Obama Hosts Gays at White House, Pushes Homosexual Agenda
WASHINGTON (BP)--President Obama became the first chief executive to host a White House ceremony celebrating "gay pride" Monday, telling several hundred homosexual guests in the East Room that America still has what he called "old attitudes" about homosexuality but that they have "an ally and a champion" in the Oval Office.
The June 29 ceremony marked the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots -- which launched the modern-day "gay rights" movement -- and also Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Month, which takes place each June and which was recognized by an Obama proclamation at the beginning of the month.
Conservative commentators were quick to note that the White House ceremony came only a month and a half after Obama chose not to host -- as was a custom under the Bush administration -- a White House event commemorating the National Day of Prayer.
Monday's event was historic; even though former President Clinton signed "Gay Pride Month" proclamations, he never hosted a White House ceremony celebrating it.
During a 15-minute speech, Obama reiterated his opposition to the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which gives states the option of not recognizing another state's "gay marriages." His line on DOMA drew perhaps the loudest applause.
"I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that," he said. "... But I say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps.... We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."
Saying he "deeply appreciate[s]" their support -- exit polls showed he carried 70 percent of the national homosexual vote -- Obama said, "I want you to know that you have our support, as well."
"There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop," he said. "And though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes, who fail to see your families like their families, and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted."
Such language about "worn arguments" and "old attitudes" frustrated evangelicals, who say their views about the sinfulness of homosexuality are based on unchangeable biblical teachings. Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist national strategist for gender issues and representative of the denomination's Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals (SBCTheWayOut.com), said evangelicals haven't "arrived at our conclusions on homosexuality lightly."
"It isn't simply that we believe homosexuality is sin," Stith told Baptist Press. "We have wrestled with the texts, with the new apologetics of many activists and have come to a genuine, heartfelt belief that Scripture is clear on this."
If "God says something is wrong," Stith said, then those who deviate from God's commands are missing "out on God's best" and are "in an adversarial relationship with God." Obama's words, Stith said, marginalizes not only evangelical Christians but also those homosexual persons who desire to change.
"If God says something is wrong, He also provides a way out," Stith said. "If, as seems evident, Mr. Obama is intent on marginalizing or eradicating any who hold to traditional biblical convictions, then he also eliminates the hope of many who struggle with same-sex attractions and want to be free from that struggle. It is tragic to think of the thousands of young men and women who will opt for a moral choice without having the opportunity to hear all the options. This is neither compassionate, tolerant nor an expression of true freedom."
Stith added he is concerned about Obama's desire to "push through laws that will punish viewpoints."
In early June, Obama issued an LGBT Pride Month proclamation that went further than even that of President Clinton's in its pro-homosexuality slant. For instance, it mentioned for the first time "transgender" people -- a category that includes cross-dressers and those undergoing sex changes. It also called for repealing two policies supported by Clinton: Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act.
"If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet," Obama said Monday. "... We must continue to do our part to make progress -- step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a president who fights with you and for you."
Said Stith, "While Mr. Obama acknowledges that there are good and decent people who do not agree with his views on homosexuality, he makes it clear that ultimately we must change our minds. And he also makes clear that one way he will do that is by changing laws."
Obama's opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act has frustrated conservative leaders, particularly because he simultaneously claims he opposes "gay marriage." DOMA prevents the federal government from legalizing "gay marriage" and gives states the option of doing the same.
Conservatives say overturning DOMA not only would force the federal government to recognize "gay marriages" from Massachusetts and other states but could force all 50 states to do the same.
Byron Babione, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal group which opposes "gay marriage," called Obama's statement on DOMA "a nonsense statement."
"DOMA actually protects the right of states to determine social policy with respect to marriage," Babione previously told Baptist Press. "It allows states the freedom to protect marriage between a man and a woman and not to have the same-sex marriages of other states imposed upon them.... Repealing DOMA actually does the opposite of protecting states' rights.... Repealing of DOMA also would do untold damage to the benefits that marriage brings to society. It would open the way to defining marriage and its value out of existence."
Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.
To read Obama's full speech, visit www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-LGBT-Pri....
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
By David Horowitz titled, THE POLITICS OF BAD FAITH, and then discuss the homosexual agenda intelligently and without bias.
