Now that would be the same Jesus Christ, one presumes, who told him to be against same-sex "marriage" in 2008 and who told him to be for it back in 1996. It is all quite confusing, but that is liberal Protestantism, for you. One day black is black and the next day it is white; it's just God trying to keep up with the Zeitgeist while his prophet tries to get elected.
In the transcript of "Good Morning America" we read how Obama appeals to the cross of Christ to justify his capitulation to pagan sexual deviance:
Roberts asked the president if First Lady Michelle Obama was involved in this decision. Obama said she was, and he talked specifically about his own faith in responding.“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.”This is pretty disgusting stuff. The least he could have done was have the decency to leave Jesus Christ out of it. He may feel he has no choice but to support the radical base of the Democratic Party or he may be a convinced pagan himself, but to wrap himself in the cross while advocating for one of the many sins Jesus died to pay the penalty for is just sick and blasphemous.
It is time to get liberal theology out of politics. It is demeaning to the intelligence of thinking people everywhere. Liberals who support abortion and the rest of the sexual revolution would do so no matter what the Bible says. They just pretend religion is important to them. And for them to knowingly and cynically go against the Bible while pretending to be sincerely Christian is just sickening. They have Marx as their prophet, why do they need Christ? Other than as a cynical ploy to win a few votes from people who don't know any better, that is.
Tim Stanley at the Daily Telegraph is not buying the "Jesus told me to do this" line:
It’s unlikely that Obama is taking a principled stand for civil rights. In 1996, he said he was for gay marriage. In 2004, when he was running for the Senate, he said that Jesus told him it was wrong (Jesus, apparently, changes his mind almost as often as the Pres). In 2008, he repeated that gay marriage was a step too far. Then he started to “evolve” and, like the caterpillar, he turned into a beautiful pink butterfly. Now that he’s for it, his tortuous flip-flopping makes Mitt Romney look comparatively consistent. But more on that later.
Stanley also thinks Obama has just handed a great gift to Mitt Romney and he undoubtedly has done that:
The Pres probably has his eye on big campaign dollars from Hollywood, which was causing him havoc on the gay rights issue only last week. North Carolina forced his hand, but in a way that some on his team might calculate is a vote winner. I infer the game plan to be this: 1) make everyone stop talking about the economy and start debating sex instead, 2) mobilise that liberal base, 3) split the Republicans by forcing Romney to reiterate his hard-line anti-marriage position, 4) turn the election into a coalition of the young, women and well educated vs the old, religious and dumb. The bottom line: send people into that voting booth thinking about anything other than their job.
But will the gay-marriage bait-and-switch work in the fall? Maybe, maybe not. It could help Romney, who has been having trouble convincing the evangelical/Catholic base that he is one of them. Those people might have felt edgy voting for a “moderate Mormon,” but they’ll come out in big numbers to vote against Obama’s social liberalism. Also, Mitt’s reputation for flip-flopping is no longer a problem. Obama just flipped right over his head, did a 180 in the air, and landed on his backside on the other side of the political compass. Flopping is a dead issue in 2012.
Meanwhile, all the evidence suggests that “the folks” (as Bill O’Reilly calls the great middle-class) don’t like gay marriage. Anti-marriage amendments have been passed in seven out of nine of the 2012 swing states – most of them by popular referenda. Propositions have been voted on in 32 states and on every occasion gay marriage has been banned, even in Maine. Maine.The Romney campaign must be ecstatic; they were not going to win hotbeds of liberalism like New York and California anyway. So what if Obama ups his winning percentage in those kinds of states from 14 to 15%? This election will be won or lost in 12 states and most are in the Midwest or the South. Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvannia, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio are key swing states. If Obama thinks taking this stand helps him in these states, he is deluded. For example, Obama won North Carolina in 2008 by less than 1% and it just voted yesterday 61-39 to enshrine marriage in the constitution. He is toast in North Carolina in November. As one who prays for a Romney victory even though Romney is a far-from-perfect candidate, I have to think that things are looking up.
There is an interesting parallel between Obamacare and same-sex marriage in that Obama is rigidly sticking to his ideological agenda in the face of voter opposition and he, apparently, is willing to lose big to make (what he imagines to be) irreversible changes to the nation in a leftist direction. I think his leftist ideology is dead wrong, but I have to admire his political courage. Are Republicans prepared to lay electoral success on the line in order to bring the nation back in a conservative direction?
Ross Douthat in the New York Times observes that the politics behind Obama's decision illustrate the growing divide between the governing elites and the population as a whole in America:
At the popular level, the country is still divided (and perhaps more divided than polling suggests), but at the elite level and within the Democratic Party’s upper reaches, especially, what was a consensus understanding of marriage just two decades ago has become so associated with bigotry and reaction that a sitting president facing a difficult re-election campaign has been forced to abandon the politically-safer “civil unions yes, but marriage not just yet” position for the uncertain consequences of being for marriage, period. Given the landscape of the 2012 election (and the results yesterday in North Carolina), Obama’s prior attempts to finesse the issue made a lot of sense. But the moral ground had shifted underneath him — to the point where even his own cabinet wouldn’t risk the taint of bigotry in order to give him cover on the issue — and such finesse was no longer an acceptable option.
The consensus in the upper reaches of the Democratic Party is far more radically leftist than the general population of the US and this issue is just one of many that illustrate that divide. The rulers of any nation cannot get too far out in front of the voters and hope to maintain power. Today, the Democratic Party, by abandoning yet again any appearance of being representative of the nation as a whole, took a large step toward electoral disaster. But that, of course, is their problem.
By the way, Billy Graham took a stand in North Carolina in favor of traditional marriage and urged people in newspaper adverts to vote to enshrine marriage in the constitution. Who do you think is the more reliable interpreter of Scripture: Billy Graham or Barack Obama? One of them has to be dead wrong on what the Bible teaches and I'm pretty sure it isn't Billy Graham.