web analytics
≡ Menu

What Obama’s Two-Faced position on Marriage Reveals


“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.”

“My Christian faith compels me to acknowledge that marriage was instituted by God as an exclusively heterosexual covenant,” Sen. Obama said. “In fact, the California constitution’s preamble actually affirms God’s sovereignty saying, “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

“However,” he said, “when the courts determine that a constitution, under God, permits something God forbids, the Harvard law school grad in me has to respect that. I believe the people pushing Proposition 8 are wrong to try to ban a practice that I also think is wrong, by changing a constitution that acknowledges God’s in charge in order to prevent something God opposes.”

(Barack Obama response to MTV, 9/1/2008)

In order to keep susceptible Christian voters (including many Black Americans) from suspecting his leadership, Barack Obama has flaunted his belief in God, and pretended to have views that align with Christian teachings. This pretense has been particularly on display when it comes to his statements about marriage. You see, he’s not in favor of gay marriage. He’s just against any effort to prevent it from being forced upon resistant majorities throughout the United States.

Like his position on child-murder, this stance repeats the corrupted logic characteristic of nineteenth century Whig politicians anxious to curry favor with pro-slavery forces without losing votes from anti-slavery constituents. The pro-slavery forces were determined to prevent States with anti-slavery majorities from interfering by law with the spread of slavery. Meanwhile, they worked to secure a Supreme Court ruling that would enshrine slave ownership as a constitutionally protected property right. This was the gist of the pro-slavery conspiracy Abraham Lincoln shrewdly espied in his famous “House Divided’ speech (from which I recently quoted the relevant conclusion.)

Like those not altogether deceitful antebellum Whig politicos, Obama wears two masks. Of course, neither represents his true face. For example, he pretends to respect the requirements of loving human relationships. Meanwhile, he pushes a health proposal that would substitute impersonal calculations and bureaucratic formulas for decisions that reflect the loving relations that are supposed to exist between children and their aging parents or grandparents. He makes a show of respect for the existence of God, and even alludes to the people’s grateful acknowledgment of God’ authority as the source of freedom. But meanwhile, he systematically denies the obligation of the people conscientiously to respect God’s authority in their use of the freedom they obtain from Him.

We get a glimpse of Obama’s true face, however, when he makes clear that the attitude that governs his thinking is not his respect for people, his respect for God or his respect for constitutions established in light of God’s authority. It is subservience to the dogmas inculcated by his Harvard Law School education. This includes the self-serving doctrine that, once they become judges, lawyers like himself can dictate the content of constitutions and laws regardless of the will of God or the consent of the people.

Obama pretends to believe in God while denying, in practice, the sovereignty of God. What else are we to make of the obnoxious doctrine that it’s “wrong to try to ban a practice…in order to prevent something God opposes.” According to the Ten Commandments, God opposes murder, theft and perjury. Is it wrong to try to ban such practices? Obviously not; but in all fairness, Obama doesn’t say it’s wrong to ban them. He says that it’s wrong to ban them “in order to prevent something God opposes.” The wrongness consists in the aim or intention to respect the will of God.

As all Christians know, Christ says that we should seek first the kingdom of God, i.e., the place where God is sovereign. The primary motive of Christian action is therefore respect for God’s sovereignty. Obama claims to be a Christian. Yet he declares that it’s wrong for people to act “in order to prevent something God opposes.” He says it’s wrong for them to act with the aim or motive Christ prescribes as the first priority of Christian conscience.

Clearly, Obama believes that in the political realm it’s wrong to be motivated by respect for God’s sovereignty; in the political realm, it’s wrong to acknowledge God’s will as the basis for action. Now, our motive is that which gives rise to our motions, the will in consequence of which motion takes place. But what has life without motion? What indeed, except for God. According to Christian belief, God set the universe in motion. He is the source of all creation. So all living things move and have their life in consequence of His will. As Creator, ruler and judge of the universe His authority is invoked in the political document that first declared the independence of the United States.

For all his lip service to God, Obama takes the contrary position that the political realm somehow lies outside of God’s kingdom. Political action may not properly be based on an effort to “prevent what God opposes”, i.e., keep action within the limits or boundaries established by God. But once we have discarded the notion that it is right to respect the limits upon action implied by God’s will, what becomes of the principle that confines the exercise of government power within limits that secure the God-ordained rights of individuals? What becomes of the people’s obligation before God to act in order to prevent the destruction of those rights? What becomes of the discipline and courage connected with their sense of that obligation? Where God-ordained right is not respected, can God-given rights be maintained?

