Posted on 06/30/2012 5:40:06 AM PDT by scottjewell
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?
The final question seems rhetorical? IMO Obama already thinks he is god.—and that he American people -and Congress have
replaced God with Obama—Faith with his hope and change.
Bisexual IS homosexual. Andrew Dice Clay had this subject right. This is purely semantics. They’ll pave the way for polygamy in the name of love and tolerance.
I still think this open declaration on Obama’s part may have set him back in the culture wars, and may cost him the election.
If homos can get married, I don’t see how they can justify making polygamy illegal.
It means that he’s got an open marriage?
Thanks scottjewell.
I guess under Obama the Bis will be able to marry both a male and female, three or more in each marriage ceremony
They can’t. Basic logic and facts are hard to refute. This is why Canada already has a movement to legalize polygamous marriage. I expect things to follow suit here.
“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.”
One has to assume, he also includes polygamists, pedophiles and lovers of beasts who all believe in the same ideasls as this president.,
...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.”
___________________________________
Has any other president in out history so refused to uphold the law? How can he refuse to do his duty this way?
From the Constitution: “...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...”
With a Supreme Court like ours, it is inevitable.
Yeah! Unfair! Why can’t we marry both? Homhetophobes!!
The waters are being tested by things like “Sister Wives.”
One of the NatGeo ‘Taboo’ shows had a “polyamorous” group featured recently.
Every time I’ve asked another female if she’d marry a guy who openly said, “I’m bi-sexual,” that female has said no.
Yes, shows like “Big Love” were also an attempt to test the waters.
I do not think it is only Obama who is not upholding the law; I think this is the general and inevitable point the Liberals have reached in the 21st century ( “changing times and laws”).
Polygamy will be legalized in this country when some bi-sexual sues for the right to marry his boyfriend and his girlfriend. There is no longer any legal basis to stop them.
Right you are: Once you change a basic legal definition, the door has been opened for future alterations. History shows this slippery slope in cultural, political, and labor arenas as well.
This does present an interesting inconsistency. One man with 2 heterosexual women, is illegal polygamy. One man with 2 bisexual women, is acceptable!? Or does the guy have to be bi too?
Yes, and it could also be one bisexual man, married to a heterosexual wife, seeing a gay man on the side, who is married to another gay man. The waters become muddied, and yet the gay movement goes under the “LGBTQ” umbrella hence the door is opened for a myriad of possible equal rights lawsuits and amendments.
Bisexuals- they want it, they buy it! (rimshot)
I always thought the gay movement embracing the LGBTQ rainbow might be their own undoing in the end:
__________________________________
From Bisexual Rights website:(Bisexuality TaskForce)
“Bisexual people share an inclusive vision of human rights and social justice more than a narrowly defined “gay identity politics” could hope to achieve. The struggle to establish civil rights protections for bisexual people cannot be separated from the struggle to win freedom and equality for LGBT people.
As those who embrace the radical notion of being able to love one another irrespective of gender, bisexual people challenge and question fundamental assumptions regarding sexuality, gender and relationships. Learn more about bisexual-related issues at BiNetUSA.
As more LGBT people work in coalition, the Task Force is further empowered to confront society’s homophobia, sexism, racism, biphobia and gender discrimination that confront us all.
A real-life example of this work was our response to a controversial 2005 New York Times article titled, Straight, Gay or Lying? We responded to that with a piece that addressed specific problems in the article and with a fact sheet called Bisexuality, Dispelling the Myths.
What We’re Doing:
The Task Force often works in coalition with bisexual rights advocates and connects the community to an array of bisexual-related resources.
Our Policy Institute has published studies addressing issues specifically related to the bisexual community.”
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.