The American Spectator : Obama Abandons Marriage

Text Size

Obama Abandons Marriage

By Janice Shaw Crouse on 2.25.11 @ 6:07AM

From now on, it’s anything goes — and who cares if the world is falling apart.

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.

About the Author

Janice Shaw Crouse, author of Children at Risk and Marriage Matters, is senior fellow at Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (230) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Appleby| 2.25.11 @ 6:36AM

The man is desperate for votes, and the gays are one of the last groups he thinks he can hang onto by picking a battle that is lower on the radar in a time of serious world wide depression and impending war. Nobody should be surprised when Obama makes irrelevant pronouncements instead of concentrating on his job.

Chicken Little| 2.25.11 @ 10:23AM

It's a South Carolina Nightmare!

Hellllllllp! For God's sake send us some help!

The gays down here in South Carolina have lined up for marriage licences, and the line stretches from Spartanburg all the way to Columbia.

Gay couples, holding hands, have lined up beside the Interstate, and they're distracting drivers and causing pileups and traffic gridlock.

Please . . . help us . . . send in the National Guard! The situation down here is out of control . . . worse than what's happening in Libya!

Hellllp!

Miss Piggy| 2.25.11 @ 10:40AM

Calm down, you Silly!
No need for alarm, Chicken Little.

My fellow Muppet stars--Ernie and Bert--are openly gay, and they are making plans to marry.
It's really no big deal. Nothing to get alarmed over.

I hope you will join me in wishing Ernie and Bert--they'll make the cutest couple!-- a happy marriage and a long life together.

And . . . I want you to know that Miss Piggy has been invited to sing at the wedding! I'm thrilled! Tickled to death!

Speedy Gonzales| 2.25.11 @ 10:41AM

Chicken, I can help with the traffic gridlock.

I'm on my way!

Al Adab| 2.25.11 @ 12:33PM

Did she ever marry Kermit?

Frisbee| 2.26.11 @ 10:24PM

Boycott Target. They have just announced a deal with Lady Gaga to support LGBT perversion in the community.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2.....bt-causes/

By the way, the song "Born this way" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you're "born that way". What matters is that you can't have babies "that way".

They talk about "diversity". True marriage IS diverse: it has a man and a woman. THAT's diversity. What the heck is diverse about "two men"? There's nothing diverse about two men.

Keep true diversity in marriage: support a man and a woman.

Pelligrino| 2.26.11 @ 11:08PM

Thank you, Frisbee. This bears checking out.

If indeed Target has cow-towed to the degenerate thing called GuGu (yes, as in infantile), then press the boycott.

Target will not be seeing any of our family dollars.

And I'll be passing their perverted corporate decisions on to family friends and relatives.

This is inane. Target also wants to destroy the family?

Just where will customers come from 15-20 years from now?

Try as we can, our family aims to only support morally upright businesses.

Chicken Little| 2.27.11 @ 10:45AM

The Gays have taken over Target!

Hellllllp! For God's sake, don't shop at Target!

My friends Turkey Lurkey, Goosey Loosey, and Buck Cluck went to Target Saturday, and the manager and entire sales staff surrounded them and encouraged them to change their sexual orientation from straight to gay!

It's the God's-honest truth.

What is this world coming to? YOU CANNOT EVEN SHOP AT A RETAIL STORE WITHOUT BEING ACCOSTED BY GAYS!

GOD HELP US ALL!

THE GAYS ARE TAKING OVER. PASS IT ON!

FOXY LOXY| 2.27.11 @ 10:50AM

BOYCOTT TARGET!

THE GAYS ARE NOW IN CONTROL AT TARGET, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE SEXUALITY OF ALL CUSTOMERS FROM STRAIGHT TO GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BOYCOTT TARGET!

SPREAD THE WORD!

THE WHOLE WORLD WILL BE GAY IF WE DON'T PUT UP A FIGHT!

FIGHT BACK!

FIGHT BACK NOW!

Goosey Loosey| 2.27.11 @ 12:26PM

Stay away from Target. It's a GAY RECRUITMENT CENTER!

I want let my drake go anywhere near it!

The horror! The horror!

Frisbee| 2.28.11 @ 9:24PM

Chicken Little, Foxy Loxy, and Goosey Loosey:

Don't be so mean spirited. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

K. A. Poole| 2.25.11 @ 12:43PM

Honey, have you considered antianxiety meds?

I think they would help you a lot.

You're such an alarmist! Time to chill, Chicken.

Wilford Clapper| 2.25.11 @ 1:29PM

And the gays love to shop at WalMarts. Ever time I go there I see men holding hands, hugging and stuff and told my wife thats the reason WalMarts sales is on the decline.

Get them gays outta the store and maybe decent people will shop there again.

You cant go no place without them gays showin off and stuff.

o. p.| 2.25.11 @ 1:32PM

Walmarts?

You oughta try Lowes on a Saturday. So many of them gays are fixer uppers, do it yourselfers and come to Lowes in droves on Saturday.

I was in there last saturday ant what I saw made me sick to my stomach. I ain't going back on no Saturday I can tell you that.

Wilford Clapper| 2.25.11 @ 1:34PM

They're try;ing to tkaek over and if we let them they'll do it for sure.

