Welcome to Obamacare…and Government-Funded Hedonism

obamadoctorToday is October 1st. Welcome, Americans to the beginning of Obamacare…and the beginning of the New Soviet Union…or, is it the New Roman Empire?

Obama once remarked that we were no longer a Christian Nation. …and, with this massive failure in the making, he’s making sure that his statement is made true.

The Washington Times reports

The Office of Personnel Management ruled Monday that members of Congress and their staffs will be able to buy health care plans that pay for abortions, even though the premiums are funded largely by taxpayer money — a move that conservatives say breaks federal law on abortion funding.

Under the terms of Obamacare, lawmakers and their aides are required to ditch their government-sponsored plans and buy insurance on state-based health care exchanges, though unlike most people on the exchanges, the staffers and members will have most of the costs of their premiums paid by their employer — in this case, taxpayers.

Federal law generally prevents taxpayer money from being used to pay for abortions, but OPM said the health care plans offered through the exchange were private. The agency also said it will make sure the money is segregated so that the portion that pays for abortions comes out of the employees’ own contributions, which amounts to about a quarter of the premiums.

“While plans with such coverage may be offered on an Exchange, OPM can and will take appropriate administrative steps to ensure that the cost of any such coverage purchased by a member of Congress or a congressional staffer from a designated [exchange] is accounted for and paid by the individual rather than from the government contribution, consistent with the general prohibition on federal funds being used for this purpose,” OPM said in its ruling.

Rep. Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey Republican, said OPM is violating a law he wrote in 1983 that prohibits OPM from paying any expenses to administer plans that cover abortion, except in cases of rape or incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.

“You can’t break the law, Mr. President, and just issue a final rule as if somehow you’re comporting with the law,” Mr. Smith told The Washington Times. “We don’t want to subsidize abortion on demand, and the public is absolutely with us.”

Back on June 4th of this year, examiner.com told us that

…Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that Obamacare will place a special focus on members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community because “for too long…[they] were pushed to the side,” Paul Bedard reported at the Washington Examiner.

“LGBT individuals have faced limited access to health care and insurance. They have been less likely to get the preventive care they need to stay healthy, they have higher rates of tobacco use, and they are often at increased risk for mental health illness,” she said.

To counter this, the administration is drawing attention to new benefits under Obamacare targeted to gays, Bedard said, and will add gender status to health surveys and questionnaires critical in determining services under Obamacare.

“Like all Americans, LGBT Americans deserve respectful health care providers and the security of accessible, affordable health care that meets their needs,” Sebelius said.

The announcement coincides with Obama’s proclamation of June as LGBT Pride Month.

“As we observe LGBT Pride Month, I am pleased to say that the Department of Health and Human Services continues working hard to make this a reality for the LGBT community,” she added.

Bedard posted the key benefits gays and lesbians will receive under Obamacare, according to Sebelius:

  • “Insurers can no longer impose lifetime dollar limits on health insurance coverage, and annual limits will be phased out in 2014. This is particularly important for people with cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other chronic diseases requiring comprehensive, long-term care.”
  • “Starting in 2014, insurers cannot deny coverage or charge higher rates based on a pre-existing condition or because an individual is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.”
  • “Insurers generally must cover such vital preventive services as HIV screening, vaccinations, depression screening, contraception, intimate-partner violence screening, and annual well-woman visits, at no out-of-pocket charge.”
  • “Healthcare.gov includes a health plan finder tool that allows consumers shopping for health insurance to filter for plans offering coverage for domestic and same-sex partners.”

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams, Second President of the United States of America

Several times on the internet, I have attempted to engage in discussion with Kool-Aid drinking Liberals who insist that the Godless Socialization of American’s Healthcare System, the greatest in the world, is exactly what Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, would do.

I refute that, by carefully explaining to them  that no, Christ was not the author of “social justice”, sinful man was. Christ, in fact, said the following:

“For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But, you will not always have me.” – Mark 14:7( ESV)

Yes, we are called upon to show Christian Compassion, through individual good works, or charity in action, through the organized “Body of Christ” (America’s churches).

I even had a Liberal tell me that Mosaic Law justified welfare, as it was the world’s first Welfare System.

First, I explained to the ill-informed young man that Christians are not under Mosaic Law, we are covered by the blood of Christ, and are under the New Covenant, as a result of His sacrifice.

Then, I explained that the teachings of Jesus, the Council of Jerusalem, and other New Testament teachings , (Romans 2:25-29, 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15) make it clear that Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, animal sacrifices, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc.

As Christians, we still look back to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance (2 Timothy 3:16-17). However, when there is a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, Christians follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God.

So, the next time a Liberal gives you a bunch of garbage about Obamacare being the “Christian” thing to do, please set them straight, in a clear and gentle manner.

Then, feel free to quote them two of my favorite Bible verses:

1. “Judas went out and hung himself.”

2. “Go thou and do likewise.”

Because Christians aren’t perfect. Just forgiven. 🙂

Until He Comes,

KJ

WWE “Rassler” Comes Out as Gay…Just in Time to Tell School Children About It.

Darren YoungI’m a wrestling fan. I make no bones about it. One of my favorite memories is watching Memphis Wrestling on Saturday mornings with my Daddy. Nowadays, my bride and I watch Monday Night Raw and Friday Night Smackdown together.

