Marriage and the Constitution

Yesterday, February 23, 2011, was an historic day.  Yesterday, President Obama woke up in the White House and, after two years of arguing the constitutionality of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), changed his mind, deciding in effect that his own arguments were invalid.  Ironically, lower courts throughout this nation have found DOMA constitutional.   In 2008, Obama said that he doesn't support gay marriage. So, on one hand the president is saying that he doesn't support gay marriage.  But then he finds laws based on his own belief unreasonable and unconstitutional. And he finds these laws, or parts of these laws unconstitutional, so he tells the courts of the land not to enforce them. I don't think it is possible to have a more incoherent view.

In a letter to Boehner, and later in a press conference, Eric Holder (Attorney General) said that defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the lawsuits at issue would require the Justice Department to support limiting marriage to heterosexual couples in cases where a regional federal appeals court has set no such precedent.  Citing a history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, Holder said “the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny,” and must therefore be “substantially related to an important government objective.”  Applying that standard, Holder said the legislative record underlying the law’s passage “contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships -- precisely the kind of stereotype thinking the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”  That statement should shock you to your core. "The president and I have concluded".  Unbelievable and unconstitutional, indeed. 

In every state that there has been a referendum on the ballot deciding whether or not to accept gay marriage, all 33 states have decided against the proposal. In 1996, the Clinton administration had found something of a federal compromise with DOMA.  It allows each state to be a laboratory of democracy and work it the issue on its own. The key provision of the defense of marriage act is that states are not required to recognize gay marriage of other states so, in effect, it doesn't federalize gay marriage. And that is a good compromise in a large country that is not united on this issue and allows each state to go its own way.  Up until now, DOMA has been considered a stable resolution, and now all of a sudden this administration is saying they're going to nationalize gay marriage in a way that is unwarranted, unwelcome, unprecidented, and unconstitutional.

It's also very shocking to me at the lack of outcry by Congress and by the citizens of the United States since this announcement.  Can you imagine if Reagan or Nixon or Bush would have circumvented the U.S. Constitution and the due process of law?  They would have been impeached.  Oh yeah, Nixon was. What would happen if future presidents would denounce the legalization of abortion?  With the precedent being set by this president, such an act would not be unwarranted.  However, if a future president did denounce the legalization of abortion, the left would be jumping out of windows and rioting in the streets.

So what is going on? My opinion is that the president is being attacked by his supporters for his lack of action, his passivity on the debt issue, for his passivity and lack of action while the Middle East is on fire, for his lack of leadership, and his obvious mishandling of the Wisconsin labor issue. Therefore, he needs to shore up his leftist, progressive supporters behind a common issue.  Another factor may be that he has decided his labor union money may dwindle soon and he needs the gays and lesbians to pick up the tab for his re-election efforts.  He may also be using this as a distraction to what is going on in the streets of Libya and Wisconsin. 

But really, I think that Obama is simply showing us all how narcissistic and lawless he really is.  And I am not the only one who thinks so.  Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, called the Justice Department’s decision to stop defending the law “irresponsible.” Smith said in a statement “this is the real politicization of the Justice Department when the personal views of the president override the government’s duty to defend the law of the land.”

Hang on folks.  Obama has stated that he doesn't like guns and the 2nd Amendment.  Let's hope Obama gets a good night's sleep tonight and doesn't wake up on the wrong side of the bed tomorrow morning.