Jimmy from Jacksonville| 2.25.11 @ 3:30PM

Be glad gays don't move onto your street.

They buy a rundown house, fix it up all over, new paint, new shutters, spic and span. Then they landscape with trees, bushes, flowers, making a real showplace, trying to set an example i guess.

That's what a gay couple did on my street.

Well I didn't follow their example. My house is as rundown as ever, and my yard is as full of junk as it was before the smartypants arrived.

I'm not going to let faggots have any influence on me and how I keep up my property.

An Actual Redneck| 2.25.11 @ 4:53PM

Hoo-boy,ya' better be careful with that thing, son. The recoil from a double-barrel of bigoted stereotyping like that could smack the troll pass clean off ya'.

numero uno| 2.25.11 @ 8:19PM

DAMM! you should clean your yard any damm way. you leave your yard looking nasty because your neighbors are gay..THAT'S GAY!!! bet your other neighbors run by your rented house..COWBOY!!!

Purple Lips| 2.25.11 @ 4:22PM

o.p.
It sounds like you were there looking for a date

o.p.| 2.25.11 @ 10:16PM

Purple Lips,

With a moniker like yours, I might want to date you.

Mr. AmSpec NutJob| 2.27.11 @ 11:24AM

If you don't want to be surrounded by gay men, stay out of Lowes on Saturday.

That's when the gay couples--faggot amateur carpenters--line up at checkout, taking forever to pay for their sh*t with Platinum American Express cards.

Teabagger Bunny| 2.27.11 @ 12:28PM

Same things happening over at Home Depot. Saturday is Gayday.

Stay the hell away on Saturdays.

r p i 23| 2.27.11 @ 2:29PM

The horror! The horror!

Purple Lips| 2.25.11 @ 11:23AM

Oh don't worry Mrs Piggy and Chicken Little; our Kenyan President was taught in his madrassa of not the one man-one woman ideal of marriage, but the one man-ten women ideal. And we all know what Muslims do to homosexuals (off with thier heads!). In our near future it could be concubines for hetro men, and the chopping block for those men of a more effimenate persuasion.

But first, those antiquated ideas of Christian Marriage must go. As that wacky metaphysician Hegel once wrote, "History marches on".

Deputy Dawg from Spartanburg| 2.25.11 @ 11:56AM

MAN THE RAMPARTS!

THE GAYS ARE COMING!

Reverend Rufus Redneck| 2.25.11 @ 12:00PM

Well I got my twelve guage cocked and loaded.

Wayne | 2.25.11 @ 12:27PM

I'm getting ready to marry my mother.

K. A. Poole| 2.25.11 @ 12:55PM

You mean "Morality marches on." We, as a society, are evovling morally.

ENOUGH ROPE| 2.25.11 @ 1:03PM

Here is strong evidence that Obama is a Marxist. Search for the site American Thinker and then search for Meeting Young Obama.

Obama is a SMILING COBRA.

numero uno| 2.25.11 @ 8:26PM

it's PRESIDENT OBAMA. it's his fault that there are gay people in this world.. it's gonna rain tomarrow!! DAMM OBAMA!!. GO OBAMA!! REELECT OBAMA..2012..Ii just love to hear YA ALL cry..

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.25.11 @ 12:13PM

This is what you get, when you give a Chicago Street Hustler/Coke Head/Bag Man, $900 BILLION. It becomes a SLUSH FUND.
Never forget WHO and WHAT this guy is. He's a Chicago Democrat. A product of GENERATIONS of Corruption and Lawlessness, in that Criminal Organization know as the Chicago Democrat MACHINE.
Nothing has changed since Capone's Day. Everybody has a price. Everybody can be Threatened and Intimidated. Obama's a CROOK. Ask Tony Rezko. Ask Obama, himself. Ask him where the Stimulus Money went. Let's have a line by line accounting of the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS that have been spent.
There NEVER WERE any Shovel Ready Infrastructure Jobs. That was a LIE. But, there were lots of PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNIONS that got BILLION$. Obama gives the UNION money. They keep their jobs. They take DUES from their members, and funnel the money back to the Democrats.
It's called MONEY LAUNDERING. And that's a big racket with the Organized Crime families.
Especially the one in the White House.
I don't say this lightly, but, I think it's getting to be time for Mr. ISSA to start keeping a Folder on this man, for the inevitable IMPEACHMENT.
He's been found in Contempt Of Court, for his Drilling Moratoriums. He FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS, when his Administration LIED, and said that their "Experts" that THEY brought in, agreed with their assessment on shutting down drilling, when in fact, they said just the opposite. He is still implementing his Cuban Health Care, DESPITE a Federal Judge finding it Unconstitutional. And, now, he's refusing to defend the LAW OF THE LAND (DOMA) - Passed by Congress, and Signed by Bill Clinton - because HE, our King, has decided that it's Unconstitutional. A Power NOT given to him, by the Constitution.
This is an OUTLAW Regime. He's acting more like CHAVEZ, than like LINCOLN. In fact, everything he does, brings us more in line with Venezuela, than it does with the country our Founding Fathers left us.
Benjamin Franklin, walking on the street, having just come from Independence Hall, was asked by a woman: "Mr. Franklin. What kind of Government have you given us?"
Franklin replied: "A REPUBLIC, Madame. If you can keep it."
Indeed.

