As Peter pointed out yesterday, “In 2004, when it was politically convenient for him, Obama argued that his religious faith dictated that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Now his faith dictates the opposite. What has changed during the last eight years isn’t the Golden Rule or the words and teachings of Jesus, the New Testament, or the Hebrew Bible; it is what is most politically expedient for a certain politician from Chicago.”
So, it seems that, at least in Obama’s mind, the whole moral basis of the Judeo-Christian tradition serves at the pleasure of the president.
But consider what he also said in his statement: “When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage…”
Fighting on his behalf? Excuse me? British soldiers fight for Queen and country, but American soldiers fight for the people, who have been sovereign here since a well-known disagreement with the Queen’s great great great great grandfather .
Is there no limit to President Obama’s self-regard? Well, at least he still confines himself to the first person singular rather than employing the first person plural that Mark Twain thought should be used by “kings, editors, and people with tape worms.”
He gave his opinion, as ridiculous as the "evolution" claim is, but also said it should be up to the states. It is possible that the "my behalf" reference was meant as he is an American, not the President. At least that is a favorable possible reading.
Adam Dovid's reading occurred to me, as well. Although "on our behalf" would certainly have been a happier choice of words.
Or "in our stead".
today Obama has a campaign ad out claiming Romney in on the wrong side of the issue … n nI think its sad that a large percentage of Americans (Obama voters in 2008) where ok voting for a liar … they knew he was lying and they were fine with it …
What politician is not a liar?