FamilyFoundationBlog.com

One advantage I have as the Admin of a blog for an organization such as The Family Foundation is that we have thousands of well informed readers and supporters, many of whom alert me to noteworthy articles and subjects. There’s so much out there, it’s difficult to read everything, so to have a legion of supporting eyes and ears is superb. One great friend of ours, David Adams, gave me the heads up today on this post by Bill Pascoe on his In The Right Blog on CQPolitics.com about the supposed inevitability of legalized homosexual marriage in America (see here).

Pascoe doesn’t believe it is inevitable, but cites Ben Smith’s post on Politico (here) where an unnamed Republican pollster said polling data proves the point: Those against same-sex marriage are old while those who support it are the young’uns. When the older crowd dies off (sooner rather than later under ObamaCare) the more tolerant and enlightened next generation will approve it. 

Pascoe perceptively notes, however, that snapshot polling can’t take into account how people change their thinking over the years and how events change their life perspective. For example, unmarried and care free college kids now may have one set of (misguided) beliefs, but when by their mid to late 20s, married and with two children of their own, think more like their mid to late 40s parents do now.

I would add to Pascoe’s acumen that while younger voters may now agree with homosexual marriage, they vote in, comparatively, puny numbers. So the age group in general, as it matures, will see its voter universe expand. In that larger bloc undoubtedly will be people who don’t approve of redefining enduring standards and truth. Others simply won’t be driven by such issues whether they agree or don’t.

As Pascoe concludes his piece:

The fact is, it’s too early to tell how the aging/maturation/growing through life process will affect attitudes on this issue — the issue hasn’t been around long enough for good research to have been completed, for a pollster to have followed a group of younger same sex marriage supporters as they grew older, to see if they maintained their support, or if it changed with the arrival of gray hairs and the squawks of children in the household.

It’s at times like this I’m reminded of an old saw, usually misattributed to Winston Churchill: “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you have no heart; but if you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 40, you have no brain.”

Not nearly as inspiring as from Abigail Adams, nor is it intended to be. From “Independents edge away from Obama,” by Ben Smith, in today’s Politico.com:

“A (Creigh) Deeds spokesman, Jared Leopold . . . said Deeds doesn’t have a position on the cap-and-trade bill.”

 

You hear sports commentators talk about it all the time, although referees deny it: The Make Up Call. When a ref thinks he missed a foul or made a bad call, he will even it up later in the game on an unsuspecting player on the opposite team. Once, in a rare moment of candor, when I coached travel soccer, a ref told me as I complained about a bad call he made against my team: “You got a call down there, we’re making it up here!” Nevermind that he made the right call earlier.

Thus, President Barack Obama’s reaction today to the homosexual lobby’s outcry over his decision to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal lawsuit (see yesterday’s post): He’s going to grant the extension of employee benefits to ”partners” of homosexual federal workers. However, this is pyrrhic at best to many homosexual activists and may have steamed them off at the POTUS plenty more, as Ben Smith reports at The Politico. You see, while it at first the Mainstream Media reported it as a great win for the homosexual lobby, the fact is that DOMA prohibits the extension of health insurance and retirement benefits to same-sex partners. There’s that DOMA, again, which the president is defending. According to an update on Smith’s post at The Politico:

“Are they kidding us? Domestic Partnership benefits WITHOUT health insurance because of DOMA? What kind of reality do they live in?” gay fundraiser and activist David Mixner emailed me this morning. “It is like rubbing salt in the wound. I am glad that some barriers will be lifted for Federal Employees but what is the most important benefit needed….health insurance! Good god.”   

The anger isn’t limited to e-mails to bloggers, either. Prominent homosexual lobbyists are boycotting a big time fundraiser by Vice President Joe Biden, as Jake Tapper of ABC News reports on his Political Punch blog (here).

Also, see the Obama “Fraud” and “Fail” posters in the photo at this Politico post (here). In the end, this make up call is about as worthy as one in an athletic contest, which is to say it is not worthy at all. One doesn’t make up an alleged grievance by intentionally harming an innocent party, especially when your original stand is just. As we noted yesterday, surprising as it is, the Obama administration simply is defending the Constitutional powers of the legislative branch, as well as the several states. Whatever his reasons, cynical or otherwise, it is the correct call and requires no make up.

All this proves a point: When the most liberal, “progressive” president in history isn’t moving on the homosexual agenda at the pace its advocates want, how mainstream is their movement?