ENOUGH ROPE| 2.25.11 @ 4:15PM

Here is strong evidence that Obama is a Marxist. Search for the site American Thinker and then search for Meeting Young Obama.

Obama is a SMILING COBRA.

numero uno| 2.25.11 @ 8:31PM

all that smack talking i'm inclined to think your talking about bush and his gangster crew!!!you didn't bitch when bush was leting big business run this country..8yrs of HELL.

Alan Brooks| 2.25.11 @ 12:44PM

What about divorce? even the great Gipper You Love More Than Christ Himself was divorced. And he catted around in Hollywood.

Steve A| 2.25.11 @ 1:34PM

Yeah, but at least he did not marry any dudes that I know of....

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 3:11PM

As you've already been told this week, Ronald Reagan DID NOT seek a divorce from his 1st wife, Jane Wyman. She divorced him. He did not want it, and he could not contest it.

Please pay attention, Ally...

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:15PM

She divorced HIM. He didn't want it.

josephsantin@sbcglobal.net| 2.25.11 @ 4:02PM

How right you are, Appleby.

Alan Brooks| 2.26.11 @ 4:06PM

"She divorced HIM. He didn't want it."

The Gipper had plenty of pre and post-marital sex. So did Nancy. If you try to canonize Reagan, no wonder so many scoff at him-- and you.

W| 2.27.11 @ 1:49PM

Brooks, you are a loon.
Obsessed with the Gipper's sex life when your boy slick willie's is available to you? have you ever had sex?

Alan Brooks| 2.27.11 @ 10:00PM

"when your boy slick willie's is available to you?"

You Rubes were obsessed with Clinton's sex life.

mames| 2.26.11 @ 6:19PM

None of this is insignificant or humorous. He has pronounced himself to be king, rather than the law. This is the clearest reason for impeachment yet. Now if only the nutless GOP will grab hold of this and force his removal. This cannot stand or all the dominoes will fall.

Barack Obama| 2.27.11 @ 8:13PM

Appleby, you are correct. I have no morals or standards. As a covert muslim I walk a fine line and must answer to my saudi arabian controllers. I want vote so I will disregard the law, Later I will order teh homos killed as islam dictates.

Jason| 2.25.11 @ 6:55AM

do you feel no shame that your country, a "supposed" champion of equal rights for all, still has laws that deny equal rights to its citizens? The majority does not have the right to take away rights from a minority, check your constitution.

Larry| 2.25.11 @ 8:01AM

Everyone has the right to get married. You just have to marry someone from the opposite sex. It's pretty simple.

The problem with people like you is that you and your cohorts with special rights.

I'm tired of people who are obsessed with their genitals and letting the rest of us know what they're doing with them. As if that's some sort of pride. Oh brother!

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 10:37PM

Well said Larry. The right to marry does not include the right to redefine marriage.

I think, finally, that Obama and others who can't for the life of them figure out what marriage is are just plain stupid. Come on moron agendists, a little nuance to your social critiques please. Just because you can't have something doesn't mean somebody hates you.

John Navratil| 2.25.11 @ 8:09AM

The is no right or compulsion to marry mentioned in the Constitution.

The argument is that if Jack and Jill get a benefit, Jack and Joe should be able to get the same benefit. It's a silly platitude as the tax code is replete with special benefits. In this case the central economic question is whether Joe can get Jack's health benefits. It begin in California with the AIDS crisis. I agree with civil unions as a means to provide this equality before the law. However, I would prefer to simply get rid of the benefits, which are really perversions of the tax code and provide any tax incentives through the children, rather than the marriage.

The remaining things, like community property and ability to make medical decisions can all be contracted. Making that easy to do is fine by me. But marriage, it is not.

Appleby| 2.25.11 @ 11:05AM

In Kanukistan you get a year off with pay (from the government) for getting pregnant. There are those of us who argue that if we who are not pregnant wish to do something hazardous to our health and totally unconnected with our jobs, while having our jobs held for us until we return, we too should be given a year off with pay to do so. (I always fancied joining the Joie Chitwood Thrill Show and jumping motorcycles through flaming hoops of death, myself.) This is called the Sauce For the Goose Argument. The point being, of course, that if I didn't get you pregnant, I don't owe you a year off with pay.

The counterargument is always that pregnancy is "special" and thus exempt from that argument. Seems to me that Adam and Steve are making the Sauce for the Goose Argument vis-a-vis marriage and the entitlements thereto, and it seems to me they are facing the same exemption. Yes? No? Maybe So?

Handy| 2.25.11 @ 1:50PM

It's called Pay for Play. They play, the rest of us pay.

It's "Marriageocracy" at work.

Support GROMA.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:16PM

Dear Appleby:

check the birth rate stats for Canada. It, too, is dying. Encouraging kids makes sense.

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 10:42PM

If you're from Canada and you request a new copy of a birth certificate, it will not say "mother" and "father".

They tried to do this on marriage licenses in California before Prop 8, changing "Bride" and "Groom" to PartyA and PartyB. How nice for everybody, how diverse. We'll all just be "Party"s, no sons, no daughters, no brides or groom or moms or dads, just so some people don't feel put out.

