April 16, 2014

"How the President Got to ‘I Do’ on Same-Sex Marriage."

A big NYT Magazine article by Jan Becker. Excerpt:
Despite the president’s stated opposition, even his top advisers didn’t believe that he truly opposed allowing gay couples to marry. “He has never been comfortable with his position,” David Axelrod, then one of his closest aides, told me....

“The politics of authenticity — not just the politics, but his own sense of authenticity — required that he finally step forward,” Axelrod said. “And the president understood that.”
Much more at the link.

ADDED: The Politics of Authenticity? Is that anything like the Politics of Meaning?
Mrs. Clinton recently criticized the way American society rewards selfishness and stigmatizes idealism, publicly embracing my call for a politics of meaning that addresses the way this society thwarts our deepest ethical, spiritual and psychological needs.
"Recently" = 1993.

115 comments:

Abdul Abulbul Amir said...

In other words, he needed to fire up the base.

Strelnikov said...

Sure, once you can fake "authenticity", or "sincerity" for that matter, you can do anything.

El Camino Real said...

"His own sense of authenticity..."

What a hoot.

Mark Nielsen said...

It's a good thing he did finally step forward or we'd be in impeachment hearings now, right?

El Camino Real said...

“The politics of authenticity — not just the politics, but his own sense of authenticity — required that he finally step forward,” Axelrod said. “And the president understood that.”

Meaning that when it seemed to Obama to be a political advantage expedient, he stopped lying.

Charlie said...

I'll save everyone a lot of time: He got to "I do" when it was politically expedient.

Brando said...

There should be a "profile in cowardice" award.

YoungHegelian said...

Despite the president’s stated opposition, even his top advisers didn’t believe that he truly opposed allowing gay couples to marry.

Notice how the article is so wrapped up in the process of Obama's evolution & how giddy they are to have him on the "right side of history" that it completely elides the fact he was almost certainly lying to the voters about the issue before. Lying to the voters is only a problem for the NYT when Republicans do it.

John Borell said...

So he was for SSM when he was against it.

Smilin' Jack said...

“The politics of authenticity — not just the politics, but his own sense of authenticity — required that he finally step forward,” Axelrod said.

Just substitute "expediency" for "authenticity" and you have a true statement. This would make a good question for the new SAT!

RecChief said...

Bullshit, he looked at poll numbers.

And that doesn't mean that he didn't hold the position all his life. But his publicly stated positions are all about political calculations. I don't even mind that, just the depiction that anything he does is other than that.

MayBee said...

But we were always supposed to accept the other things he said as the absolute truth.

I think one other thing nobody really believes him about is his view on religion, but it use to be just horrible to question his veracity. It's died down a lot now, but I remember when everyone was supposed to vouch for Obama's religious views.. When Joe Lieberman was pulled over on the floor of the Senate by Obama, so Obama could reprimand him for not supporting Obama's stated religious views strongly enough. Everyone on every morning show was asked to vow their belief in the truth of Obama's statements.

Now that people don't hang on Obama's every pontification, there isn't as much pressure to take him at his word anymore. But boy howdy, our country lost its mind over this man in his earlier days as a national figure.

JRoberts said...

"Authenticity" and "Obama"

Those are two words I never thought would be associated with each other...

carrie said...

So the "politics of authenticity" means that if you lie to get elected that need to tell the truth after the election?

Wally Ballou said...

"He has never been comfortable with his position" Well then, it's not his position, it's his pose.

David said...

"“The politics of authenticity — not just the politics, but his own sense of authenticity — required that he finally step forward,”

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

(And I thought I had gotten by daily dose of bullshit with the art post.)

Big Mike said...

“He has never been comfortable with his position,”

A little post hoc spin.

And nothing about Obama is "authentic."

Rocketeer said...

"Authenticity." As opposed to morally sincere. Lionel Trilling, please pick up the nearest white courtesy phone.

Biff said...

I read "David Axelrod, then one of his closest aides..." and thought it said "one of his closet aides."

Oh, my brain. What an odd device.

66 said...

I haven't read the article, so perhaps I should keep my mouth shut, but I get the impression that the Times is celebrating Obama for lying to the rubes in flyover country. Once it became clear that his electoral coalition did not include many of those rubes, he decided it was safe to evolve. Glad you brought the lying tag out.

