One of the services that I provide the readers of this humblest of blogs is explaining and clarifying what inept journalistas are attempting to say. Now I shall tackle this editorial. My clarifications are in brackets below.
Pastor Rick Warren, the famous leader of Lake Forest's Saddleback Church, became a lightning rod in the [so-called] same-sex marriage controversy when he was chosen to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration. Yet he didn't give his [hysterical] opponents anything to shout about Tuesday[, as if ever they need an excuse to shout like a bunch of howler monkeys], offering a prayer that was short, inspirational and above all [disappointingly] uncontroversial. That points up an uncomfortable truth for proponents of gay rights: Warren may not be as big a problem as the [heterosexual] President he blessed.
Warren, who has infuriated many by [allegedly] equating homosexual unions with incest, child molestation and polygamy, is entitled to his religious beliefs [i.e., the moral teachings which all traditional Christians hold]. President Obama is too, but on Tuesday he swore allegiance to a document quite separate from the Bible: the U.S. Constitution, which forbids all forms of discrimination[, as it is vaguely defined by those who endlessly repeat this word nowadays]. Obama showed how clearly he understood that in his inaugural address, when he said: "The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."
It is impossible to adhere to those principles while also [supposedly] proposing that some citizens should have fewer rights than others for no better reason than the majority disapproves of their sexual preference. Obama claims not to support such discrimination[, a word which we now shamelessly hurl at our first black President], but his views on the issue are an embarrassing muddle [to the naive]; he opposed Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban, yet says unequivocally that he believes "marriage" is strictly between one man and one woman. [It's almost as if Barack Obama wants to prove the rightwing claim that he is actually a politician disguised as the Second Coming!]
Obama is caught up in semantics[, as are gay rights people, albeit unconsciously], apparently believing that gays and lesbians [and bi-sexual and transgendered, transhumanoid beings] should be allowed to engage in civil unions with all the rights of marriage [besides baby-making], as long as they aren't called marriages. That's an evasion that was rightly rejected in May by the [activist] California Supreme Court when it overturned a previous ban on same-sex marriage, because such semantic distinctions tend to cast doubt on a union's legitimacy [for tax purposes].
At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, some states would not have allowed his interracial parents to have married. [(We're really trying to pretend we care about this―is anyone buying it?)] He, of all people, should know better. [And if he keeps this up, we all gonna diss him like we done Clarence Thomas.]
UPDATE: When I started this post, the title was "Obama's Gay-marriage Waffle". Now the headline has been changed to "Now, about gay marriage". Wonder what happened... did they get a call from the Obama White House? He's President now, bitches.