How Did President Obama Change His View About Marriage?

Robert R. Reilly in his book, MAKING GAY OKAY, argues that Aristotle and the Greek philosophers taught that Nature defines not only what man is but what he should be – that is the Good. Man is made for marriage with a woman in order to provide the primary element of society – the family. The family is the basis of the state and depends on virtue for its health. Vice, such as adultery or homosexuality, is a self-contradiction to the virtue of marriage. Rousseau and the Romantics turned Aristotle’s notion of Nature on its head. Rousseau stated that Nature is not an end but a beginning. There is nothing that man ought to become. Nature is what we want to make it. Virtue becomes whatever we choose. Reason is, and ought to be the slave of our passions. Nothing should limit us in what we will. This is a rebellion against the limits that man has as a biological being. Man is to be his own creator.

President Obama evolved in his view of marriage. On September 25, 2004 he said,

“I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

In his book The Audacity of Hope Obama erroneously claimed that the U.S. Constitution rejected absolute truth. Truth does not set you free; it imprisons. Moral relativism sets you free. Then you can do what you want. On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 he stated,

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, 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, 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.”

Ten personal pronouns or adjectives in one sentence. The standard by which he judged what is right and wrong is that it “is important to me.” This necessitates the denial of objective morality.

Christianity, which has unambiguously condemned sodomy for more than two thousand years is enlisted to endorse his decision. He said,

“The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule – you know, treat others the way that you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids, and that’s what motivates me as president.”

Reilly comments:

“he might as well have said, Christ died to make the world safe for sodomy. In other words, if you would like your moral misbehavior to be rationalized, you should be willing to rationalize the moral behavior of others. That is only fair play. That way, we are all equal. That is equal opportunity. This is Obama’s new golden rule.” (p.44)

Do you think that Nature defines who we are and what we are for and that there is an objective morality, or do you think that we can make up our own morality according to our passions and desires? How do you respond to those who claim that Nature has made them free of gender stereotypes which society has laid upon them? To what extent can we sexually create ourselves? What do you think of Reilly’s comment about President Obama’s rationale as a Christian?