Actually, the title is an exaggeration. I think this Chuck Asay cartoon best captures the Obama political game plan, but I did enjoy this pair of Glen McCoy cartoons (and, given Obama’s weak track record on the economy, I do think there is a lot of truth to the notion that the White House would rather the election be determined by social issues).
The above cartoon reminds me of some of the amusing material that was put together when Sandra Fluke was getting her 15 minutes of fame for demanding subsidized birth control. You can enjoy some of that humor by clicking here, here, and here.
Here’s the second McCoy cartoon.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s a role of government to sanction any kind of marriage (or to persecute people based on their beliefs), so I definitely think this issue is a distraction.
P.S. As far as I can remember, I’ve only shared on other McCoy cartoon, which can be seen here.
P.P.S. Here’s another Asay cartoon about the election, though note my important caveats.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
[…] Here’s a Glenn McCoy cartoon about Obama and subsidized […]
[…] McCoy – He has a great pair of cartoons on condoms and gay marriage, and I also like his cartoon on sequester hysteria. McCoy’s cartoon […]
[…] does very good work. He has a great pair of cartoons on condoms and gay marriage, and I also like his cartoon on sequester hysteria, as well as how he […]
[…] McCoy – He has a great pair of cartoons on condoms and gay marriage, and I also like his cartoon on sequester hysteria. McCoy’s […]
Government created this mess when it presumed it had some business getting involved in marriage in the first place. However, the reason why marriage is the way it is is to encourage the continuity of society through promoting stability and continuity. While our generation has succeeded in deluding themselves into thinking that marriage is only something that happens between two people who love each other very much, it has historically been a social contract between two people for the stability needed to raise a family for the continuity of society and family.
Stable and permanent societies need stable and permanent social units which is why governments have encouraged marriages. but even more, societies need continuity. Gay unions can provide stability, but at best, it’s temporary because gay unions cannot reproduce (not without serious third party intervention that is), so they cannot provide the element of continuity that a serious society needs to continue. This might be why even those historical societies that were fairly openly tolerant to homosexuality never went so far as to sanction gay marriage.
Now, none of that means that gays shouldn’t be allowed to form civil unions with the legal benefits of a life partnership, but in the interests of preserving society, perhaps we shouldn’t tamper too much with the deeper definition and understanding of what a marriage truly is and what it means to a society at large (even a modern society still relies upon basic reproduction to continue itself, and let’s be honest, Western Civ is in a reproductive death spiral). Perhaps, the gay and lesbian community should be proud of being different here as they are everywhere else and define their committed relationships with their own unique terms?
I think I left open those possibilities when I indicated that possible marriage combinations are only limited by one’s imagination. Mother-son, mother daughter, human-pet (already shows up in England) (seriously), man-rubber doll, the list can go on and on. I get your point though about governmental subsidies.
Yes. Those two cartoons truly do sum up the President’s strategy.
As an Ohioan, I am ready for this to be over with so I can watch some normal television programming again.
However, we do have made marriage a collective societal issue, with preferences and mandates. Therefore, the collective hands subsidies to certain groups depending upon whom, when, how, and where they marry. Naturally, those left out want to join into the subsidies. I’m surprised single people are not campaigning to be able to marry themselves, so that they can file taxes as married.
And, I’m digressing, but I’ve always had a curious and somewhat related question. Since in homosexual marriage the reproductive consequences of incest presumably no longer apply, can a man marry his brother? A woman her sister etc. ?
I don’t care one way or another about ‘gay’ marriage (though I do believe it logically opens the door to incestuous, multi-partner, child and just about any other marriage variation one can think of). I am not going to marry someone of the same gender, so it is not significant to my life. But I do believe that, like most of these social issues, the People should decide what kind of marriage they are comfortable with. When a judge somehow implicates the Constitution in this issue, it cheapens the Constitution and allows the imposition of law by unelected bureaucrats who contravene the will of the electorate (the consent of the governed). That eventually becomes a recipe for disaster for the future of the country.