I’ve said in these pages before that gay marriage is not a threat to our country, our freedoms or anything else.  Opposing gay marriage is as inconsistent with conservative values as opposing desegregation or favoring limits on fat and salt in foods.  In the words of that flaming liberal, Dick Cheney, “freedom means freedom for everybody.”

If limited government is the cornerstone of the GOP, why is it so hard for a GOP politician to stand up and say, “Look, I realize this is a controversial issue, and many people feel passionate about it because of their faith.  But we have a tradition in this country of separating church and state.  Limited government includes preserving the rights of people to choose how they live–whether we agree or not.  If you think homosexuality is a sin, don’t engage in it, don’t attend a gay wedding and don’t go to a church that conducts the service.  But we cannot, with our integrity intact, demand that the government lay off our children, their education, what we eat, how we spend our money, what we do with our land and how much we leave to our heirs, and still demand that it invade the bedrooms of those with whom we disagree.  If you disagree with me so vehemently that this one issue means you cannot vote for me and the other limited government policies I stand for, I wish you and the candidate of your choice all the best.”

Getting elected is not the most important thing in the world.  And having integrity will often win more votes than saying what you think people want to hear.  Have some balls for Pete’s sake.

In a story oddly titled “Obama fends off criticism from gay supporters”, AP writer Philip Elliott spends seven full paragraphs apologizing for Obama’s slow progress on gay rights issues and reporting on anger of gay rights groups over his complete disregard for them once he won office.

Finally, in the eighth paragraph, Mr. Elliott mentions that Obama, who had just yesterday promised benefits to same-sex parterms, will not be granting health insurance. HEALTH INSURANCE. Isn’t health care a fundamental right to Obama?!? Hasn’t he been droning on incessantly for two years about the importance of healthcare?

Shouldn’t this blatant, gaping hole in Obama’s barely 24 hour old promise be the lede, not the throw away eighth paragraph?

Mr. Elliott then goes on to say that several “powerful gay fundraisers withdrew support” from an upcoming DNC event. This brings into question the AP’s curious headline. First, how has Obama fended off any of these criticisms? If anything, he has inflamed them by once again by promising one thing and delivering bubkis. Second, if people are critical of Obama, and they have “withdrawn [their] support,” can they, in any sense of the word, still be called “supporters?”