Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Over the past few years President Obama has been doing lots of thinking about gay marriage. In an interview with ABC News, the president says he now believes same sex couples should be allowed to wed.
"At a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," he says.
Mr. Obama is the first president to endorse homosexual marriage. It's a major shift for him. The last time he ran for the White House he was opposed to it. He offered ABC News' Robin Roberts a glimpse into his evolution, saying he has "hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient."
He added that he is "sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word 'marriage' was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth."
He's right. Matt Smith, president of Catholic Advocate says, "Marriage was created long before any government came into existence. It is a settled issue in the eyes of the Catholic Church and should not be redefined."
President Obama told Roberts he's been affected by the gay and lesbian people he's met.
"When I think members of my own staff," he says, "who are in incredibly committed, monogamous same sex relationships who are raising kids together. When I think about those soldiers, or airmen or marines of sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that "don't ask, don't tell" is gone because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
Gay marriage was already a major issue in the upcoming presidential race among a number of voting blocs. Now it's amplified. The president's stance on it is something he was expected to clarify during the course of the race. It was sped up when his vice president spoke out on Sunday, saying men should be allowed to marry men and women should be allowed to marry women.
Mr. Obama's interview with Ms. Roberts was only scheduled yesterday late in the afternoon. Soon-to-be-GOP nominee Mitt Romney is opposed to gay marriage. Both candidates have said this election will present two separate visions, the issue of gay marriage sharpens that reality.
Smith says, "Many faithful Catholics were fooled by clever political rhetoric in 2008. This year, the anti-Catholic record of the Obama administration should inform their vote."
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is asking Georgetown University to rescind an invitation to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to speak at one of the commencement ceremonies for the university's Public Policy Institute.
To quell fears, President Obama and Secretary Sebelius have offered a work-around in which employees at religious affiliated organizations can get contraception coverage directly from their insurance providers, thus bypassing their employers. However, critics of the rule say that's not good enough.
The Becket Fund is a public interest law firm that filed the first lawsuit against the Obama administration for its controversial decision to require religiously affiliated organizations, like certain colleges and universities, to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives (birth control, sterilization and the morning after pill), even if it goes against their organization's religious teachings. Georgetown University is America's oldest Catholic and Jesuit university.
The Becket Fund and other organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, argue that the new rule promulgated by Sebelius' secretariat, violates religious liberty, calling it "the height of religious intolerance." The same religious liberty that allowed for the founding of Georgetown University in 1789.
The Becket Fund has created a petition to disinvite Sebelius that it's sending to the university. It reads, in part, "Secretary Sebelius has declared that she is 'in a war' with those whose religious beliefs about abortion and contraception are different from her own. Georgetown should not associate itself with this attack on religious liberty."
The administration is still working on a "fix" for organizations that self insure.
Friday, May 04, 2012
Christians across the country gathered this week for the annual National Day of Prayer, the day set aside by Congress in 1952.
The main event took place in the marble-lined halls of the U.S. Capitol, where people prayed for America, the Church, the military, and the economy. The event drew lawyers, judges, members of the Armed Forces, lawmakers, and religious leaders from various denominations.
Watch John Jessup's report below, which includes this year's keynote speaker Dr. David Jeremiah's remarks.
In conjunction with the National Day of Prayer, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert is sponsoring an event for members of Congress and their staff in the U.S. Capitol's grand Statuary Hall.
Designed to mark the 223rd anniversary of the inauguration of George Washington, the event focuses on the nation's first President as a man of faith and a man of prayer. A public bulletin about the event notes that "Washington's first act as President was to offer a prayer of dedication to God on behalf of the new Republic."
Organizers of "Washington - A Man of Prayer" are asking all Christians to pray for America, spiritual awakening and revival.
Speakers include David Barton (WallBuilders), Doug Stringer (Somebody Cares International), Harry Jackson (High Impact Leadership), and the event organizer Dan Cummins (Come Pray with Me).
Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, approved the use of Stat Hall for the gathering, scheduled for Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 5 p.m. You can see the broadcast on CBN.com.
Watch Rep. Louie Gohmert discuss the significance of "Washington - A Man of Prayer."
Friday, April 20, 2012
Stick around this city long enough and you're pretty much guaranteed to see a political resurrection. The latest example is Miguel Estrada. His name should ring a bell to anyone who's familiar with the "Justice for Judges" campaign to un-stall the filibuster of former Pres. George W. Bush's judicial nominees.
