of Republicans also filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage, and so did a group of business people.

            • mally el

              Yes, and there are Democrats who are in favor of preserving the long-held view of marriage. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court should, as it did earlier, rule against any attempt to redefine the nature of marriage.

    • Pingback: President Obama’s War on Heterosexual Marriage | We Win They Lose

    • AntiochusEpiphanes

      The promotion of gay marriage hasn’t even been restricted to our own borders. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton announced in 2011 that urging countries to adopt gay rights formed a “priority” of American foreign policy. She instructed diplomats to operate like gay rights activists abroad, outfitting them with a “toolkit” designed to teach them how to dispel the notion that such lifestyle choices as gay marriage and sex-change operations are merely “Western” phenomena.

      It took me all of 15 seconds to find out the truth about this claim. Here is the ‘toolkit’ speech (in which the word marriage does not occur): http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/12/178368.htm

      Instead, it talks about criminalization of gay people, murder, rape and torture. I can only assume that Neumayr is in favor of these things, in defiance of his own church’s position on the matter. Even he seems to recognize that it would be somewhat unseemly to admit it, which is why he instead lies about it and says that it was about marriage.

      • jpct50

        https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1191-daniels-prophecy-of-antiochus-epiphanes

        Antiochus’ rise to power corresponded to the following predictions by Daniel, the prophet of the Most High God:

        Antiochus would come to power after the untimely death of his predecessor.

        He was a contemptible person, thus he was called by many Antiochus Epimanes (i.e., the madman) instead of his preferred appellation Epiphanes (i.e., God Manifest).

        He was not an heir to the throne, indeed to him “royal majesty has not been given.”

        Antiochus did not lead a bloody coup, but he obtained “the kingdom by flatteries.” Edward J. Young writes, “By flattery he won over the kings of Pergamus to his cause, and the Syrians gave in peaceably” (The Prophecy of Daniel, Grand Rapids: Eerdmands, 1977, p. 241).

        These specific details, prophesied about 350 years before they transpired, were fulfilled in Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

    • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

      President Obama is waging “WAR” on marriage? What a ridiculous claim. How is it that allowing law-abiding, taxpaying couples to marry amounts to a “WAR” on marriage?

      The morality of Gay marriage is comparable to the morality of Straight marriage: It is morally and ethically preferable to encourage people toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and possibly promiscuity.

      Studies have repeatedly shown that the benefits are substantial:
      1: Married couples typically contribute more and take less from society.
      2: Married couples support and care for each other financially, physically and emotionally and often contribute more to the economy and savings.
      3: Individuals who are married are less likely to receive government entitlements.
      4: Individuals who are married statistically consume less health care services, and often give more to churches and charities.
      5: Married couples are better able to provide care and security for children.

      So what sense does it make to exclude law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples from this place at the table? Why is it, for example, that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Marriage for heterosexual couples is not about what is best for the married people, it is about what is best for the children. anything less is merely greed and nothing to base a life on.

        • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

          DEAR THEODORE:

          Couples do not need to marry to have children, nor is the ability or even desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. There are also countless Gay individuals and couples who are raising adopting children into healthy, well-adjusted adulthood.

          As Judge Vaughn Walker said in the decision on California’s Prop. 8 Case: “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” It was a view shared by the courts in the Golinski case against DOMA, where a Bush appointee in the Northern District of California concurred: “The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages.”

          • John200

            Dear PolishBear,

            Thank you for, “There are also countless Gay individuals and couples who are raising adopting children into healthy, well-adjusted adulthood.”

            Wordplay, and from a kookoo perspective at that. But I see your poor, tortured, mendacious point. Because there are no such individuals and couples, and the children raised by homo”sex”uals are so badly screwed and screwed up, you say they are “countless.” Yeah, I guess so. If you twist it far enough, you could say “countless.”

            The rest is dross, as you know. You conceded the point when you took your guidance from Judge Vaughn Walker, a retired homo”sex”ual judge who mistakenly intruded himself into the Prop. 8 case. By the way, you may measure Judge Walker’s personal honesty and judicious temperament by his announcement that he is homo”sex”ual, which occurred after he retired from the bench.

