Obama’s Orwellian Marriage Moment

Today, in his Second Inaugural Address, President Obama said: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

When he says that, I hear: “I want to change the law such that society no longer specially recognizes and helps potential parents.”

That’s exactly what I hear. It seems like the two sides of this debate are speaking different languages.

We live in a strange Orwellian moment when to say “parenting relationships deserve special status” is denounced as bigotry and to say, “I deny that parenting relationships are unique” is hailed as brave and bold.

When we say, “I’m against gay marriage.”

They hear: “I hate gay people. Their love isn’t real. Their relationships don’t matter.”

When they say, “Gay people have the right to marry the same sex.”

We hear: “There is nothing unique about a procreative relationship. Relationships that bear and rear children deserve no special status.”

When we say, “Heterosexual relations are natural to human beings. They are ordered toward procreation. This is a biological fact.”

They hear: “Gay people, in their deepest identity, are subhuman to me.”

When they say, “Love makes a family.”

We hear: “The facts of our biology are entirely arbitrary. We can wish them away. Your job is to honor our pretense.”

When we say, “The only reason the state recognizes marriage in the first place is to encourage and reward parenthood.”

They hear: “I am an anti-gay bigot.”

When they say, “LGBT marriage equality is the new civil rights movement!”

We hear: “In a nation that rejects the right to life for an entire class of people, the unborn, and kills 3,700 babies a day, applying the term ‘marriage’ to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual relationships is the real issue!”

History will look at our times in the harsh light of truth, with all the Orwellian nuances  stripped away. All the name-calling will be shown up for the silliness it always was. And when that happens we will be proud to have stood on the side of marriage.

3,311 views

Categories:Uncategorized

54 thoughts on “Obama’s Orwellian Marriage Moment

  1. Brian Wise says:

    Let’s face it. A large percentage of the Americans who attend “No Same-Sex Marriage!” rallies and protest marches, If They Could Have Their Way, would ALSO make it a crime to engage in “homosexual activities”. They would gladly support arresting two men or two women for kissing or holding hands in public. They would shut down all “Gay Bars” or “Gay Nightclubs.” They would forbid any movies or television shows with Gay characters, unless those Gay characters were “monsters out to get your children” or people who “repented” and became Straight. And, of course, they would gladly return to the days when states had laws against “homosexual relations” and imprisoned men and women who broke those laws. Of course, thank God (literally, “Thank you, God!”), we will never go back to those days. But, those are the days many “Conservative Christians” would LOVE to go back to. Don’t be fooled into thinking that they only oppose “Same-Sex Marriage”. They would love an America in which Gay people were put in prison (if not worse).

    1. Joe M says:

      Basically, what you’re saying is that you are prejudiced against Christians.

      I’m sure that there are individuals that want those things. And they are wrong. However, it’s wrong of you to accuse “a large percentage” of Christians of having these views.

      This is the position of the Catholic Church: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated
      homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is
      objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must
      be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of
      unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons
      are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are
      Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the
      difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

      1. Greg B. says:

        It’s only a “trial” because anti-gay religious people insist on trying to make it so. Gay children only struggle because they live in a world in which many people (albeit fewer each day) devote an inordinate amount of energy into keeping the world a place where being gay means having to
        fight for your dignity. The beautiful part of the gay rights movement in the past couple of generations is that the gay population has risen to the challenge and accomished great things despite the forces they were up against (their church calling them “disordered” is a great example). What you define as success for gays and lesbians – closeted, celibate, and ashamed – we define as failure. What you fail to realize is that you’re the problem, not the solution. Now please step aside.

      2. Patrick says:

        Joe M, you are conflating Conservative Christians with all Christians. The mainline Christian church on my block has gay weddings all the time. So does the National Cathedral in DC. Don’t pretend Brian is prejudiced against Christians. He just against stupid christians.

    2. Greg B. says:

      Exactly! LGBT people are the ones who
      ACTUALLY have a slippery slope to worry about.

