Repudiation: "Defining an Obama Nation"

The Family Research Council has a post that is very different from my review of President Obama's speech at the Human Rights Commission.  Before going into specifics, it should be understood that FRC is a known hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.  The purpose of FRC is to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians.  Their head, Tony Perkins, has ties with racist hate groups.  I started to learn about them from blog entries by Joe Jervis on JoeMyGod. 

In their "update", they agree that the 2012 election is a contest of values.  But most of the rest is at least subject to debate.

At the dinner the President sought to chastise a recent Republican debate where he claimed the crowd "booed a soldier." As a young Marine I remember my First Sergeant telling me how he was greeted at the airport on his return to the United States by being spit upon and cursed by anti-war liberals that dominated the college campuses at the time. I strongly condemn any disrespectful behavior toward anyone who has honorably served our nation in uniform. But that is not what occurred at the debate. Anyone who saw the debate could clearly see that the audience was booing not the soldier, but the President's policy to use our military as political pawns to force acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle that is abhorrent to most.

Mr. Perkins is correct that the left was wrong in how veterans of Vietnam were treated.  The soldiers were often drafted and blame for the Vietnam War should be at the feet of the four presidents (two Democratic and two Republican) who were responsible.  That is history.  What happened at the Republican debate is current.  The audience did not declare whether they were booing a policy or a soldier, they just booed.  Here is a two minute YouTube clip of the germane section of the debate.

It is not conservatives who are spitting in the face of the military, it is the President and his liberal allies who are using our nation's brave men and women to advance their radical social policy agenda.

Mr. Santorum does not address Mr. Hill (the now-out gay soldier) by thanking him for his service, as Mr. Santorum normally does.  There reaction of the audience and the candidates was against the repeal of DADT, but it was also personal.  Mr. Hill did not deserve a single boo.  It was wrong.  The failure of those on stage to respond to the boos by at least thanking Mr. Hill for his service, and better would have been to point out that booing a soldier on active duty on foreign soil is unAmerican, shows that each of those candidates is unfit to serve as Commander in Chief.

President Obama's end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a "radical social policy agenda".  Wikipedia cites 42 nations that have homosexuals serving.  This is not radical.  It is also more than a social policy.  There have always been gays in the military.  When they have to keep their sexuality secret, as Mr. Hill and thousands of others serving had to, that secrecy can harm unit cohesion.  That kind of personal secrecy is demoralizing.  The repeal of DADT will result in a better fighting force for the United States.

Mr. Perkins goes on in his article to complain about President Obama not defending the Defense of Marriage Act.  DOMA is, to my eye (not an attorney), clearly in conflict with both Article 4, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment, Section 1.  Article 4 says that states must honor judicial proceedings of other states.  Marriage is a judicial proceeding.  The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws for all citizens.

The President has a much clearer understanding of what the 2012 election is about than many Republican leaders. It is about values, and whose values will guide our nation into the future.

Yes.

President Obama's values are clear -- marriage, life and the Constitution mean little to him in the pursuit of his radical agenda.

No.

Marriage means a great deal to the President.  He visibly enjoys his marriage.  Allowing full marriage equality extends marriage to all citizens without harming any.  If my partner and I were to wed there would be no subsequent divorce because of our union.  There would simply be equal treatment under the law, as our Founding Documents say there should be.

President Obama has stated that is in favor of reducing but not eliminating abortion.  So, he is not as pro-life as Mr. Perkins, but does not favor more abortion.  Rather, he favors programs that reduce the need for abortion.

The Constitution clearly means a great deal to President Obama.  He was a Professor of Constitutional Law.  That Mr. Perkins has difficulty understanding parts of the Constitution does not mean that the fault is with Mr. Obama.