This week, Senate Republicans announced that they hired Miguel Estrada to represent them in a legal challenge to Pres. Obama's use of recess appointments. At issue is whether the president circumvented the Senate and it's role to offer advice and consent on political nominees - a debate that goes to the heart of the constitutional balance of powers. Critics say last January's appointments represent an unprecedented "power grab" since the Senate was technically in a "pro forma" session.
Republicans describe Estrada, who's argued at least 19 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, as one of the country's foremost appellate advocates. He's also the first of Pres. Bush's judicial candidates to withdraw his nomination after Senate Democrats prevented an up or down vote on his nomination. (At the time, many viewed him as a potential Supreme Court nominee - and perhaps the first Hispanic to serve on the bench.)
Now that Estrada has agreed to file a friend of the court brief on behalf of Senate Republicans, he not only calls into question the actions of Pres. Obama but senior Democrats in the U.S. Senate. They have been vocal in their support for the man for whom the president chose to use the recess appointment, Richard Cordray, to head up a new consumer protection bureau.
As a former nominee, Estrada knows a thing or two about the nomination process. Moreover, he's intimately familiar with Constitutional law. He even co-chairs his law firm's appellate and constitutional law practice group. We'll have to wait and see who falls on the winning side of the debate this time around.
Stick around this city long enough and you're pretty much guaranteed to see a political resurrection. The latest example is Miguel Estrada. His name should ring a bell to anyone who's familiar with the "Justice for Judges" campaign to un-stall the filibuster of former Pres. George W. Bush's judicial nominees.
This week, Senate Republicans announced that they hired Miguel Estrada to represent them in a legal challenge to Pres. Obama's use of recess appointments. At issue is whether the president circumvented the Senate and it's role to offer advice and consent on political nominees - a debate that goes to the heart of the constitutional balance of powers. Critics say last January's appointments represent an unprecedented "power grab" since the Senate was technically in a "pro forma" session.
Republicans describe Estrada, who's argued at least 19 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, as one of the country's foremost appellate advocates. He's also the first of Pres. Bush's judicial candidates to withdraw his nomination after Senate Democrats prevented an up or down vote on his nomination. (At the time, many viewed him as a potential Supreme Court nominee - and perhaps the first Hispanic to serve on the bench.)
Now that Estrada has agreed to file a friend of the court brief on behalf of Senate Republicans, he not only calls into question the actions of Pres. Obama but senior Democrats in the U.S. Senate. They have been vocal in their support for the man for whom the president chose to use the recess appointment, Richard Cordray, to head up a new consumer protection bureau.
As a former nominee, Estrada knows a thing or two about the nomination process. Moreover, he's intimately familiar with Constitutional law. He even co-chairs his law firm's appellate and constitutional law practice group. We'll have to wait and see who falls on the winning side of the debate this time around.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The White House issued this statement on North Korea’s missile launch.
Despite the failure of its attempted missile launch, North Korea’s provocative action threatens regional security, violates international law and contravenes its own recent commitments. While this action is not surprising given North Korea’s pattern of aggressive behavior, any missile activity by North Korea is of concern to the international community. The United States remains vigilant in the face of North Korean provocations, and is fully committed to the security our allies in the region.
The President has been clear that he is prepared to engage constructively with North Korea. However, he has also insisted that North Korea live up to its own commitments, adhere to its international obligations and deal peacefully with its neighbors.
North Korea is only further isolating itself by engaging in provocative acts, and is wasting its money on weapons and propaganda displays while the North Korean people go hungry. North Korea's long-standing development of missiles and pursuit of nuclear weapons have not brought it security – and never will. North Korea will only show strength and find security by abiding by international law, living up to its obligations, and by working to feed its citizens, to educate its children, and to win the trust of its neighbors.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
We've heard President Obama talk about it almost weekly since his State of the Union Address: "wealthy Americans need to pay their fair share." He was at it again Tuesday speaking at Florida Atlantic University.
His message to the 5,000 students who showed up to hear him speak was simple: high earning Americans need to pay more taxes. He was specifically promoting the "Buffett Rule," named for billionaire and Obama supporter Warren Buffett who is upset that he pays a lower tax rate (because of his investment income) than his secretary.