That being said, the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) is involved with the Federal Government in their “Anti-Bullying ” Campaign.

According to the Obama Administration’s website, stopbullying.gov…

Mission 

StopBullying.gov provides information from various government agencies on what bullying is, what cyberbullying is, who is at risk, and how you can prevent and respond to bullying.

Governance 

Content for this website is provided by the partners on the StopBullying.gov Editorial Board.

  • Department of Education (ED)
  • Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  • Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
  • Substance Abuse and Medical Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
  • Department of Justice (DOJ)

The StopBullying.gov coordinates closely with the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering Committee, an interagency effort led by the Department of Education that works to coordinate policy, research, and communications on bullying topics. The Federal Partners include representatives from the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, the Interior, and Justice, as well as the Federal Trade Commission and the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

This movement started with the Department of Education. And, while all decent Americans can get behind the thought of fighting back against bullies, this “noble cause” has a political element to it: The indoctrination into the normalization of homosexuality via our children and their schools. In fact, this effort comes straight from the top.

Kevin Jennings, appointed by President Obama (on May 19, 2009) to be assistant deputy secretary of education in charge of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, is founder of an organization dedicated to promoting pro-homosexual clubs and curricula in public schools. Jennings founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), an organization that is a prime force behind the creation of “gay-straight alliance” clubs in high schools–and some junior highs–around the country. The organization says that its mission since 1994 has been to “assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.” “We welcome as members any and all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity/expression or occupation, who are committed to seeing this philosophy realized in K-12 schools,” the organization’s Web site says. Gay-straight alliances are student organizations designed to promote the idea that some children are homosexual and to advocate for LGBT (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgendered) rights on school campuses. The organizations seek to normalize homosexual behavior–and teach students that opposition to homosexuality or to “transgenderism” is a form of “oppression.”

Okay, by now, you’re asking, “KJ, what does school bullying and the encouragement of homosexuality in our schools have to do with the WWE?”

I’m glad you asked.

The WWE jumped on board the government’s “Anti-Bullying” bandwagon, and began their own program whereby wrestlers and WWE Executives, visit schools, telling the kids about their experiences of being bullied as they grew up. According to the WWE…

Be a STAR (Show Tolerance And Respect) was founded by The Creative Coalition and WWE in April 2011. The mission of Be a STAR is to ensure a positive and equitable social environment for everyone regardless of age, race, religion or sexual orientation through grassroots efforts beginning with education and awareness. Be a STAR promotes positive methods of social interaction and encourages people to treat others as equals and with respect because everyone is a star in their own right .”

Speaking of stars, one of the WWE Superstars has “outed” himself as gay, during an encounter with a cameraman from TMZ…

Darren Young — real name: Fred Rosser — became the first active professional wrestler to come out, stunning a TMZ cameraman at the Los Angeles airport with the news after the paparazzo asked him if a gay athlete could make it in the WWE or MMA.

“Absolutely, look at me,” Young said. “I’m a WWE Superstar and to be honest with you, I’ll tell you right now, I’m gay. And I’m happy. I’m very happy.”

“To be honest, I don’t think [my sexuality] matters,” Young added. “Does it matter? Does it matter to you? Does it change what you think about me?”

When the cameraman — who said he was “flabbergasted” at the news — described the proclamation as Young’s “coming out,” Young seemed to downplay the significance of the news.

There’s a long line of athletes who have come out.

“I guess if you want to call it coming out — I really don’t know what to say it is but I’m just letting you know,” he said. “I’m happy with who I am, I’m comfortable with myself, and I’m happy to be living the dream. I’m in L.A. for SummerSlam with WWE.

“You know, to be honest with you, I’m happy with myself. Some people might not like it, some people will like it, but I’m here to please myself. I’m here to be happy. It’s very important I’m happy with myself.”

When asked about setting an example, Young said he’s “hoping to be able to make a difference,” but noted that “someone’s sexual preference shouldn’t really matter.” He also said he’s not concerned about it being an issue among his peers in the WWE.

“We’re all adults, and to be honest with you, when I come to work, I come to work,” Young said. “Business is business. I’m a WWE superstar and I’m there to entertain the WWE universe, and that’s what my job is to do, and I do it well.”

…The WWE also issued a statement supporting Young:

“On TMZ this morning, WWE Superstar Darren Young revealed to the WWE Universe that he is gay. WWE is proud of Darren Young for being open about his sexuality, and we will continue to support him as a WWE Superstar. Today, in fact, Darren will be participating in one of our Be A STAR anti-bullying rallies in Los Angeles to teach children how to create positive environments for everyone regardless of age, race, religion or sexual orientation.”

Golly, What a coinky-dink. Darren announced that he likes to wrestle with men outside the ring, just in time to go talk to a bunch of school children.

I question the timing.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Back in the dark ages, when I walked 50 miles to school, uphill both ways, in a foot of snow, we had homosexuals in our classes, too. The funny thing is, I don’t remember them getting bullied any worse than undersized kids like me, got bullied. In fact, as we got into high school, they became pretty popular. The guys were usually funny as a stitch, and a lot of them were very talented actors, dancers, and singers. Playing a night watchman in our production of “Scrooge” (I can still do a mean Cockney accent.) gave me first hand knowledge of their talent.

However, these guys did not walk out on the middle of the High School Auditorium Stage and say, “Hey, y’all! Guess what? I’m gay!”