  2. Russell Lewis says:

    John, if all the heterosexual people who are so intolerant of gay marriage because they somehow think it will harm the children (still haven’t heard a good explanation for that yet) would spend more time and effort ensuring heterosexuals would stop producing “throw away babies” we wouldn’t have to worry about the “horror” of gay people adopting.
    I always find it laughable that straight people create both the unwanted children (remember they scream gays can’t procreate) AND all the gay kids. No matter your stand, if gays are “born” that way… straight folks had them. If they learn the behavior… they were raised in straight households (please stop with the weak/missing father and domineering mother).
    I say if you have a religious problem with gays; close ranks, become xenophobic, don’t take my tax dollars, support your religious views from within your own privately supported sphere of influence and don’t spew intolerance out into the public sector. Everyone is happy!

    1. John says:

      I think you misread my comment.

      1. Russell Lewis says:

        Actually, I didn’t, I agree with you an I was adding to it and embellishing a bit… basically adding some things you didn’t.

  3. Deker71 says:

    Gay people aren’t born that way. It’s not an inherited trait like race. Gay people aren’t really interested in the right to marry (at least according to homosexuals in France).

    1. John says:

      Actually, it is. And even it wasn’t, gay people don’t have a choice to just change to be heterosexual.

      1. 1776Mariner says:

        Homosexuality is a result of arrested psychosocial development. It was classified as such in the psychiatric medical literature and diagnosed as such until a few decades ago when homosexuals took over the APA and declared homosexuality as normal. It is not and never will be. Unfortunately, the main stream media reported this APA information widely and now is is accepted as fact by many in the culture. We will continue to have this forced on us. We must continue to declare the truth. We will be ridiculed and vilified, but so what. We are to proclaim the truth and will be persecuted as a church for it but that is okay. We must answer to our dear Savior one day. Those of his day didn’t like when he spoke the truth and crucified him. We should not be surpised by the viscious attacks on the church today when we defend truth.

        The sad thing is that states like California are passing laws making it a crime for psychiatrists and psychologists to treat homosexuals who want to be set free of this pathological condition. But we are in a post Christian era. We must get used to it.

        The lunatics are running the asylum…literally.

        1. Homosexuals took over the APA? You mean in the same sense that blacks “took over” America, then women? Take your meds.

        2. Patrick says:

          That’s insulting to the tens of thousands of medical professionals who were and are TODAY members of the APA and who continue to stand behind these medical advances. You know, they also once thought “female hysteria” was a treatable medical disorder. Do you think reversing that was also a mistake or is the APA wrong ONLY with respect to the gays? Take your meds.

          1. 1776Mariner says:

            The national leadership was taken over by homosexuals. I am a health professional as is my husband. Thankfully we are both retired and don’t have to deal with the professional lunacy anymore. Younger professionals have no idea as they have been educated with the “new normal”. Laugh all you want. The history will be told one day. In the mean time enjoy the culture while it implodes as it ignores the natural law in every area of life.

          2. 1776Mariner says:

            The national leadership was taken over by homosexuals. I am a health professional as is my husband. Thankfully we are both retired and don’t have to deal with the professional lunacy anymore. Younger professionals have no idea as they have been educated with the “new normal”. Laugh all you want. The history will be told one day. In the mean time enjoy the culture while it implodes as it ignores the natural law in every area of life.

        3. Russell Lewis says:

          Did I miss the post where you showed us your medical credentials?

    2. Greg B. says:

      LOL. What two gay guys in France don’t want marriage and suddenly they represent tens of millions of gays and lesbians around the world? You really have lost this debate.

      1. Deker71 says:

        Just trying to disseminate truth.

  4. Greg Smith says:

    Dear Tom: You hear “I want to change the law such that society no longer specially recognizes and helps potential parents.” I ask: “What, if gays marry straight couples won’t get prenatal support from society?

    They hear ” Their love isn’t real. Their relationships don’t matter.” I think, “Huh..I’ve heard and read that exact position all over the web even in Catholic blogs.

    When it’s claimed that marriage equality means that “Relationships that bear and rear children deserve no special status.” I think “If couples have children conceived the `old fashoned way’ or by insemination or adoption, they deserve `special status’”.

    Finally Tom, bear in mind that the fearmongering and hysteria has gotten so bad that small children have been expelled from our Catholic schools just because they had gay parents. In one case, that conservative Catholic hero Archbishop Chaput wen’t out of his way to defend and approve such and atrocity.