You can't change the definition of marriage for some without changing it for everybody.

John Navratil| 2.26.11 @ 9:15AM

Appleby,

I'm not sure I follow your point, but mine was that absent a set of benefits, Jack and Joe wouldn't be in a hurry to "marry". If there is a recognition that children are necessary and are being discouraged by government policies, then the policies could be better tuned to encourage couple having children by focusing on the result rather than on the institution of marriage. By the way, France has been offering "specials" for pregnant women for decades without much success.

My libertarian tendencies argue for reduced government overall and then, perhaps, these problems would take care of themselves.

Another point which is didn't mention is than there is a notion that marriage is uniquely between the couple. It is not, it was also contract between the couple and society. Laws of bastardy and succession were part and parcel of the deal and the entire community was enjoined to support the couple in their marriage and not to interfere with it as encapsulated in the Christian admonition that what God had put together let no man put asunder. It comes apart when it is viewed as the wish and whim of the couple.

jolizoom| 2.26.11 @ 10:35PM

I've read lots of arguments that the homosexual marriage debate is centered mostly on financial concerns--tax breaks, accessibility to benefits, inheritance issues, plus other issues such as hospital visitation rights.... Here's my solution:

1) Institute the Fair Tax. As I understand it, Fair Tax would eliminate all other forms of taxation, so the tax break issue and the inheritance issue are moot.
2) Allow any wage earner whose job includes insurance benefits to insure anyone they want, regardless of family relationship. Base the premium for each person on risk--overall health, lifestyle, affinity for extreme sports, etc. Ditch the "domestic partner" nonsense.
3) Allow each adult to designate who will be allowed hospital visitation rights in the event of an emergency, regardless of the designated individual's relationship to the hospitalized person.

I may be wrong, but this would, for the most part, remove the incentive for pushing same-sex marriage. Wouldn't it? At this point the issue could be allowed to die an unnatural death.

Carpenter| 2.25.11 @ 8:10AM

This is an absurd and juvenile argument. The law has never permitted anyone to marry one's sibling, or someone under the age of 18 without parental permission, or an animal - are these proscriptions also a denial of constitutional rights?
All people, gay or normal, have a right to marry someone of the opposite gender, and have some government-lent incentives to do so, because the taxpayers of the nation have a vested interest in the offspring of those unions.

Wayne | 2.25.11 @ 12:29PM

So Jason, you have no problem then with my marrying my sister?

Sigma Tau Delta (the STD's)| 2.25.11 @ 12:57PM

We should have her reasonably sober and out the door by Monday.

Appleby| 2.26.11 @ 7:52AM

Robert Heinlein would have said, subject to DNA analysis and a certificate of good genetic health, or evidence of both parties being sterile, why not?

John Navratil| 2.26.11 @ 9:19AM

It's reduced to animal husbandry -- without the progeny. Better just take the Soma and go to the feelies.

Stephanie| 2.26.11 @ 9:35PM

See feelies?

John Navratil| 2.27.11 @ 9:18AM

It's a reference to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".

mames| 2.26.11 @ 6:24PM

The constitution speaks of political minorities not sexual degenerates. All objective fact clearly points to homosexuality as abnormal and perverted not to mention the physical misuse of an exit designed for human waste not a entrance and repository for sperm. Homosexual behavior is the ultimate denial of reality.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.25.11 @ 6:56AM

I personally don't think conservatives should determine who marry or when.

However, a law is a law.

Now we have an imperial dictator who can pick and choose what is right and where and when it is right.

We have a Constitution which was designed to prevent that.

We are headed for trouble now and perhaps more then we realize. When government officials seize power in other countries we watch on in horror.

When they do it in this country I have yet to hear more then a whimper.

Obama called the Constitution a negative Bill of Rights.

Now he's burning it. Where are the firemen?

Teaghan| 2.25.11 @ 8:03AM

American Idol is on and the majority watch with morbid facination as the US falls apart.

Bob Grant| 2.25.11 @ 11:47AM

And how 'bout those crazy antics of Charlie Sheen!!

g r d| 2.25.11 @ 10:07PM

Well at least Charlie Sheen likes women--porn stars, to be exact. Thanks be to God for that!

optyson| 2.26.11 @ 11:32AM

Thanks be to God for Porn Star goddesses. And thanks be to God for the good ol' USA Pornocracy. Porn. Porn. Porn. Pour it on! I can't get enough of it!

You go Charlie!

numero uno| 2.25.11 @ 8:40PM

constitution!!! bush tore that up for 8yrs and all you god fearing repub.didn't cry a tear.. admit you don't like OUR PRESIDENT because he's black... MOVE-ON god loving people...AMEN!!!!!!!

mames| 2.26.11 @ 6:30PM

There it is, the lame race card. We don't like him because he is an Alinskite pure and simple. If he held Constitutionally Limited Republic views we would support him. Color has nothing to do with it you resorter to the last bastion of the PC scoundrel. Besides he is both "white" and black African. Get over yourself.

jolizoom| 2.26.11 @ 10:39PM

Numero Uno is a troll, mames. Ignore it and it will go away.