They didn’t have to. We already knew it.

Back in the 1970s, it did not really matter. They were our friends.

There was no political advantage to be had by publicly proclaiming their sexuality.

The point that I’m trying to convey is a simple one: I don’t HAVE to approve of your lifestyle, in order to get along with you.

It is not our Government’s, nor the WWE’s, place to teach our kids that a deviant (out of the norm) sexual preference is, in fact, normal. Parents are responsible for molding and shaping young minds, in accordance with their own beliefs and family traditions, secular and religious.

In a sense, Uncle Sugar and the WWE have it right: Bullying is a serious problem. However, just as our Armed Forces is not, the hallways of a school is not the place for social engineering.

That’s just sooo gay.

Until He Comes,

KJ.

Gay Wednesday, or, How to Change the Fabric of American Society in One Fell Swoop

gay marriageIn my post yesterday, I warned that what the Supreme Court was about to do, could possibly change the fabric of our society.

God in Heaven, I hate it when I’m right.

The robed ones yesterday destroyed the uniqueness of the marriage bed between man and wife, and the sovereignty of a state’s voters, all in one fell swoop.

First, the Court ruled that the part of the Defense of Marriage Act denying equal benefits to homosexual “married” couples was “unconstitutional” in their eyes, so they struck down that codicil.

Now, homosexual couples who have been “married” in states which allow that doppelganger of a “sacrament”, are entitled to all the governmental benefits that normal married couples enjoy.

In the second ruling of the day, the highest court in the land ruled that the ruling by a Gay Appeals Judge, which negated the results of a popular vote on the  California Referendum on Proposition 8, would stand, basically pulling a Pontius Pilate, killing the sovereignty of Californians to decide their own fate, in regards as to whether or not to allow Homosexual Marriage in their state.

You see, the good citizens of California stood up on their hind legs and voted against allowing homosexuals to imitate the oldest sacred ceremony known to mankind.

And, Lord knows , we can’t allow Americans to decide for themselves, can we? If you think I’m joking, remember Chief Justice “Benedict Arnold” Roberts’ ruling on Obamacare?

Of course, the Prevaricator-in-Chief thought that yesterday was the most wonderful thing  he had heard, since his next door neighborhood Frank Marshall Davis used to regale him with tales of his pedophiliac conquests.

In fact, he called a homosexual couple to congratulate them on live TV.

Funny…just 18 months ago, ol’ Scooter was saying,

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.

So, was Obama lying then, or is he lying now?

Yes.

Now, there are those who will argue that these are just small steps and what happened yesterday is no big hairy deal. There are also those who believe that yesterday was the greatest day in the history of the world.

Side note: It wasn’t. That day will be when we hear a trumpet sound above us…and, it won’t be Doc Severenson. But, I digress…

Normalization of this deviant behavior has already happened to our Brightest and Best, with the overturning of DADT.

Just the other day, the four-star idiots in the Pentagon declared that our country is now safer with openly gay members in our military.

Safer from what? Inter-service pregnancies?

Now that homosexual activists know that they can overturn the will of the people of a state, if the Liberal State Government does not support their citizens in a legal defense of sovereignty, all bets are off.

Like Gov. Moonbean (Jerry Brown) of California, all it takes is one Liberal weasel of a State Governor to overturn an anti-Homosexual Marriage Vote in any state in the Union, if the state’s gay activists are willing to take their action all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

Here is another thing that makes me wanna hurl, cry, and bang my head against the wall, all at the same time:

The National Cathedral in Washington, DC rang its steeple bells in celebration when the rulings were announced.

What part of God’s Word do they believe supports Homosexual Marriage? What book of the Bible is that found? 1st Babylonians?

Genesis 2:21-25 states:

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

We’ve come a long way, baby…and, it appears that our country is beginning a descent down the ol’ porcelain receptacle, a societal voyage not unlike the one Ancient Rome experienced.

In Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 1, Verses 24-27, he writes, concerning the Roman Empire’s depravity,

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That is where we stand, Americans.

Grab those who matter to you and hold them tight. I am afraid that there are dark times ahead…and we are well on the way to finding out why America is not mentioned in the Book of  Revelation.

Until He comes,

KJ

Tim Tebow, Barack Obama, and Me

American ChristianityTim Tebow, back-up Quarterback for the New Yorlk Jets, has caught a lot of flack in his professional football career for his stance as an Evangelical Christian. However, this last week, Tebow uncharacteristically backed out of a commitment to speak at First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

Senior Minister, Robert Jeffress, is no stranger to public controversy. His sound bites are often incendiary, but his convictions, including the exclusivity of the gospel and the belief that homosexual behaviors are sinful,are well within the mainstream beliefs of American Evangelical Christians.

Perhaps, it was because the public outcry, from those who seem to be always concerned, was deafening.

Gregg Doyel of CBS Sports warned, “Tim Tebow is about to make the biggest mistake of his life” by speaking at “a hateful Baptist preacher’s church.” Doyel described Jeffress as “an evangelical cretin” guilty of serial hate speech. Of course, Doyel engaged in hateful and slanderous speech of his own by associating Jeffress with the truly hateful Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Jeffress “isn’t as bad as Westboro,” Doyel admitted, “But he comes close. Too close.”