            All dross, as you know. If you are sincere in these beliefs and not just a garden variety troll, you may wish to prayerfully consider: Why did you post it?

            • supineny

              “Because there are no such individuals and couples, and the children
              raised by homo”sex”uals are so badly screwed and screwed up, you say
              they are “countless.”"

              Actually, there have been numerous studies about gay parenting — not only do these people exist, they’ve been studied and their kids have been studied. The vast majority of studies have concluded that the kids turn out normal, not ‘badly screwed and screwed up’.

              Get yourself well read on the subject before you go spouting off.

              • John200

                How fortunate for you: I am brilliantly well-read, and have even done some modest scribbling, on the very subject!

                The numerous studies purporting to favor homo”sex”ual parenting form a parade of incompetent research. And you know it.

                No fully sentient person of good will could miss the record on this sorry topic.

                • supineny

                  I’m aware that there’s controversy regarding the various studies. And yet it seems that at the moment I have to decide: who should i trust? The AMA, and various mainstream psychological and pediatric medicine organizations who’ve gone through the surveys and concluded that gay parenting works fine. Or you, who spells “homosexual” with funny quote marks inside.

                  Well, for the moment I’m going with the AMA and I will leave you to your writings.

                  • John200

                    Well, I can’t blame you for making your decisions by deciding who you trust. Most people have not gone through this jungle of claims, counterclaims, and counter-counterclaims, most supported by poorly conducted and tendentious research. Nor do they have the time to do so.

                    That makes the homo”sex”uals smile.

                    • supineny

                      Let’s say for argument’s sake that you’re right — the children of gay parents are statically shown to have more problems than those of heterosexual parents. You present this as a sound reason to oppose gay marriage and presumably gay parenting. If there were other classes that whose children were statistically shown to have more problems than other classes, should they be also be prohibited from marrying and/or having children?

                      Children born to poverty are much more likely to experience depression, drug abuse, unemployment, sexual violence and a host of other problems. Should poor people, therefore, be prohibited from having children?

                      Or does your concern for optimal child rearing conditions only apply when considering gay couples?

                      • John200

                        Dear supineny (supine in NY? Is that what it means?),

                        Thank you for, “If there were other classes that whose children were statistically shown to have more problems than other classes, should they be also be prohibited from marrying and/or having children?”

                        First, let’s start with “prohibition.” Homo”sex”ual “marriage” is far worse off than if it were merely prohibited; in fact it does not exist. Homo”sex”ual marriage is not marriage. It is impossible. To understand this, you must know what marriage is. If you don’t, then you should.

                        I’ll give you two sound reasons to oppose homo”sex”ual marriage.

                        1. Homo”sex”ual activity is not sex. Man #1 and Man #2 are sexually incompatible. They cannot have sex; they can practice mutual masturbation in many disordered forms. That is, they practice at best mutual masturbation; at worst, exploitation of the other person. Sometimes both, so you get a twofer!

                        2. Homo”sex”uality defines the homo”sex”ual as unable to determine what sex is. They don’t even know who they are sexually compatible with. This indicates serious moral disorder in a grave matter. You might prefer to call it intrinsically disordered.

                        3. This will hurt if you are a homo”sex”ual, but we do well to start with a short list of those damaged by homo”sex”ual conduct:
                        - the homo”sex”ual (his mental, physical, and moral health);
                        - the partner he is destroying (mentally, physically, and morally; not very loving, that);
                        - others (parents, siblings, friends, …) who want the best for the homo”sex”ual;
                        - still others (potential wives,…) who might have benefited if the homo”sex”ual had done better;
                        - society at large. We all pay huge, unnecessary costs caused by homo”sex”ual activity. The amount is in the multi-billions of dollars every year.

                        Second point: As for the rest of the quote, this tactic (named below) does not work on me; nice try, no sale. The idea that I want to prohibit poor people from having children came out of your keyboard, not mine. I am inclined to think you see your own sophistry, and that you planned it; our little exchange has convinced me that you deserve credit for that much.

