In the land of liberalism, portraying Obama’s timid conversion to gay marriage support as the sort of principled, bold action that no other executive would ever take (kind of like choosing to go in and shoot Bin Laden) is a trump card. In fact, Obama is now playing his conversion up for all it’s worth, acting as though he’s the Martin Luther King Jr. of the homosexual movement. Cash-wise, it’s paying big dividends.
However, reality may soon kick in. While Obama’s conversion is symbolic, it doesn’t change anything anymore than when Dick Cheney came out in support of gay marriage. Obama himself admitted that he still prefers to leave the issue up to the states, which puts his view in company with most other conservatives.
In addition to nothing changing policy wise, and Obama filling his campaign advertising with gaudy rainbows, Obama is in danger of losing votes in several swing states who have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage. For example, Colorado, California, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan and Virginia are among the states that have defined marriage in their constitutions. Perhaps Obama’s coming out of the closet won’t lose him California, but it will have an effect in North Carolina and Florida where traditional marriage won with super majorities.
There is a debate brewing in the country now over how Obama has framed the gay marriage issue. Is gay marriage a requirement for true equality in our country? There are two issues that conservatives must be clear on with this question.
The first is the question of legal rights. Can homosexuals be considered equal if they don’t get the same tax treatment, however favorable or unfavorable, as traditionally married couples? By the way, as a tax accountant I’ve been able to save some gay couples more money by filing them both as single than I would if I had to file them as married filing jointly. Just sayin’, in case you are reading this, homosexual, and think you are missing out on all sorts of great tax benefits because you can’t file jointly.
The question about equal legal rights can easily be defeated by testing if the individually truly cares about equality or is just using that argument to advance their agenda. Ask them if they support a progressive tax system. The progressive tax system that taxes rich and middle income earners at higher rates than the poor is a staple of liberalism, and a clear antithesis to equality.
The other question is whether the government should be telling homosexuals what marriage is and isn’t. What many call the government defining marriage, others call the government banning all other forms of marriage. But what is in a definition? Fortunately, we have a prominent liberal Democrat who has demonstrated the importance of words and their definitions.
If you’ve heard the name Elizabeth Warren, then you know what I am talking about. Warren, the liberal candidate who said the rich should pay higher taxes because they only reason they are rich is that the government gave them education and roads, lives what she preaches. She gave herself a leg up both in school and career by claiming she is a Cherokee Indian. Harvard touted Warren as adding diversity to their staff. Turns out she is about 1/32 Cherokee, and her ancestry has more Indian killers than actual Indians.
But that brings up an interesting question: can we all call ourselves Cherokee Indians in order to achieve equality and have a better shot at employment at Harvard? Is it the government that is banning me from being a Cherokee Indian? Perhaps you find that argument offensive. Let’s back up about 60 years when there was a true battle for equality taking place in our country. Should blacks have been given the right to be called white in order to achieve equality? Of course not. There is no need to redefine the word “white” in order to achieve equality. Same with the word “marriage”.
Still, now that the war on women angle has failed, as has the war on the poor, the next play is the war on equality. Be prepared to be accused of opposing equal rights for all if you are a Republican. Suddenly the candidate who admits he was forced into revealing his gay marriage support has become the champion of equal rights simply by endorsing redefining marriage. Romney will need to find ways to connect with the voters who have overwhelmingly voted to protect marriage in every state they’ve been given a chance, and he will need to win this debate.
Editors Note: As with any post on Whitehouse12.com, the opinions expressed in this post are the opinions of the author and represent the site only in as far as they represent the views of this particular author. These views may not be representative of the site as a whole.
Filed under: Mitt Romney, President Obama | Tagged: ban, biden, black, california, campaign, cheney, cheney hipster, cherokee, civil rights, colorado, Dick Cheney, elizabeth warren, equality, florida, gay marriage, harvard, hipster, indian, martin luther king jr, Michigan, north carolina, november, obama, redefining marrage, Romney, trail of tears, virginia, white, whitehouse 2012, whitehouse12.com |