    Spend some time with gay families. You might develop a different perspective. Pax tecum, Greg

    1. Paulspr says:

      Amen Tom. I wish more people would meet the families that they are trying to harm. It might give them more perspective.

    2. 1776Mariner says:

      Hey Greg, there was a lot more to that Catholic School story than what you summarize. The fact is, main stream media spin is constantly hammering traditional values especially regarding the gay agenda and your account is part of that spin. Quit the propaganda please.

      1. Greg Smith says:

        Dear 1776 ~ I followed that story closely because we had a similar situation in our parish where one couple objected to a 5 year old girl, adopted from China by a gay couple, going to our school. In our case the pastor and the parish and school leadership stood tall and took some heat.

        If you have background about the Denver case or any of the several others that was not covered in the mainstream media, please tell me about it. Believe me I’d be both interested and greatfull ~ Pax tecum, Greg

  5. Paulspr says:

    Gay couples are potential parents too. In fact, many gay couples are existing parents and are raising children right now. It’s really sad that you can’t accept that FACT and extend them the benefits that you and your family receive under our civil laws.

    1. Pabladro says:

      You are making his point. When he says “potential parents”, he is referring to the natural potential as in capable of producing children naturally without outside help or adoption. Note this is by the potential inherent in the nature of the opposite sexes. This means that while you can recognize homosexual couples as “parents”, they are not “potential parents” in the sense he is using the term because homosexual couples cannot naturally reproduce, even in potential. In other words, you are speaking a different language and you hear what you want to hear.

      1. Paulspr says:

        So what you mean is any infertile couple should be denied marriage. That’s an entirely different story. Last I checked, straight infertile couples were allowed to get married. My 92 year old great grandmother got re-married last month. I didn’t realize she was a potential new parent, please do tell her yet, she has heart trouble and I’m sure this news will cause a heart-attack. My friend who has had 18 miscarriages just got married to a wonderful man. They don’t expect to procreate. Should I have stopped the wedding?

        Straight folks have never been required to procreate or potentially procreate in order to get a marriage licenses. That’s utter nonsense and completely made up in order to create an excuse to banish gay people from marriage.

        Their love and commitment is equal to everyone else’s love, they deserve the same chances at a lifetime of happiness that we all enjoy.

        1. John says:

          Couldn’t have said it better myself.

        2. Deker71 says:

          There’s a difference between not wanting to procreate and can’t procreate. You need to read the bible. Marriage was created for procreation. The fact that the civil law gives you the right to do something doesn’t make what you do right.

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            You don’t need marriage for pro-creation so your point is baseless.

          2. So you want a theocracy? What does the Bible have to do with secular government?

          3. Patrick says:

            Agreed. Decker71 needs to read more law and less scripture.

          4. Deker71 says:

            Because God owns marriage; not the secular government.

          5. Patrick says:

            Under that argument, God owns everything and nothing should be regulated by man.

          6. Deker71 says:

            Good to hear from you again Patrick. To quote Scripture: Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. What God does own is each of us. Each made each one of us in his own image and likeness. That trumps secular laws. Don’t you think that’s good?

          7. Patrick says:

            By your reasoning, is there something that God does NOT own?

        3. Pabladro says:

          You are confusing the concept of natural potential with actual. Men and women by their nature have the potential to procreate though they may not be able to actually. Homosexual couples do not possess the potential or actual, thus the critical distinction between marriage and the relationships homosexual couples have which is not marriage and so should not be termed as such.

        4. Joe M says:

          Paulspr. Have you been pretending to be Catholic in order to pursue your agenda?

          In another comment, you said that you agree with this: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

          Now, you write this: “Their love and commitment is equal to everyone else’s love, …”

          Which is your actual position?

  6. Russell Lewis says:

    If all the things you list are what you “hear” then, personally, I think you need to have your hearing checked.

    1. No, it is not what he hears but what those in opposition “hear” when those statements are made. Mr. Hoopes may not need his hearing checked, but you seem to need an eye examination. Complete misrepresentation of what was written.