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 10:50PM

Bill H O'Stalin: The Law is established to promote society etc etc. One of the needs of society is to create and care for the next generation. Marriage predates man's Law because having children arise from the Natural Law, written on the procreative ability of a Man and a Woman. All people, whether Conservatives or Liberals or Libertarians are obliged to recognize and defend the Natural Right of a Child to the Protection and Care of His/Her Natural Parents.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.26.11 @ 7:03PM

To: Frisbee

Your comment is ridiculous because nowhere is it written that the federal government should control marriage.

Frisbee| 3.14.11 @ 2:45PM

To BHO: The Fed does not "control" marriage. The States do. My comment is not ridiculous. Your objection to my comment is ridiculous.

Melvin| 2.25.11 @ 7:28AM

Here is another way of looking at it. All the Presidential mouthpieces have basically said, "DOMA is unconstitutional, and the President no longer sees a need to support it."
As far as his reelection goes, who is to say, that the President and the DOJ considers the Constitution and all it's embellishments unconstitutional? Therefore not having a need for an election because consensus wants him to continue to be President.
I know the above is a stretch of the imagination, but then again waking up and and telling the American people that the DOMA is unconstitutional even before it reaches the Supreme Court is no less of stretch either.

John Daniel| 2.25.11 @ 7:29AM

Well, next comes bigamy, which may be a socially acceptable survival arrangement when the dollar collapses and the economy implodes.

No Regrets| 2.25.11 @ 11:05AM

No matter gay, straight, or bi,
Lesbian, transgendered life
I'm on the right track baby
I was born to survive
No matter black, white or beige
Chola or orient made
I'm on the right track baby
I was born to be brave

I'm beautiful in my way
'cause god makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track baby
I was born this way

Don't hide yourself in regret
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track baby
I was born this way

Purple Lips| 2.25.11 @ 11:29AM

And your Hallmark Moment was brought to you by No Regrets. Stay tuned next week as he will post a sonnet written by Teen Beat's Poet Laureate Justin Bieber

Bob Grant| 2.25.11 @ 11:50AM

Speaking of whom, where does he stand on the Libyan crisis and the DOMA controversy? I will not find comfort until I know what his take is these important matters.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:18PM

Dear Purple: you sir (ma'am) are awesome! Nicely done!

Alan Brooks| 2.25.11 @ 8:20PM

Justin Bieber is a perfect reason for gay marriage. I'd marry him, and so would you.
The more you deny it, the more you are secretly thinking of Justin's unclothed body.

harvey w.| 2.25.11 @ 10:09PM

. . . and his luscious lips!

Alan Brooks| 2.25.11 @ 10:28PM

Finally, something everyone at AS can agree on.

Eric| 2.26.11 @ 9:37AM

He's a real turn-on; I won't deny that.

Walter| 2.26.11 @ 9:38AM

Yeah, he's a cutie all right.

20 something conservative | 2.26.11 @ 11:36AM

I've had my fantasies regarding him and his smooth skin. And he's skinny.

John Navratil| 2.26.11 @ 9:28AM

I'll go with Ozzy's comment... What's a beebuh?

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 10:55PM

Is that Elton John's new song? It doesn't say anything about marriage. I was happy that Elton approved of Prop 8 back then. Too bad he's changed his tune. Anyway, I felt real sorry for the little baby they showed on the cover of Us(?) magazine. I could only think how those freaky men took that little baby away from his mother.

And it doesn't matter how you're born. We all have to tame our natural urges.

Yes, you're beautiful, cause God makes no mistakes. Don't you go making mistakes either, like thinking that two men can marry.

Alan Brooks| 2.26.11 @ 4:21PM

Alrighty, I'll just shack up with guys like Justin, not marry them.

Alan Brooks| 2.26.11 @ 4:30PM

PS (am trying not to double-post):
Think of how males lusting after Justin Bieber (the joke is his photo is legal tender in prison),
is white-friendly: Justin is a specimen of Caucasian pulchritude, he is German, BTW, a Canadian of German extraction. Even Stormfront might approve of nonplatonic gay-Justin admiration.

Leo W| 2.25.11 @ 7:30AM

My take is that this is the wrong approach to the problem altogether. Our current marraige contract, often authorized by churches, is a codification of the marraige contract of the Anglican Church at the time our nation was founded. It is the only contract in our legal system whose term is "till death do you part" because it isn't a legal commitment, it's a religous commitment. That also explains (in part) why so many marraiges fail in an increasingly secular society. It also represent state-sponsored religion, a clear violation of the first amendment.
On the other hand, it IS a religous commitment, and changing it means forcing peoples' religion to change, another clear violation of the first amendment.
The right approach to solving this conundrum is to develop a civil contract that is entirely secular, then remove the authority for churches to execute legally binding unions. Equate previous marraiges to the terms of the civil contract, and allow only the terms of the civil contract to be legal at all. Follow or precede every new religous union with registration for the civil contract, or have none of the binding or beneficial legal rights apply.
Churches could continue to practice and enforce the dictates their religous contracts within their own hierarchy much the way the Roman Catholic church does with divorce/annulment.