Anonymous said...

I've always felt that President Obama is neither here nor there on many issues.

His main issue, or his main concern, is him. He wants to be the belle of the ball. Prom King. In the spotlight. The rest is just details.

Unlike Bill or Hillary Clinton, I really don't think he is ideological. I know he comes off that way, but I think it's only because he is surrounded by those who are ideological.

He doesn't seem to me like someone who cares one way or the other. He's not a deep thinker, he hasn't considered the issues, and is nothing like he has been portrayed by the media.

He's just a simple guy who wants to be the cool guy. Here I am, look at me! Everything else is details for someone else to deal with.

RecChief said...

Anytime a political consultant or politician says "the politics of authenticity" I want to take a shower

SteveR said...

“The politics of authenticity"

That's just fucking sad. Part 617

stutefish said...

"His own sense of authenticity."

What a mendacious turn of phrase.

If he were truly authentic, he would have taken his authentic position from the start.

His "sense authenticity" just means him trying to figure out what an authentic person would do.

And the whole thing is just a walk-back from the truth of the matter: That he's chosen "authenticity" as a political strategy. Axelrod says as much, before remembering he doesn't actually want to say how much of a political tool Obama is. Perhaps his authenticity got ahead of his politics for a moment.

Unknown said...

so he took an opinion in opposition to his moral position because he wanted to appease. Now that the winds have shifted, he takes a new position; is anyone sure that the new position is aligned with his moral position -- better yet, does anyone think he actually has a moral position other than whatever it takes to appease?

Unknown said...

it would be interesting to me if he took a position which was unpopular; not that his movement would be interesting, just the reactions of pundits and the public would be intersting.

Tank said...

As with most everything with Zero, the answer involves:

Con man.

Con man gonna con.

Why would you believe anything he told you?

Brando said...

I must say it's a good thing he did switch on gay marriage in 2012, otherwise I'm absolutely certain he would have been hounded out of office by the same people who drove out the Mozilla CEO. What fortuitous timing!

hawkeyedjb said...

As someone noted years ago, with regard to gay marriage both Mr. Obama's supporters and his opponents assumed he was lying. And they all were right.

jacksonjay said...

Well now we know! The line about Sasha and Malia causing him to "evolve" was bullshit! A Gay Republican told Obama what to say and how to say it!

Another RINO (Ken Melhman), made rich and famous by Republicans, helps the enemy! Have Democrats ever had a Gay party chairman?

I can think of a couple of Republican Secretarys of State who have been more than helpful to President Obama. Both, made quite successful by Republicans, before they turned their backs!

Michael Steele is another Republican turncoat!

If Republicans can just embrace amnesty, Hispanics will flock to the party!

Henry said...

Just as a thought experiment, try substituting "Guantanamo Bay" for "allowing gay couples to marry" and see if the authenticity burns with the same phosphorous intensity.

Here, I'll do it for you:

Despite the president’s stated opposition, even his top advisers didn’t believe that he truly opposed Guantanamo Bay. “He has never been comfortable with his position,” David Axelrod, then one of his closest aides, told me....

“The politics of authenticity — not just the politics, but his own sense of authenticity — required that he finally step forward,” Axelrod said. “And the president understood that.”


I actually agree with the thesis of the article -- that the President secretly supported gay marriage and that he carefully waited for a time to make that assertion without harming himself politically.

I also agree with his "evolved" stance. I'm glad he did it.

But whoop-de-damn-doo Mr. President. The bandwagon already left.

66 said...

OK, I've waded a bit into the article. Not being a regular Times reader, I'm always surprised by the extent to which it follows the approved story line. Does anyone, anywhere think that having Biden test out the president's new position on Meet the Press was an accident? That he somehow got ahead of the president on the issue? That his appearance on MTP just happened to follow his recent epiphany on the issue? Who buys this meretricity?

Patrick O said...

Why should we believe him now about this?

I think the only rational position we can take about Obama's opinions is agnosticism. There is no way to know what he actually believes on a given issue.

He will say what he thinks he needs to say at every given point.

I think there's a good argument to be made that he doesn't have independent opinions, thus he's never really lying.

