Barack Obama despises the institution of marriage. This assumption can be made on sound reasoning and easy logic. Anytime someone works to oppose something - it is assumed.

But what causes such disdain for the union that gave he and Michelle their life together, and the precious gift of their two baby girls?

This week Barack Obama demonstrated his most recent opposition, some would even classify as hatred, of an institution that he benefits mightily from. His three most prominent family policy positions all speak to this. Each of them focused at punishing the definition of how a family is even constructed. Never before has the national political stage entertained such hostility towards a family's survival yet hardly a word is spoken of it.

Specifically Barack Obama wishes to pass "ENDA" the employment non-discrimination act. Or so it's called. What it really consists of is the most diabolical way ever conceived to punish every voice in America, who under present law, have every right, to speak to their houses of worship, family, and spouse as to the scientific, mental health, and diseased ridden drawbacks of engaging in homosexual behavior. So stifling would ENDA be in fact that if a Youth Pastor who works with young boys in a church program got caught in an inappropriate relationship with them, ENDA would make it nearly impossible for the church involved to fire the youth pastor. ENDA would directly challenge and seek to limit religious expression, doctrine, theology, and practice.

Senator Barack Obama knows this, and supports it with all his might.

The Senator also believes its time to do away with "don't ask, don't tell." On this limited point the Senator and I both agree. I think it's ridiculous to have such a mockery of law in place. Yet we couldn’t be more disagreeable on what takes its place.

It is your humble correspondent's view that we revert back to a ban on sexual immorality all together within the code of military practice and conduct. Effectively what I would call for is the cessation of access to pornography on tax-payer funded military bases, and bans all together on both adulterous and homosexual conduct while on base, under command, and on mission. General Peter Pace was under no delusion when he stated last year that moral discipline is healthy for morale, conduct, and most importantly effectiveness. To send the message otherwise is to only fool ourselves.

Senator Obama on the other hand would prefer for as much sexual expression as one could possibly express. Keep the porn. Adultery is no big deal, and let 'em have homosexual engagement and behavior on base to their heart's desire. Obama's maniacal view is that the moral question of disciplining one's choices is completely unrelated to protecting America's families.

By far the most disturbing family policy position that Barack Obama holds as it relates to advancing the radical sexual activist agenda, (as quickly as possible) has to do with repealing the only law in place that every overfed liberal Senator always cites as the primary reason why marriage must never be defined in the Constitution - DOMA.

I mean if Senator Ted Kennedy consumed an entire martini for every time he himself used the "Defense of Marriage Act" in speeches from the Senate floor as being some sort of solution for the problem of forcing redefined marriage upon the 97% of this nation who see no value whatsoever in changing it's definition - he'd be pickled for a generation. (I know, who's to say he's not?)

Asked again about his hostility towards the "Defense of Marriage" Obama cut to the chase in his interview this weekend with Advocate Magazine, a periodical specifically targeted towards those who seek to engage deeper in homosexual behavior, "Absolutely, and I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA."

Yet the truth is that the "Defense Of Marriage Act" signed by a liberal president in William Jefferson Clinton has already fallen far short of protecting the institution of marriage. The federal version of DOMA is intended to shield one state from the legal responsibility of accepting another state's "redefined" version of a sexual union and call it marriage. This protection foresaw that perhaps one state's group of voters would in no means agree with such an arrangement and therefore needed to protect itself against legal repercussions.

The problem was that in states that did not have a state-wide definition of marriage already established the law protected no one from anything.

Thusly when four black robed, self-superior, societal engineers (they prefer to be called "judges") decided to ignore the will of the people in their state, overreach their constitutional authority, and write new law demanding the changing of the definition of marriage in Massachusetts the federal DOMA was powerless to protect them. Continued...