Melvin| 2.25.11 @ 7:44AM

But I have two choices in the matter. I can either choose to be married in the eyes of God by having the union solemnized in a church of my choice.
Or I can get married by a magistrate, which takes religion out of the union altogether.
But I think junior has made himself a bigger problem by sending the message that he and A.J. have arbitrarily took upon themselves to declare DOMA null and void. Neither has the Constitutional authority to utter such a declaration or a facsimile of it.
So both the President and Attorney General have made a crappy situation even worse.

ENOUGH ROPE| 2.25.11 @ 4:17PM

Here is strong evidence that Obama is a Marxist. Search for the site American Thinker and then search for Meeting Young Obama.

Obama is a SMILING COBRA.

jolizoom| 2.26.11 @ 10:45PM

Enough rope, ENOUGH! You've posted the same thing a dozen times already--(ok, a little hyperbole there).

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 11:04PM

Leo W: thanks for your inputs. However, marriage has a basis in Natural Law, and the secular government is obligated to see it by natural reason.

Men and Women can have Children. Marriage is the covenant bond of Men and Women to their resultant Children. Their Children have a right to be taken care of both of them together. This is a Natural right. By Abortion and Divorce Children have been robbed of their natural rights.

Let's turn back the tide, and put a stop to the erosion of this very fundamental aspect of the transmission of Liberty to future generations!

Leo W| 2.26.11 @ 7:18AM

I feel ya, Frisbee, but "Natural Law" is about as silly a thing to cite in human society as I've ever heard. Everything we find admirable at a societal level - be it art, architecture, feeding people, living in a peaceful group or feeding the masses - has to do with limiting or outright preventing the impact of nature. Nature is what happens when there is no intelligence or structure. It equates to chaos. We can walk through it and admire the wonder of happenstance, but we really have gotten to the point where we can't live in or with it.

Frisbee| 3.14.11 @ 2:48PM

So Libertarians have no "natural law" tradition? Funny, I thought I saw it hinted at in the Declaration.

Alan Brooks| 2.26.11 @ 4:40PM

"Even Stormfront might approve of nonplatonic gay-Justin admiration."

cf Ernst Roehm and his boyfriends. Am not saying any sex is 'good', but people are controlled by their lower functions, and you can't repress it by banning gay marriage. The solution?:
saltpeter, cold showers, watching unsexy TV shows with leads such as Lindsay Lohan (male & female).
Naturally, people like their sexuality, even if sex in sum makes their lives worse than they already are. Or eating bad food...

DEE See| 2.25.11 @ 7:48AM

"It has been prime agenda for the Globalist-eugenists since the 1890's that traditional culture, family culture,
and, most specifically genuinely scriptural Christian
culture MUST be destroyed."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online listening)

As it's now on record the swingin' 60's were IN FACT entirely a Rockefeller/Carnegie et al EUGENICS OP,
---much like the earlier, less successful 'Roaring
20's' -----TAKE HEED!

It was almost exactly on the cusp of the Nixon/MAO 'FREE trade' sellout in 72 that the mainstreaming
of social destruction kicked off with our first
open adulterer in the oval office ---Gerald R. Ford.

Swiftly, aided by the Arminian Heretics, and worse,
of the 'Council of Churches' ---fornication, sodomy and
extermination of the unborn were brought
---into the mainstream.

Quality assists from Hearst publishing set-up,
Arminian Heretic and stadium collectivizer
Billy Graham ---and later the ever deluded,
ever self-basting Oprah, and no serious resistance
whatsoever except perhaps from some comic strip
'bible-thumping' hucksters --themselves probably
on board FREEMASONS.

Our culture has been destroyed. Our society
has been demolished ---by 'design'.

As we stand just years away from the final fold
before NAU franchise slum amalgamation
and RED China with 'World Enforcer' status
----the HUAC meets NUREMBERG treason
card is, quite literally, the ONLY option left.

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 11:06PM

Bingo Dee see - the die hard Socialists are hardcore abortionists and marriage trashers. Why? Because they want human rights? No, precisely the opposite.

Alan Brooks| 2.26.11 @ 4:50PM

"----the HUAC meets NUREMBERG treason
card is, quite literally, the ONLY option left."

That's a form of eugenics too, in assaulting the progressive gene pool. No easy way out except to kill Jews, gays, progressives, etc. But what didn't work in 1941 is not going to work in 2011.

Back to the drawing board.

Alan Brooks| 2.26.11 @ 4:57PM

"That's a form of eugenics too, in assaulting the progressive gene pool."

Meant to write repressing the prog gene pool. Assaulting is what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot did.
So at this time you are out of options.

Larry| 2.25.11 @ 8:03AM

I think that next year I'll marry my desk or my dog, or both. Will Comrade Golfer and his AG stooge defend my right to do so?

Teaghan| 2.25.11 @ 8:07AM

Hey, why not Larry. I heard there is a group of men in Oregon who regularly have sex with horses. Maybe they will be the first to demand the right to marry their equine paramores.

Larry| 2.25.11 @ 8:22AM

It's all the same, isn't it? Sex with a human, sex with an animal. There'll probably be a NAMBLA czar in no time just to make sure the rights of those evil perverts are protected.

