In theory political leadership should have something to do with looking after the national interest and promoting the common good. This unfortunately is not always the case. Indeed, many times it is quite the opposite. In the past few days there have been two clear examples of this.
The first example has just occurred in the US where President Obama has said he will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. DOMA was passed into law in 1996 by both Houses of Congress and the then Democratic President Bill Clinton, stating that marriage is strictly limited to one man, one woman.
But bowing yet again to homosexual activist pressure, he is caving in here as well, telling us in effect that the institutions of marriage and family mean nothing to him. He is more concerned about placating the miniscule percentage of militant homosexuals than he is the clear majority of the American people.
Not only that, but he is now trashing the US Constitution. Jonah Goldberg explains: “Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that each new president take the following oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
“President Obama announced this week that he will violate that oath. In a decision hailed by gay-rights activists, the White House announced that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the grounds that it has suddenly dawned on the president and attorney general that the law is unconstitutional.”
He continues, “Obama, who fancies himself a scholar of the Constitution, never said a peep about the law being unconstitutional until this week. Why the public change of heart? There’s good reason to believe that Obama has always been lying — yes, lying — about opposing gay marriage. For example, in 1996, he told the Windy City Times, ‘I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.’ But by 2004, Obama very much wanted to be president, and he understood that supporting gay marriage would be a political liability. So he opted for something other than honesty.
“And in a 2004 interview with a gay publication, Obama strongly hinted his opposition was strategic, not philosophical. ‘Everything we know and admire about President Obama makes the claim that he doesn’t support the freedom to marry very unconvincing,’ Evan Wolfson, the director of the gay-rights group Freedom to Marry, told the Huffington Post last August.
“White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insists that the president still opposes same-sex marriage. But Carney was quick to note that the president has said his views on the matter are ‘evolving.’ Translation: He could completely change his mind at any moment.”
Goldberg concludes, “Imagine if Congress passed — hopefully over a presidential veto — a law that brought back slavery. Such a law would be plainly unconstitutional, and no president worthy of the job would wait for the Supreme Court to tell him as much. More to the point, once the president concluded that the law was unconstitutional, he would be bound by his oath to ignore it, and challenge it in every way possible.
“President Obama says DOMA is unconstitutional, and yet the ‘law professor’ says he will continue to enforce it. In a properly ordered constitutional republic, this would be a scandal. But in America today, it’s cause for eye-rolling, shrugs, and platitudes about the demands of politics.”
The second example is closer to home. We all know that the Coalition will romp Labor later next month in NSW. The Coalition is supposed to be conservative, as opposed to lefty Labor. But the Opposition Leader, Barry O’Farrell has not convinced me he is very conservative with a recent announcement made in the homosexual press.
According to it, he is just as fully committed to the homosexual agenda as is Labor. Here is how the article begins: “New Mardi Gras (NMG) was presented today with a letter from the Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell, committing a Coalition state government to supporting the future of the parade and festival.”
If this is true, one can rightly ask, ‘Why vote for the NSW Coalition if they are the same as Labor?’ If the Coalition is going to promote radical minority groups and social engineering agendas, then there is not much reason to prefer it over Labor.
Of course there would be many NSW Liberals and Nationals who would be appalled at this decision by O’Farrell. They would not at all favour such a move. So the question is what they will do about it. There is certainly no need to have tax-payer funding of this event.
Indeed, it has been in financial distress in the past, and should have been allowed to die a natural death. It does not need to be propped up and subsidised by taxpayers, perhaps the majority of whom would not prefer their tax dollars be supporting such events.
The new conservative government – assuming it gets in – should have far more important priorities than something like this. If this is the best leaders like O’Farrell can come up with, then it is time for some new leadership; leaders who will put principle first, and who will not allow governments to be hijacked by activist minority groups.
The West is in desperate need of solid, principled leadership. It seems to be a rare commodity today. For the West’s sake, we had better find some soon.