The "Buffett Rule" would require people making $1 million or more, either through a salary or investments, to pay a 30 percent tax rate. Judging by the screaming, it was a popular idea among the students at FAU.
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on the "Buffett Rule" next week. President Obama urged students to call, email, and tweet their senators and tell them to stop giving rich people like him tax breaks.
Here's a snippet of the president's remarks.
Even if the bill passes the Senate, it doesn't have even a slim chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. But it really doesn't matter. Senate Democrats want to get Republican senators on the record of voting against tax hikes on high earners.
There's a good reason for it. The "Buffett Rule," or at least the idea of it, is wildly popular among voters, although new polling reveals it may not resonate with valuable independents.
President Obama also has another objective: point out Romney's wealth and paint him as out-of-touch with the majority of Americans. Appearing like an 'Every Day Joe' has been and will be a challenge for Romney. The president is going after him with kryptonite.
Whether you like it or not, expect to hear a lot more about the "Buffett Rule" in the coming days, weeks, and months. As a matter of fact, the commander in chief is making a statement about it in Washington on Wednesday.
Friday, April 06, 2012
Religion is always a factor in any presidential race. Religious beliefs, or the lack thereof, form values that people apply when choosing a candidate. This year, however, the role of religion will likely be front and center. Just look at the candidates. We'll potentially have the first Mormon nominee for president and a liberal Christian president seeking re-election.
Will the faiths of the candidates affect the way Americans vote or will it motivate some to simply stay at home?
There's also the issue of the Obama administration's Health and Human Services rule that requires religious organizations to include contraception (birth control, the morning after pill, sterilization) in their health insurance plans. This will be a major issue in the election.
President Obama says it's about providing women greater access to contraception. Since a religiously affiliated organization like a Catholic hospital typically employs both Catholics and non-Catholics, the president says employees who don't have a moral objection to birth control should be able to access birth control under their insurance plans.
But many Americans say it violates religious liberty. It's forcing Catholics and other religious people to pay for something that violates their conscience. Already, coalitions on both sides of the issue are planning lines of attack.
Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, the head of the Hispanic Evangelical Association, says he has "great concerns" across the board. The HHS decision is one of the priority platforms his organization is addressing this year.
Beltway Buzz caught up with Rev. Rodriguez outside of the White House this week after the Easter Prayer Breakfast.
Rodriguez: It will be, in my opinion, an important issue in this upcoming election. The issue of religious liberty. Can Uncle Sam dictate what religious organizations do? It pertains to their practices, their employees. Very unprecedented and very concerning for those of us who have a very strong faith narrative.
Rodriguez: It's about the freedom of conscience. It's about having the ability to make sure that we have the freedom where government will not dictate or prompt us to sacrifice our convictions on the alter of political expediency so it's beyond contraception, it's about religious liberty at the end of day. I do believe it is an unprecedented intrusion into the religious rights, the very rights that we have guaranteed in the constitution.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Wednesday, President Barack Obama hosted his third annual Easter Prayer Breakfast in the East Room at the White House. More than 100 Christians sat around tables decorated with spring flowers eating and fellowshipping.
They heard from Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama before joining Christian artist Sara Groves in singing the popular hymn, "Great Is Thy Faithfulness."
It may surprise some of you to read that before President Obama, there was no Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House. He started it.
Beltway Buzz was there. Watch White House Correspondent Jennifer Wishon's report and then read the presidents full remarks.
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. (Applause.) Please, have a seat. Have a seat. Well, welcome to the White House. It is a pleasure to be with all of you this morning.
In less than a week, this house will be overrun by thousands of kids at the Easter Egg Roll. (Laughter.) So I wanted to get together with you for a little prayer and reflection -- some calm before the storm. (Laughter.)
It is wonderful to see so many good friends here today. To all the faith leaders from all across the country -- from churches and congregations large and small; from different denominations and different backgrounds -- thank you for coming to our third annual Easter prayer breakfast. And I'm grateful that you're here.
I'm even more grateful for the work that you do every day of the year -- the compassion and the kindness that so many of you express through your various ministries. I know that some of you have joined with our Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. I've seen firsthand some of the outstanding work that you are doing in your respective communities, and it's an incredible expression of your faith. And I know that all of us who have an opportunity to work with you draw inspiration from the work that you do.
