State dinner shows Obama evolving on same-sex marriage: ‘he’s practically there already’

Jonathan Capehart reports in The Washington Post that Obama used a recent state dinner to feature 4 same-sex couples, including one at the prestigious president’s table.

A state dinner at the White House is a magical event. A time for the president of the United States to showcase his country and celebrate the descendants from the honored country who now call America home. It’s also a time to send messages. And when it comes to gay men and lesbians and the issue of marriage equality, a consistent message is coming into clearer focus. For a man who maintains that he is “evolving” on the issue of same-sex marriage, President Obama is pretty evolved on the matter already. 

As a guest at Wednesday’s state dinner for British Prime Minister David Cameron, I know of at least two legally married same-sex couples in attendance. If the president or the administration had any concern about [incoming president of the Human Rights Campaign] Griffin or the important work AFER is doing, you better believe he would not have been so prominently placed at the dinner. This doesn’t give Obama a pass on his evolution. And it certainly is not going to give him immunity in the impending fight over adding a marriage equality plank to the Democratic Party platform as Greg Sargent cautions.  But it certainly makes clear — if you’ve been paying attention — where the president is headed.  

Obama is not getting there as fast as many would like. But he’ll get there. Heck, he’s practically there already.

Did Capehart feel the same thrill-up-the-leg at this “magical” dinner that Chris Matthews felt when hearing Obama speak during the 2008 campaign?

Opponents to same-sex marriage ban one third less than expected

Several hundred marched in opposition to the proposed ban against same-sex marriage in Raleigh, North Carolina on Thursday.  However, the number of opponents was far less than expected. 

The News Observer reports:

The march turnout of about 300 fell far short of the 1,000 people organizers expected. Opponents face a challenge defeating an amendment that has passed in every state where it has appeared on the ballot. 

Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast without one. The state has a law that makes same-sex marriage illegal.

Amendment 1 would add the ban against same-sex marriage to the level of the state constitution.  It states:  "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

Supporters of the ban believe they have the necessary votes:

A recent poll by the Civitas Institute, a conservative-leaning organization, shows voters approve of the amendment by a large margin. The poll, conducted Feb. 27 and 28, showed 64 percent of registered voters support the amendment and 30 percent oppose it. A poll earlier this year by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic leaning firm, also found the amendment winning by a wide margin, but also showed that support had ticked down over previous polls. 

“We strongly believe we have the support base to win,” Lee said.

‘How to change your public position on marriage’ without being called a flip-flopper

How do you change your public position on marriage without being accused of flip-flopping? 

Third Way developed talking points for politicians to change their minds about same-sex marriage without being called “flip-flopper.”  Do what President Obama did.  Explain that you’re “evolving.” 

(How much ya wanna bet President Obama will finish “evolving” as soon as the November elections are over?)

Third Way has three main talking points:

1. “The journey is as important as the destination.” 

If that’s true, can we just stay on the road trip and never arrive at same-sex marriage?  Bon voyage!

2. “Marriage is about commitment, not rights.” 

Um, people with same-sex attraction don’t need society’s permission to be committed.

 

3. “Don’t inadvertently belittle others who have not evolved as quickly.” 

No more name-calling.  No more calling those knuckle-dragging Neanderthals "bigots" or "hate-filled" simply because they are less enlightened than you.

Third Way has even more helpful hints: 

Don’t call it “gay” marriage or “same-sex” marriage.  Those qualifiers in front of marriage imply that gender-segregated marriage is different from gender-integrated marriage.  Precisely.

Don’t call it “marriage equality.”  Trying to piggyback on the success of the civil rights movement can backfire and lead people to notice differences rather than similarities between race and sexual orientation.  You know, differences like race is genetic and immutable, whereas sexual orientation develops and is fluid.  Race is an attribute, sexual behavior is, well, a behavior.

Share a personal story.  Explain how a gay couple impressed you, so you converted to believing in same-sex marriage and now you want to evangelize others, without belittling them for being a ball and chain on your "journey." 

