Obama is running around like a hysterical schoolgirl courting his left-wing base, which is a portentous sign for an incumbent who should be wooing the moderate middle like Selma Hayek worked the room in Dogma.
The war on moms, condomgate, dog-eating, and now rainbow flag-waving studs in assless chaps complete the sideshow circus tableau for our nation to move ‘forward’ into. If the mise-en-scène is not jovial, it sure is frivolous; ‘gay’ in more than one regard.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I had more than a few gay friends in college, an institute of higher learning that unfortunately was not too adept at the finer points of rhetorical parlance. One of my friends came out of the closet and I neither had a clue he was gay, nor did I bat an eye. Consider it a lack of gaydar that springs from a devil-may-care individualist streak.
Apologias aside, the gay mafia demanded its pound of flesh from Obama in exchange for a commitment to ‘marriage equality,’ and he both pandered and hedged at the same time: he paid lip service to a supposedly lofty ideal while maintaining the status quo — a familiar track record for the president and a sign of electoral weakness.
Obama has thereby inflamed the more extreme elements of his base by opting for an ‘evolved’ position that basically says it’s super if states want to pass gay marriage laws, a non-committal committal if there ever was one, while chilling the religious ‘black community’ he needs another strong showing from on election day. Van Jones can flippantly make remarks about Obama coming out as gay and not losing any of the black vote — wait, why is an avowed communist and known truther doing on MSNBC again?
But all shamanlike attempts at political weathermaking aside, we’re not likely to see Obama gyrating his hips to the Village People in front of a phallic variation of the Greek columns anytime soon. The president has seemed truly uncomfortable dealing with issues of homosexuality.
If one might be allowed to speculate, could it be that the same syncretist faith background that had young Obama munching on tigers, snakes, and dogs has lodged a tiny mote in the president’s eye when it comes to same-sex relations?
Oh, but I forgot. The man who must have an assuredly remarkable conversion story had this to say in 2008:
I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union.
Of course, what one considers ‘sacred’ is a subjective matter, as one readily sees with the “goddamn-ing” “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long-time spiritual adviser. Radical politics, as destructive as they are, are their own millenarian faith system.
But the president’s willingness to utter verbiage suggesting he holds something inviolable, while later demonstrating not only political shiftiness but personal rootlessness, demonstrates a hollowed out man without a core. Obama is thus a kaleidoscopic character — one composed of distorting mirrors and a fracturing worldview. And yet the rainbow colors sure are pretty.
This isn’t to say that the man is not an ideologue — he most certainly is, albeit of a particular sort. The ironic thing about cosmopolitan socialism is that the moral leveling that stems from a dogmatic faith in equality and relativism leads one to rigidly and radically oppose anything that vaguely smacks of judgment. Bigotry thereby becomes the greatest sin in the left’s moral universe. Thus, while the right is crying out for the left to do something constructive about the disastrous economic situation, the left is obsessing about such fetishes as whether or not the state recognizes gay marriage.
What if the state did recognize gay marriage? Then what? Would it really make life that much better for gay couples who can openly and legally live with one another already? Isn’t marriage a ‘patriarchal’ institution? In any event, aren’t there more important things to focus on when the country is being led into normalized poverty and the government is bribing all comers with taxpayer money so politicians can remain entrenched in filthy power?
That is why gay issues are a distraction on the national stage at this point in time, as seriously as some may take them. As a conservatarian, I’d prefer to see such social issues taken off the table as playthings of the political parties, meaning the state should see its way out of such intimate and private matters. The church should be able to decide who is married and who isn’t; while the state should legally recognize civil unions for adults who want to bestow legal privileges on one another, such as power of attorney or child custody. This is not to say “anything goes.” But gay couples who want to call themselves ‘married’ in public must have the free speech right to do so.
Gay people should not be so beholden to the government that they crave its recognition. Sexuality is not the end-all, be-all of human identity. But it has become a politicized aspect of life for the everything-is-political left.
Liberty and individual rights, for all Americans, are what voters should rally around. No one should be a fool for the left-wing drama queens, who are gobbling up immense bits of power like cherry bon-bons after a Liza Minnelli moviethon.