Obama Abandons Marriage

Obama Abandons Marriage
By Janice Shaw Crouse on 2.25.11 @ 6:07AM

In an unexpected move (particularly in the midst of the Libyan crisis), President Obama signaled that he thinks the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, and he has instructed Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department (DOJ) to cease defending cases brought against DOMA. The wording of this surprise announcement suggests that the decision is another instance of this president's politicizing the administration of justice: the White House ordering the Justice Department what it should do in order to appeal to the extreme elements of its political base. So much for Obama's pivot to the middle, not that there was much doubt about that after his kowtowing to the unions in the Wisconsin imbroglio.

The president declared that Section 3 of DOMA (the part that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex "marriages") "violates the equal protection component" of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. This is the president's latest bow to "gay" rights activists and his latest move out of mainstream values over to far-left policies that undermine the nation's foundations and social structure. This is but the president's latest move to disregard the laws of this country; he has repeatedly put his radical ideology and personal preferences ahead of the expressed will of the nation's citizens. He seems determined to shape America into his image, regardless of what voters want or what the Constitution and national laws state.

DOMA clearly specifies the accepted national definition of marriage as for one man and one woman and protects individual states from being forced to recognize same-sex "marriages" performed in other states. In the past, the Department of Justice has routinely defended laws with which any given administration may disagree; that past practice makes the current decision even more offensive. In effect, our constitutional law professor-in-chief has decreed -- based on his superior knowledge, and without the benefit of hearing any counter arguments -- that there is "no reasonable defense" of DOMA and that the law is, by its very nature, "discriminatory."

The decision affects two suits in Massachusetts -- Gill et. al. v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. In both cases, the plaintiffs questioned the constitutionality of the definition of marriage being reserved to a legal union between a man and a woman. To add "insult to injury" in presenting the president's action, Holder told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) that Congress' action in passing DOMA implies "moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships." Further, Holder added that this kind of "stereotypical-based [sic] thinking and animus" is exactly why the Equal Protection Clause exists.

In the past, President Obama has not acted on his rhetorical support for the repeal of DOMA, a stance that was unpopular with his liberal base. Now, like the activist liberal judges, he is totally ignoring the damage to the standing of the courts by defying the will of the people regarding the nature of marriage (voters booted three Iowa State Supreme Court justices out of office in 2010 for tampering with the definition of marriage). In many respects, the president's action is a full-employment act for self-identified homosexual lawyers, because the law is still on the books and the president just took the Justice Department attorneys off the case.

There is reason to conclude that the president acted now, before the 2012 election and while he has federal Supreme Court justices who will back his opinion on the issue of so-called same-sex "marriage," because the unrest both nationally (Wisconsin and Indiana) and internationally (Egypt and Libya) will take the media headlines and he can "get away with" the decision no longer to defend DOMA in court because it will be "below the fold" in the nation's newspapers.

While the president's action does not mean that DOMA is illegal, it does mean that the president has decided to trade in his claim to be post-partisan in order to become a general in the culture war's assault on traditional values. Also, at a time when the nation is buried under a mountain of debt and deficits are at oxygen-depriving heights, this decision begs the action of "following the money." At stake are numerous (some say thousands) of benefits that are limited to married couples. The government has a vested interest in encouraging marriage and the establishment of families to protect and nurture children and, thus, provide for the nation's future. It does not have a similar vested interest in encouraging same-sex sexual relationships which are high-risk, dysfunctional, and entail consequences that, ultimately, are a drain on both the national treasury and the nation's social infrastructure.

While the president should be working to reverse unemployment and curb spending, he is, instead, working to give short-term same-sex alliances the dignity of the "marriage" label, thus entitling those in temporary same-sex sexual relationships to taxpayer funding.
_____________________________________________________

Obama’s Indefensible DOMA Decision
By Janet M. LaRue
2/25/2011

President Obama, the self-proclaimed “constitutional scholar,” along with the nation’s top lawyer, Attorney General Eric Holder, announced Wednesday that they couldn’t come up with a “reasonable” argument for limiting marriage to a man and a woman as God, Congress, state legislatures, and the majority of voters intend.

Obama’s decision to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law, is:

•a concession to his leftist base;

•a diversion from his economic and foreign policy disasters;

•a slap shot at Congress as a co-equal branch of government;

•telling Republicans they can’t walk and chew gum if they defend DOMA;

•what he meant by “fundamentally transforming the United States of America;” or

•all of the above.

Obama’s position on DOMA depends on whose political support he’s seeking. According to ABC News: When he began his campaign for U.S. Senate, he told a group called Independent Voters of Illinois -- Independent Precinct Organization that he supported DOMA. He then switched to an anti-DOMA. position on Feb. 11, 2004, as the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary drew near. According to Obama’s staff, the Illinois Democrat changed positions mid-campaign because he heard from gay friends how hurtful DOMA was.

DOMA is “an abhorrent law,” Obama wrote in his letter posted on a Chicago gay and lesbian Web site on February 11, 2004. But he didn’t call God’s law “abhorrent” at Rick Warren’s “Saddleback Presidential Candidate’s Forum in 2008:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix;” he told Warren when asked to define marriage.

Apparently, God is out of “the mix.” Obama is “grappling” with his personal position on marriage, according to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney at Wednesday’s press briefing.

Since Obama and Holder don’t like DOMA and don’t want to risk it being upheld if the courts apply the lowest level of constitutional review, called rational basis, they’re telling courts to make them defend DOMA under a heightened standard of review, which Holder won’t do because it’s too high of a hurdle.

According to Holder’s statement released Wednesday, two new DOMA lawsuits in the Second Circuit have thrown a legal curve the dynamic duo can’t handle:

“These new lawsuits, by contrast, will require the Department to take an affirmative position on the level of scrutiny that should be applied to DOMA Section 3 in a circuit without binding precedent on the issue. As described more fully below, the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President’s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.”

In his letter to House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday, Holder cites to a 2004 11th Circuit case, Lofton v. Secretary of the Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. which he and Obama must not have read. The court upheld a Florida law prohibiting practicing homosexuals to adopt children. The court reviewed the law under the “rational basis standard,” rather than heightened review, finding that “the present case involves neither a fundamental right nor a suspect class.”

The court found it persuasive that “all of our sister circuits that have considered the question have declined to treat homosexuals as a suspect class,” citing to rulings by the 4th, 5th,6th, 7th, D.C., Federal., 10th, and two by the 9th Circuit that homosexuals are not a “suspect class;” therefore, heightened review does not apply.

If Obama and Holder believe that the judiciary is the final arbiter of constitutional claims, why are they ignoring rulings by nine out of the 12 circuit courts of appeal that have rejected their conclusion that heightened review is required?

And it gets more baffling. Even though the administration won’t defend DOMA—it will continue to “enforce” it, according to Holder’s letter to Boehner, stating:

“Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.”

Neither Obama nor Holder has explained how enforcing an “unconstitutional” law complies with their oaths to defend the Constitution, or why they expect the heads of federal agencies, who also took an oath to defend the Constitution, to enforce a law their boss says is “unconstitutional.”

If they’re serious about cutting spending, Republicans need to calculate the federal and state costs of extending benefits to “married” homosexual couples. Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ judicial analyst, said that the economic impact is “so enormous it can’t even be quantified at this moment in time.”

According to an Obama 2008 campaign statement about families in a changing economy, he should be the last person undermining traditional marriage:

“Since 1960, the number of American children without fathers in their lives has quadrupled, from 6 million to more than 24 million. Children without fathers in their lives are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”

Count the cost. It means the wages of sin is debt.

Defending DOMA makes sense for all the right reasons: constitutionally, morally and fiscally. There are several outstanding pro bono public interest law firms that are lined up to assist Republicans.

Obama thinks it’s easier to grapple with God over marriage than with a federal judge.

Republicans and Democrats should know better. There’s a bigger judgment day than the one in 2012.