Kevin McCullough

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.

What DOMA did protect voters against was sexual activists who attempted to have those faux marriages later ratified in states where they moved to.

But now Barack Obama wants to carry the mantle of the sexual activists and advance the cause of changing the institution of marriage to make it something it has never been before.

Perhaps it is important to note what it has always been: one man, one woman, in sexual monogamous fidelity for life. It was established by God for three purposes, to civilize men, to protect women, and to nurture children. Thusly a society - even a nation - can continue to exist for generations.

Barack Obama has tasted some of the fruit of that union. His attractive wife, and beautiful daughters provide him a reminder of the goodness that God has granted him, by His grace.

It seems to me at the very least indignant, and at worst arrogant for Obama to desire to work so hard to destroy that simple institution that God has given him so much joy in.

So why does he?

Well, it is an election year...

And homosexual couples do make nearly six times the average income of your normal married couple...

Prominent gay activists also hold many influential places of power in broadcast and print media industries...

Could it just be that even though he has the picture of a storybook family and marriage, that in reality Barack Obama just wants power and will destroy the institution of marriage to get it?

Is that why?