Other sportswriters piled on. Benjamin Hochman of The Denver Post offered his own warning to Tebow: “After a season on the sidelines, the ball’s in your hands, Timmy. Better not fumble this one.”

The controversy threatened to dominate Tebow’s life, so the 25-year-old athlete withdrew, attempting to escape his predicament. Stating that he has wished to “share a message of hope and Christ’s unconditional love” with the historic congregation, Tebow said that “due to new information that was brought to my attention” he has decided to cancel the event. He then pledged to use “the platform God has blessed me with to bring Faith, Hope, and Love to all those needing a brighter day.”

If Tebow meant to mollify his critics, it is not likely to work for long. Tebow has identified himself as a vocal evangelical believer. His church roots go deep, and it is safe to say that he has never had a pastor who, though speaking in a different tone, would have disagreed with Jeffress on the exclusivity of Christ and the sinfulness of homosexuality. He has given no indication that he has moved from those convictions, and his closest friends assure that he has not.

Writing at The Huffington Post, Paul Brandeis Raushenbush made it clear the controversy wasn’t just a matter of Jeffress’s tone, conceding, “while Dr. Jeffress has a tendency not to sugarcoat his feelings,” he is nonetheless voicing what evangelical Christians “have been saying for a long time.” The central scandal here is the belief that Jesus is the only Savior and that homosexual behavior is sin. In terms of the larger public debate, it is the issue of homosexuality that has predominated the larger public debate… at least for now.

The Tebow controversy comes just weeks after evangelical pastor Louie Giglio withdrew from delivering a prayer at President Barack Obama’s second inaugural ceremony. Giglio had been “outed” as having preached a message almost 20 years ago that affirmed the sinfulness of homosexuality and stressed that the “only way out of a homosexual lifestyle… is through the healing power of Jesus.”

NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, is a good friend and huge supporter of President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm). Perhaps, Tebow was acting on orders from the Office of the Commissioner…and protecting his job.

In a related story, foxnews.com reports,

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to strike down the federal law defining marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.

The request regarding the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was made Friday in a brief by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that argues the law is unconstitutional because it violates “the fundamental guarantee of equal protection.”

The high court is set to hear two cases next month on the issue: the constitutional challenge on Proposition 8, the 2008 California that allowed same-sex marriages in the state that two years later was overturned, and United States v. Windsor, which challenges DOMA.

Edith Windsor, a California resident, was married to her female partner in Canada in 2007 but was required to pay roughly $360,000 in federal estate taxes because the marriage is not recognized under DOMA.

The law “denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples,” Verrilli’s brief in part states.

House Republicans also purportedly filed a brief Friday, arguing for the right to defend DOMA.

Obama’s move comes as no surprise, considering he said during his first term that he personally is in favor of gay marriage. And he ended the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, opening the way for gays to serve openly.

More recently, during Obama’s second inaugural address, he hinted at further action.

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal,” he said.

The court is taking up the California case March 26 and has several options. Among them are upholding the state ban on gay marriage and saying residents of a state have the right to make that call.

The nine justices also could endorse an appeals court ruling that would make same-sex marriage legal in California, but it would apply only to that state.

Twenty-nine other states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, while nine states and Washington, D.C., recognize same-sex marriage.

Public opinion has shifted in support of gay marriage in recent years. In May 2008, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans felt same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the law as valid. By November 2012, some 53 percent felt they should be legally recognized.

As I was laying in bed this morning, I thought about what I believe, as a Christian American Conservative. In my 54 years, I have gone to school with, worked with, and had family members that were/are homosexual.

As a Christian man, I have prayed for them, befriended them, prayed for them,  and in the case of my family members, loved them, with all of my heart.

That being said, as a Christian American Conservative, I believe that God has decreed that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman.

If America begins this ill-fated descent down this slippery slope of societal ruin, we may eventually find out the reason why our nation is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Well, a man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home

And, they shall travel on to where the two should be as one.

As it was in the beginning is now until the end

Woman draws a life from man and gives it back again.

And there is Love. There is Love.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

 

The War Against Christianity: Don We Now Our Gay Apparel?

American ChristianityIn a Friday Evening Announcement, word got out that the Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments concerning California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Per ABC News:

The Supreme Court’s announcement that it would hear two cases challenging laws prohibiting same-sex marriage has reinvigorated one of the most hotly contentious social debates in American history, a debate that has been fueled by a dramatic change in attitudes.

With some states taking significant steps towards legalizing gay marriage, the hearings come at a critical moment.

This week in Washington State, hundreds of same-sex couples lined up to collect marriage licenses after Gov. Christine Gregoire announced the passing of a voter-approved law legalizing gay marriage.

“For the past 20 years we’ve been saying just one more step. Just one more fight. Just one more law. But now we can stop saying ‘Just one more.’ This is it. We are here. We did it,” Gregoire told a group of Referendum 74 supporters during the law’s certification.

Washington is just the most recent of several states to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, signifying a significant departure from previous thinking on the controversial subject.

A study by the Pew Research Center on changing attitudes on gay marriage showed that in 2001 57 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, while 35 percent of Americans supported it.

The same poll shows that today opinions have greatly shifted to reflect slightly more support for same-sex marriage than opposition — with 48 percent of Americans in favor and 43 percent opposed.

In fact, just two years ago, 48 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage while only 42 percent supported it — indicating that opinions have changed dramatically in the last couple of years alone.