Third Way didn’t mention these, but they might want to include them in their next guide: 

Don’t talk about gender.  Or gender-integration.  Or what Father’s Day is like for a boy adopted by two women.  Or what Mother’s Day is like for children adopted by two men.  Don’t talk about gay indoctrination.  Don’t talk about same-sex couples suing businesses for not catering to them, literally.  Avoid discussing how this will impact schools.  Avoid discussing sexual education in schools.  Never say the words arresting fathers.  Don’t talk about discriminating against religious people who have moral reasons for opposing monogender marriage.  Don’t talk about the 31 times same-sex marriage was voted down by statewide referendum.  Don’t talk about health statistics for people with same-sex attraction.  Other than that…

Enjoy the journey!

Ben and Jerry’s ice cream company wants same-sex couples to live ‘Apple-y Ever After’ in the UK

Lifesitenews:

 As the UK Government moves in the direction of legalizing same-sex “marriage,” Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream has launched a lobbying campaign in support of the move that includes re-naming one of their ice cream flavors. 

British Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone announced last September that the government was committed to legalizing same sex “marriage” by 2015, and would launch a consultation regarding the issue this spring. 

 In anticipation of the consultation, which will begin later this month, Ben & Jerry’s announced yesterday that the flavor “Oh! My! Apple Pie!” will be called “Apple-y Ever After” in England. Its re-designed tub features a wedding cake decorated with rainbow stripes and topped with two groom figures.

 Nice try.  Still not as American as motherhood and apple pie.

New Ways Ministry recruits Gov. O’Malley, Barbara Johnson, and others to speak to ‘lesbian and gay’ Catholics in Maryland

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.  (Isaiah 55:8)

New Ways Ministry is recruiting like-minded people to speak to Catholics with same-sex attraction in Maryland. 

The Baltimore Sun reports: 

Gov. Martin O’Malley, who continues to campaign for same-sex marriage in advance of a likely referendum aimed at overturning the law he signed this month, will speak Friday at a conference in Baltimore for gay and lesbian Catholics. 

Also scheduled to appear at the conference organized by the Maryland-based New Ways Ministry are Barbara Johnson, who was denied Communion at her mother's funeral Mass in Gaithersburg last month because she is a lesbian; former Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who has written a book critical of church involvement in politics; and Geoffery Robinson, a retired Catholic bishop from Australia.

Just because they call themselves Catholic doesn’t mean they believe in the Catholic creed.

Cardinal Edwin F. O'Brien, the archbishop of Baltimore, issued a statement this week warning that "in no manner is the position proposed by New Ways Ministry in conformity with Catholic teaching," nor is the organization authorized to identify itself as a Catholic organization or to speak for the church.

How did Obamacare birth control mandate lead to liberal ladies promoting sex strike?

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”  Shakespeare

“Liberal Ladies Who Lunch” are calling on all women to protest the protest against the HHS mandate on birth control by going on a sex strike from April 28 – May 5.  That’s right; their “Access Denied:  Sex Strike” campaign promotes abstaining from sex as a way to motivate men to join their plea for free contraception.  As the Washington Times noted:  “This is akin to protesting welfare cuts by getting a job.” 

The liberal ladies explain their reasoning on their “Access Denied: Sex Strike” Facebook page:

Men will have to go back to the days when they waited for or paid for sex. This issue impacts all of us. This strike is designed to make that point. …Ask your man to stand with you in solidarity and speak up for your rights, because when we lose our reproductive choices, so do they.

Be sure to check out the comments.  The Blaze has posted some interesting ones.

Actually, a sex strike is an excellent notion.  (Imagine how much money Sandra Fluke’s friends could save!)  However, instead of all women striking at the same time, let’s stagger it to mystify the men.  And rather than adopting the one-size-fits-some April 28 starting date, if each individual woman enacts her strike during her most fertile time of the month, then guess what, when the week is over, she won’t need birth control.  And then, she can do it again next month.  Lo and behold, she’s practicing Natural Family Planning, which is free (not in the way the HHS mandate provides “free” condoms by redistributing the expense, but authentically free as in it doesn’t cost anybody money), healthy (no high doses of hormonal drugs), and effective (as they say, abstaining works every time).  An added bonus, NFP comes with papal approval. 

Free, healthy, effective, and ethical.  Sign me up!