Obama is already on a slippery slope and I think his administrations knows that should he try to over rule 200 years of American democracy by overthrowing traditional marriage for a free for all will not only be his worse political move ever but harm this country and it has been said that he is a socialist and then this would go along with it just dandy,however, he should consider such actions carefully because Americans tolerate alot but when theyve had it, theyve had it. And I think they are close to that switch at the moment. It is my opinion should Obama side with ssm and push it, as the article states, he will destroy his own career and the reverse midas touch we are seeing in our society , while Kern may be somewhat on target with her stand for morality, shall bring about the biggest mess this world has ever seen or experienced in all its known history, in my opinion, and I dont think, even then, he will see it enacted.
Kern is not at all on target with morality. Her claims were outright asinine. There is no society of homosexuals banning together in order to destroy the American economy . There is no society of homosexuals banning together to promote terrorist activity in America. There have been zero "societies" that have disappeared due to homosexuality. 100% incorrect. If you happen to think evidence exists which suggests otherwise, I think many people would just love to have the opportunity to analyze this "evidence".
Omg traditional? Just like the pledge has a tradition with God? LOL -ir this doesnt make sense i was ploying with the fact that our pledge only has god in it because we were in relgious compition and opposition with russia during the cold war... yes the word "God" was added into the pledge, it was not initially in the pledge-
Look traditional by whos standards? If it is by time and merit, well then "traditional marriage " would go to both homosexuals and heterosexuals because it was only after the 12th century that homosexual acts and marriage became fully discoraged.
So lets do some math, the entire history of customs by the human race before 12th century (homo and hetero) verses the 809 years after the 12th century (strictly hetero), which timeline of customs is short coming? Yes, people have been practicing homosexual bonding and marriage far longer than the amount of time when prejudice and injustice against homos started to hold root.
THUS by their defenition of traditional marriage they are unententionally contradicting themself =)
iPhone 3.0 comes with copy and paste... Now i can properly point out what's wrong with these pouty neo-cons! :)
I am going to start my own tradition with my first posts on articles here about gay marraige by mentioning that regardless of what the anti-equality side says or whines about, gay marraige is a progressive civil right that will be granted nationwide in the near future. Opposition to gay marraige has absolutely no secular reasoning and that's why it will fail in preventing the LGBT community from getting marraige equality in the United States. Folks like the Baptist Press don't grasp the reality that only secular arguments can survive the test of time in the United States legal system. For that reason, women can vote, blacks and whites can marry and, as is in 5 states so far, gays and lesbians will be able marry the person they love. So in advance: nany nany boo boo!
On to my 'opposing view':
"[...]Obama chose not to host -- as was a custom under the Bush administration -- a White House event commemorating the National Day of Prayer."
Yep, because the POTUS is a secular authority and should not be "respecting an establishment of religion " so get over the fact that the POTUS is no longer a fundimentalist evangelical that pushes his faith on the 60 million Americans (give or take a few million) who do not think a Jewish carpenter was a god and the millions more who don't believe the POTUS is chosen by "God" but is elected to represent the United States people, by the people themselves. And no, prayer is not a reliable means of getting anything done, nor do millions of Americans think that the government should be even suggesting that we should use it at all.
"Stith added he is concerned about Obama's desire to 'push through laws that will punish viewpoints.'"
What Stith means here is that Obama is trying to make sure that oppressive viewpoints on gay marraige should not be used to make laws punishing the LGBT community for following their hearts when choosing mates by denying them equal rights.
"[DOMA] allows states the freedom to protect marriage between a man and a woman and not to have the same-sex marriages of other states imposed upon them"
In other words, you love the fact that DOMA allows states to continue to deny equal rights based on consentual sexual preferrence and you also love that it makes sure that the equal protection clause (14th Ammendment) of the Constitution should not apply to over a 1100 rights because 'states should have the right to act as soveriegn states' and decide what 'rights' should be acknowledged in the state.
Tell me, since you are so adament on 'states rights' to govern their own social policy, will you join me on supporting a state's right to legalize marijuana ? I thought not.
The reality here is that you feel that oppression is ok when based on "scripture" and that preventing biblically based oppression is somehow oppressive. We are not buying your hypocrisy!
"It would open the way to defining marriage and its value out of existence."
No it wouldn't, you just say that. Marraige is a commitment to the person you feel you can put up with for a lifetime. And what "value" is lost? I don't even understand that point. Atheists can marry... Does that ruin the biblical "value" of marraige for you? People who don't plan on having kids , or just cant have kids, get married... What does that do for the "value" of marraige?
These arguments that marraige is only for the purpose of families and children is either wildly outdated or is completely bogus and asinine!