                        So I appreciate your effort. Unfortunately, homo”sex”ual activity is hard to defend and impossible to justify. That is why you are having such a difficult time. It won’t get any easier if we move to the arena of statistical studies.

                        Third point: You pretend moral blindness and perhaps it is real. I cannot tell from here. If you are just playing around, OK, fine. If not, I will simply reply: Ask Him. He will let you know.

                        PS – I use male pronouns, but Woman #1 and Woman #2 run afoul of the same set of facts. It won’t get any easier if we move to lesbianism.

                      • supineny

                        Well, ‘no sale’ but you sure dropped the whole matter of the studies lickety split, and you weren’t able to formulate what the difference was, really, between the two cases in point. It was intended theoretically.

                      • John200

                        Poor people can marry; that is the first and governing difference. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric suffice to show the difference.

                        Scientific research is overkill on the proposed comparison. But you may want to spend some time on it.

                        Best to you and yours on your journey.

                      • supineny

                        Right. They can marry. (By your standards.) Exactly. You say same sex couples raise children that have all kinds of problems and it’s such a horrible thing. However we see here that really the only point for you is not the likely fate of the children — so long as the parents are traditionally married, you don’t care a hoot if children will grow up at a disadvantage. C’est la vie, right?

                        obviously there is a problem with your semantic argument. you say that homosexuals don’t exist, and yet you refer to them as if they do. When you say “the children raised by homo”sex”uals are so badly screwed and screwed up” — obviously you’re referring to people that exist (albeit with scare quotes) and not only do they exist but that you’re aware that some of them raise children. And you claim to have extensive knowledge about these children because of all your research.

                        you cast every possible aspersion against these people that ‘don’t exist’. You think pretty much everything about them is either not valid, or harmful. You are so categorically negative, I don’t think there is any doubt that you are prejudiced. How could you be so certain that any class of people were so homogenously bad? And not just morally bad, for violating sexual norms you uphold, but bad in every way you can think of. That’s prejudice, where you’ve judged people without really knowing them or caring to know them.

                      • John200

                        This is unworthy of you, or should be. I said homo”sex”ual marriage does not exist. The rest is supplied by you, in my name.

                        I also know the history of the word homo”sex”ual, the reason it was coined, and…, but there is no need for it here. You are already overwhelmed by what I have told you.

                        Adieu. Best wishes as you begin your journey toward the light.

                      • supineny

                        Well, you also said and I quote that “Homo”sex”ual activity is not sex.” So how could there be homosexuals? If you don’t believe in fire, how could you believe in smoke?

                      • mally el

                        homosexual is a term that refers to people who are attracted to others of the same gender. Two people of the same gender might have some form of relationship but it is not a marriage. When two people from the two genders built into our nature commit themeselves to each other there is a marriage as the sexual organs of the two genders meaningfully and beautifully complement each other.

                      • supineny

                        other combinations of sexual organs and body parts have been found to compliment each other “beautifully”. this is by no means a recent discovery! as for meaning, how can you hope to generalize? everything and nothing has meaning. humans create meaning willy nilly, its what our brains do.

                      • mally el

                        Marriage is what our nature has created. Our brians tells us that. Other relationships are distinctly other relationships. None of them is a marriage.

            • dch

              Good thing this form of bigotry is dying out. Simply put the young the generation is mostly not bigoted against gays and supports marriage equality. A majority of Americans now support marriage equality, so the tipping point has been reached. The GOP is in the process of dropping the issue as it no longer works and is of no use to them as it turns off the young educated voters they need to replace the older groups that are fading away. By 2016 it will be a moot issue. There is no possibility that opponents can turn the tide in: NY, MA, CT, NH, ME, ML and now CA. More states will join and DOMA will go away.

              Recent polls put support for SSM at 62% in CA so even if Prop 8 is upheld SSM marriage will just go back on the ballot for repeal in 2014 or 2016 and win a walk. There will soon be all these married gay couples raising children all over the place and they won’t have to care about the bigots anymore. So you see, your bigotry is going to be too much work in the future. My son tells me his young adult generation find anti-gay attitudes to be a “old people problem” and do not find SSM to be anything to worry about or even discuss.

