Barack Obama's position has now fully "evolved," and he has made the announcement that he supports same-sex marriage.

The choice is unsurprising.  The cultural status quo, upon whom Obama heavily relies, has dictated that same-sex marriage is the civil rights issue of the new millennium.  The timing for his declaration, too, is not inconspicuous.  Economic and foreign policy issues are all but toxic, given this administration's hand in the astronomical inflation of the deficit and multiple key points of interest that signal its failure on these fronts -- on everything from the failure of green energy initiatives to the increased and unprecedented level of Americans' dependency upon social welfare programs, to the rising tide of Islamism in the Middle East that this administration has essentially nurtured.  Obama's supporters have little to be excited about when it comes to such things. 

The ruse is clever, though, and it worked.  The media has tackled same-sex marriage as a central topic of the election, and Hollywood opened its hearts and checkbooks to Barack Obama for his "courage."  Of course, the question lingers about how courageous it is for a champion of political correctness to take a politically correct position, but the left now finds him a modern-day Martin Luther King, Jr. for it, nonetheless.

It is true that this issue is riddled with religious underpinnings -- that much is undeniable.  It is intellectually dishonest, however, to paint opposition of same-sex marriage as nothing more than Christian bigotry.  But supporters of same-sex marriage appear unable to do anything else, and they offer little to the public discourse beyond their ample, derisive moral accusations.

Conservatives are generally called upon to embrace a federal mandate that same-sex marriage be accepted unquestionably.  To do any less, the left argues, denies homosexuals their humanity.  But being "married" is nothing more than a cultural term.  The choice to spin the argument to be about homosexuals' "humanity" is little more than the creation of a straw man, meant to deter focus from the deeper societal and legal implications that surround the issue.

There are legitimate arguments in opposition to same-sex marriage, not least of which is that there is clear popular opposition to it, despite its perceived cultural acceptance.  This is evidenced by recent votes in California and North Carolina that have banned same-sex marriages.  And in California, Democrats have petitioned the federal courts to strike down the popular decision.  This choice exposes a damning hypocrisy.  It proves that Democrats, who supposedly adhere to democratic principles, will gladly eschew a decision made by the popular majority on the basis of disagreement and a belief in the moral superiority of their position.  Is this at all different from a religious minority negating a popular decision in favor of implementing its own preferred notions of morality, as the left routinely alleges Christians are guilty of?  Resoundingly, it is not.

Secondly, the institution of matrimony, insofar as its application in America, is a Judeo-Christian concept.  As such, the vast majority -- 80%, in fact -- of marriages still take place in "churches or synagogues."  If we set the precedent that same-sex marriage must be uniformly accepted, then what is to stop the federal government from dictating that a church must -- disregarding its own doctrine and values -- marry such individuals?  Citing the establishment clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it should go without saying that the federal government has no constitutional right to legislate either in favor of, or against, "same-sex marriage" legality, as it enters the realm of religious practice.  Archaic as this may seem to those with differing opinions, the Constitution becomes useless if can be easily discarded when it suits one particular lobby or another.  Therefore, the previous precedent of "state" decision on the matter is correct and prudent.

Thirdly, as a cultural point, there is a larger societal issue as to the re-defining of the institution of the family.  To argue that men and women are not inherently different as to what they offer in that family institution, particularly at emotional and developmental levels, is silly and disingenuous.  For evidence of how this can negatively impact society, look no farther than the breakdown of the family unit that fatherless households have created in the black community, as young black males seek to compensate for the lack of a father figure by embracing the example of hip-hop icons, cultural influences, and often unsavory community elements.  The left's assumption seems to break down to its age-old, and constantly invalidated, belief that the collective "village" -- society, cultural mediums, social programs, schools, etc. -- can replace the more traditional family upbringing that Americans have always held dear.  And if popular state voting on the matter is any indication, many Americans disagree with the left's assumption.

The real issue, it appears, is that Americans have a problem accepting a political mandate that they must fall in line with a cultural agenda that they, for the most part, disagree with.  And that, in a land of liberty, should be entirely reasonable.

William Sullivan blogs at: politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com and can be followed on Twitter.