Obama's truth is Obama. Everything else is relative.

Titus said...

Of course he always supported gay marriage, the gays knew it all the time.

How hilarious he was getting political advice from the former homo head of the RNC.

Kevin said...



Translation: He found it politically expedient to be AGAINST gay marriage, until it became politically expedient for him to be FOR gay marriage.

RecChief said...

Henry said...
But whoop-de-damn-doo Mr. President. The bandwagon already left.

Leading from behind

Gabriel said...

He needed to take advantage of the 2013 gay marriage amnesty before it expired. Hillary did, and she's considered the next in line for the Presidency. That guy from Mozilla didn't, and see what happened to him.

wendybar said...

Obama will say whatever it takes to get "votes" I don't understand why he hides his homosexuality if he's so authentic. Why hide it???

Renee said...

The President as Senator Obama sponsored the Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood Act in 2007.

I don't believe that the President is in favor of gay marriage if it implies that children don't need their mother and father.

He changed his views for smart political purposes. It is easier for the Democrats to attack a Republican on the issue, if the President didn't side with 'stone age' version of marriage.

People in general think marriage is obsolete, we spend a lot of time talking about something that no one is actually do. Children are not being raised by both biological parents anymore. They may be present at birth, but by middle school way too many parents are no longer together and have moved on into other adult relationships.

Me? My concern is for the family stability, and yes I will reference it at time to time in the linguist understanding matrimony. But I'm also Catholic, and sadly upset at the accusations of homophobia if I don't comply with the disagreement.

Tom said...

Is lying to get elected and achieve power better/worse than same-sex marriage civil rights / preserving traditional marriage?

Sigivald said...

I wonder who buys that, if anyone?

(I could believe that G. W. Bush was "authentic", whether or not I disagreed with him on policy, which was pretty often.

I could even believe The Great Triangulator was "authentic" - in his way - on occasion. If only because the triangulation was itself, perhaps, his authentic political instinct.

I'll be damned if I have any idea what the "authentic" Barack Obama stands for.)

Gerrard787 said...

Remember, Obama didn't change his position, he 'evolved'.

This preempts any doubting of his sincerity and puts questioning of SSM beyond discussion simultaneously. A neat linguistic trick Chomsky would be proud of.

Matthew Sablan said...

That's adorable.

Foobarista said...

"Politics of authenticity" is an oxymoron.

You're either authentic or you're "political". You can't be both.

MayBee said...

Renee- in 2004, State Senator Obama said he was in favor of gay marriage. So he was for it before you think he was against it.

Skeptical Voter said...

Well I will say this about Obama. He is truly and "authentic" jerk.

As for Axelrod, you can tell he's lying because his lips are moving.

MadisonMan said...

Leading from behind.

This is how the Times would report this exact same series of events if Obama had an (R) attached to him.

It's exactly what Obama did, lead from behind, with the added bonus of lying through his enormous teeth.

madAsHell said...

the politics of authenticity

The audacity of hope. I'll guess that Axelrod coined this phrase as well.

It all sounds so pretentious. It's like a 7th grader trying to make meaningful, and profound statements for an English paper.

Bob Boyd said...

"I'm their leader. Which way did they go?"

garage mahal said...

I think Obama sensed the political winds and went for the juggler.

cubanbob said...

You don't have to read the article to get to the point: for the left a pious lie in the service of the revolution is completely ethical as part of the doctrine of by any means necessary.

garage mahal said...

Obama did the right (or wrong?) thing for the wrong reason. Whatever, it's just wrong. Because it's him!

Renee said...

@maybee

but his actions says otherwise

Things are just getting stranger and stranger.

One moment someone states they are for marriage equality, then in the next breath states that the government needs to get out of the marriage business.

Well which one is it, if marriage equality matters then marriage matters enough to be the government's business.

Coming from see this issue from such a longer POV, everyone seems so sure of themselves that marriage is just about the love of two adults and nothing else.

But in context of understanding, even reading the great works of Saint Augustine "Of the Good of Marriage", that we aren't speaking beyond religion but of nature of man. Not that all individuals happen to be heterosexual, but that each person comes from a mother and father.

Why are we tossing everything away as a society?

