The White House’s Aggressively “Evolving” Homosexual Marriage Agenda

The first line of Michael Martinez’s article for CNN.com reads, “He has been declared America’s first gay president [on the cover of Newsweek May 21, 2012—CWS].” After listing some of President Obama’s statements early in his political career against homosexual marriage, Martinez lists President Obama’s more recent actions that signal the “evolution” of his position from hesitant support to an aggressive agenda to seek the legalization of homosexual mar­riage.

  • 2009: Obama signs a memorandum granting some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
  • February 2011: The Obama administration in­structs the U.S. Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
  • June 2011: White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer says President Obama’s 1996 questionnaire was “actually filled out by someone else, not the president.” Obama “has been against” same-sex marriage, but his and the country’s position was evolv­ing on the matter, Pfeiffer says. “I can’t tell you when that evolution will continue.”
  • 2012: Obama endorses same-sex marriage, the first such statement by a sitting president.
  •  January 2013: Obama becomes the first U.S. president to mention gays and lesbians in an inaugural address and champions same-sex marriage.
  • March 2013: Obama personally reviews and OKs his administration’s amicus or “friend of the court” brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court as it weighs the constitutionality of California’s 2008 Proposition 8 referendum banning same-sex marriage.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/02/politics/obama-evolution-gay-marriage

The administration’s amicus brief filed before the US Supreme Court weighs in against the constitu­tionality of California’s ban of homosexual marriage. According to President Obama this ban on homosexual marriage violates the California Constitution’s guaran­tee of equal protection. Writing for washingtonpost.com, Jonathan Capehart calls the President’s filing of this brief a “bold” but also “narrow” move (“Obama con­tinues to make gay history” is the title of the article). It is a narrow move, according to Capehart, because President Obama is seeking at this point to legalize ho­mosexual marriage only in California, rather than in the whole of the United States. Legalization for the whole United States is the ultimate goal. Noting that there may be backlash in response to an aggressive push for legalization, Capehart suggests that President Obama is following a wise course that will keep the momentum steadily moving in the direction of nationwide legaliza­tion.

Martinez shares Capehart’s hope that Obama will succeed in achieving nationwide legalization for homosexual marriage. Martinez hopefully asks about 2013-2017, “Will Obama’s next evolutionary step seek change in the 41 states that currently de­fine marriage as between one man and one woman? As a second-term president, he certainly has the clout.”

Equality is now the important subject of the ho­mosexual marriage debate. Gay people are equal to straight people, the argument goes, and therefore have the right to marriage. Stories are beginning to multi­ply about how gay “married” people are suffering from discrimination. For example, you can read about Tracy Johnson, who was supposedly discriminated against when Donna, her spouse (sic), was killed in Afghani­stan. Though Tracy possessed a marriage certificate signifying the killed soldier was her spouse, federal law prohibits the military from recognizing the “marriage.” Therefore, Tracy was not notified of Donna’s death. Tracy was treated unequally. Clearly, homosexual mar­riage must be legalized. Such is the argument of the Obama administration and others.

Arguing for homosexual marriage on the basis of equality because of a story like Tracy Johnson’s is patently absurd. One could easily imagine a story of a bigamist who experienced unequal treatment. Yet it is not likely, at least at this point, that many would argue for the legalization of bigamy as an equal right. A sad-sounding story does not establish that a person has actually been treated unequally.

Besides, equality is not the primary issue. The moral propriety or impropriety of homosexuality is the basic issue, just as it is the basic issue with regard to bigamy. Why do people not argue that bigamists deserve equal protection? Because most believe that bigamy is mor­ally reprehensible. If homosexuality is likewise im­moral, then homosexuals do not deserve “equal” treat­ment when it comes to marriage. Of course, there is no “if” about it. Homosexuality is condemned as gross immorality in the Bible.

In the Bible God has defined moral purity with re­gard to marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman. Whatever men may call other relationships (that are supposed to be equal to a marriage between a man and a woman), they are not morally pure or marriages. The pro-homosexual-marriage agenda is advancing sin, not equal rights. The test of our com­mitment to condemning homosexuality is coming as, sooner rather than later, “equal rights” for homosexu­als with regard to marriage figures to be the law in the whole United States. He may not have right on his side, but in his second term President Obama does indeed have clout.

Will Quebec Legalize Murder?

Murder is already legal in all of Canada and the US in the form of abortion. But the Province of Quebec may be on pace to legalize murder in the form of Eu­thanasia this spring. The province’s legislative body formed a select committee on “dying with dignity.” This committee issued a 96-page report with 24 recommen­dations. The pertinent recommendation is number 13, which reads:

The Committee recommends that relevant legislation be amended to recognize medical aid in dying as ap­propriate end-of-life care if the request made by the person meets the following criteria as assessed by the physician:

  • The person is a Québec resident according to the Health Insurance Act;
  • The person is an adult able to consent to treatment under the law;
  • The person himself requests medical aid in dying after making a free and informed decision;
  • The person is suffering from a serious incurable disease;
  • The person is in an advanced state of weakening capacities, with no chance at improvement;
  • The person has constant and unbearable physical and psychological suffering that cannot be eased under conditions he deems tolerable.

On January 15, 2013 the process started towards implementing all 24 recommendations of the commit­tee along with recommendation 13. Quebec may soon legally allow doctors to give, in the language of the com­mittee, “medical aid in dying.” This is part of what the committee calls “dying with dignity.” Some might call it physician-assisted suicide. It is simply murder. Dr. Marc Beauchamp explained the real meaning of the committee’s recommendations:

Technically, giving someone a lethal injection to cause death “is a homicide,” said orthopedic surgeon Dr. Marc Beauchamp. He stressed the responsibility doctors have in caring for vulnerable people and protecting them. “If doctors can kill people, it’s dangerous, it endangers vulnerable people,” he said. “Killing is not care. Doc­tors will become accomplices in homicide, engaging in a criminal act according to Canada’s Criminal Code if Quebec redefines medicine to include directly inducing death,” Beauchamp said.

Source: http://www.catholicregister.org/news/canada/item/15926-quebec-doctors-step-up-the-fight-against-euthanasia

Peter Ryan warns of a slippery slope if Quebec adopts physician-assisted murder. He points to developments in Holland, where physician-assisted murder was adopted with strict guidelines such as are proposed in Quebec. But now, Ryan notes, Holland allows the killing not only of the “terminally ill” but also of the “chronically ill” and “those suffering mentally”—even “children as young as 12 could demand it.” Ryan goes on to write, “So when the Quebec report proposes patient guidelines . . . no one should expect such limits to be maintained. If adopted they would balloon over time, just as in Holland. The committee claims euthanasia would only be practiced ‘in exceptional circumstances.’ Quebecers should have no such illusion” (Source: http://www.lifecanagda.org “Heaven Help Quebec”).

With the imminent legalization of homosexual mar­riage in the US and euthanasia in Canada, this world is not becoming a better place. Christians should have no such illusion.