By Debbie Schlussel

Despite all the Obamessiah worship by the Ellen/Liberace/George Michaels crowd (though “Libby” had the class to keep his lifestyle private) and their allies in the liberal media, Barack Obama’s silly statement, yesterday, coming out in favor of gay marriage is a desperate move by a desperate President, who knows his days may be numbered if he doesn’t do something splashy. He knows he’s lost the 50% (or more) of the country that knows marriage is between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man, a man and a dog, a man and a child, or any other alleged sexual “predisposition” to love someone other than an adult human of the opposite sex. And despite what he says, unless he issues an executive order–which he’ll never have the guts to do–The Village People and the ghost of Yasser Arafat still can’t legally marry the true objects of their affection.

So, he has nothing to lose by favoring gay marriage . . . except the votes of every single person who has voted against gay marriage in California, North Carolina, etc. And he lost them long ago.

But it’s an obvious flip-flop designed to fundraise and energize the gay-friendly troops, most of whom were, to date, less motivated to vote for him than they were at this point four years ago. The bloom of the “first Black President” is gone. Now, he has to re-invent himself into other identity politics, including the “first gay-friendly President” (who may or may not be on the “down low,” himself, according to rumors and accusations). And it’s a conceit–it’s all about Obama. Me, me, me, me. I, Barack Obama, support gay marriage, therefore it is valid.

But it isn’t, and it won’t be enough. Obama will have to cause similar ecstasy among other groups beyond the Fruity Pebbles/Yasser Arafat/Village People crowd. It’s just not enough to get him re-elected. Many of the others have woken up from the mesmerizing sound of the dog whistle those of us with brains never did hear. And the WNBA season ticket holders and Dinah Shore Classic attendees–even if all of them vote–aren’t enough to push this desperado over the top.

Obama is going to have to come out in favor of other things. He’ll have to grant amnesty to illegal aliens (which–don’t kid yourself–Romney will likely do if and when he’s elected). He’ll have to create free meal plans and safari vacations for all vegans and lacto ovo bisexual Hezbollah supporters seeking guaranteed equal wages for hookers (Secret Service or otherwise) and Wall Street executives. And even if he did these things and created even more of a welfare state, it still won’t be enough.

And, so, this gay marriage endorsement may be good for a week of news stories–and Clay Aiken appearances on Piers Morgan (doubling the viewership temporarily, to include Aiken’s current boyfriend)–but after that, it’ll be back to Obama losing in the polls or just pulling even–neck-and-neck. The cowardice won’t pay off.

And just remember: no Al-Qaeda leaders, no Hezbollah or HAMAS personnel, no Middle East heads of state, are coming out in favor of these absurd new, revisionist definitions of marriage. It’s part of why they’re winning . . . and we’re not. Masculine societies last. Effeminate ones die.

But Obama’s statements are a bonanza in Al-Qaeda recruitment and anti-West hatred for our decadence, a decadence that has gone off the deep end.

The gay marriage pronouncement won’t create any new jobs. It won’t save the economy. And as the Clintonistas used to say back in 1988: it’s the economy, stupid.

It certainly ain’t redefining traditional marriage as “Frankie Goes to Hollywood.” Only a bumbling coward does that.

***

For the record, I’m a libertarian on certain things and have had gay friends and clients. It’s not a problem for me. What you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is your business (unless it’s with an underaged person or non-human, etc.). And I believe that gays should be able to live and exist like everyone else with the same rights, but NOT enhanced ones or re-definitions of terms. We are not like the Nazis and the Muslims who persecute people for what is none of our business. We are infinitely better than that.

But there is no reason why the rest of us must sanction your lifestyle and give it a legal, de facto approval. You aren’t entitled to re-define words and terms that don’t have a scintilla of what you want them to mean.

And you need to make up your mind: first, you wanted a “right to privacy” that doesn’t exist in the Constitution. But, now, you want to force us to publicly give sanction to your relationship. It simply doesn’t make sense.