15 years ago we could find endless research on fatherless and it's connection to the welfare of children.

Today... nothing. What matters are the legal arrangements for adults with no consideration of children needs in terms of family kinship.

Larry Nelson said...

Foobarista said...
"Politics of authenticity" is an oxymoron.
You're either authentic or you're "political". You can't be both.


Bingo.
A great illustration of the thinking process of elites in Washington DC.
Despite DC being one of America's wealth centers, most of what comes out of DC seems so cheap.

paul a'barge said...

Barack Obama is engaged in the politics of ... wait for it ... politics.

traditionalguy said...

Obama only wants to be the world's leader with the power. And he will run hard to get back out in front of his followers whenever that becomes necessary.

The public's opinion on gay behavior went from criminal to accepted to highly favored in a very few years.

The times they are a changing.

David said...

Ok. Love the outrage.

But if Obama changed his views because it was politically popular to favor gay marriage, just where does that leave the Republicans?

My answer: once again out to lunch over a social issue that is rapidly changing and running fast against them.

I get the personal religious objection to gay marriage and respect them. But a secular political objection is just a losing battle from the start. Objection based on what principle? Pro family? Pro freedom? Restriction of government intervention in private personal matters? Respect for the Bill of Rights?

Apart from the religious objection, where is the conservative value that is violated by gay marriage?
And since it's unconstitutional to base the distinction on religion alone, just where does that leave the Republicans?

El Camino Real said...

Progressives believe that government exists to provide the all you can eat "buffet of happiness".

cubanbob said...

garage mahal said...
Obama did the right (or wrong?) thing for the wrong reason. Whatever, it's just wrong. Because it's him!

4/16/14, 12:47 PM"

It figures that an ethically challenged person like someone we won't mention who comments here just doesn't understand that lying to advance a position or lying to acquire power is simply wrong in of itself.

Drago said...

Titus: "How hilarious he was getting political advice from the former homo head of the RNC."


Note to self: "homo" now approved language when discussing gay dudes.

Illuninati said...

"Mrs. Clinton recently criticized the way American society rewards selfishness and ... thwarts our deepest ethical, spiritual and psychological needs."

The self righteousness and moral arrogance of the left is breathtaking. This is because the left has rejected any basis for an absolute moral standard and depend on the mimetic group think process to arrive at their morality du jour. Like any lynch mob the left can commit unimaginable crimes against humanity with impunity since their morality is determined by the mob doing the lynching.

One of the hallmarks of a truly moral person is that he recognizes that there is a perfect standard which applies to him as well as to everyone else. That makes a moral person slow to judge other people. Here's how Jesus said it:

Matthew 7:1-3 (KJV)

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Gahrie said...

Apart from the religious objection, where is the conservative value that is violated by gay marriage?

The rapid transformation of a foundational tradition of Western Civilization by judicial fiat against the will of the people.

Sam L. said...

Authenticity? Barry? Are you or somebody trying to kid me? Or just flat-out lying?

RecChief said...

Drago said...

Note to self: "homo" now approved language when discussing gay dudes.


Only if you're a gay dude

RecChief said...

David said...
Ok. Love the outrage.

But if Obama changed his views because it was politically popular to favor gay marriage, just where does that leave the Republicans?


Again, I don't care if he believed all along that SSM was the "correct" position to hold. Heck, all politicians try to mask their positions, to some extent, in order to appeal to the highest number of voters.

What I have a problem with is the language of "politics of authenticity". Can there be anything less authentic than that phrase? It suggests a gumby like will to say or do anything for personal gain. I don't like that quality in anyone, regardless of political viewpoint.

jacksonjay said...

Yeah Drago, whereu been? Words now come with a deed! Not just anybody can take ownership of a word like "homo"! You gotta earn the right to own that word!

285exp said...

Ann,

Did you believe him when he said he was against gay marriage?

Curious George said...

I don't think Obama believes in gay marriage, or even likes gays. His Christian beliefs were bullshit too.

He's just a scumbag grifter.

Renee said...

Despite being told marriage was only for religious reasons, Pope Francis in his recent statements didn't mention the Bible at all. He only mentioned the rights of the child to his mother and father, and the parents' right to raise the child. It doesn't sound unreasonable or ignorant.

An idea that was marriage that unites mother and father, while unpopular as a consensus isn't far-fetched. It sounds almost logical.

jr565 said...

How are people determinwing whether you are on the right side of history? Is it when Obama changes his position publicly? Then, everyone needs to change their psoition?

Alexander said...

I would appreciate an explanation as to how gay marriage is a "social issue that is rapidly changing and running fast against [Republicans in particular, conservatives in general].

Afterall, around 20 countries recognize gay marriage. Four times that number explicitly ban it, and a fair number of *those* go so far as to make homosexuality a capital offense. The (native) people in those 20 countries are not reproducing, the 83 countries very much are. The migration patterns flow from the 83 to the 20, not the other way round.

Even in the United States, this isn't the 'popular' opinion. If it were, California wouldn't need to have a judge rule against the popular opinion. Or a judge in Ohio, or Iowa, or Virginia, or Texas... And I suspect that there are a number of people who previously would have taken a live and let live approach to the matter now see that 'tolerance' means 'actively and enthusiastically support or be attacked': a photographer or a baker can't abstain, and a CEO is run out of town for a perfectly legal political donation towards the majority-held view! Such people are less likely to continue to look favorably (or you know, tolerably) on the demands of they gay community.

Now granted, Obama himself was running for political office in a specific window of time, and in that time he himself made out well on the issue. But I think it's foolish to extrapolate from Obama's position (and perhaps the Democrat parties pivot towards 2016) to national trends beyond that time. Not without being able to make a serious case for it, at any rate.

jr565 said...

So when he was for "traditional" marriage he was actually engaging in a politics of inauthenticity?

jr565 said...

David wrote:
Apart from the religious objection, where is the conservative value that is violated by gay marriage?
And since it's unconstitutional to base the distinction on religion alone, just where does that leave the Republicans?

bulshit.
Marriage may be traditionally defnied and it may correspond to christians view of marriage but it wasn't codified into law because christians got together in the legislature and decided to make marriage. Chrisitans AGREE with how marriage was so codified.
Society doesn't argue that marriage is legal because IT'S CHRISTIAN. You dumb bulb.
Ok. So then what is the rational basis for marriage? The rational basis was that biological parents of kids should raise those kids and the state shouldn't. Therefore promote the relationship of the parents so families can raise their offspring.
Did that rationale change? NO. So get off your stupid anti christian high horse.

Marshal said...

David said...
Objection based on what principle? Pro family? Pro freedom? Restriction of government intervention in private personal matters? Respect for the Bill of Rights?


How does one come to believe "restricting government intervention" grants government the authority to redefine a universal human institution which pre-existed that government by millenia, and to do so against the will of its citizens?

If the government can simply change the meaning of words in these circumstances they can do anything they want. There is no law or protection from law that can't be completely eliminated by changing the meanings of a few words.

jr565 said...

David wrote:
get the personal religious objection to gay marriage and respect them. But a secular political objection is just a losing battle from the start. Objection based on what principle? Pro family? Pro freedom? Restriction of government intervention in private personal matters? Respect for the Bill of Rights?

What about the secular political objection to any other restricted marriage? Objection based on what principle?
You pretend like the only question is gay marriage.
I'll ask you can society restrict a polygamous marriage, absent a religious objection? Then it can also restrict a gay marriage. And an incestual one, and one where you wanted to marry a dog. or a kid.

jr565 said...

David wrote:
I get the personal religious objection to gay marriage and respect them. But a secular political objection is just a losing battle from the start. Objection based on what principle? Pro family? Pro freedom? Restriction of government intervention in private personal matters? Respect for the Bill of Rights?

Apart from the religious objection, where is the conservative value that is violated by gay marriage?
And since it's unconstitutional to base the distinction on religion alone, just where does that leave the Republicans?


This gets to a deeper question. ON what grounds can society prevent adults from marrying? And can they define marriage? currently they do. Can they David?
On what grounds? Leave aside the marriage of kids, where you can say that it's harmful to kids and therefore can be restricted. (even though it's society that is defining the harm, which kids may not in fact feel).
On what basis are you, David, saying that society can restrict an incestual marriage.Or a polygamous one?
Because it sounds like you are making an argument that society can't actually define marriage when it comes to gays, but can in all other ways the way it currently does and has done.
It's not the libertarian argument that says govt shoudln't be in marriage is it?

n.n said...