The question a lot of Christian American Conservatives, like myself ,are asking, is: What if we end up like Canada?

From catholicexchange.com in 2008:

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.

The complaint stems from Canada’s debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

The activist subsequently filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission — a quasi-judicial body that investigates alleged discrimination within the Canadian province. The government tribunal published its decision [http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf] on May 30.

While agreeing that Boisson’s letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Moreover, the tribunal’s decision “prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future” about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada’s religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government’s human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as ‘disparaging’.

The tribunal also ordered Boisson to provide the complainant with a written apology for his letter to the editor. This last requirement threatens civil liberties in Canada, said Ezra Levant, a Jewish-Canadian author and lawyer. Levant, himself the target of an Alberta Human Rights Commission investigation, is facing the possibility the state may order him to apologize as well.

If activist judges, as in the case of California, can negate the will of the American People concerning allowing “Adam and Steve” to “marry”, why can’t they call preaching against homosexuality a hate crime?

The following is Article 17 of the Baptist Faith and Message, found at sbc.net.

God alone is the Lord of the conscience and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of god, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things no contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

While God’s word does tell us to honor and obey our leaders, we are also warned of the consequences of  being given over to “a reprobate mind”.

Do the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell?

The general consensus by political pundits is that the Court will rule that each individual state must decide for itself whether to allow homosexuals the use of the word “marriage” to describe their “union”.

So far 9 states have voted in favor of gay marriage. The other 41, or 48, if you believe the president, have not.

Liberal propaganda will be flying hot and heavy, both before and after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The majority of the 78% of Americans who still proclaim Christianity won’t be listening to the Liberals’ bloviating, though.

We listen to a  Higher Authority.

Why I am So Hard on Romney

I was 17 years old in 1976. So, I mercifully missed having to vote in the election of Jimmy Carter. But, the Lord blessed me. With my first vote in a national election, I was able to vote for the greatest American President in our lifetimes, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

With that vote, the standard was set in my mind and heart, as to what an American President should be.

Watching Ronaldus Magnus as a young, impressionable 20-something, making his way in the world, I marveled at his grace, humor, and unflinching, steely reserve in the face of America’s enemies, foreign and domestic, whether princes and principalities, or those unseen forces that dwell in the dark recesses of our society.

I have been looking to elect an American President like that, ever since.

Needless to say, I have been sorely disappointed.

That’s not to say that I was and am, not supportive of George W. Bush.  He was the right man to be in that chair in the Oval Office on September 11, 2001.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Carter, Clinton, or, God forbid, Obama, was president during the worst Terrorist Attack on our soil in American History?

I refuse to even consider the possibilities.

That being said, Dubya remains a good Christian man, who loves his country. Although, his record of spending as president leaves something to be desired.

However, his record of spending OUR money pales in comparison to Barack Hussein Obama’s.

After taking office in 2009, with spending and debt already at record high levels and the deficit headed to $1 trillion, President Obama proceeded to pass his own $830 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, mortgage relief plans, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCare entitlement (which isn’t even accounted for in the chart). While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn’t the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.

In 2011 and 2012, the pace of spending was slowed when a new emboldened breed of Republicans took back the House promising to end the binge. The House Budget Committee, headed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, has identified about $150 billion of new spending Mr. Obama wanted in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans would not approve.

If Obama’s failure as president was simply judged by his horrible economic policy, which has trashed our country like the aftermath of the Frat Party in National Lampoon’s Animal House (without the fun), that would be bad enough.

However, culturally speaking, he has taken our country in a Liberal, Marxist, and Godless direction.

From his declaration during his campaign,in a private meeting with donors, that we Americans living in the Heartland were bitterly clinging to our guns and Bibles, to his bowing to our enemies and embracing of the granddaddy of Islamic Terrorist Organizations,  the Muslim Brotherhood, to his  repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and his crowning achievement: his destruction of the greatest Healthcare System in the World, Obama has consistently governed against the wishes of the majority of the American citizens he is supposed to be serving.

His darling wife hasn’t exactly been a peach, either.

While other First Ladies have embraced causes such as poverty, child hunger, and illiteracy, Michelle Obama decided that American parents were not caring for their children properly, and decided to be their surrogate parent, under the guise of fighting chldhood obesity. And, if that wasn’t enough, last year, she and her Food Police decided that the fittest among us, our Armed Forces, weren’t eating properly and, is now going to make them eat arugula, or something. Heck, even the Subway Sandwich Shops are putting avocado and raw spinach on their sandwiches, now.

Then, there’s her remark during the 2008 campaign that “For the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country”. And, as an Honor Guard passed by her and the president, during the solemn 10th anniversary remembrance of 9/11, she leaned over to him, and said, “All this for a flag.”…and, the President of the United States nodded in agreement.

So, why am I so hard on the presumptive Republican nominee for President?

America is in desperate need of a leader…a man in the mold of Ronald Wilson Reagan, possessing not only traditional American beliefs and values, but, also possessing the courage and conviction necessary to stick his neck out for those beliefs and values, and not put them on the back burner for the sake of poltical expediency.

In 1984, President Reagan said:

Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.

Yesterday, The Examiner reported the following:

Speaking with reporters in Nevada, Mitt Romney refused to enter the Chick-fil-A controversy that has occupied most of the nation’s attention this week.