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 3:12PM

They must be well endowed...

numero uno| 2.25.11 @ 8:49PM

that's about the dummmmmest shit i'v heard in a long time..you can come out the closet now

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 11:11PM

You have hit upon a key note. This is not about the extension of marriage rights to a deserving group. It is about the un-defining of marriage. They will mock you when you point that out in your reductio-ad-absurdum examples though.

It is also about the destruction of the family. Know what I can't stand? That phrase "Working Family". What is that anyway? I mean, are the kids in a coal mine somewhere? All the socialists use that stupid phrase though, it's international.

TennesseeVolunteer| 2.25.11 @ 8:05AM

That 'Black Theology' church of Obama's must have a different bible than mine. I don't remember reading anything about "Adam and Steve" !

Bob Grant| 2.25.11 @ 12:04PM

"Black Theology" is just a political movement.

The comparisons between Gadaffi and Obama are remarkably similar. They both use churches and mosques for political convenience yet both are about as anti-afterlife as you can get.

It's fun to watch, however, the kabuki dance Obama performs balancing favoritism from Christians, muslims, when anyone taking in air knows he he's either agnostic or atheist, and holds those people with religious views in low regard.

Now, consider what the dictator from Libya is now doing to his country when things "aren't going his way".

Just food for thought.

martin j smith| 2.25.11 @ 8:15AM

Nope, Obama does not want to lose his base. His step was pure politIcs--he could not care less about Gay Rights or Women's Rights --or anyones rights for that matter--for in the end he loves Muslims and THEY HATE GAYS, AND ARE BRUTAL TO WOMEN AND THEY HATE US.
OBAMA IS BEING TACTICAL THAT IS ALL--OVER AND OUT.

danny| 2.25.11 @ 8:36AM

Martin, You sir are absolutely right.

russel| 2.25.11 @ 10:05AM

Right , this is simply to garner votes . Smooth a few socialist feathers as well . What the main issue at hand is his disregard of the law , regardless which one he " disapproves " of . This jerk wanna be dictator flaunts disregard at any turn suiting his fancy . Oil drilling , BamCare - I won so fo . As the author put it " He seems determined to shape America into his image, regardless of what voters want or what the Constitution and national laws state. ". Precicely .

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:20PM

Indeed, sir, truth. You are not Martin SHEEN.

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 11:15PM

If what you say is true, then why didn't Obama do it before the election? He snubbed the DADT repeal and left Lady Gag-a on her own... until after the election. Then after the election he rammed the DADT repeal through a lame duck house, and now after Congress switched he doesn't even bother with that. He just Dictates from his throne. I don't think he's pandering to his base - I think he's punishing the nation for the election results.

Brian Mc| 2.25.11 @ 9:08AM

Humphrey Bogart crouched behind a rock with his two compatriots and hollered, "Could we see some badges?"
And, Obama responded...

Jose Luis Stecca| 2.25.11 @ 10:59AM

And Obama responded.. Badges ?? We ain't got no badges.... We don't need no badges... I DON'T HAVE TO SHOW YOU ANY STINKING BADGES !!

David| 2.25.11 @ 9:46AM

I have one question for Bam Bam and Holder: If you declare DOMA unconstitutional, then doesn't that mean the definition of marriage is wide open in all aspects? Doesn't that mean that any number and any combination of consenting adults can now marry? Doesn't that mean that incestuous marriages will now be legal?

KyMouse| 2.25.11 @ 12:28PM

Apparently so, since the overriding standard for marriage now seems to be "love" -- however one defines or practices it.

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 11:16PM

You guys got it - but they'll just tell you you're being silly.

magua| 2.25.11 @ 9:52AM

Surprise, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America (Obama), instructs the Justice Department NOT to enforce existing law. Isn't that exhibit one for the definition of tyranny. Sure, this time it is an act of omission not commission, but just watch and wait, there's more to come from this crew. I hope the American people wake up in time for the 2012 general election, or it will be highly unlikely we'll ever undo the damage being inflicted on this great Republic.

A. C. Santore| 2.25.11 @ 10:22AM

We shouldn't wait until 2012. If a president usurping the authority of the judicial branch is not an impeachable offense, we're in for a bumpy ride.

If he can declare this Act of Congress "unconstitutional," he can declare ANY Act "unconstitutional." I'm not joking or being glib.

Hello, Huggy Chavez, goodbye Constitution.

OldSeabee| 2.25.11 @ 9:52AM

Isn't Obama the smartest guy in the room? So whatever he says must be OK since he's so smart and all... Excuse me, I have to drink some more Koolaid. The Bible specifically states that the deluded ones will be in darkness and not comprehend their sin, and that they will call evil, good and vice-versa. We need to shout as loud as we can to penetrate their deafened ears.

Anthony| 2.25.11 @ 10:35AM

The only real problem is if the republicans, hoping to get two or three homosexual votes, don't use this issue against Obama. In vote after vote, in state after state, the American people have spoken and we are for traditional marriage. Obama is using the crisis in the mid-east to cover himself, I just hope the country club republicans who have that friend from college who is a real nice fellow and so what if he's gay, realize this issue resounds with the American public. If the republicans go into the next election playing nice, Obama will be able to finish off our country. Think like Nixon, a winner.