He created a moral hazard by supporting selective exclusion. The Democrats have mastered the fine art of creating moral hazards. Their effort to normalize homosexual behavior is one of many unreconciled positions that they have chosen over their history.

Mark said...

What has always struck me (and by always I mean even before he'd secured the nomination way back when) is that everyone knows Obama lies, but his supporters all believe he only lies to people who deserve to be lied to.

A rare gift, that.

jr565 said...

David wrote:
I get the personal religious objection to gay marriage and respect them. But a secular political objection is just a losing battle from the start. Objection based on what principle? Pro family? Pro freedom? Restriction of government intervention in private personal matters? Respect for the Bill of Rights?

How about on the same premise that marriage was always based on? Furthering of the family. Soceity is not out to promote marriage because it wants to make love connections. Society wants a framework that allows kids to be raised by a mother and a father.
Gay marriage doesn't allow that because there is no mother or father, depending on whether its gay or lesbian. ANd so there will be no kid from the union absent some third party intervention. And so why does society need to promote it to the same degree that they would promote a traditional family structure?
Its not that gay marriage is harmful like say incest, its just that codifying the bond that conforms with biology serves society and other forms of marriage don't.
And even now in cases of custody you still see this played out. The parents are the ones who provided the DNA. One gay parent then is always left out.

jr565 said...

So, do we think that Obama is really for polygamy but is merely faking that he is for marriage only being between two people, because right now he can't get the votes for polygamy.
If he ever does decide to come out in favor of polygamy will that be the time that all the others who haven't come out for polygamy are officially on the wrong side of history and can now be tarred with hate speech?

jr565 said...

David wrote:
Apart from the religious objection, where is the conservative value that is violated by gay marriage?
And since it's unconstitutional to base the distinction on religion alone, just where does that leave the Republicans?

Who ever said we would base marriage legality on a religious distinction ALONE?

NotquiteunBuckley said...

It is only natural for Obama to hate and want to terminate those who reject his homosexuality.

Through any means possible he and all lefties must wield power without mercy because, as Obama tells you, "it's the right thing to do."

Like Jon Stewart puts people into "agree with me" or "extremist" camps so does Obama. The only reasonable points of view are those held today by Obama and all others are bigotry-orientated.

It should be easy to shove a little nemesis his way but the GOP is too busy pissing on conservatives, and raising raising raising the debt because they are too impotent to do anything else.

Chuck said...

This article sets forth the reason that Republicans need not feel forced to move too quickly on issues of same-sex marriage.

Because, like the Obamas and the Clintons, nobody will remember when or if you opposed same-sex marriage.

Who the fuck will care if you were a convert to SSM legalization in 2005, or 2013, or 2023?

Nothing will change the fact that liberals in the media and oh yeah especially the New York Times will never give Republicans any deserving credit, and will never give Democrats any deserving criticism. We Republicans can't please the New York Times. So why try?

Marty Keller said...

As Joe Wilson (R-SC) once said, "Liar!"

Birches said...

I could believe that G. W. Bush was "authentic", whether or not I disagreed with him on policy, which was pretty often.

I could even believe The Great Triangulator was "authentic" - in his way - on occasion. If only because the triangulation was itself, perhaps, his authentic political instinct.


Agreed. Bill Clinton was authentic in that he was a pragmatist above all else. His triangulation was apart of his character. Obama is the antithesis of a pragmatist.

jr565 said...

An authentic democrat is one who doesn't say what his real position is, but merely tries to get elected based on what his polls say it should be.
And democratic voters are so dumb or SO hypocritical that they know this but don't care.
When being anti war means you can get your guy elected then they are anti war. When their guy does it, no more anti war movement. There will be no Cindy Sheehan's under Obama.
When it's Bush's spending Obama will care about the deficit and say the spending is unpatriotic. When its Obama, then you hate black people if you dare to make the same point.
Democrats and liberals are the definition of two faced.

Ann Althouse said...

"Did you believe him when he said he was against gay marriage?"