During the press conference, Romney was asked whether the Chick-fil-A controversy – or the controversy about Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – should be part of the national conversation.

“Those are not things that’s not part of my campaign.” he answered shortly, after explaining that he wasn’t in the business of telling people what to talk about.

Lacking the courage of his convictions?

And, that’s why I’m so hard on Romney.

The War Against Christianity: Battleground Chick-Fil-A…Today!

Well, here we are… a day that “fiscal Conservatives” and Liberals alike (or do I repeat myself?) have sworn (usually under their breath) doesn’t mean a doggone thing. They claim that there are no moral absolutes and that Christianity is passe.

I haven’t heard such a exercise in underestimation and poor judgement since General George Armstrong Custer remarked to his aide,

What Indians? I don’t see any Indians.

Mike Huckabee recently announced the following:

I ask you to join me in speaking out on Wednesday, August 1 “Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day.” No one is being asked to make signs, speeches, or openly demonstrate. The goal is simple: Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1. Too often, those on the left make corporate statements to show support for same-sex marriage, abortion, or profanity, but if Christians affirm traditional values, we’re considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant. This effort is not being launched by the Chick Fil-A company and no one from the company or family is involved in proposing or promoting it.

There’s no need for anyone to be angry or engage in a verbal battle. Simply affirm appreciation for a company run by Christian principles by showing up on Wednesday, August 1 or by participating online – tweeting your support or sending a message on Facebook.

Chick-Fil-A has been besieged by business ever since.

The Washington Post, of course, has their own spin on things:

The restaurant chain with Christian roots — “closed Sunday,” it proudly proclaims — is run by owners with conservative values. Now company President and CEO Dan Cathy has sparked a nationwide food fight by saying he is “guilty as charged” for opposing same-sex marriage.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives,” Cathy told the Biblical Recorder newspaper. The article was reprinted by Baptist Press on July 16.

Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has spearheaded “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” and, as of Tuesday (July 31), more than 500,000 people had pledged on its Facebook page to show up or give support to the restaurant via social media on Wednesday.

“People are outraged that someone who expresses a view that is shared by most of the country is being bullied by hate speech and intolerance from the militant gay groups that are trying to disenfranchise his right to a personal opinion,” Huckabee told Religion News Service in an email.

“CFA doesn’t turn away people as customers or employees on the basis of sexual orientation and that’s the only way this could be an issue,” Huckabee added.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, plans to buy more than 200 of the restaurant’s sandwiches for its students, faculty and staff on Wednesday and famed evangelist Billy Graham has promised to “Eat Mor Chikin” — Chick-fil-A’s catchphrase — at one of the restaurants that day.

Meanwhile, opponents to Cathy’s stance have spearheaded “National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A” on Friday — the anniversary of the day the Episcopal Church elected its first openly gay bishop.

Organizer Carly McGehee said it will be up to rally participants whether to buy food or not.

“Some have said they will ask for a water, some have said they won’t buy anything,” she said. As of Tuesday, more than 8,400 people had signed up for the “kiss-in.”

In several locations, people have planned to place kissing booths outside the restaurants, with proceeds going to local gay rights groups. Heterosexuals supporting the kissing event plan to appear and kiss loved ones, she said.

“People will simply walk into the restaurant, kiss someone of the same-sex and take a picture or video, then leave and post it on Facebook for all the world to see!”

Some think the food fight is misplaced.

Others are taking the fight very seriously…and taking their complaints to a higher authority.

No…not that One.

CNN.com has the story:

A group of conservative black pastors are responding to President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage with what they say will be a national campaign aimed at rallying black Americans to rethink their overwhelming support of the President, though the group’s leader is offering few specifics about the effort.

The Rev. Williams Owens, who is president and founder of the Coalition of African-Americans Pastors and the leader of the campaign, has highlighted opposition to same-sex marriage among African-Americans. He calls this campaign “an effort to save the family.”

“The time has come for a broad-based assault against the powers that be that want to change our culture to one of men marrying men and women marrying women,” said Owens, in an interview Tuesday after the launch event at the National Press Club. “I am ashamed that the first black president chose this road, a disgraceful road.”

At the press conference, Owens was joined by five other black regional pastors and said there were 3,742 African-American pastors on board for the anti-Obama campaign.

When asked at the press conference for specifics about the campaign – funding, planned events and goals – Owens said only that the group’s first fundraiser will be on August 16 in Memphis, Tennessee. But Owens insisted that “we are going to go nationwide with our agenda just like the president has gone to Hollywood.”

You go, Reverends. God Bless you all.

To repeat what I wrote Sunday…

Go get yourself a sammich and some waffle fries and support this Christian American Business.

Oh….and to those who would rather American Christians go away and keep our mouths shut, and forego our faith for a Godless Political Ideology?

You guys are in for a shock. I’ve read The Book. I know how this ends.

Hallelujah. Amen.

See y’all at breakfast, lunch and/or dinner!!!

