In characteristically pathetic “journalism,” Colby King defends, well, he attempts to defend, the feckless Mr. Obama. He argues in his column, Equality is bigger than the president, that the  issue dominating the news shouldn’t be the President’s “evolution” in support of same-sex marriage, but instead, the “civil right” to marry whomever. Of course Mr. Obama didn’t “evolve,” he revolved back to his original stated view of 1996.  His meandering through his political career is a clear path of cynicism in pursuit of money, votes, and approval, anything but conviction. Of course the current discussion is about Mr. Obama . . . he injected himself into it.

Sadly, Mr. King equates the issue of same-sex union to the civil rights struggles seeking equality for Americans of African decent – confusing the right to enter into the voluntary contract of marriage versus the immutable characteristic of race. That a Black man confuses contract rights with human rights is sad, indeed.

Finally, in order to make his weak argument stronger, he misrepresents – no doubt intentionally – Mitt Romney’s view declaring him to be opposed to “civil unions.” Said King:

“Mitt Romney weighed in on the heels of Obama’s announcement to remind voters of his opposition to gay marriage and civil unions, and his support for a constitutional amendment that ensures gay couples can never marry.”

What Romney in fact said, is:

“I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” he told the Fox TV station in Denver. “My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.”

Simply, Romney is of the view that Juliet was right:

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Call it what you will . . . if it mimics marriage, it is marriage.