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?
You seem to imply that you are OK with civil unions. I’m sure you didn’t mean to leave THAT imprssion.
How can this really matter?
Moslem law limits a man to four wives (all female) at any given moment. But if there is a right for people of EVERY inclination to follow their inclinations, and to call it marriage, it will be impossible to impose a limit to the number or genders (or species?) of the wives/spouses/entities.
Consider the possibilities: you could establish a “communal marriage” for a really BIG group of people, and obtain legal marital status for all of the members of your baseball team, your high school graduation class, your computer firm, or your fire department.
After reading about Margaret Sanger and her eugenics movement in Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, I’m convinced that the left touts homosexuality as a form of population control. Sexual experimentation without the fear of pregnancy has been the organizing tool of the progressives since the Margaret Sanger days.
Don’t worry, even if you offer “civil unions” as a compromise, the homosexuals won’t accept that. Nothing less than “equal” status with real marriage is acceptable to them.
That’s because they’re not trying to become part of this institution, but destroy it, and a civil union compromise won’t achieve that goal.
There’s a video series called “The Truth Project”,
and once you go through that, you’ll understand all you need to about what motivates the left.
Anything that God values, they despise,
and vice versa.
Take any commandment, state its opposite, and you’ve stated a “liberal” value.
“Generations? Ummm, how does that work?”
Excellent point. Politicians really hate it when you point out the absurdity of their words, because they do not necessarily use words to convey an actual meaning. If the word “generation” means anything, it does not apply to those who cannot possibly generate.
They never leave the house anyway.
What IS Romney doing ? Saying ? About anything ?
And what about Muslim B-A-A-A-A-sexuals?
What if you are a male bisexual lesbian?
I'm not always sure people who argue the loudest know what they are arguing for or against.
Careful there... It also means 2 mother-in-laws as well!
Huge deal breaker for any aspiring guy fantasizing about a haram.
I agree that advocates for Homosexual Marriage have no foundation upon which to exclude Poligamy. In fact you need to look no further than the Study’s Homosexuals themselves have undertaken to see that Non-Monogamous relationships are very common in the Gay Community; they call it polyamory or “Poly” for short. For example “The Couples Study”:
http://thecouplesstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/BeyondMonogamy_1_01.pdf
A video of what gay marriage really looks like, and yes it includes “Poly”: http://vimeo.com/38260489
Here is another interesting read on none other than Eric (with)Holder who was a lawyer on a case of a MMM Poly Murder Case:
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2009/06/murder-in-dc-poly-gay-triad-suspected.html
I always need to avoid drinking anything even water when Mark Levin goes on a rant about anythig “Bi”.. He is Hillarious in his handling of it!
The day I heard him he was commenting on Obama saying he was for LGBT rights that were being denied them, and so he asked Obama (as an on air public question) exactly what rights bisexuals were being denied. Pretty good question, won't hear the MSM touch the subject.
I caught that too! What a visual-gay grannies etc....ewww.
I am very upset with Johnny Depp. He split with his paramour of 14 years, the mother of his children, to be with a woman who just broke up with her girlfriend of 2 years. She’s bisexual-so she says.
(Johnny-you’re only gonna get your heart broke and I don’t know if Disney’s going to be too happy with you! Call me!)
But seriously, the bisexual people I have known are incapable of making a committment and use the “other” person in the relationship as a weapon or a threat when they aren’t happy -or are just bored. If their “partner” does something they don’t like, they start wandering towards the other sex. They are not well people and are completely egotistical and hedonistic; they are very unpopular in the gay community because they know “how they are”-they tolerate them so they can add to their numbers.. Bisexuals actually had to fight to be accepted by the gay community. They didn’t want them included because they mingle with “us”-the breeders.
I DO see the polygamous marriage becoming legal; how can it not be? “They” have changed the definition of marriage-it will just be changed again...
I say it’s “evolving”....
“One of each” - that was my thought.
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.