‘When You Wish Upon Cthulhu
Makes No Difference What You Do
Anything Your Heart Desires
Burns In Those Political Fires’

Posted on | May 9, 2012 | 9 Comments

by Smitty

The Postmodern/Progressive ideology that grips the Left continues to amaze. Its only principle is power. The capacity of the Left to use various constituencies, the LGBT folks being the most recent example, in a cynical manner should not surprise. Yet it continues to be a source of amazement and blog posts.

The Lackeys Out In Force

Start with the IPBS on Sunday, where Joe Biden and Arne Duncan were playing coy about Obama’s position (canine?) about gay marriage on the talking head shows. Allah Pundit was, perhaps, coy:

Actually, I can’t decide whether the back-to-back Biden/Duncan endorsements are a case of those guys going rogue or something they’re coordinating with O’s campaign to test the waters on Obama himself possibly backing gay marriage.

Bill Quick was having none of this:

Allah, if you think there is even the remotest possibility that Biden and Duncan are “going rogue,” then you’re too clueless to be commenting on political affairs at all.

Concur. If Biden were any more of a lapdog, BHO would be tempted to cannibalism.

Ryan T. Anderson at the National Review: “North Carolina, Biden, and Same-Sex Marriage”

On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden declared his support of same-sex marriage: “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction — beyond that.”
But this isn’t really about civil rights or civil liberties. No one is suggesting the state deny people who self-identify as gay or lesbian their rights to free speech, religious liberty, free association, or any other traditional civil liberty. The question is whether a new “civil right” — the right to have the government and private citizens recognize your same-sex sexual partnership as a marriage — ought to be created, redefining marriage in the process.

How is that a question? You have to stand on the Left while you manufacture rights ex nihilo for constituencies in exchange for power. Who doesn’t grasp this? Oh, yes: those with principles.

 

Brave, Brave Sir Obama

Ace had a good set of riffs on Twitter, as reported by Twitchy. He broke out the weapons-grade mockery on the blog:

“President Gutsy Call: Okay With Giving Campaign Speeches in Afghanistan; Too Craven To Give Them In North Carolina“

See, Ace: no one can sense a losing battle quite like someone who’s a total loser themselves.

This is a big old sticky wicket for Obama. The press corps is openly laughing at Jay Carney’s absurd insistence that Obama is still “evolving,” and doesn’t know if he’ll endorse gay marriage… after the election.
Hey, he needs some “space” on this issue. He’ll have more flexibility after the elections, you know.

Morrissey at Hot Air: “Obama bailed out of North Carolina visit as traditional-marriage amendment goes to voters”

Just as in Minnesota this fall, the amendment gives voters in North Carolina a chance to keep judges from redefining marriage from the bench. That’s it.

I heard on the news last night that NC makes 30 states thus far where voters, given the chance, seem to contradict lawyers and legistlators out to do the thinking for the voters. Wild, strange, and unexpected, that.

Bryan Preston at The Tatler has this gem from 2004:

OBAMA: What I believe is, that, marriage is between a man and a woman. But what I also believe is that we have an obligation to make sure that gays and lesbians have the rights of citizenship that afford them visitations to hospitals, that allow them to be, to transfer property between partners, to make certain that they’re not discriminated on the job. I think that bundle of rights…
MODERATOR: But as far as why, what in your religious faith calls you to be against gay marriage?
OBAMA: What I believe, in my faith, is that, a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God. And it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting. But that doesn’t mean that that necessarily translates into a position on public policy, or with respect to civil unions.

Thankfully, Barack’s religious faith, apparently, comes with an on/off switch.

 

Aftermath

Breitbart: “NAPOLITANO DODGES GAY MARRIAGE QUESTION; ‘PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES'” They sure do, Big Sis. Same falsetto as Prince, only a paraphrase: “I just want your extra cash and your kiss.”

Anthony Holm at Brietbart: “OBAMA’S GAY MARRIAGE VIEWS ‘EVOLVE’ BASED ON TIME, AUDIENCE, MONEY”

What is most significant about Obama’s reversals on gay marriage is the timing; each reversal of position just happened to greatly benefit Obama’s political interests at precisely the time they occurred.

Ed Driscoll at Instapundit: “AP: NORTH CAROLINA VOTERS APPROVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage as union between a man and woman.”

 

Slightly Off Topic

Flamboyantly gay heterosexual ministry partners are reclaiming language and symbols. They’re pumping the rainbow and the word ‘gay’ full of hot, hot traditional meaning.

Now, I know what you’re thinking — Hutcherson, a former NFL linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys, is referencing his views on sexuality. But this isn’t the case. Instead, the heterosexual preacher is talking about attitude. Recently, he made some interesting statements about reclaiming the word “gay” from the LGBT community (i.e. their definition of “gay” is “happy”).
Rather than serving as a word used to describe sexual preference, Hutcherson hopes that it will return to its roots of being a descriptive for “happy” or “joyous.” So he took to his church‘s web site along with fellow Pastor James Hansen to publish an article that delves into what he’s hoping to accomplish.

I read this and feel there is traditional hope, not ObamaHope, for our future.

 

What I think

The Federal government is chartered to handle multi-state and international affairs. Not bedroom affairs. I don’t even think I’m libertarian on Constitutional matters anymore: I’m for examining the objects and components of the system in context, and avoiding the Lefty conflations they’ve used, in the Cthulhu fashion, to amass power.

It seems as though things are playing out as they should; blue states are gay-friendly. Perhaps co-incidentally, the people of those blue states are reaping the economic rewards of deviating from the fundamental principle of form following function.

I need not set myself up as judge. History and Economics are doing far better than I ever could.

If the LGBT community thinks that supporting Cthulhu is their best rout to achieving their goals, one can’t fault their free-will choice to do so. Even if the results are kinda predictable, on a variety of levels.

Comments