The institution of "marraige" has been practiced for thousands of years. The bible talks about it and sets guidelines for it, but that doesn't make it wholey owned by religion or sanctioned by a deity. If marraige was something that was controled and sanctioned by Christian doctrine, then why is it discussed in the traditions and "holy books" of practically every civilized society and religion across the planet? Why is it tha the Christian religion didn't coopt the sanctioning of religion until the early second millenium? If anything, I think it's time religion got back out of marraige entirely as it's only part in the whole process is is to pretend that everything should be done as a ritual to worship at the feet of the invisible nonexistant sky daddy.
I plan on having a ceremony for my marraige, but a wholly celebratory and absolutely SECULAR one. What does that do for the "value" of your marraige? HUH?!
Well clearly the iPhone's spell check still sucks as it has "learned" that my accidental misspelling of marriage is ok, and allowed me to flip some vowels around... Every time.
Also: "Why is it tha the Christian religion didn't coopt the sanctioning of religion until the early second millenium?"
Should read read: "Why is it that the Christian religion didn't coopt the sanctioning of marriage until the early second millenium?"
It is all about equal rights.
Whatever words written in a man-made holy book (as in "full of holes") are attributed to one of the 10,000 gods that mankind has invented in its image are TOTALLY irrelevant.
Just like we have abandoned most immoral behavior advocated by the bible , most recently slavery, mankind will sooner or later recognize marriage between 2 adults not too closely related to each other to endanger the gene pool.
Same-sex marriage has been adopted in many European countries and several US states and the SKY HAS NOT FALLEN!
I'm really sorry for you if YOUR superstition tells YOU that YOUR homosexuality is a sin and that you therefore cannot marry who you love.
But stop imposing your superstition on others and on society.
GMA, you say it is all about equal rights.. yet you criticize others for exercising their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion .. which, I will concede, is your right! It is your right to have different moral and religious beliefs than others do. That is your protected right and my protected right as Americans!!
But then you tell those with different religious beliefs to "stop imposing" them "on others and on society ." Isn't that what you are suggesting is acceptable for homosexuals to do? Imposing homosexual beliefs and practices and the acceptance thereof, "on others and on society" is considered appropriate and a matter of equal rights? What makes a group eligible for "equal rights"? The idea of "Equal Rights", from its gestation, was meant to protect against discrimination against a person because of their gender, namely, male or female. Also, it is meant to protect from discrimination against a person because of the color of their skin.
When does a behavior, whether by propensity, predisposition, or sheer choice, qualify an individual (or group) for special protection against discrimination?? Equal Rights has to do with "personhood", not behavior. Equal rights has to do with protection from discrimination against an individual for things for which they have no control and cannot change, which do not make them less of a "person" than someone else. I believe gays (homosexuals/lesbians) have every right to choose their behaviors, belief and lifestyles! That is the freedom we have in America!
Yes, I think it is wrong for a person to not get considered for a job because they are gay, just as I think it is wrong for a person to not get considered for a job because they are religious. But how can we say it is unfair discrimination against the gay person and not consider it unfair discrimination against the religious person?? When has the religious community ever been considered a minority that needs to be protected against discrimination? Yet, we consider the gay community a minority that needs laws to be changed to impose acceptance of their belief, behavior and lifestyle on society, as well as to give this community "Equal Rights", or should I say special rights.
It doesn't seem like it is just about equal rights. It seems more like what other individuals and communities have been accused of and condemned for: imposing their personal beliefs "on others and on society".
Here is an example:
Last Saturday, ultra-orthodox jews violently protested over the opening of a parking lot on the sabbath because it is against their religion to drive on the sabbath.
These ultra-orthodox jews have the right to now want to drive on the sabbath because of whatever superstition they believe in. However, they have no right to demand that others who do not subscribe to their superstition do not drive either and it is criminal if they go beyond just voicing their opinion. They have used violence against people who violate their superstitious rules and against the police who was stopping them.
Being homosexual is not a choice and even it it were, it does not affect anyone who is heterosexual. Homosexuals are not imposing sex marriage on heterosexuals and homosexuals are not organizing violent protests at weddings of heterosexuals that the police has to stop with water canons.
It is a rights issue. The ultra-orthodox jews are free to not drive on the sabbath and homosexuals should be free to marry.
There is no homosexual agenda in the sense of what these ultra-orthodox jews are doing. In the 21st century, we should all be freed from the superstitions that are keeping many of us in the dark ages.
that that protest was in Jerusalem, not anywhere in America. There are different conceptions of rights as related to religions over there.
The fact that religion (i.e.; superstition) can limit human rights is an enormous problem for humanity.