As I've said before, absolutely not.

Michael said...

He was not lying when he said he was against gay marriage. His views on the subject clearly tracked those of most African Americans and only politics changed his mind.

He is able to lie so well because he often tells the truth.

Michael said...

He was not lying when he said he was against gay marriage. His views on the subject clearly tracked those of most African Americans and only politics changed his mind.

He is able to lie so well because he often tells the truth.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

What does Obama's Muslim faith think of his homosexual activities?

ituCasino Greget said...

Kontes SEO ituCasino berhadiah total 30 juta Rupiah
http://itulink.com/iframer4.php?page=KontesSeoituCasino

http://www.bit.ly/1eACIv6

n.n said...

jr565:

Why exclude incest? It seems quite arbitrary. With the progress of redistributed sperm and eggs, the biologically motivated interest for genetic diversity is moot. Furthermore, with the normalization of abortion/murder, the biologically motivated concern of genetic convergence is also moot. Any freakish reproduction can be dismembered and flushed when it is perceived to be a burden.

I think people underestimate the hazards created by technological progress. The exhibition of homosexual behavior, when it is not progressive, is self-evidently a lesser concern for the moral and biological viability of a society.

That said, whether it is experimenting with Nature's order, or normalizing selective exclusion, the technological and cultural sophisticates are creating hazards which they have demonstrated little aptitude for reconciling.

Gahrie said...

"Did you believe him when he said he was against gay marriage?"

As I've said before, absolutely not.


So you knowingly voted for someone who lied to you for personal political gain.

Repeal the 19th Amendment.

Gahrie said...

If we are willing to admit that President Obama has, and will, lie to us if he sees an advantage in doing so....exactly why would we ever believe anything he says?

sinz52 said...

"The politics of authenticity — not just the politics, but his own sense of authenticity — required that he finally step forward."

Translation: Public attitudes had shifted to the point that Obama no longer needed to lie about it.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

garage mahal,

I think Obama sensed the political winds and went for the juggler.

I'd do the same. I once played a concert at which a juggler came onstage while two of my compatriots were playing a Milhaud duo. He varied the act with fire-breathing, though, and I doubt it'd be sensible to interrupt that.

Gerrard787 said...

We've had gay marriage in Canada for several years now and the sky hasn't fallen. Not that I expected it to anyways.

But I do see SSM as the logical (or possibly illogical) end to the sexual revolution that began in the '60s.

SSM was engineered into law by one activist judge irregardless of the will of 30 million Canadians but whether a new definition of marriage can truly be fashioned this way remains to be seen.

It will take several decades to truly see if the definition of marriage has been 'reinvented' or if it even can be.

Michael said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson

I would go for the 2nd violin long before I would head for the juggler. As we have seen on tv some of them are able to juggle chainsaws so I think it is safe to assume some could juggle violinists, especially if they were Asian.

Crunchy Frog said...

It's like Politics of Dancing.

Titus said...

Andrew Sullivan is livid about this book.

Titus said...

And yes only gays can say the word fag or homo.

sorry straighties.

Titus said...

Most pube politicians "evolve" when their fruit kid cums out.

Although, not all! Those are the real assholes.

Renee said...

"But I do see SSM as the logical (or possibly illogical) end to the sexual revolution that began in the '60s."

I agree. It's a result of long undoing of marriage in our legal system.

In Canada your population growth is heavily relied on immigration. As a country you have no natural increase of a population.

Nothing changes over night.

Paco Wové said...

"I do see SSM as the logical (or possibly illogical) end to the sexual revolution that began in the '60s."

"the end"? Why?

"Thanks, Mr. Bus Driver! I'll just get off here..."

kcom said...

"Mrs. Clinton recently criticized the way American society rewards selfishness and stigmatizes idealism"

Oh, come on. Seriously? American society "stigmatizes" idealism? It regards idealism as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval". That's just crap.

Then again, I always forget, to Hillary Clinton and her ilk idealism seems to be defined as "I'm going to take your money and give it to someone else. And, while I'm at it, I'm going to take all the credit for being generous."

William said...

