All hail the King. Ah, but the King has ceded all control of ACTUAL law to each
fiefdom state. Isn’t that rather a radical reversal of the kind of exploitative use of state’s rights for which Republicans have been excoriated lo these many years? And what of “ those serfs and indentured servants those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf …”? What LEGAL rights have they? The King has declared that all of them fight “on my behalf.” Yet … [UPDATE AT END]
… yet … while, as before, they will fight for the pleasure of a single man King, that same King refuses to give them rights, or even the possibility of rights, by not expressing, let alone devising, any route for them to be married. They fight not for any of the 50 states. They fight, we now learn, not even for the federal government. They fight on the behalf of the King.
It’s all so ridiculous to me. And if what I wrote above is difficult to read, it’s because it was based on Obama’s verbal maze that, really, was non-sensical except for his astounding presumptuous use of personal pronouns.
Then there’s the ridiculousness because, although this is cynical, this all is quite likely nothing more than a crass move to scoop up the donations that LGBTs have been withholding from Obama.
[Update #1 of 2 Insert: I am listening to a DVR’d Piers Morgan show, and one of his guests says that Gawker has called this entire thing a “SHAM.” RIGHT ON, Gawker!]
There’s also, the pundits say, that Obama had to make this move because of what Biden said. Really? I cannot believe — I do not believe for a moment — that Obama couldn’t have simply ignored the flap, regarding it as just another “Oh that Joe” moment.
Memeorandum is exploding with blog and news reports that go from one extreme to the opposite extreme.
There’s even a post about a social conservative who is worried. From The Hill‘s Ballot Box blog post, “Top social conservative worried the right may lose on gay marriage“:
— Conservative religious leaders predicted President Obama’s support of gay marriage will hurt him this election — but one fretted that the tide has turned against them long-term on the issue, and that Obama’s statement could further erode their position long-term. …
Among all the dithering posts, many of which appear to have been written by writers drunk on Scotch and irrational glee, there’s one cold sober essay by Elliot Abrams, not exactly someone I’d look to for commentary. But he does make some good points — which I read, I SWEAR, after I wrote the above:
The same advisers told the Post that Obama would make the decision based on his gut, but that is an insulting way to refer to the vice president. There is no evidence that Obama planned to speak until Joe Biden said last weekend that he was for gay “marriage” and forced the issue.
In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.
Mr. Obama’s statement today is a marvel:
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”
The president, when he says, “at a certain point I’ve just concluded,” appears to refer to the point where Joe Biden smoked him out, unintentionally no doubt (as are most of Biden’s actions). And it is important “for me personally” to speak, the president says; this isn’t politics, you see, but some kind of testimony, a baring of the soul.
But Mr. Obama actually did bare his soul unintentionally today (perhaps the Biden disease is catching) with his astonishing characterization of American fighting men and women, whom he referred to as “those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf.” Really?
Most Americans thought they were fighting for the country, not on Barack Obama’s behalf. Slip of the tongue, to be sure, but can one think of another president who’d have made it? They are fighting under his command, under his orders, to be sure, but this particular locution is offensive and solipsistic. Mr. Obama has switched his position on the sanctity of marriage back and forth and has a new one, again, today, revealed when politics made that advisable to him and to his campaign. Whether this is the end or he will “evolve” some more is anyone’s guess.
But let’s leave our soldiers out of this. They aren’t fighting for Mr. Obama and his campaign, and no one sent them out to risk their lives to win same sex “marriage.” …
UPDATE #2 of 2: THE ONE KING sent me a personal missive, after which I have some questions:
Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:
I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
I hope you’ll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:
I’ve always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.
But over the course of several years I’ve talked to friends and family about this. I’ve thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, I’ve gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.
What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.
Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn’t dawn on them that their friends’ parents should be treated differently.
So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.
If you agree, you can stand up with me here.
More than 1.9 million people like you power this campaign. If you can, please donate today.
— END OF THE PERSONAL EMAIL I GOT FROM THE ONE —
I should “STAND UP”? On what, Dear The One, would I be standing? Help me, Oh One. I am but a frail, fragile supplicant who needs your “personal” directives.
Yet, my “personal” failings aside, KING O THANKED ME. And, like him, I haven’t done anything. Like him, I believe — oh I believe — that it is enough to believe. Personally.
If this is not the personification of the great film, “Being There,” I don’t know what is.
How dare cynics compare this to “Wag the Dog.” THAT president actually DID something — a lot of somethings!
Well, I kind of take that back. And you’ll just have to believe me on that. But I will share with you what I believe about King O and “Wag the Dog.” From that film, King O learned what should happen to threats to the KINGdom* — especially threats in the form of persons who would dare to assume independent, liberty-loving, capitalist-carousing roles not aligned with the ONE King. Just ask Dustin Hoffman’s Hollywood producer character.
*Ever notice how the b is silent at the end of the Kingdom?
And that the u has been substituted by an o, and that that o should be capitalized?