On Obama And His Bow to the Homosexual Lobby

As I write this, I’m taking a rest break, after having spent the week moving freight.  It’s I fear my writing for the blog has suffered; Ive not had nearly the time I’d have liked to capture thoughts and comment on the passing moronic parade. Of course I watch it about as closely as I ever have, and if anything I have the ability, given the time involved to spent more time formulating thought lines, but not nearly as much time capturing them for posting, here. Darned shame, really.

That said, I have managed to formulate some thoughts about the latest distraction, (for distraction it is).

Since Barack Obama’s cynically calculated bow to the homosexual lobby, much has been made of his intentions.  Much has been written.  Much has been said.  While most of these observations appear  to focus on one motivation solely, it seems to me that there are many motivations on the part of Obama and his people.  All of which, focus on the idea of getting the man reelected.  The probably  of success for these plans seems debatable.

When this move was first announced, I suggested that it was a diversionary tactic:

He simply can’t run on his record. The economy after 3 years of Obama is abysmal. Our foreign policy is nothing short of frightening. So he’s got to latch on to something else. He’s basically flailing around for a flotation device like a drowning man. The is really latest in a series of smokescreens.

Some have suggested that this is to keep Romney off of his game, (The economy, and foreign policy) and on social issues. There is some merit to this. Frankly, that has always been one of my objections to Romney is his tendency to try to pick two extremes and come up in the middle, and claiming whatever is there as his position. this makes from the a very poor choice to argue for or positions. This has a tendency to cause a certain number of flip flops before he finally settles down. Ironically, I would suggest that had Rick Santorum won the day, Obama would not’ve been able to try this. Santorum, whatever his faults are, would have told voters in no uncertain terms where he stood and that would be the end of it. The fact of the matter is, Santorum’s position on the matter is much closer to mainstream America that is Obama’s, and Romney trying to split the difference isn’t going to help him in the general election. (Thanks again, Centrists. You gave us, perhaps by design, the weaker choice of the two. )

Others have suggested that this is a way to get the base solidified around Obama. But will it do so? Probably not. Indeed the polls I’ve seen suggests that the only state this position is going to help women as Colorado. Maybe one of the New England states, New Hampshire for example. As for others such as Ohio of Virginia, Arizona Missouri and certainly in North Carolina for example, what we see here is a net loser for Mr. Obama and the Democrat Party.

Even among what is most certainly one of Mr. Obama score support groups, black voters, particularly, black church goers, Obama is in serious trouble. Consider the aforementioned North Carolina. It was here that such groups pushed Obama over the top in that state. Yet, it was these groups that pushed the entire homosexual marriage proposition to victory just recently, voting two to one in favor of the ban.

There are those who will suggest that Obama will retain the black vote regardless of his policies and positions. I tend to think better of the black community. The black voter’s smarter than the liberal media gives them credit for. The concept that black voters will vote for Obama simply because he’s black and ignore all else seems to me a singularly racist position to hold. It should be noted that the somewhat larger what e-mail community is similarly against Obama in this, and even assuming a racial loyalty factor amongst black voters, but to those are not as likely to be so swayed.

As an aside, there are those who will suggest that this is a “civil rights” issue. I suspect that among black voters that is a very unpopular line to take; proposing an equivalency between allowing homosexuals to marry, and blacks to be not slaves angers many blacks. While there are many Obama supporters who will claim that his stance will not cost in black votes, that assumption is that the very least, counter -intuitive.

As for raising support among independents, Obama struck out on that one too. The polling currently being runs suggests that he has seriously injured himself, here.

Then there’s the homosexual lobby which has flexed it’s muscle in the past. If there is much to suggest that Obama is wooing large campaign donors who support the homosexual lobby. That becomes something of a no -brainer when we see that Obama has been having trouble raising campaign cash of late.

It strikes me as laughable that Obama is being called courageous for having consulted with his political idea man before he was able to figure out what he “truly believes”, and what his “aha” moment has shown him. What we have here, is a cynical move by an extraordinarily cynical man, with nothing but political motivations on his mind. He wants power. He believes in an all powerful government.

At the end of the day, and like it or not, what we’re seeing here is an effort to buy a relative few to change the the culture by force of government. In reality, this is what Obama is supporting. He has, in effect, come out and stated that government should enforce rights, which he has identified… And I suppose not surprisingly those which he has identified, are those pushed by certain small subgroups within his base.

I suggest that granting “rights” is beyond the purview of government, even absent the issue of the culture’s approval of a particular position.

Consider my words from a few years ago;

So what is the purpose of government, anyway? No, I don’t mean what it evolved into, I mean rather it’s original purpose… the reason the concept of governments of any kind were even conceived of.

Some submit that government exists to protect privileges of a few, preserving a state of injustice for the majority.

Others hold the somewhat more optimistic view that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice. It appears to me that those questions form the arguments among the proponents of liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, conservatism and fascism, all at once.

I submit that all these four basic positions miss the point, because they generally don’t remember who it was who invented the concept of government…government of any kind, I mean… in first place. I should point out that in general, the ones who get it the closest are conservatives, but they are not spot on, either.)

Libertarians, mostly suggest, along with Jefferson, that “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”, and that therefore, government exists for only one purpose, and that is to secure the unalienable rights of its citizens against violation.

