* I would hate to have you think I didn't care about the "history" that was made today, so I humbly offer my thoughts.
Obama's inauguration went pretty swimmingly, so goes practically every news source today. Predictably, most of the comments are about what Mr. and Mrs. were wearing (irrelevant)*, how the new President had a little "snafu" over the wording of the oath (insignificant), and a permutated slew of "history in the making" cliches.
Missing almost entirely was mention of President Obama's plans for his first few executive weeks. But I remember when he was making plans a year and a half ago at a conference for Planned Parenthood:
"The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do."
In the following months Obama also penned an open letter to the "GLBT" community, promising that he would be an ally to them if elected to our highest office in government. Here is an excerpt from an article concerning the letter:
"He [Obama] once again said he backs the 'complete repeal' of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law passed in 1996 that gives states the option of not recognizing another state's 'gay marriages.' It also prohibits the federal government from recognizing 'gay marriage.' Ever since it was passed homosexual activists have viewed it as a significant legal barrier to nationwide legalization of 'gay marriage.' " (Here is a link to a post about this letter.)
So what about our history is about to feel the wrath of Obama's brand of change?
Marriage and family.
The first two things Obama might like to do in upcoming weeks, to prove he has the cajones to make some things really happen (and make his supporters instantly happy) is to sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice" Act and then repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Would he really do this, you wonder? Would he dare stamp "CHANGED" over two institutions- sanctity of life and sanctity of marriage- that are shown large support nationally, opting instead to rashly throw into question whether or not all babies are worth carrying to term and whether or not we should keep marriage between one man and one woman?
There are dire consequences to these changes that I don't think President Obama has thought through.
Are we to believe that he holds no more esteem for his own heterosexual, two-parent, two-child, long-term, monogamous marriage and family unit than he would for, say, two lesbians who, physiologically, are unable to have children and even if they adopt would be completely unable to provide a father for that child? Are we to believe that one of these situations- the one with the dad and mom and stable home- is not more statistically ideal for raising a child, than the other- two "moms" cannot provide true gender roles- which complicates a vulnerable mind inexplicably?
I am a middle-class, college-educated, liberally raised, multicultural-loving, independent-thinking woman under 30 who voted for democrats twice (forgive me, readers!); I'm in a target group for supporting the abolition of the stale, boring, traditional values of my forefathers. But you know what, Mr. President, I object to your intentions.
I value marriage and gender roles and macho men and delicate ladies. I believe all children can the opportunity to grow in love, nurtured by a mom and a dad who, though they will inevitably fail somewhere, are the only combination to provide archetypes that children need to model. And I value all of the children God makes, even when they're unplanned, even when the life of the parents is rough. There is always someone ready to hold a brand new, adopted son or daughter and love and love him/her like their own.
If you don't believe that these things are still possible, President Obama, then you don't have much hope for America at all.
*For an article that actually calls Mrs. Obama on her recession-proof wardrobe click here
Please join me in fighting FOCA (click here for link to outside site)
Please join me in keeping the DOMA intact (click here for link to outside site)