If you stop by the Drudge Report, you'll see that Tina Brown over at Newsweek is putting BamBam on the cover of that failing mag (again) this time as "The First Gay President" complete with the rainbow halo.
I guess it wasn't enough to be the first (half) black president,he needs to add another trailblazing title to his purse.
We all knew in 2008 that Obama's opposition to gay marriage was part of an attempt to conceal his contempt for middle America and that he would eventually reveal his true liberal beliefs. This should come as no surprise. What is surprising is that it came out prior to November. He (and we) owe Joe Biden a debt of gratitude for this.
This is Obama's long-held position. If you didn't know it in 2008, you were duped. His failure to reverse the stately position until now, though, had enabled him to continue the farce with some of those voters for whom these issues mean something, but was killing him with a committed part of the Leftist base. And that part wields serious money. With Romney and the RNC able to bring big money to the 2012 election and an energized, anti-Obama base, he needs the support of his gay marriage friends.
Now, he'll get some of that.
The country is opposed to the widespread adoption of a legal definition of marriage as including same sex couples. Most see it rightly as biologically nonsensical and morally they have issues with it.
Even in California, when put on the ballot, marriage amendments which define it as man/woman have passed. So, Obama is against the public here.
As for me, I can make an argument that the state has an interest in marriage. That has been the traditional rationale for tax laws that favor married couples and children. But, I would like to ask, as Herman Cain used to, "How's that working' out for ya?"
It's not. It convolutes the tax code and it gives the government entry into a part of our lives it should stay out of.
So, rather than having the powerful state attempt to legislate these personal issues, let's remove the state from it. If gay people want to get married, why do they need state sanction for it? And let's change the tax code to remove the special privileges we give married couples by going to a consumption based system.
The state really has used the tax code to push morality and play favorites over the years and if we remove that power from it, we'll find these social/libertarian issues will be much simpler for our legislators to deal with.