Profile in Courage

One of the great farces in modern political times is President Obama’s “opposition” to gay marriage.  His opposition is given with a wink and a nudge.  One of the reasons gay marriage supporters haven’t pilloried Obama on this issue is that everyone knows that he is completely insincere in his convictions, or lack thereof.

Here’s further proof of that.

Obama’s top political advisers have held serious discussions with leading Democrats about the upsides and downsides of coming out for gay marriage before the fall election, a Democratic strategist who has discussed these matters directly with Obama’s campaign inner circle tells me.

This does not mean that it will happen, and there are plenty of reasons to assume it won’t. Indeed, it would be political malpractice if Obama’s top advisers didn’t discuss every permutation and possibility, no matter how far fetched. However, the fact that it has been discussed seriously at high levels means it’s not out of the question.

So Team Obama is basically poll testing his position on gay marriage.  Presumably if they see there’s enough support, he can proudly finally come out of the closet.

It’s a good thing his likely opponent is a man who would never dream of running his positions before focus groups in order to come to the right conclusion.


Share With Friends
  • 6

Dante alighieri


  1. Obama is the man who sold his soul to the devil. We got Obama because the devil did not want him. Does anyone think that the devil engages in homosexual behavior? No way, the devil has some self-respect, but the devil encourages all men to lie, to fraud, to cheat and to homosexual misbehavior. That empty shirt in the WH ought to put gay-so called marriage on the ballot if he really wants to know the will of the people. In this strategy, Obama is gauging how much swill the people will eat.

  2. When censor with consul’s combined
    The results are but rarely aligned.
    “So let the tribes vote
    on the issues they note,
    ‘Cause their choices I’ve pared and refined!”

  3. It is called peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress, that that government of the people, for the people, and by the people shall not perish from the face of the earth. When Obama and his henchmen “gather to pare and refine” our freedom and civil rights it cannot be called peaceable assembly. Justice is predicated on intent and Obama’s intent is to avoid serving Justice.

  4. President Obama, when he was a Senator (state and federal), always voted as far left as he could without incurring political cost.

    Should he win the election the political cost of supporting gay marriage will drop tremendously. That will be the least of his initiatives.

    If he loses, or when he decides he can’t win, the political cost will be zero, He will try to implement as much of his personal program as possible and tie the hands of his successor.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  5. Obama can support or denounce “Gay Marriage” or “Dehydrated Water”. Not much of what he says will really matter in the end. Meanwhile, those who are faithful to Jesus Christ, to the Gospel and to the Church will continue, in love, to oppose his draconian measures.

  6. I don’t like Obama at all, but I do think it’s wrong to say he sold his soul to the devil as Mary de Voe says.

  7. Agreed. I actually doubt if he thinks he has a soul to sell, as I’ve always suspected he is a stone cold atheist like his mother. That suspicion was reinforced when Obama claimed, with a straight face, that the Reverend Wright led him to Christ.

  8. Yes, the way Mary put it isn’t quite right, but our “nice words” are at odds with the previous 19 centuries of the Church. Think of Sts. Peter and Jude writing of “waterless clouds whose destruction is assured”, of St. John and then Polycarp denouncing those who are “anti-Christ”, and Trent and other Church declarations of ‘anathema’. We are actually the outliers. Obviously Obama and Pelosi (to name just two) are little anti-Christs. The question then is whether this language is prudent at a particular time and place. That is a prudential call and not a moral one.

Comments are closed.