Plus, just think how fun it will be after the week of abstaining is overJ

Obama and IRS opposition to DOMA 'totally inappropriate' and 'caught us all by surprise'

“Every single appellate court that has looked at this has said DOMA is constitutional. This administration is taking a radical position that is a departure from settled law and it is totally inappropriate.” Peter Breen, Thomas More Society

Once again Team Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act in a case involving two women “married” in Canada, one of whom claims survivor’s benefits.

World Net Daily reports in its article Courtroom Shocker:  IRS Ignores Marriage Law:  

Congress was forced to defend DOMA after Barack Obama’s Justice Department announced last year it would refuse to carry out its responsibility to defend the law.

Remember the separation of powers that you learned in your high school American History class?  You know, to prevent one from becoming too powerful they separated the three branches of government into executive, judicial, and legislative? Did President Obama and his administration miss that memo? 

In a remarkable courtroom revelation, a group pushing for repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act stated that the Internal Revenue Service recently changed its policies and is functioning as if the law preserving traditional matrimony does not exist.  

 The Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for the LGBT community, admitted it has been pressing the IRS to ease the restrictions of federal law on various retirement plans that put spouses in a privileged position. 

 “Even the IRS under Obama appears to have begun adopting the administration’s position that DOMA is not constitutional and no longer binding on the IRS,” [legal counsel Peter] Breen said. “That was quite a unique revelation that caught us all by surprise.”  

The case involves Jennifer Tobit, the lesbian partner of deceased attorney Sarah Farley, who is arguing that she is entitled to her “spouse’s” profit-sharing plan because they were “married” in Canada. Following Farley’s death, her parents applied to collect her pension plan benefits, which are estimated to be around $41,000.

Hey, if the IRS can ignore laws it doesn't like, can I ignore tax laws that I don't like?

NH: From civil union to same-sex marriage to civil union?

The trend to redefine marriage is taking a new turn in New Hampshire.  Will same-sex marriage be redefined as civil unions? 

From the Associated Press at Boston.com: 

The sponsor of a bill to repeal New Hampshire's gay marriage law proposed Tuesday to give voters a chance to weigh in through a nonbinding ballot question on whether the state should restore a 2007 civil unions law. 

 State Rep. David Bates, a Windham Republican, said his proposal would repeal gay marriage effective March 31, 2013, and replace it with civil unions. He said if voters decide in November they want to keep civil unions for homosexuals, gay marriage would be repealed. He said if voters object to repealing gay marriage, lawmakers would have time to stop the repeal from taking effect.

Is this the re-redefinition of marriage?  Not according to Bates who said, “From my perspective, this is not intended to be a substitute or mimic of marriage.”

Same-sex marriage activists have a different perspective: 

The civil unions law enacted in 2007 was considered by gay marriage supporters to be marriage in all but name. Bates' proposal is intended to return to that law by giving same-sex couples the contractual protections of marriage...

 Civil unions are no longer enough to please same-sex marriage activists:

Tyler Deaton of Standing Up for New Hampshire Families, which opposes repeal, called the referendum a distraction from the real issue that lawmakers would be voting to discriminate against same-sex couples.

"The very premise of this bill is to take away rights," said Deaton.

 Actually, people with same-sex attraction already have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.   

From DADT to Do Ask and Do Tell

Just as the military ends its Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy regarding personnel with same-sex attraction, the healthcare conglomerate is compiling data, asking who identifies as LGBT.  Why? 

Good question.  Is Team Obama collecting numbers to crunch into healthcare coverage for gender reassignment surgery?  Was the HHS mandate to cover sterilization, contraception, and abortion drugs simply a gateway procedure to inoculate us against more controversial operations such as genital reconstruction?

J. E. Dyer has done the research for us.  His article on Hotair is crammed with links to examples.  In the world of public education, will gender reassignment surgery for the 18-year-old at your local community college be no longer private, but publicly funded?  And even private institutions are at risk of incurring the expense of lifelong hormonal treatments for transgender people.  Dyer’s conclusion:

"With ObamaCare, meanwhile, it is increasingly possible – in the absence of an originalist Supreme Court ruling at some future date – that even in the realm of private institutions’ policies, the era of privately-contracted, elective insurance coverage is entirely behind us.  Never again will it be possible to say that people can pick and choose insurance based on a company’s coverage policies, and that no one is forced to cover anyone else’s gender-reassignment surgery or gynecological services for transgendered males.  As the HHS contraception mandate has made clear, that is no longer our choice.  With ObamaCare’s mandates, we have passed from the basis of tolerance, as regards what other people choose to do with their bodies, to a basis of enforced subsidy.