      1. Russell Lewis says:

        I don’t think I misread the words in the article, “When they say” “We hear.” I didn’t misrepresent anything because I didn’t make a statement about anything which was written.
        I stand by my original comment.

    2. Deker71 says:

      Mr Hoopes’ point is that gay marriage is not supported by facts or truths while traditional marriage is.

      1. Greg B. says:

        Mr. Hoopes has unintentionally proven that when equality advocates listen to your rhetoric and “hear” certain things, we are hearing correctly.

      2. If we “honor only procreative relationships” that means that people who are sterile have no business getting married, right? Nice try.

        1. Deker71 says:

          No. People who are sterile are not at fault. If you can have kids, but don’t, why get “married”.

          1. Patrick says:

            Because to bind yourself to another in matrimony is good for both parties and good for society. Shouldn’t that be enough of a reason?

          2. Russell Lewis says:

            Wow, I missed this one.
            You CAN’T be serious with that second sentence?

          3. Deker71 says:

            Some things are creations of God and belong to him, while others are creations of society. Marriage and human life are gifts from God, not society, and belong to him. Consequently, we are all (born and unborn) created in the image and
            likeness of God which makes all of us sacred and precious no matter what are secular laws say. So society should take no action that threatens, weakens or destroys life.

            Regarding the institution of marriage, the book of Genesis states “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body”. “One body” refers not only to a conjugal union, but to the creation of a child that results from that union. Perhaps the most beautiful part of this is how did Moses, who is credited with writing the book of Genesis, know several thousand years ago that “the two of them become one body” foretold the scientific discovery of DNA in the early 20th century, that led to
            the discovery that the egg contributes half of the female chromosomes
            and the sperm contribute half of the male chromosomes to LITERALLY
            MAKE ONE COMPLETE PERSON FROM TWO PEOPLE. “One complete person” that has the characteristics of a mother and father.

            So when I say “why get married” if you’re not going to have kids, it reflects God wishes for us to “be fertile and multiply” when He instituted marriage to create the man-woman-child family unit. This family unit is the foundation of
            strong society, and protects the dignity and development of our future generations. Any other definition of marriage weakens or destroys the family unit – if you allow two men or two women to get married, why not three people or a man and a dog. Weakening the family unit make it easier to take away our rights which some cultures are trying to do.

          4. Russell Lewis says:

            So it all boils down to humans being breeding stock… love is just a bonus. I’ll ask the obvious question… you’re saying aside from sterile people who are not “at fault” anyone else who does not want to produce children should not get married. The person who has HIV, the person whose doctor has said to have a child would kill the mother, the people who can’t afford to have a child, or another child (how many must one have). The couple who just think there are enough kids in the world and don’t want to have a child. There are a million reasons for people to not want or be able to have kids and you say they shouldn’t. It is absolutely insane to insist that people become birthing machines as a condition of their marriage. I would guess this would explain what I assume is your defense against gay marriage. As far as marriage being only a religious institution… I suggest you go around and start telling married couples to only file income taxes as singles, because their marriage is only important, derived from and pertinent to their religious beliefs and see how far that will get you.
            Anyone who thinks only of the religious side of marriage and not the shared responsibility a married couple has to both their religion and to society has been severely blinded or indoctrinated by their religion.

          5. Deker71 says:

            Not at all. God is the perfect example of how to love. So when both spouses give themselves completely to God, and to each other, you have perfect love and a perfect marriage. Children are the result of that self-giving love.

            It sounds like you don’t believe in God and/or religion.

          6. Russell Lewis says:

            I guess your hearing is deficient as your “logic.” I both believe in God and am Catholic by religion… thank you for judging. Just because I have faith does not mean I can’t question.
            And no matter how many times you repeat the mantra of perfect love and perfect marriage (as if there were ever such a thing) children are not always the result and in some cases are the unwanted result. And of course the obvious which you keep avoiding, children are also the result of plain old lust or irresponsible couplings or accidents or force or even the evil of rape, not always “self-giving love.” If all kids were the product of love and lived in loving homes, there wouldn’t be so many who need to be adopted to actually put them in those types of homes (gay or straight).
            I think you are so indoctrinated into Church philosophy you will never see the reality of the procreation of kids in anything other than the light shining through very rose colored glasses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.