Though articulated in the context of a discussion of so-called ‘gay marriage’, Obama’s position involves rejecting the premise of God-given and unalienable rights that is the foundation of constitutional government. It reveals the true face hidden beneath the masks he fashions to serve his ambition. It is a face distorted by the lust for raw, unbridled power. It is the face characteristic of those who dream of a world in which triumphant power has once and for all slipped the leash of conscience, a leash made effective by the people’s willingness to act from motives that respect and rely upon the sovereign power of God. Tragically for America, the world they dream of will be one in which there is no freedom left except the freedom to be enslaved, by our undisciplined fears and passions, to the tyrants who most successfully manipulate them.

StumbleUponLinkedInFacebookDeliciousRedditDiggEvernoteTwitterTumblrShare
{ 5 comments }

{ 5 comments… add one }

  • Dick August 20, 2009, 12:19 pm

    I know that this is just a little off topic but this morning I read where Obama while speaking to religious leaders with regard to Obama Care said that we need to partner with God. Without getting into specifics about the statement I find the entire comment extremely disturbing. Show me one place in the Bible where it says that our relationship with God is a partnership. This man has set himself up as an equal to God by this very statement. God does not partner with us he covenants with us and they are always on His terms. Nothing in scripture leads us to expect Him to negotiate with us about anything. He has never ask us what we thinks about His ideas. There was never a comittee formed to test the waters with respect to His Covenants. How is it that BHO has the audacity to intimate that we have the ability or in a position to partner with God? Only a man who thinks that he is God would even hazzard such a preposterous notion. II Tim 3:7 shows us the incideousness of such men Ever learning, and never able to come to knowlede of the truth. I spent many years as a pastor and came to understand that the more sophisticated we became as a society the less we knew about God's word. It is unfortunate that most americans today do not observe the scripture as the immutable word of God. This is why people like BHO can make such preposterous statements without being challenged. My friends God does not need a partnership with us, He is sovereign. The very idea that the president of this country lacks the intellectual wherewithal to know this is a very sobering indictment and one that should shake your spirit to the very core.

  • larry white August 20, 2009, 9:11 am

    Thank God for your godly understanding, Alan Keyes. I hope, as you do, that Obama and his erring supporters will repent. I, who misguidedly voted for him as Evil the Lesser, have nowhere been more effectively brought to repentance than here, at your blog, chiefly by your prophetic words and understanding of Scripture. May we all learn the Scriptural and Spiritual basis for law from one who has been so mastered by the Master.

  • chiu_chunling August 20, 2009, 2:46 am

    Indeed.

    What justification can we have for permitting freedom of conscience, except the belief that God has forbidden men to take His place as judges of the soul? Every freedom promised, and every right acknowledged, is based on nothing more than Christian beliefs about what God forbids men to do to one another.

    Whether or not such beliefs are correct, they stand alone as the entire foundation on which any concept of human rights must stand. If one cannot invoke the displeasure of God to restrain the tyrannic excesses of those with power, then no bar exists to what they may please to do. Even should they wish for such restraint, it cannot be supplied except from some power greater than their own.

    Such is human nature.

  • jephfreeblog August 19, 2009, 7:37 pm

    we can see how spurious obama believes he is a legitimate president. The citizenship law of the Constitution would "contract" him from the American people and thus he should have the "liberty" to hold this office. Regardless of the Constitution.
    Roe vs wade did not take the criminality out of murder from God's eyes. It was turned into a choice? a health choice? God's law stands, not the courts on a 4-3 vote. His Mercy is in the Person of Jesus Christ. Repent!
    By obama's fruit we shall know him and obama surely is not partaking from the "Tree of Life", but rather the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." In these last days we can see how what is good is evil and what is evil is good. He is a hypocrite if he believes he is Christian. Repent!

    jephfree el

  • gilbertabrett August 19, 2009, 5:51 pm

    Like I told everyone after King Hussein's appearance at Rick Warren's "church," ANYONE who does not even know when his own two daughters became humans will NEVER be able to govern a nation with as many problems as OURS has. Maybe he should have run for president (king) of Haiti. Seems as if he would fit over there well…

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a
video comment.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution. You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 100 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage. You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works. Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this: