Pres. Barack Obama wants us to believe he’s the most ineffectual opponent of gay marriage imaginable.
If we take him at his word, he’s a supporter of the traditional definition of marriage who just happens to undermine his own position at every turn. If only this were the way he went about advancing the rest of his agenda. What makes his opposition to gay marriage different, of course, is that he doesn’t believe it.
Advertisement
Obama is a closeted supporter of gay marriage who’s too cowardly and cynical to be open about it. This should be a grave insult to everyone — to the gay-rights lobby, whose dearest cause he won’t frankly embrace, and to the broader public, whom he apparently deems unworthy of hearing his true views.
In a classic case of political passive-aggression, Obama is creating the greatest possible latitude for the courts to impose gay marriage by fiat, culminating perhaps in a Supreme Court decision that would be the gay-marriage version of Roe v. Wade.
His Department of Justice just announced it will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Bill Clinton in 1996. Obama opposes DOMA and so do top Justice Department officials. Yet they all had been making at least a show of acting consistently with the longstanding practice of defending from constitutional challenge all laws that can reasonably be defended — until now.
DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law, and says that states don’t have to recognize gay couples married in other states. The act is intended as a bulwark against leveraging gay marriage in one state to spread it to all other states. Destroying this obstacle has always been a key objective of advocates of gay marriage.
Perhaps the department should get points for a new forthrightness. Its defense of DOMA has, shall we say, lacked vigor. In a California case, it went out of its way to say it “does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing.” One pro-gay-marriage legal observer called this concession “a gift to the gay-marriage movement, since it was not necessary to support the government’s position.”
Can you imagine the administration undermining its brief for, say, the individual mandate like this? An Obama Justice Department official explained the marriage strategy thus: “We have not only discharged our responsibility to defend the constitutionality of a congressional statute, but we’ve done so in a way which reflects the policy values of this administration.” In other words, they mounted a deliberately backhanded defense.
Now the administration purports to have discovered that there’s no reasonable defense of DOMA whatsoever. How can this be so? Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman since before the country’s founding and before the adoption of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which DOMA allegedly violates.
The logic of the department’s latest position is that all laws defending traditional marriage are unreasonable and unconstitutional. This makes Obama’s own position condemnable under the reasoning of his own Justice Department, blessed by none other than himself. He stands exposed as the moral equivalent of a racist — by himself.
No matter. He’ll continue to duck and cover under the dodge that his position is “evolving,” as he put it at a year-end press conference, while liberal judges work their will. When the judges finally manage to decide the issue for the nation, or after his reelection in 2012, whichever comes first (if either happens at all), he can reveal his full “evolution.”
Such brazen evasion is an offense against basic democratic hygiene. President Obama should take his case to the voters, and persuade them to adopt gay marriage through tried-and-true democratic means. He might as well be honest: He’s a supporter of gay marriage. What’s he ashamed of?
The reason DOMA is indefensible is because it violates the commerce clause. Marriage is a contract, and in order to have an effective union contracts must be respected throughout the union.
The real irony here is that suddenly the US Constitution is relevant to the Left. Last month, it was silly for Congress to read the text or to consider the constitutionality of a bill before it is passed. Now, it's the duty of the Department of Justice to decide the constitutionality of a bill after it is signed into law.
But Mr. Lowry, you're right: at least the administration is now honest about its position instead of offering a pathetic, nominal defense.
This administration has launched a war against the States on so many fronts I'm starting to lose count (Arizona and immigration, Wisconsin and public unions, Obamacare, and redistricting battles coming soon). Meanwhile, the rest of the world is slowly falling apart without any US leadership. What a president!
His strategy is all about getting it ("gay marriage") done.
IMO, he believes the "democratic process" route has two faults: #1, it won't succeed any time soon; and, #2, a Presidential Candidate / President who tries to force it through would suffer politically for it.
He wants the courts to impose it and then, ever the "conciliator and healer", he'll help the unenlightened electorate cope.
believes the only way it's going he only fear he has is voters will reject him if he openly embraces gay marriage.
Interesting how Dick Cheney and Ken Mellman have the guts and courage to state their beliefs openly about gay marriage and Mr. Obama does not. How is this leadership of any sort? The argument is that Cheney and Mellman don't have to worry about re-elction and are free to state their beliefs without fear of election night. How pathetic. How the media can be championing the theory that Obama is similar to Reagan when they all know that Reagan literally forged his political career by openly stating his beleifs and convincing the masses that his once controvertial views were in fact nothing to be feared, simply to be embraced, is beyond comprehension. Obama is no Reagan.....neither is he Dick Cheney when it comes to gay rights.
This statement (along with most of the 'facts' in your rant) is patently false--
"Now the administration purports to have discovered that there’s no reasonable defense of DOMA whatsoever. ....Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman since before the country’s founding and before the adoption of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which DOMA allegedly violates."
The DOJ is only not defending Section III of DOMA. Which is the only issue here. That section denies federal rights and benefits to SSMs even if they are legal in the state in which the SS persons reside. Clearly, even the most virulent haters of gays can recognize the unconstitutionality of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT deciding which state's legally married persons are entitled to federal benefits.
It's funny how it's all about state's rights around here until the issue is SSM or abortion...then the Feds MUST intervene. Federalism be damned!
In every other regard, DOMA is still the law of the land. No state will have to recognize a SSM performed elsewhere. All of it's overreach with regard to full faith and credit is still intact so you all can continue deny equality to teh gheys. Heck even if this goes through, only the 2nd Circuit will be affected. So I really don't understand the panic about getting rid of a patently unconstitutional portion of a really odious law. Oh wait, yes I do...IOKIYAAR.
The issue raised isn't the Doma decision or a "mistake" by Obama in this regard.
The issue is that it is clear Obama supports gay marriage and simply is choosing to be coy because its politically expedient. His supporters know he supports gay marriage and Obama knows the media will never much probe his silence on this great moral issue.
So he's abdicating leadership on this because he knows his real position will likely influence all too many people in the middle, negatively.
This proves he's not a leader and, if he has "principles", they are of the politically convenient kind. Very attractive attributes for a "trans-formative" president.
You are missing the legal and constitutional issue. It is not the place of the president of the United States to decide what is constitutional or not. In fact, Mr. Obama is bound by law and practice to enforce existing law. The Supreme Court is the the appropriate venue to determine whether DOMA is constitutional or not. And they have had some 15 years now to do so.
If you wish to make an argument, please consider the facts and not your desires.
I don't think the federal government ought to be taking a position on marriage at all, but I'm not a lawyer. That said, a law should be enforced until it is struck down. That's my position on immigration and other laws, too.
I was struck by the reference to DOMA and the commerce clause, based on marriage being a contract. If this is anything like the ACA, a court has decided we can be required to purchase "acceptable" medical insurance because Congress can regulate "mental activity", i.e. the act of deciding to buy medical insurance even if the decision is not to buy at all. So a similar argument could be made that Congress can require us to get married to an "acceptable" partner or partners and in fact can penalize us if we decline to get married at all. I know it sounds crazy, but I think many crazy things (e.g. ACA) are happening.
When Congress starts telling you who you can marry, they establish the precedent that you can be forced to marry (doubtless for the public good) someone of some bureaucrat's choosing. To me this sounds congruent with some of the worst practices of slavery. What's to stop the Commerce clause from being used to tell you that you have to go work in another state picking cotton? After all, the decision whether or not to do so affects interstate commerce!
Where's my banjo, gotta sing me a few choruses of "My Old Kentucky Home"....
Catholic Citizen- DOMA is and will still be the law of the land BUT FOR the unconstitutional Section III. There no requirement that the DOJ defend CLEARLY unconstitutional provisions. Since DOMAs creation, several States have chosen to allow SSMs in their State. The Federal government can not now say that SOME of those STATE SANCTIONED marriages are unworthy of Federal recognition. It's a clear violation of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection. THAT IS THE ONLY ISSUE BEING ADDRESSED (and only in the 2nd Circuit) EVERY state not recognizing SSM will be allowed to continue not recognizing it. NO STATE will be required to recognize out of state SSMS. Heck those outside the 2nd circuit won't even be affected.
This position is absolutely in line with what should be the conservative's position on the reach of the Federal Govt. But, it's teh gheys equality and it's Obama doing it so it's now suddenly and abdication of duty.
I must agree with "BD57": it is clear that President Obama's professed opposition to state-sanctioned homosexual marriage has always been tactical. That is, he has lied about his position, in that he made statements about it which he knew to be untrue at the time and with which he intended to deceive or mislead someone -- mostly voters, in this case. The vast majority of those who support state-sanctioned homosexual marriage understand this; they criticize the President not for opposition to their goal, but for failure to openly support it, and to accept the consequences of doing so. I would agree with BD57 that the President judges that his current tactics are those most likely to accomplish his unavowed goal, while minimizing the electoral consequences.
I believe Mike B's condescending tone inappropriate, as the examples that he offers are of little relevance.
"Bush," whom I assume to be the second President by that name, can fairly be said to have made many mistakes. But did he make the mistaken decisions with the intent that they would have the precise effects that they did, while claiming to be aiming for other effects? The normal position is that his mistaken actions were foolish or misguided, rather than deliberate. This seems likely, as they brought him nothing but problems and hatred.
Regarding President Reagan, he denied having traded arms for hostages; his claim was that subordinates did so without his knowledge or approval. If one believes that this is a lie, then the ex-President may be criticized on that score. Even so, the analogy is poor: Reagan presumably did not enter into office denying that he planned to trade arms for hostages, and then deliberately do so while continuing to make that claim.
To address the final example, President Kennedy did not run for office on a platform opposing sex with Ms. Monroe, and he did not continue to make statements against the practice even while passively allowing Ms. Monroe to perform sex acts on his person.
Perhaps it might be simpler to state that the relevant distinction is that between an absence of full and candid disclosure, and the offer of an advantage-seeking lie.
One may consider the goal of state-sanctioned homosexual marriage moral or immoral, wise or foolish, misguided or overdue. But it is difficult to see how the President's conduct in the matter has been anything but dishonorable. Tactically effective, quite possibly, but still dishonorable.
@jprev40 to the contrary: marriage is a socially sanctioned civil action--not a Constitutional Right of commerce. If your point was adequate, then all taxation would be a national flat dictate. If adequate, our universally shared eco defense system would be a contractual element flat dictation of how much and by whom industrial waste disposal is tolerable. DOMA is an historical protectorate for the national common good vs. an untested, non-historical experiment with which the U.S popular culture is enthralled. Keep it States Rights, and tell the USSC to quit cowaring from the actual Constitution. Obama is all fluff, which is why this is still carrying headlines.
jprev40: "Marriage is a contract, and in order to have an effective union contracts must be respected throughout the union."
Actually, it's a license granted by the state if you meet certain conditions. And it's a covenant sanctioned by a religious institution as a reflection of nature and God's relationship to humans/the church. But if it's only a contract, then why can't I have more than one? I sign dozens of contracts every year for my business. So why must I limit myself to only one marriage "contract"?
Obama from the beginning of his campaign needed to hide his radical beliefs. He knew that he was unelectable if the truth was known.
Being "against" gay marriage is just one of those things he was for or against, nothing more.
He of course didn't fool any conservatives who knew he is a radical leftist. He isn't going to get any of those votes no matter what. Its was more for those in the middle or the uninformed.
It worked quite well. Of course no Republican could even hide his real beliefs like Obama could, due to the lamestream media going along with it. Many, many people voted for Obama in 2008 that wouldn't have had they known or if they had listened to the warning signs. I know many people who are regretting voting for this radical.
Now that he is losing the budget battle (and just about everything else), he is having to give something to his base. DOMA is it.
Obama's "still evolving" views is to keep his base, the African-American citizens in line because approximately 90% of them do not believe in same sex marriage. If and when they come out of the crowded closet, he will trumpet SSM for the whole world to see.
Plus he needs to make sure the gays donate money to his coffers in case the union dues dry up.
Just one more instance of a man who says whatever he thinks will work at the time. Whether he believes what he is saying or is simply lying through his teeth, it is evident to all that he really doesn't give a hoot!
We, the knuckle-dragging great unwashed masses should never question him!
You focus on something completely irrelevant to the decision:
"DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law, and says that states don’t have to recognize gay couples married in other states. The act is intended as a bulwark against leveraging gay marriage in one state to spread it to all other states. Destroying this obstacle has always been a key objective of advocates of gay marriage."
Yet the Obama administration explicitly stated that its section 3 that is unconstitutional. Section 3 doesn't say what you describe above. Section 3 says that, no matter what a state calls "marriage", the federal government can not recognize same sex marriages. Where in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to define marriage for the states?
He knows support for gay marriage is a political killer, but he needs to satisfy his liberal base. This is how he does that.
I always see pundits like David Frum and others saying that being anti-gay marriage hurts Republicans, but how do you reconcile that with Obama not openly supporting gay marriage?
Follow