Andrew Sullivan: Being Gay is like Being Black…or Something

This week’s edition of Newsweek Magazine will feature a very “special” article in it by self-proclaimed Gay Conservative Andrew Sullivan (and if this guy is a “Conservative”, I’m a blonde 22-year-old Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader named Buffy).  In the article, Sullivan equates Obama’s Black Experience to being Gay:

Last week he did it—in a move whose consequences are simply impossible to judge. White House sources told me that after the interview with ABC News, the president felt as if a weight had been lifted off him. Yes, he was bounced into it by Joe Biden, the lovable Irish-Catholic rogue who couldn’t help but tell the truth about his own views on TV (only to be immediately knocked down by David Axelrod on Twitter). But Obama had been planning to endorse gay marriage before his reelection for a while. White House sources say that if Obama had been a state senator in New York last year when the Albany legislature legalized gay marriage, he’d have voted in favor. But no one asked. The “make news” reveal was scheduled for The View. In the end, scrambling to catch up with his veep, he turned to his fellow ESPN fan, Robin Roberts, a Christian African-American from Mississippi, to quell the sudden kerfuffle. Even this was calculated: to have this moment occur between two African-Americans would help Obama calm opposition within parts of the black community.

The interview, by coincidence, came the day after North Carolina voted emphatically to ban all rights for gay couples in the state constitution. For gay Americans and their families, the emotional darkness of Tuesday night became a canvas on which Obama could paint a widening dawn. But I didn’t expect it. Like many others, I braced myself for disappointment. And yet when I watched the interview, the tears came flooding down. The moment reminded me of my own wedding day. I had figured it out in my head, but not my heart. And I was utterly unprepared for how psychologically transformative the moment would be. To have the president of the United States affirm my humanity—and the humanity of all gay Americans—was, unexpectedly, a watershed. He shifted the mainstream in one interview. And last week, a range of Democratic leaders—from Harry Reid to Steny Hoyer—backed the president, who moved an entire party behind a position that only a few years ago was regarded as simply preposterous. And in response, Mitt Romney could only stutter.

…This is the gay experience: the discovery in adulthood of a community not like your own home and the struggle to belong in both places, without displacement, without alienation. It is easier today than ever. But it is never truly without emotional scar tissue. Obama learned to be black the way gays learn to be gay. And in Obama’s marriage to a professional, determined, charismatic black woman, he created a kind of family he never had before, without ever leaving his real family behind. He did the hard work of integration and managed to create a space in America for people who did not have the space to be themselves before. And then as president, he constitutionally represented us all.

I have always sensed that he intuitively understands gays and our predicament—because it so mirrors his own. And he knows how the love and sacrifice of marriage can heal, integrate, and rebuild a soul. The point of the gay-rights movement, after all, is not about helping people be gay. It is about creating the space for people to be themselves. This has been Obama’s life’s work. And he just enlarged the space in this world for so many others, trapped in different cages of identity, yearning to be released and returned to the families they love and the dignity they deserve.

Back on December 31, 2004, Dr. Thomas Sowell, the respected Black Economist, wrote the following in an article titled, “Gay marriage ‘rights'”, published at townhall.com:

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights.Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

…The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges — for anybody — and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else.

Incidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage, even though gay activists are pushing it.

What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS.

…There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers’ money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable.

They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don’t like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.

I have no desire to destroy somebody’s happiness.  

That being said, I don’t want 5% of America to have the “right” to re-define a word that has meant one thing since time immemorial, simply because they believe that it brings to their lifestyle the label of “normalcy”.

Obama: Smarter Than Us “Common” Folks

President Barack Hussein Obama yesterday reaffirmed his personal belief that he is wiser than the average American voter.

GMA.yahoo.com has the story:

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters.

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday.

Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News With Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline.”

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states’ deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

Of course, this announcement came the day after North Carolina Voters overwhelmingly voted for a resolution declaring marriage to be “one man and one woman”, becoming the 31st state to pass such a law.

If you watched the MSM yesterday, you would have thought that this was the greatest announcement since Moses brought the tablets down from Mount Sinai.

One would have thought that Obama would have learned a lesson from both the North Carolina vote and the defeat of long-time Indiana Senator Richard Lugar.

Washingtontimes.com reports that

Dark clouds had been gathering over Mr. Lugar for months after tea party groups made the elder statesman, a moderate Republican, their chief congressional target this year.

The GOP primary quickly turned into a nationally scrutinized showdown as the Club for Growth and other Mourdock supporters poured some $3 million into ads lambasting Mr. Lugar for voting for the automakers bailout and tax hikes over his six terms, while groups supporting Mr. Lugar spent half that.

Mr. Mourdock pounded his core message that the 80-year-old senator had turned into a Washington insider, slamming him for living away from Indiana for years, highlighting Mr. Lugar’s congenial relationship with Mr. Obama and criticizing the senator for voting to confirm Mr. Obama’s liberal Supreme Court nominees.

Suddenly, Mr. Lugar found himself struggling to defend things he once touted as accomplishments; among them, working with Democrats on foreign policy and earning the title of one of the two longest-serving Republicans in the Senate. Mr. Lugar and Mr. Hatch were both first elected in 1976.

In a blistering letter, written after his defeat, Sen. Lugar came off as a bitter, pompous, old RINO:

Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken. I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be targeted by outside groups.

These included my votes for the TARP program, for government support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I also advanced several propositions that were considered heretical by some, including the thought that Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country should explore options for immigration reform.

It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets, as I have throughout the campaign.

…Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today – from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

Except that, Reagan, in the end, would always stand behind Conservative principles.  Lugar spent his career reaching across the aisle and patting himself on the back at the same time.

Obama should have paid attention to what was happening around him yesterday.

