Posted on 06/27/2012 8:15:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
President Barack Obama, occupant of the bully pulpit, set aside the past month to celebrate a most peculiar thing.
"Now, each June since I took office," Obama said in a June 15 speech at the White House, "we have gathered to pay tribute to the generations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans who devoted their lives to our most basic of ideals -- equality not just for some, but for all."
Among the places our president said he wanted "equality not just for some, but for all" -- that is, presumably, including "bisexuals" -- is in the institution of marriage.
"We've supported efforts in Congress to end the so-called Defense of Marriage Act," Obama said. "And as we wait for that law to be cast aside, we've stopped defending its constitutionality in the courts."
"And Americans may be still evolving when it comes to marriage equality," Obama said, "but as I've indicated personally, Michelle and I have made up our minds on this issue."
So, what does Obama's "marriage equality" mean for bisexuals?
According to Merriam-Webster, homosexual means "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex." Bisexual means "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes."
Obama, we now know, believes homosexual men have a "right" to marry other men, and homosexual women have a "right" to marry other women. So, who does he believe bisexuals have a "right" to marry?
In Obama's world, does a bisexual man have a "right" to enter into a bigamous union with one other man and one woman? Or can the state force him to limit his marriage to the union of just two people?
And if that is the case, how would Obama, within his philosophy of government, justify prohibiting a bisexual from forming a tripartite marriage?
In 2003, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Lawrence v. Texas. The lawyer for the homosexual plaintiffs in this case argued that they had a "right to engage in consensual sexual intimacy in the privacy of their home" -- including homosexual activity. The laws against this activity, the plaintiffs and their allies argued, were wrong because they were based on morality.
Assessing this argument that homosexual behavior was a "right," Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "Why is this different from bigamy?"
The plaintiff's lawyer responded, essentially, that homosexuals were not asking for the right to marry, they were merely asking for the right to sodomy.
"Now, bigamy involves protection of an institution that the State creates for its own purposes, and there are all sorts of potential justifications about the need to protect the institution of marriage that are different in kind from the justifications that could be offered here involving merely a criminal statute that says we're going to regulate these people's behaviors," the lawyer told Scalia.
The majority overturned its own 1986 precedent, Bowers v. Hardwick, and ruled for the homosexuals. In Bowers, Justice Byron White, a John F. Kennedy appointee, had flatly rejected the argument that a state could not base its laws on morality.
"The law, however, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed," said White.
Chief Justice Warren Burger concurred. "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching," he said.
Dissenting from the court's 2003 opinion in Lawrence, Scalia foretold what would follow from the court's decision in that case to overturn Bowers and attack the principle that the law is based on morality.
"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices," said Scalia. "Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding."
Obama's decision to attack rather than defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court validates Scalia's warning. The Obama administration is arguing that for an individual, an institution or a state to discriminate against same-sex "marriages" is akin to discriminating against people because of their race.
By turning our law upside down, Obama would turn our society inside out. Racial discrimination is wrong for the same reason homosexual behavior -- or, for that matter, bisexual behavior -- is wrong. Racial discrimination violates the natural God-given law that is the only source of any legitimate law of the state.
When the Founders created this country, they rightfully pointed for justification to the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God." They said that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
No rational person could argue that there is a God-given right to same-sex marriage or bisexual behavior. To justify such things, as Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote only a quarter-century ago, one must "cast aside millennia of moral teaching."
As he seeks to remove God as the ultimate source of our law, with whom will Obama replace Him?
What Does Obama’s ‘Marriage Equality’ Mean for Bisexuals?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good question. And what does it mean for me and my pet sheep?
Just’ wonderin’....
Marriage laws typically have adultery as a justification of divorce.
That still the case for homosexuals who are non-monogomous in most cases?
It still means that they still have twice as many chances of getting laid when they walk into a bar as the rest of us.
Bisexuals shouldn’t have any marital rights, because by nature they would be adulterers, right? They have to have more than one partner to fully “express themselves”. I read a few years ago that homosexuals really resent bisexuals because of this.
This is where those sophisticates who believe that LGBT is harmless find that they are not evolved as far as they thought. Even if there is no “judging” and people can do whatever they want in bed... Betrayal still hurts. Ambiguity still breeds lack of trust and insecurity. People still need steadfast love and security in their most intimate lives.