              • John200

                Dream on, call me a bigot while you support bigotry. That’s an Alinsky trick, but it doesn’t work on me. Good try, though.

                The young adult generation have bigger problems than whether a deeply confused collection of homo”sex”ual bigots can marry. The answer is, they can’t. But most young people don’t care about it, that’s true.

                • dch

                  Really gay Americans can now legally marry in NINE states! It called reality. That is up from ZERO ten years ago. The trend is obvious. Anti-gay bigotry is dead, young people are never going to care about sexual orientation.
                  Who is winning here? It is just math from this point on. Young people are the future and they’ve already decided (check the polling data), SSM is done deal. Gay people have been getting married in MA for nine year without a single material harm to others. Please do tell us how you plan to reverse NY, MA, CT, MA, NH, VT, ME, ME and IA? Why would gay people give up equality at this point. The next GOP candidate for President will not campaign on this issue, its a loser and the GOP knows it.

              • Bono95

                Don’t know about you, but I’d be leery of anything political that’s popular in CA.

            • http://twitter.com/thiagoupdates thiago

              why do you spell it like that – homo”sex”ual?

          • TheodoreSeeber

            That just proves that Judge Vaughn Walker, like you, are a liar with no respect for objective truth.

      • http://www.facebook.com/nestacal Nesta Callahan

        We are talking not about whether Obama is waging WAR on MARRIAGE, but we are talking about the fact that Marriage was created by the Lord Our God and the fact that HE made the first miracle on this earth at a Marriage, was something that Jesus wanted US to remember. Maybe you PolishBear, haven’t heard that the reason why God Blesses Marriage is because it allows him to make the act of intercourse fruitful. Now I am not saying anything about the people who get married and they cannot procreate children then it would be NATURAL for them to want to adopt a child in which the mother cannot take care of it. It happened way back in the bible.

      • Cha5678

        So they’re not law-abiding.

      • Bob

        The basis for gay marriage is the act of sodomy. Sodomy is against nature, God’s will for procreation and the proper ends of sexual intercourse, and against holy scripture. Because of sodomy gay marriage never leaves the starting gates.

    • Anonymous

      I knew this was coming. Homosexuals want a war with what is natural, ethical, & want to destroy an institution that is built on religion & morality. Second, marriage is religious ceremony, & its define between a man & a woman. It should be up to the churches to decide who gets married, not the state. Unions between man/man, woman/woman, man/dog, man/child, man/corpse, man/etc. aren’t “marriages.” They are FREAK SHOWS!!!

      You faggots want a war? Fine. Just remember, you wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for us heteros. Personally, I’m getting tired of the 2% of the human population telling the rest of us 98% of the human population what to do. Go away GLBTs, nobody likes you!

      • Phil

        1) Nobody is suggesting that people should be allowed to marry dogs, corpses, or children.

        2) Legal marriages have nothing to do with religion. Before the last century or so, most Europeans simply cohabitated and did not marry within the Church. It was not even a Church sacrament until the 13th century.

        3) You use the language of the devil.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          1) You did in 2). if marriage is that vague, and morality is relative, then you have no right to define morality for others at all. Law cannot exist if morality is subjective instead of objective.

          Either morality is objective as we claim, or you cannot impose any rules at all. Pick one.

    • Anonymous

      Obama sure is one big Obama-nation (Abomination)

      • Bono95

        Totally

    • Bre

      Homosexuality is incredibly sad, down to the very depths of a human’s heart. A man as a *child*–a small boy–was denied his masculinity. He was forced to swallow a Lie in which masculinity is some elusive ideal beyond the moon where he can never reach it; he’s betrayed and confused and stuck in limbo between masculinity and femininity. He cannot join in with the other boys in their rough and tumble play, their sports and games that bond them together in camaraderie. Years pass and all along he mourns for these male friendships he believes he will never have–because of the Lie. Years pass and he will not be married and joined with a woman, his natural, God-ordained counterpart. He won’t sire children of his own flesh and blood with a wife through the natural, God-ordained marital rite. He won’t be able to protect and provide for these precious loved ones of his, under his care, by the blood and strength of his being. They won’t exist–because of the Lie.