The American people spoke very clearly.

The death of the Tea Party Movement has been greatly exaggerated.

Don’t Ask. Obama Won’t Tell. Update: He Did!

Last night, the voters of the Tar Heel State joined the citizens of 30 other American states in making their voices heard plainly and clearly on an issue that President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is avoiding like the plague.

North Carolina voters have approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th U.S. state to adopt such a ban.

With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.

In the days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama’s cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment

Meanwhile, supporters ran their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.

So, what does the “Leader of the Free World” say about the controversial subject?

Don’t ask.  He won’t tell.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan broke ranks with the White House on Monday, stating his unequivocal support for same-sex marriage one day after Vice President Joe Biden suggested that he supported gay marriage as well.

Obama aides worked to manage any political fallout. They said the back-to-back remarks by two top administration officials represented personal viewpoints and were not part of a coordinated effort to lay groundwork for a shift in the president’s position. Obama aides also tried to use the latest flare-up in the gay-marriage debate to shine a light on GOP rival Mitt Romney’s history of equivocating on some gay-rights issues, an attempt to turn a potential political problem into an opportunity.

Obama, who supports most gay rights, has stopped short of backing gay marriage. Without clarification, he’s said for the past year and a half that his personal views on the matter are “evolving.”

The White House held firm on Monday to that position, which polls show puts the president increasingly at odds with his party and the majority of Americans on gay marriage. But with Biden and Duncan’s comments reinvigorating the debate, Obama is likely to face renewed pressure to clarify his views ahead of the November election.

Throughout his first term, he has sought to walk a fine line on same-sex marriage. He’s trying to satisfy rank-and-file Democrats by supporting a range of gay rights issues without alienating crucial independent voters who could be turned off by the emotional social issue.

The president’s aides acknowledge that his position can be confusing. In states where gay marriage already is legal, the president says married gay couples should have the same rights as married straight couples. But he does not publicly support the right of gay couples to enter into a marriage in the first place.

Duncan, a longtime friend of the president as well as a member of his Cabinet, made clear Monday that his position on gay marriage was not in lockstep with the White House. Asked in a television interview whether he believed gay couples should legally be allowed to marry, Duncan said simply, “Yes, I do.”

His comments followed Biden’s assertion Sunday that he was “absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties.”

Obama aides said Duncan was speaking about his personal views on the issue and was not under orders from the White House or the campaign to take his position.

As for Biden, White House and campaign officials said the vice president’s remarks were no different from what he and Obama have said in the past.

“They were entirely consistent with the president’s position, which is that couples who are married, whether they are gay or heterosexual couples are entitled to the very same rights and very same liberties,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the Obama campaign. “When people are married, we ought to recognize those marriages.”

So, what is the president’s position?  Jay Carney, WH Press Secretary, was asked that during yesterday’s daily press briefing, per politico.com.

Pay attention to this dance recital.  Fred Astaire would be proud.

Q: On the gay marriage issue, Jay, has the intensity of interest in this and the statements from some of the President’s supporters led him to consider clarifying his position? And considering that his views are evolving, does he want to maybe consider his views more thoroughly?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have a readout of any conversations involving the President on that issue. I can tell you that I’m sure it is the case that he will be asked again at some point when he gives interviews or press conferences about this issue, and I’ll leave it to him to describe his personal views.

I think it’s important to note, as I attempted to do yesterday, that what is abundantly clear is this President’s firm commitment to the protection of and securing of the same rights and obligations for LGBT citizens as other Americans enjoy. He has been a strong proponent of LGBT rights, and I think that’s demonstrated by his record, which is unparalleled, as President in support of those rights.

Q: Jay, you said yesterday on this issue in reference to Vice President Biden’s remarks and the President’s, that the President’s personal views obviously were evolving, and you stressed the personal views. I guess is there maybe a disconnect between his policies and his personal views in terms of maybe his policies are ahead of his personal views on this?

MR. CARNEY: No, I don’t think so. I think the President’s absolute commitment to the rights of LGBT citizens demonstrated by the path he took to ensure the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the opposition that he and his administration have expressed towards DOMA and the fact that he believes it ought to be repealed. It is also the case that the President and the Attorney General believe that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, which is why the federal government no longer defends Section 3. And from hate crimes legislation to hospital visitation rights, the list of accomplishments is quite long and I think demonstrates his feelings about, broadly, this issue.

Q: Do you think he’ll talk about it with Cuomo considering he’s received a lot of plaudits from the LGBT community?

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think — I don’t know what their conversations will contain. I know that they’ll focus on the issue that the President has come to discuss in upstate New York. I think the President has taken a position on some of these state issues, and I think he did on New York and he has in North Carolina. And I think the position he takes has — the positions he has taken are consistent with his belief that it is wrong to take actions that would deny rights to LGBT citizens or rescind rights already provided to LGBT Americans. And that’s a position that you can fully expect him to maintain.

Since when has marriage been a right?  

I’ve never seen the word “marriage” listed in the Constitution under “inalienable rights”, nor in the Bill of Rights itself.

With 62% of America’s population (31 states) voting against Gay Marriage, I believe other Americans haven’t either.

KJ Update:  Today, in an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, Obama said:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

The interview will air on Thursday’s Good Morning America.

After all, the American public’s opinion doesn’t mean squat to “The Lightbringer”.