Why would Obama, the ‘first gay president,’ need to pupate?

Newsweek has called President Obama ‘the first gay president.’ If that’s true, why would he have to pupate like some sort of strange insect from anti-gay larva into a gay-friendly butterfly?

Newsweek has declared Barack Obama “The first gay president.” Really? How on earth could a straight man, who describes his metamorphosis on the subject of gay marriage as if he was some larval form of insect that needed to pupate, earn such a distinction? Barack Obama, who “evolved” over the course of decades into “the first gay president,” is most certainly not the first gay president.

Any serious reporter needs to ask the president one question: “Do you believe gay sex is a sin?” If his answer is “yes,” then someone needs to ask Newsweek how they came to the conclusion that a gay president could look at gay men and have one of the first thoughts that swirls though his head be ‘sinner.’

If the answer is “no,” then he has some more explaining to do to the black community, particularly the pastors he relies on for support. In fact, a good reporter would also ask President Obama another question: Your campaign released an attack ad on Mitt Romney that labeled him as “backwards” for his stance on gay marriage — one that you held only days ago. If Mitt Romney is “backwards,” does that also mean that the segments of the black community that feel the same way are”backwards”?

If the president and the media want to talk about how great he is on gay rights, let’s really have a conversation. We can start with the president’s own words:

“I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue. … I hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient … and I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word ‘marriage’ was something that evokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs and so forth. But I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I talked to friends and family and neighbors —  when I think about  members of my own staff who are incredibly committed in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together — … at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

What is marriage, Mr. President? Define marriage. Is marriage just some sort of formal recognition that two people love each other and want to be together for the rest of their lives, or is it something more? Why does the institution exist? Why was this particular union — one between a man and a woman — codified and held in such high esteem across so many cultures for so many generations? What is it about such a union that makes its traditional definition so important to so many societies?

The president never talks about that, you’ll notice. Worse, Robin Roberts is such a hack that she never even bothers to ask the president to explain in more detail why marriage “evokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs.” She doesn’t do that because to dissect what marriage really means would then expose the truth: To change the definition of marriage is to destroy the institution of marriage, since the primary purpose is to make sacrosanct the bond between a man and a woman. The reason for that is because only a man and a woman can come together to form new life, and the healthiest environment for that new life is for it to be in a loving, caring relationship with its biological mother and father.

That is a fact that cuts across religions and cultures. You can be an atheist and the same truth holds true. That is the ideal. That is what we should all aim for, and it is important enough that an institution was created to honor and encourage and nurture it. Too mess with that equation is to open a Pandora’s Box of social ills, and for proof we need to look no further than the welfare state and the decimation of the family unit since President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society.

You are not the first gay president, Mr. Obama. You never were and you never will be.

Update: Newsweek has an alternate cover. Head on over to Hotair to check out their response.

Barack Obama: The ‘evolution’ of a flip-flop

For the better part of Barack Obama’s adult life he publicly announced that marriage was between a man and a woman. Less than twenty-four hours after he “evolved” on the issue his campaign put out an attack ad labeling Mitt Romney “backwards” on the issue. Think about that …

After decades of “evolution,” President Barack Obama finally came out of the closet yesterday and admitted that he is in favor of same sex marriage. Like the anti-gay caterpillar in his anti-gay cocoon for decades, he finally transformed into a beautiful gay-marriage supporting butterfly on ABC news for all the world (particularly his Super PAC donors) to see. Fine. We won’t even talk about how it’s called “evolution” when he switches long held positions and a “flip-flop” when when Mitt Romney does the same thing. In fact, I won’t even pass a value judgment on his new found stance.

What I would like to do, however, is to note the campaign ad that came out less than 24 hours later accusing Mitt Romney of being “backwards” on gay marriage, as if Barack Obama has been some gay crusader for the better part of his political career.

So was Barack Obama “backwards” last week? Was he “backwards” for all those years when he couldn’t give an answer on gay marriage, but instead did his professorial parsing and deconstruction of the topic until people left him alone? If the union between a man and a woman — one geared towards procreation — is something that society deems special enough to have its own institution, then the subject immediately becomes a bit more nuanced than “backwards” and “forwards.”

For a guy who gave George Bush a hard time over the “for us or against us” mentality, it’s rather interesting that he would give us “backwards” and “forwards” as the only two options, especially since he’s spent most of his adult life trying to convince the world he lives in the space between.

It doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight: The economy stinks. And instead of dealing with the $16 trillion dollars of debt we’ve found ourselves in, we have a president who wants us talking about gay marriage. He thinks you’re so dumb that you won’t understand what he’s doing. A few months ago he was calling Georgetown law students to talk about contraceptives. Then he wanted you focused on Warren Buffett’s secretary. Now, it’s gay marriage. Oddly enough, the federal budget, unemployment and entitlement reform keeps getting pushed aside for things like … “slow jamming” student loan news with Jimmy Fallon.

If you can’t see what’s going on it probably means that you’re in your own cocoon. I suggest breaking out and flying away as soon as possible. The sooner you do, the better off you’ll be.