There is so much dissembling by the liberals, including Obama, on this issue.
Obama says he believes marriage is a man and a woman, and that as a Christian, he sees God in the mix as well.
Then his administration decides not to defend federal marriage laws in court cases, presumeably to make it easier for judges to overturn marriage law.
Then, Obama says his views are evolving on this issue.
The liberals are saying that each state should decide this issue? Well, as of today, 31 out of 50 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage, to prevent judges from changing the definition of marriage. North Carolina would be the 32nd state to take that action if it passes.
Minnesota votes on the issue in November. Maryland may also have a referendum on marriage, attempting to reverse the same-sex marriage law passed by their legislature.
The point is, the liberals don’t really want the states deciding this. The big majority of states have decided that they want marriage to remain a man and a woman. Many more, which don’t have marriage amendments, still retain laws defining marriage. Or will have them until the gay activists drag them into court on how they define marriage.
What the liberals dream of is a “Brown vs. Board of Education” or “Roe vs. Wade” type ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, imposing homosexual marriage on all 50 states. That’s what they want. Why don’t they admit it? There’s no way they want each state deciding, when the vast majority of states are deciding the “wrong” way.
Because in the liberal mindset, lying is OK if it works toward the “greater good”, i.e., achieving their left-wing socialistic goals. When my state had a vote on marriage being defined the way Jesus defined it in Matthew 19:4-6(one male to one female, what a radical notion!), a liberal homosexual coworker fired off an email to the entire office begging us to vote against it. His reasoning in his message was, there was “no way” a judge in our state would redefine marriage. Why didn’t he just be honest and say upfront he wishes marriage to be legally redefined? Instead, he choose to lie and said it was “unChristian” for us to vote for with Jesus’ definition of marriage. :?
Of course, he didn’t use those exact words but it’s what his words meant. This co-worker was later mystified by the fact that more people did not listen to Air America.
You are exactly right, but they've already admitted it, Evan Wolfson of Lambda Legal spelling it out in 2001 for the website 365gay.com in a long interview in the aftermath of the gays' loss of the James Dale case which preserved the right of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude gays, bisexuals, pederasts and pedophiles from Scouts and Scouting (adult supervisors) under the aegis of the moral standards language of their charter.
Wolfson spelled out precisely the path you describe to a 50-state, winner-take-all lawsuit that would use the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the Constitution to force all 50 States to accept and honor homosexual shackups as "marriage", if only one State could be bulldozed, hornswoggled, bullsteered, b.s.'ed, or otherwise coerced, the People volente nolente (i.e., screw them, they're all a bunch of straight breeder humps anyway, who cares what they think?), into "establishing" a bagatelle called "same-sex marriage".
They had been at it, at that point, for 20 years, ever since the Hawaiian case (Lewin, I think it was called at one time, though the title changed at least once) that Lambda had fomented in the early 80's, and they had 600 homosexual attorneys working on the project at that time.
There are so many benefits for the activist liberals in this. The militant liberals and homosexual lobby want "homosexual" to be a protected class such as race, so, an employer will be able to get sued for descrimination. Aside from big companies getting sued to death, imagine what will happen to the US military or worse (yes, worse), what will happen to organized religions.
For example, a gay man applies for a position as a minister at church of a well established Christian denomination. He is denied because he is gay. Law suit follows. The church now has to hire him. End result? A guy wearing a dress, lipstick and a moustache is teaching your kids and grandkids Bible study class because THE LAW SAYS SO. And if you say anything, it will be like calling a black person the "n" word, (you bigot). Nail, meet hammer.
You and I will have to pay for AIDS treatment of gays.
The military, mercy, will be literally decimated with a large percentage of soldiers leaving because of this issue.
And heaven help you if you are a politician who speaks out or votes against the related issues.
This is a designed wedge issue by which the leadership of the Dem party can further divide America.