Well… This is fine as far as it goes, but it ignores who created the concept of rights, and it thereby misses utterly, the best path to protect such rights. In doing so it ironically denies it’s adherents such protection.

And of course each of these groups has tended to abuse the power of government for their own ends.

To the end of answering overriding question of the purpose of government, (And thereby the question of what government needs to be doing today, and not doing, to remain legit) with any logic, we need to ask a few more questions:

1: Who invented the concept of government?

2: What purpose would that entity have had in such creation?

One way we can answer those two questions at once, would be to look at what existed as the most powerful force before government was invented, and therefore what was the most likely inventor of government: CULTURE.

If we make the logical assumption that governments were originally created by the individual cultures, then it follows that each culture constructed their respective governments in their own image… governments that best reflected and advanced each culture’s interests.

The original purpose of government, therefore, is to protect, nurture and defend, and if possible expand the influence of, the culture that gave it life. As such, to the greatest of degrees possible, each government’s laws, on the whole, were the culture, codified. It follows, then, that any government holding to the original purpose of government will perform this task.

Now, notice I said to the greatest degree possible. I freely admit… Trumpet, even, that there are no perfect governments, no perfect laws. No law, or government can ever capture in amber, a culture. Cultures are far more complex than any law, however written, can encompass. So it is that laws cannot be the end-call and be-all to a culture, or to a country. Laws when taken too literally and made to apply to all events uniformly, can instead of being just, will instead dispense injustice. It is said that in hell, there will be law and policy and little else. Yet, this imperfect tool did at least manage to provide a mechanism toward the intended purpose… The furtherance of the culture that founded said government. This understanding that there is imperfection in government implies that other values should supersede governmental power when the tool of government doesn’t fit the task at hand well. I submit the highest value applied here should be the values of the culture, not that of the law.

(Which, I would argue is why there are judges which read not only the wording of the laws but then intent of them.)

Now, I hear some of you balking at this, suggesting the right of the individual are paramount; a noble sentiment. But consider this immovable fact:

Rights are not universal.

Yep. That’s what I said…Read it again, just to be sure.

Rights are not universal.

Clearly, this will raise many questions on the part of some. This should answer most;

When Jefferson wrote that “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT” he was not speaking a universal truth at all. The operative word in that phrase is “WE”.

Rather than talking about a universal point of view, a universal truth, if you will, he was instead talking about the point of view of WE the new American culture. With this angle, many of the long-held myths about rights tend to disappear.

Consider; if it was in fact a universal truth that all men were created equal, it wouldn’t have been such a radical idea, for the time, much less then to now. Last I checked, it is quite true that a vast majority still do not consider these as any kind of truth, universal or otherwise; they consider them to be anything BUT self-evident. Royalty still exists, as do class structures, and slavery, as well.

Again, I say…Jefferson was speaking of the point of view of OUR culture, not that of others.

The fact of the matter is that RIGHTS ARE A CULTURAL CONCEPT, and are nigh on meaningless outside that construct. Once the culture is allowed to fall to the law, even in an attempt to impose rights where they do not exist, what happens to real rights, which are a cultural concept?

Did you catch the last paragraph? And go back and read it again.

The constitution is not designed to prevent society from exerting its will. It is designed to prevent the government from exerting its will. It is not a restriction on the people, it is a restriction on government. It is designed to be a limitation on government. Not on society.

Our founders also clearly recognized both in their daily actions and in their writings in the early days of our government that rights were not granted or guaranteed by government. The culture that founded this nation held that all men had writes that were provided by their creator. Government couldn’t touch those rights, to regulate them, but neither could they provide them.

If, then, by fiat of government, we grant as a “right”, that which has never before been a part of our society, thus overruling the culture what happens to the very concept of rights, which themselves are a cultural construct? It seems to me that when we buy legal fiat allow government to create a right to marry someone of the same sex, what we are doing is accepting the concept that government can create rights. That seems to me a very dangerous precedent, even absent the damage to the culture, Because the concept of where rights come from, is itself damaged.

There are those who will suggest that the comparison to slavery is valid on the basis that society approved of slavery. (Thus the strident comparisons by white homosexuals and their supporters,  to blacks and their “civil rights”.) I suggest once again that the context of that claim can be found on any stable floor, though doubtless, in lesser quantities.

I suggest the test cannot be made, since it never really came to a vote. There was no referendum on the matter. But I would suggest to you that a look into history tells us that there was certainly enough of a societal movement afoot that slavery would have ended even absent the Civil War, by about the turn of the last century, because of society exerting its voice, along with the business interests reacting to other countries not wanting to trade with slaveholders.

For that said, there is no such movement as regards the homosexual marriage issue… Either nationally, or internationally. And of course nationally such a referendum on the subject of homosexual marriage go down to defeat as something of a routine. The enforcement of such “rights” seems to me a corruption of government.

As I said back in the day;

Culture is by far a more powerful force than government, over time. Indeed; Where governments have gotten themselves into problems over the centuries, is invariably where governments have tried to alter the culture artificially, by means of law. Culture eventually triumphs.

I notice a trend, and I will leave it to your consideration; when the subject of “civil rights” comes up, invariably we’re talking about government overriding the culture. Since the purpose of any government which is to survive for very long, is to support and extend the influence of that culture that give it life, any government attempting to do so is in the end committing suicide.