Obama may be gay about Marriage Act but the Constitution is cringing

Rahm Emanuel has left the White House, at least as an official arm of the Obama administration, but his legacy lingers. Following in the former chief of staff's footsteps, his former boss, along with Attorney General Eric Holder, has used the current chaos in Wisconsin and other states, not to mention foreign upheaval in the Middle  East and North Africa, as an opportunity to slip in a little news about the Defense of Marriage Act.

Of course, the liberal media, to the degree that they can take their eyes off the ‘socialist plight’ of protesters in the Midwest and the Middle East, have heartily endorsed the decision. Obama, by executive decree, has essentially altered the law, through unconstitutional means, based on his personal perspective that the law is unconstitutional. Many Lefties admit the methodology is not exactly kosher but, since the outcome fits their agenda, well, that’s OK. What’s a little Constitutional misstep among friends?

In reality, it’s only by way of a certain, flexible perspective, that the Defense of Marriage Act can be seen as a violation of gay rights. By way of the liberal prism, marriage is redefined, after several millennia, on the whim of those who think the institution is merely based on who they are sexually attracted to.

The truth is, the sexual attraction has always been a component of marriage for one reason and that reason had nothing to do with how much fun people might have during sex. There are animals that omit odors, make unique sounds or puff up their breast feathers to induce the opposite sex to commit to an act of procreation. There are even animals that dance a little jig because the opposite sex of their species is enticed by this behavior.

For humans … well, there are a myriad of components to sexual attraction. But, all of these, come down to the basic natural premise of convincing the species that it must reproduce to continue.

Marriage is fundamentally related to the development of a family and the ability of most married couples to create offspring. Yes, there are some couples who discover they can’t have children and we should all be thankful for the possibility to fill this sense of void through adoption. But, that’s still not fulfilling the marital act of procreation. Parents who adopt can do a wonderful job of parenting and deserve a tremendous measure of respect for doing so. But, procreation is procreation. It’s that simple.

Now we have test-tube babies and artificial insemination and, who knows, maybe they’ll add legal cloning to the mix someday. Some may say that this has changed the landscape and, to a certain degree, it has. It has allowed couples who could not have children to, in some cases, have children of their own after all. So, why not gays?

First of all, in the great, big Petri dish of life, we’ve found that there are always unforeseen consequences of our actions. Television, once seen as a potential boon for education, has turned out somewhat differently. The Internet was supposed to bring us all closer together. I’ve seen that people on the other side of the planet have read my ramblings of late but I can’t tell you the last name of anyone on the block where I live (I can still tell you the names of all the neighbors on the block where I grew up). So, assuming this will result in a happier and better planet is presumptuous, at best.

But it’s more than that. The idea fails the 100-percent test. Imagine for a second that everyone was gay and from the beginning of that point where man became a subject of time, that’s how it was. First of all, that being the case, the species would have died out immediately unless there were a few in the caves, or with Adam and Eve when they left the Garden of Eden, who convinced someone to make the ‘eternal sacrifice’ of having intercourse with the opposite sex.

“I know, girls are yucky, but, if someone doesn’t do it, when we die, that’s it.”

“Ugh. But why me?”

“Sorry, you picked the short straw.”

In other words, without heterosexuals, the species would have died off long before anyone had a chance to think, “Why can’t two men or two women marry?”

What two men or two women do in the confines of their own home is none of my business. It is my business when the liberals among us attack the nature of the most sacred and vital relationship in the history of mankind because it doesn’t fit their jollies.

Tell yourselves your married. Who cares? But don’t desecrate something as intrinsically important to so many others just because it doesn’t fit your ideal. That, is the true denial of Constitutional rights.

“Sorry, your marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore other than that, if you divorce, well, it’s a binding contract.”

It’s an undeniable truth – with the approval of gay marriage we have reduced the institution as a whole to the point where it has almost no value.

Maybe that's what Obama is after - another stake to drive through the heart of America?