by Rob Schwarzwalder
March 20, 2012
Last night, our First Lady said that the upcoming election would have a profound affect on “whether we can … love whomever we choose” as the election will decide who is appointed to the Supreme Court.
Mrs. Obama’s office was quick to issue a “non-denial denial” concerning her intent: Mrs. Obama has never made any public statements about same-sex marriage,” according to the First Lady’s communications director, Kristina Schake. Technically, this is true. Her language was euphemistic, and the actual words “gay” and “marriage” were not spoken.
Yet the intent of what she said was hardly ambiguous. In the words of openly homosexual Richard Socarides, a director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Law Association Foundation of Greater New York, in “this political environment, when you use language like that, you are sending a message. Does the freedom to love whomever we choose not include the freedom to marry? When you have a policy position in the state of perpetual evolution, these are the kinds of problems that are created.
Michelle Obama implied, strongly, that homosexual “marriage” (a) is a moral good and (b) a Supreme Court candidate’s favorable position on it will be a criterion for her husband’s picks for the nation’s highest court. Perhaps that’s why homosexual blogger John Aravosis writes today, “I’ve been saying for a while now that the White House should be using Michelle Obama to woo the gay vote.”
The calculation behind this painfully gradual but still obvious embrace of same-sex “marriage” by the Obamas is clear: Don’t alienate Democrats still uneasy with homosexual “marriage,” tease-along those who support it, and rally the homosexual activists who demand it. This is a sad commentary on the current state of political discourse and simple honesty in public life. Our First Lady is better than that.