      The Deceiver is killing the men and women around us in a very cunning way. He has not stopped there. The “Born this Way” idea protects the behaviors of neglectful/abusive fathers/mothers/whoever else that feed the Lie to children. The “It’s a Choice” idea fails to appreciate the great crosses on the backs of these children/adolescents/adults. We need to show everyone, our brothers and sisters, both justice and mercy. In justice and mercy Christ is King!

    • Pingback: Feast Day of St. Agnes of Bohemia

    • Cha5678

      Silly homosexuals. They think heterosexuals granting them access to marriage is a sign of respect. It’s not. It’s the ultimate result of promiscuous, life-denying heterosexuals caring less for marriage and comforting their consciences by redefining the ideal-they-can’t-have to mean nothing at all.

    • guest

      “We must Protect (real) Marriage

      There are some criteria of ethics and morality that cannot be punctured or watered-down without also destroying civilisations.
      As though it were not difficult enough to grow a settled civilised culture through stability of the family, the family is now under attack from a new front. Families and are now also faced with another insidious enemy which has slowly been undermining the stability of the family – the insistence of about 1% of the population who are now ever-more strident in demanding the same kind of “rights” to Marriage, previously only afforded as a special privilege to (some) suitable couples. This group of individuals demand the right to appropriate the TITLE of Marriage as though everybody had automatic right to it.
      We must immediately recognise the DANGER: that if couples of the same sex were to somehow obtain this “right”, it would then legally justify and enable for other types of “marriages” to have similar legal “rights“, eg., multiple partners, father and daughter, close siblings, etc.)
      This would spell the end of our culture by completely over-turning it.
      It would destroy the sacredness of (true) Marriage.
      It would destroy the sacredness and stability of family to which children DO have every right.

      Ethics and morality (the most comprehensive of which are only provided by Catholicism) are like a Life-Saver’s inflatable Rescue Boat: once punctured it becomes a deadly trap for all the occupants.
      Need more proof?
      Then look no further than two relatively recent cultures – and how the culture of “religious INDIFFERENCE” that had so widely pervaded even a cultured country such as Germany prior to Hitler’s rise to power. Read Father John
      Lenz’s “Christ in Dachau” for a detailed description. For further proof, then look at Russia prior to the rise of Stalin. Hitler and his henchmen – were all fervent followers of atheist Friedrich Nietzche, while Stalin was openly atheist. Note how they took it upon themselves to “make their own rules” to suit themselves, their egos and their greed. Note how they both became cultures of death. In the process, tens of millions of innocent people lost their lives.

      This is exactly why we should be trembling in our boots at the present western culture of mindless excesses and self-indulgence in so many areas, for example:
      the INDIFFERENCE to morality and ethics seen in the ever-growing “greed-is-good” mentality; the ever-more-aggressive “intellectual vacuum” mendacity of Christo-phobia, while at the very same time “indulging in inconsolable tears” and hand-wringing over Homo-phobia and their (FALSE) claims for “equal rights“ (which, by the way, apart from the appropriating TITLE of Marriage for themselves as well, “gays” ALREADY HAVE all the same rights of married couples in superannuation, inheritance, etc. etc.)

      It is increasingly evident that western culture has not heeded the lessons of history and is condemning itself to repeating the same old mistakes. An exceedingly selfish / self-indulgent culture – where sin has been “normalised” – it is already well on the way to becoming yet another “culture of death”.