Finally, I want to just express appreciation for your prayers. Every time I travel around the country, somebody is going around saying, we're praying for you. (Laughter.) We got a prayer circle going. Don't worry, keep the faith. We're praying. (Laughter.) Michelle gets the same stuff. And that means a lot to us. It especially means a lot to us when we hear from folks who we know probably didn't vote for me -- (laughter) -- and yet, expressing extraordinary sincerity about their prayers. And it's a reminder not only of what binds us together as a nation, but also what binds us together as children of God.
Now, I have to be careful, I am not going to stand up here and give a sermon. It's always a bad idea to give a sermon in front of professionals. (Laughter.) But in a few short days, all of us will experience the wonder of Easter morning. And we will know, in the words of the Apostle Paul, "Christ Jesus...and Him crucified."
It's an opportunity for us to reflect on the triumph of the resurrection, and to give thanks for the all-important gift of grace. And for me, and I'm sure for some of you, it's also a chance to remember the tremendous sacrifice that led up to that day, and all that Christ endured -- not just as a Son of God, but as a human being.
For like us, Jesus knew doubt. Like us, Jesus knew fear. In the garden of Gethsemane, with attackers closing in around him, Jesus told His disciples, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death." He fell to his knees, pleading with His Father, saying, "If it is possible, may this cup be taken from me." And yet, in the end, He confronted His fear with words of humble surrender, saying, "If it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
So it is only because Jesus conquered His own anguish, conquered His fear, that we're able to celebrate the resurrection. It's only because He endured unimaginable pain that wracked His body and bore the sins of the world that He burdened -- that burdened His soul that we are able to proclaim, "He is Risen!"
So the struggle to fathom that unfathomable sacrifice makes Easter all the more meaningful to all of us. It helps us to provide an eternal perspective to whatever temporal challenges we face. It puts in perspective our small problems relative to the big problems He was dealing with. And it gives us courage and it gives us hope.
We all have experiences that shake our faith. There are times where we have questions for God's plan relative to us -- (laughter) -- but that's precisely when we should remember Christ's own doubts and eventually his own triumph. Jesus told us as much in the book of John, when He said, "In this world you will have trouble." I heard an amen. (Laughter.) Let me repeat. "In this world, you will have trouble."
AUDIENCE: Amen!
THE PRESIDENT: "But take heart!" (Laughter.) "I have overcome the world." (Applause.) We are here today to celebrate that glorious overcoming, the sacrifice of a risen savior who died so that we might live. And I hope that our time together this morning will strengthen us individually, as believers, and as a nation.
And with that, I'd like to invite my good friend, Dr. Cynthia Hale, to deliver our opening prayer. Dr. Hale. (applause.)
Friday, March 30, 2012
By a vote of 228-191, the U.S. House passed a budget plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., "The Path to Prosperity."
It's the second year in a row the GOP-controlled House approved an annual budget since reclaiming control in the 2010 midterm elections. That stands in stark contrast to the folks on the other side of the Capitol. The Senate, which has a Democratic majority, hasn't passed a budget in more than three years.
Only 10 Republicans voted against the plan. Claiming the budget proposal abandons the middle class and destroys Medicare, not a single Democrat voted in favor of the Ryan plan.
More telling, however, is Democrats didn't deliver a single vote for President Obama's budget either. It went down in fumes by a vote of 414-0.
Last month, on the same day the White House released Obama's 2013 budget, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., issued a statement praising the President's proposal:
"President Obama has laid out an innovative blueprint for restoring opportunity for all Americans and for constructing an economy that is built to last. The budget is balanced, fair, and responsible and is an investment in our economic growth, in job creation, and in a stronger, thriving middle class."
It appears support for his blueprint has grown cold.
Democrats will try to use the budget vote to get the upper hand in the upcoming election, attempting to paint Republicans as the party that pushes grandma off the cliff for the plan's sweeping changes to Medicare. However, it's a pretty powerful statement when no one in the President's own party supports his budget.
Perhaps a sign of its radioactivity, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., refuses to even debate a budget this year, which means the President's budget won't even get the courtesy of a vote.
In the world of politics, governing and budgeting are often synonymous. One could argue that the president's inability to muster votes from members of his own party is a perceived vote of no confidence in his ability to manage the country.