I think Obama's position on the private ownership of sidearms and on a maximum tax rate of 70% are also evolving. His position on government transparency has also evolved, although perhaps the words transparency and evolved need further evolution.......I think gay marriage is a fly wheel. It is an issue where conservatives and liberals can direct their energies without disrupting the throb of the engine. Divorce laws and ad hoc cohabitation are the spanners in the engine of family destruction.

Fritz said...

Why exclude incest? It seems quite arbitrary. With the progress of redistributed sperm and eggs, the biologically motivated interest for genetic diversity is moot. Furthermore, with the normalization of abortion/murder, the biologically motivated concern of genetic convergence is also moot. Any freakish reproduction can be dismembered and flushed when it is perceived to be a burden.

And clearly reproduction has nothing to do with marriage.

sunsong said...

Obama's lying is one of my big problems with him. Though I am grateful he finally supported gay marriage,(his support has really helped accelerate the inevitable) he has lied about so many things [and yeah, he's really, really good at it],that I always wonder, whatever he's talking about, if he lying.

cubanbob said...

"Mrs. Clinton recently criticized the way American society rewards selfishness and stigmatizes idealism"

Since her husband left office they have acquired a net worth of about $200mm. Someone ought to be impolite enough to mention that fact of how they selflessly and idealistically amassed such a fortune and why haven't they given away 98% of that fortune since afterall if they did give 98% of it away they still would be worth more than 99% of all Americans.

n.n said...

kcom:

Americans, authentic Americans, are, in fact, very idealistic. They hold some truths to be self-evident, or perhaps axiomatic; that humans, individuals, possess a unique dignity; that they possess an intrinsic value; which is an unalienable aspect of their being from Creation (e.g. conception) to death.

As for redistributive change, promote the general Welfare is an integral aspect of American conservatism. What the Left notes, rightly, is that certain structural disparities exist. Most notably in high density population centers. What they will not publicly acknowledge is that this is both the source of their democratic leverage, and the burden which demands progressive finance and subsidy. While they may recognize a need to address this disparity, their tactics which denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life suggests that their insight is a product of necessity, not goodwill.

Fritz:

I'm just being authentic. A character trait that is missing from Obama and advocates for normalization of homosexual behavior. Their propensity for selective exclusion creates moral hazards which they seem incapable or unwilling to reconcile.

As for marriage, it is an institution engendered by the natural order, and normalized to advance evolutionary fitness. At least that's a rational perspective. Every other conception is an exercise in egoism and hedonism, which can be reasonably tolerated, but there is no objective cause to normalize it.

Chuck said...

Michael said...
"He was not lying when he said he was against gay marriage. His views on the subject clearly tracked those of most African Americans and only politics changed his mind.
"He is able to lie so well because he often tells the truth."

I disagree. Obama's contradiction isn't that he's a black liberal. No; his contradiction is that he's a white liberal, trapped in a (half-) black body, whose political career originated in a black Southside-Chicago neighborhood. So yeah; I think Obama was lying, just as Althouse thinks that Obama was lying.

And by the way, Michael; despite the Soviet-style numbers of African-Americans being Democrats and Obama supporters (90-98%), I don't think that support for gay marriage is anywhere close to that in African-American communities.

Of course, black churches in large American cities function as political unions as much as anything. And being pure subsidiaries of the Democratic party, they will be dragged into acceptance of gay marriage as a matter if hierarchical insistence. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama and Eric Holder are all going to insist on it. But there's nothing evolutionary about it.

David said...

Grant me the politics of authenticity, oh Lord, but not yet.

sunsong said...

60% of Americans think Obama lies on important matters most or some of the time

harrogate said...

"Mrs. Clinton recently criticized the way American society rewards selfishness and stigmatizes idealism, publicly embracing my call for a politics of meaning that addresses the way this society thwarts our deepest ethical, spiritual and psychological needs."

And her criticism was right on.


"Recently" = 1993.

1993 wasn't THAT long ago, first of all. And second of all, the fact is that her critique has only become more relevant over time.

Scientific Socialist said...

The NY Times' Democrat operative with a byline writes so clinically that "Despite the president’s stated opposition, even his top advisers didn’t believe that he truly opposed allowing gay couples to marry." In other words, additional evidence that Obama is truly the BS Artist-in-Chief.