Belmont Club's Richard Fernandez notes something that seems very familiar to those who followed our coverage of the election season. This perhaps shows a good look back having seen 100 days in office for our President.
Power Line argues that for some perverse reason, some people on the Left trust Barack Obama because he “will lie” about his own beliefs. [...] This kind of political relationship can occur only if discourse can be carried out at more than one level. For Power Line’s assertion to be correct, it implies that some of Obama’s supporters, instead of relying on a single channel, actually communicate over two distinct paths. The reason they can disregard the signal conveyed by what he says is if they have a separate channel which communicates what he is. [...T]he point is simply that you can be lied to over both channels.
The precipitant of this reasoning comes from Power Line, and the issue of neutered marriage.
[Read on for the rest...]
This has been particularly noticeable with the gay marriage issue….Carrie Prejean being exactly right when noting that her position is identical to that of His Oneness. But Obama gets a pass, of course, from the homosexual activists because they just assume He is lying!!!…
Those that have not read the "Yes we can" tag, will find that we explored this pretty thoroughly in the election season. My analysis at the time included:
Lets look at the churlish possibility presented at BoogieTrain that (to put it in my own words) with a wink and a nudge, we are all supposed to understand that his opposition to neutered marriage is a front to help people feel more at ease with voting for him. Such intrigue could be supported by noting how his promises do not outline a very good strategy for opposing neutered marriage. I would not like to hear that other promises to implement strategy are as poorly drawn as this.
But no matter how much of a possibility that is, we must assume that the large contingent who support neutered marriage and Obama are willing to do so with the belief he is or will flip on the issue. They are hoping the con is on others. Certainly trust in deceit isn't new to marriage, people will often date a married person and then marry them. And if anyone can attest to someone's infidelity, it is the person they cheated with. To in turn hope that a crook on your side won't sell you out too is a strange risk. I don't know if that is what is going on, but if it is I'm sure they know. And I'm sure they should know better than put such hope in the ability someone has to lie to the public.
In fact, we even noted the distaste of dual-channel politics at the time from Pam's House Blend's own comment section, one of which is as follows...
Yes on 8 uses quotes from statements Obama and Biden made to the general public both from debates.
No on 8 holds up words he used in a letter written months ago to an LGBT political club based in San Francisco.
Which is a more compelling source to an undecided or changeable audience?
Oh, sure we can blame the scheming Yes on 8 campaign for being devious...but why can't we hold responsible the men that made these statements?
Why are we so willing to sacrifice ourselves for a politician?
But on this issue we not only sacrifice ourselves but marriage equality. Marriage is an institution that is our best channel to directly influence people engaging in the practice of human mating to see the equal right protection of all involved. From the person to the mate to the child who depends on both for their self-value and acceptance of their identity. To neuter marriage is to disconnect that channel, to give once and for all a victor status to adult needs and vulnerability while the children are considered the strong and resolute ones to handle the burden we put on them.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment