Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM
When Barack Obama was running for the Illinois state senate in 1996, he took a position in favor of same-sex marriage and promised to fight efforts to block those marriages. When Obama ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, his views were more conservative, stating his opposition to same-sex marriage. That continues in 2008, when a high turnout of black voters in California helped pass Proposition 8 to place a ban same-sex marriage into California's state constitution. Blacks overwhelmingly supported the ban.
Now, Obama has flipped again, saying he favors allowing same-sex couples to marry. If you believe that the "evolution" of Obama's views is based on a legitimate change of position instead of cynical political gamesmanship, I have a bridge to sell you.
For his part, Mitt Romney re-emphasized his opposition to same-sex marriage, though using the weakest language possible. During an interview, Romney said:
"My view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that's my own preference. I know other people have differing views. This is a very tender and sensitive topic, as are many social issues. But I have the same view I've had since running for office."
Really, Governor Romney? Could you come up with a weaker explanation for your position that makes you look like you have even less faith in your own stated convictions. I'm going to vote for Romney, but this kind of thing drives me crazy. Take a real position!
This is not an issue of personal preference. This is an issue of fundamental principles and moral/religious standards. The two sides could not possibly be more clear:
One side believes marriage is a covenant union established by God that can only be between a man and a woman. It is therefore a rebellion against God's sexual order and His standards for sexual morality to recognize same-sex marriage.
The other side believes that marriage is a committed relationship between two people who love each other and it is fundamentally immoral to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Casting this as an issue of personal preference cheapens the arguments on both sides and makes Romney look like a wimp and a coward. He needs to pick a side, make your argument and take a stand based on sound argumentation and principle.
Proponents of same-sex marriage argue that it harms no one to allow people to marry whoever they choose, but that is not quite true. Does anyone think employers (including parachurch organizations) will be allowed to discriminate against same sex married couples in providing health insurance and other benefits to married couples? What about housing, especially private landlords Will Christian landlords be forced to rent to a same-sex couple? How much will providing equal access cost taxpayers for homosexual public employees?
It comes down to one very simple question. Does anyone really think there will be two tiers of marriage, one for same-sex couples and one for everyone else? Or is it more likely that all marriages be treated the same under the law? Of course, we all know the answer to this question. This has serious and frightening implications for religious liberty, and self-proclaimed "christian" Barack Obama has turned his back on those very grave concerns.