Bisexuals would by definition be heartbreakers, to any in the LGBT community who are still aware that they have hearts.
It’s not even a slippery slope anymore. This is a cliff face covered in axle grease.
Once you discard THE definition, then there’s really NO definition besides what the current societal “norms” are.
This is exactly what the left wants, though - total destruction of traditional morality in favor of their “zeitgeist”.
Why not seek a Writ of Mandamus seeking to force Obama to enforce all the laws, not just the ones he likes or panders about.
The gay activists eventually want to have legalized polygamy/group marriage, with marriages composed of any number of partners, and any gender of partners.
They look at monogamous homosexual marriage as a transitional step to their final goal, which is the obliteration of marriage as we know it.
Once we have institutionalized 50 state monogamous homosexual marriage, then they will move on to their other agenda items in the area of marriage and family.
It’s obvious with a “bi-sexual”, that such person by definition can’t have just one partners. Such person needs a partner or partners of each sex. And since we’re supposed to be liberal and non-judgemental about these things, per liberal theology, future court rulings will mandate that outcome.
The gay activists eventually want to have legalized polygamy/group marriage, with marriages composed of any number of partners, and any gender of partners.
They look at monogamous homosexual marriage as a transitional step to their final goal, which is the obliteration of marriage as we know it.
Once we have institutionalized 50 state monogamous homosexual marriage, then they will move on to their other agenda items in the area of marriage and family.
It’s obvious with a “bi-sexual”, that such person by definition can’t have just one partners. Such person needs a partner or partners of each sex. And since we’re supposed to be liberal and non-judgemental about these things, per liberal theology, future court rulings will mandate that outcome.
If we allow gay marriage, then we have no justification left to disallow polygamy — a form of marriage recognized in over half the world for thousands of years. On what basis can we recognize a gay marriage, and refuse to recognize the marriage of a Muslim man coming to the US with two wives?
The question I always try to find an answer for is, "What privileges or rights do my wife and I have that a gay couple joined in a civil union do not have?" In my view if they can share investment, own community property and real estate, enjoy survivor benefits and have hospital visitation, then they have every right and benefit of marriage without destructing the idea of marriage being the joining of "one man and one woman".
One thing that bothers me in all of this is that the idea of gay marriage is being marketed as one of the most important things to the liberal community. However, the liberal community tends to look down upon or ignore traditional marriage altogether. They seem to prefer to live together and use hyphenated surnames to show their contempt or disrespect for marriage in one way or another. Thus, I get the impression this is all not about marriage as much as it is about destructing a tradition they see as a societal norm.
What is it supposed to mean? If this debate follows the usual “incremental” pattern, you will - at first - be ridiculed and belittled for asking such an absurd question, because “no one” is proposing such a thing, and everyone wishes that you would not raise such inflammatory questions.
But as the newfound “right” becomes entrenched in law and in the culture, sure enough, the newfound “right” will be extended to its next logical conclusion. Politicians and professors will “evolve” a new level of understanding and compassion for bigamists and polygamists, and BGLT (bi-group-largegroup-tribal) unions. And you will be ridiculed and belittled for your obsolete morality and your inability to see how ALL people should have the same rights as people with a “binary” (single spouse) orientation.
Polygamy means two girls for every boy, just like the Beach Boys sang.
The goal is to smash monogamy and devalue the institution of marriage.
The same “pioneers” who brought us same sex marriage are busy waging the war against laws in Texas for things like same sex divorce.
I heard Levin throw out this question a few months ago and it is a great one. Why can't bisexuals marry both sexes at the same time? Were they not 'born that way' too? Liberty for bisexuals who just want 'their love recognized by the law' (a Chris Matthews line)...This is just like race restrictions on marriage in the 1960s :)
A shame you hear no congressional Republicans bringing this up to make fun of Obama. Notice Romney is AWOL on this fight, Oh, but he said he believes in traditional marriage, WHOOPIE.
If someone is bi-CURIOUS they are automatically encouraged to go whole hog homosexual. No counseling or discussion that it MAY NOT be right for them. Nope, supposedly only heterosexual marriages that break apart are "living a lie". Anne Heche is considered a lesbian "Uncle Tom" for settling down with a MAN.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.