      It is also interesting then that “gays” themselves expose their own immense hypocrisy and massive deceit about their (REAL) agenda – to DESTROY the sacred institution of (real) Marriage … How? … Easy! … by “TRIVIALISING the title of “Marriage” – with their insistence of legally appropriating the “TITLE of Marriage” (which historically has ONLY ever belonged to a man and a woman in a public declaration in the presence of God and before the community – of their life-long commitment and fidelity in real Marriage and for the purpose of being responsible parents to off-spring).
      Here it must be pointed out that if God is not acknowledged at the ceremony – then it does NOT qualify as a marriage.
      Most “gays” describe themselves as “non-believers” and are particularly hostile to any idea of God … therefore all that “gay” “marriage” becomes is merely a distillation of satirical caricature of very bad taste.
      This is NOT “gay-bashing”. It is our right to complain against the willful malicious destruction of our very culture. It is no less destructive than if they set fire to our Parliament.

      It is interesting to note that even though homosexual groups evidently “don’t see themselves as anything more than 1 to 3% of the population, and most saying that they are not even being remotely interested in marriage (because they “crave variety” in partnerships), a growing number of them now openly admit that what they actually really want is “to turn western culture on its head altogether” by “normalising“ their lifestyle:
      Why?
      Apparently desperate to eliminate the burdensome “cloud of guilt” which even non-religious “gays” appear to find particularly unsettling .
      How?
      1. “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society…”
      - Paula Ettelbrick, (ex-legal director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund)

      2. “In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a craving on the part of the homophile to ‘absorb’ masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for (new sex partners). Consequently the most successful homophile ‘marriages’ are those where there is an arrangement between the two and to have affairs on the side while maintaining the ‘semblance of permanence’ in their living arrangement.”
      - Former Homosexual William Aaron (William Aaron, Straight (New York: Bantam Books, 1972)

      3. “Typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in ‘transactional’ relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months.”
      - research by University of Chicago Sociologist Edward Laumann (Adrian Brune, “City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says”, Washington Blade – February 27, 2004)

      4. “Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”
      - Researcher M. Pollak (M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times”, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster, New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985)

      5. It is even more alarming to note that “gays” themselves further expose their (REAL) agenda:

      “…to get the public to affirm their lifestyle” … “to see government and society affirm our lives”
      - (United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989).
      (again, to lift that inconvenient “cloud of guilt”)

      But most disturbing is that part of the homosexual agenda seems to be to
      alienate people from Christianity – which they perceive as “the enemy“:
      “The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form – should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion” – (Advocate, 1985).

      So what is their “Trojan Horse” strategy?
      Easy! “DESENSITIZING the public“: “The first order of business is “desensitization of the American public concerning gays”…..To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with INDIFFERENCE … Ideally, we would have “straights” register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games….At least – in the BEGINNING – we are seeking “public desensitization” … if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing…then your battle for [“equal rights”} is VIRTUALLY WON”
      - (“The Overhauling of Straight America.” Guide Magazine. November, 1987.)

      – The “gays” own admissions about their (REAL) agenda – put the whole matter in a very differing perspective.

      It is so important for us to defend WITHOUT DELAY what is worth defending – the very future of families and the defence of civilised customs and traditions which are slowly, insidiously being undermined and destroyed.
      The family has been under serious malicious attack for decades and also by a spiteful and destructive minority who would have us believe that that they do not ALREADY have legal rights (eg inheritance, superannuation, etc.) under the ALREADY available “legal unions” available to any two people, regardless of sex.

      Therefore: Let “gays” take advantage of the above legal avenues … BUT do NOT allow such irresponsible people to (FALSELY) appropriate the TITLE of “Marriage”.

      Responsible citizens, who value their freedom of speech (yes, there are already steps being taken to make any criticism of “gays” a punishable crime);
      Citizens who value the truly admirable aspects of culture and who do NOTwant it reduced to such a toxic caricature.

      – It is time for the public to take note of this (admitted) sinister agenda that would terrify even George Orwell himself. “
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    • William Richardson

      Famous Action GuyS….jeeeezzzz, I am tired of hearing about them and their bogus movement.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=643576348 Leanne Musson Watts

      Makes me wonder just what his Muslim buddies think of him, since they kill gays, after all….

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cameron-Willadsen/550975056 Cameron Willadsen

      Ahhh whiny Christians upset that “teh geyz” will probably win the Supreme Court cases and things will keep on moving towards national marriage equality. Boo-freakin-hoo.