So when a state university system proposes to collect data on the LGBT student population, while proposals for special health “services” for those students are published, and HHS wants, coincidentally, to collect the same data on the population at large to redress “health disparities” – it matters.  Questions about why this is being done are worth asking.  There is no credit remaining in the big-government Left’s “benefit of the doubt” reserve; if it looks like another end-run on health insurance, mandates, and conscience, it’s a good bet that that’s what it is."

Why we defend marriage

“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him but, because he loves what is behind him.”  G. K. Chesterton

Marriage is pro-gender, pro-sex, pro-child, and pro-life.  Unfortunately, marriage is in jeopardy.  Six states have redefined marriage, the Associated Press reports that five more are preparing for "costly and bruising statewide showdowns," and countries such as Great Britain and Australia are debating same-sex marriage.

Do some of us support same-sex marriage because we fear the gay lobby?  Are we afraid we will be pilloried by the liberal media for supporting gender-integrated marriage?  After  witnessing the media's contempt for marriage advocates such as Chick-fil-A's Dan Cathy and actor Kirk Cameron, are we afraid that if we speak up for marriage between one man and one woman, we too will be labeled "anti-gay"?

Stop right there.  See how effectively the gay rights activists and media are spinning this story?  They want to shut down the debate about what is best for marriage and children by deploying their biggest weapon:  name-calling.  

This is wrong on two counts.  One, we won't let fear cause us to abandon the well-being of children and pro-gender marriage.  And secondly, we are NOT anti-gay.

Defending both genders in marriage does not make us bigots.  We have friends and relatives who have same-sex attraction.  We do not hate them.  We want the very best for them, which means we won’t lie and play along and pretend that two men are the scientific and social equivalent of one man and one woman when it comes to marriage and motherhood.  No matter how loving a father is, he will never be a mother. 

As Chesterton noted, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him but, because he loves what is behind him.”  And this is why we defend marriage: Because we love both our mothers and our fathers.  We love our husbands and our wives.  We love our sons and daughters.  We don’t believe children should be deprived of this love and these unique relationships.

We love what came before us:  our grandmothers and grandfathers.  We don’t consider them bigots even though they never legalized marriage for two men.

We want children growing up in intact families, with both a mother and a father.  We don’t want children placed in monogender homes and taught by example that mothers are unimportant. We don’t want to tell those children they shouldn’t even want their mothers because that might hurt the feelings of their two fathers.  If we have to choose between depriving children of their mothers or offending adult men, we choose to defend children.

We want to defend our children from growing up being called bigots or hate-filled simply because they believe all children deserve mothers and fathers.  We want to love what is ahead of us.

We fight the zealous activists lying to our friends and relatives in monogender partnerships.  The activists who claim that sterile, fruitless sex is the social equivalent of complementary, procreative sex.  But we don’t fight activists because we hate them.  We fight because we love organic truth more than trendy lies.  It’s not the liar we hate, but the lie.

We love our genders.  We marvel at the differences between men and women.  We don’t want to ignore or discount or squelch this diversity.  We want to appreciate and love masculinity and femininity, not just in the marital embrace, but also over the morning coffee, at the office meeting, and at the dinner table. 

We don’t want same-sex marriage to sterilize our vocabulary.  We don’t want the beautiful words bride and mother neutered into partner and parent in speech and on government forms.

We defend our friends and neighbors sued or fined for the "crime" of recognizing and honoring the differences between men and women.  Yes, men and women are equal in dignity and worth, but their sexual differences are powerful enough to create new life.  No matter how much two men love each other or how committed they are to each other, they can't produce new children for our community.

One of the most basic and powerful diversities on planet earth is gender. We wouldn’t be here without it.  And without the integration of genders our society would cease to exist.

So, vive la difference! 

And soldier on, not with hate, but with love.