Homosexuals and Heterosexuals: Obama and Dfense of Marriage (Lia-in-Chief Redux)

See yesterday's article on Obama's presonal decision (as he imitates Hamlet on Libya and yet again takes time off from his single minded focus on "jobs, jobs jobs") to DIRECT the Attorney General to conspire with Federal judges to subvert the democratic process. Yes, Obama INSTRUCTED the Justice Department to tell Federal Judges that the Obama Administration considers the "Defense of Marriage Act" as unconstitutional, rather than defending the democraticallym passed, bipartisan law (defending, in other words, the PEOPLE whose voice will be taken away by judicial fiat, in open conspiracy with the Obama Administration). Again, read my previous article. I will not repeat it further here.

However, I did leave something out of my previous article. I correctly said lthat the Defense of Marriage Act was NOT an "anti-gay-marriage law", dspite the liars at the AP and Yahhoo "News". In fact, the ACT was desinged to let gays lobby individual states for gay marriage, in the face of a threatened Constitutional Amendment making it part of the Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman. It was basically a law trying to "compromise" by leaving the matter in the hands of the states, which was hardlyl "anti-gay marriage". However, the Act DID do a little more than that.

What the the ACT did, on a Federal level, was dfeine marriage--under Federal law--as between one man and one woman. No, that did NOT mean that Federal law prevented gay marriage. As stated, the intent was to HELP gays be able to lobby for state sanction of gay marriage, and avoid a Constitutional Amendment (an act of cowardice for which the Republican "establishment", and especially John McCain, should live in infamy). However, there ARE Federal laws that metnion marriage--for example, the IRS Code. Married couples can file "married, filing jointly". Unmarried couples cannot. But if SOME states recognize a marriage and some do not, how do you interpret that? You HAVE to make a decision. Again, the intnet here was to placate "Christians" of a fundamentalist persuasion, and others--liek me--who saw what people like Obama intended to do with the Federal Courts. These people wanted a Constitutional Amendment--including me--but Bill Clinton and the rest thought a reasonable "compromise" (fake compromise, because the homosexual campaign to undo 10,000 years or so of human history went on) to ONLYL recognize gay marriage is states willing to do so, AND to make the definition of m"marriage" in Federal laws as only meaning the marriage of one man and one woman.

Now that Obama has shown what a sociopathic liar he is--that LIE that he faovrs that marrriage be only between a man and a woman--where are we?

Well, note what Obama wants to do. He wants to give SPECIAL TREATMENT to homosexuals (which is the goal of gay activists, who want special societal APPROVAL and PROTECTION beyond just "tolerance"). Note that homosexuals want special protection against "discrimination", even though FAT PEOPLE and UGLY PEOPLE generally have no such protection, and they want that protection for CONDUCT. But I digress, sort of. Gay couples married in Massachusetts will--if Obama has his way--be entitled to hiubt tax retyrbs, But gay couples who consider themselves married in Texas, but can't get to Massachusetts, will not be able to file joint tax returns. Further, HETEROSEXUAL couples--unmarried--will not be able to file jont tax returns no matter where they live (as will be true of unmarried gay couples who do not want to be married). But what if these people think that marriage is just a piece of paper , and that they are being discriminated against even though they have just as committed a "relationship". And what about POLYGAMY? What if Utah (to use a somewhat bigoted example) decides to again recognize POLYGAMY. Is polygamy then within the meaning of "marriage" under Federal law? Remember, the Federal Government originally BLACKMAILED Utah into banning polygamy on the grounds that marriage was between one man and one woman. As stated in the previous article, polygamy has a much more extensive history in human society than homosexual marriage (homosexual marriage having essentially NO history until the 21st Century).

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to BECOME INSANE. We are destroying marriage, as human history has understood it, and we are creating legal nightmares in the process. What abuot GROUP MARRIAGE (see Robert Heinlein's very good nove--despite this absurdity: "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"). The idea that you can simply create a Constitutional "right" out of this is total insantiy.

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been proofread nor spell checked (eyesight).