Anthony| 2.25.11 @ 11:46AM

Dear "Anthony", please change your moniker, you are not me. Let's not confuse the good folks at TAS, ok?
Think like Nixon, a winner? I don't think so.
Obozo's recent pronouncment on DOMA is a wake up call to us all. McLame, Graham and other RINOs are a real threat to this country, useful idiots, ready to be exploited by Obozo and the LSM. These morons recently said Obozo was moving towards the middle, WRONG.
Obozo is all in with the hard left. In 2012, it's winner take all. America is at stake!!

Anthony| 2.25.11 @ 3:10PM

As the real and only Anthony, I'll give you 24 hours to call yourself Tony, otherwise meet me at dawn on the third day, you can choose the weapons.

Sam Levi| 2.25.11 @ 10:36AM

If citizens can recall a Governor, why can't we recall a President (or a Pretender)? My only fear is that if Barry gets thrown out on his Muslim Ass before his term is up, then Joe the Moron becomes Pretender II.

Bob Knutson| 2.25.11 @ 10:36AM

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Kenyan believes the title "President" makes him an all-powerful dictator a la Hugo Chavez. He is going to be shocked when he gets handed his walking papers in November 2012, if not before.

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 11:03AM

Don't be surprised if a "crisis" of unknown origin and proportion pops-up in 2012 that necessitates a suspension of Federal elections "for the good of the people"...

Al Adab| 2.25.11 @ 10:54AM

The issue friends is never the issues: the issue is control. A President who believes in nothing but his own position is a clear and present danger. Our Constitution (that old thing) enjoins the executive to see that, "The laws be faithfully enforced." Selective enforcement is not an option. One is not to pick and choose what laws he might enforce. Imagine such an anarchy.

This President violates his oath of office, which is to the Constitution not to special interests, when he pursues such policies and actions. What are or should be the consequences of that violation?

David| 2.25.11 @ 11:01AM

Hey Al Adab, I suggest to you that every president in recent has refused to enforce federal law with regard to the immigration issue. I do agree that Bam Bam does it in many other ways, not the least of which was refusing to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation.

Al Adab| 2.25.11 @ 11:48AM

David:
True indeed. So often did we criticize Bush and others for that very issue. Unfortunately we cannot act retroactivly against them. Now, today however, we have the opportunity to do something about it. End this selective enforcement attitude and fight to return our nation to being a Nation of Laws, Not of Men. Keep up the fight.

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 11:01AM

This is NOT really a cultural issue.

The issue here is that the President of the United States has announced, with the full complicity of the Justice Department, that he doesn't intend to uphold a Federal Law (DOMA).

He CANNOT do that. Period.

He has been held in contempt-of-court for refusing to follow a Federal Judge's ruling to lift the oil-drilling ban in the Gulf.

He will probably ALSO be held in contempt-of-court for refusing to cease the implementation of "ObamaCare".

Let me be clear: We have a lawless President occupying the White House.

This is NOT akin to Clinton getting oral sex from an intern and lying about it to a Grand Jury. That was bad; this is FAR, FAR worse.

This man (Obama) is a menace. He needs to be removed from office quickly via the Constitutional process.

The Republican Congress needs to begin impeachment proceedings NOW. It is their sworn duty. The country and the Constituion demand it.

Will the Democrats in the Senate balk? Undoubtedly. But again, this isn't 1998; they're facing electoral ruin in 2012, and they know it. The country rose-up against them last November, and it's against them now in the union-revolt fiasco. It's not outside the realm of possibility that enough of them would vote for impeachment to save their skins in 2012.

The situation is serious. This President is abusing his office, and his Constitutionally-mandated authority. If he knows he's going to lose in 2012, there's no telling what kind of vendetta his narcissistic mind might try and unleash.

Perilous time, folks.

RCV| 2.25.11 @ 1:06PM

You have no idea what you're talking about. The President did not announce that he would not "uphold" the Congressional Act. He announced that the Justice Dept would no longer continue to argue the law's constitutionality in the face of two court rulings that it is unconstitutional. A President has no duty to defend an act of Congress that violates the Constitution - Jefferson did not, and was not required to, defend the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress in violation of the Constitution. Congress has standing to defend the law's constitutionality if it wishes.
Ironically, you then criticize the President for continuing to defend the Constitutionality of the health care bill, which the majority of courts who have considered the issue have upheld. The ruling of the District Court which was in the minority is not final until the time for appeal has run, and then both the District Court and the Court of Appeal will decide if the ruling should be stayed pending appeal, which most likely will occur (as happened with Judge Vaughn's decision finding California's Prop 8 unconstitutional.)
In all these cases, the Supreme Court will make the ultimate determination of both laws' constituionality, and the issue will be settled.

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 2:27PM

As the kids of today like to say...EPIC FAIL!!!

Way to split metaphorical hairs. Now let's see who doesn't know what they're talking about...

The Attorney General works for the President, and serves at his (the President's) pleasure.

Announcing that the Justice Department would no longer "continue to argue the laws constitutionality" is the same thing as the President announcing that he won't uphold the law. Holder is not making this decision in a vacuum.

So we can assume that if and when the next Conservative Republican President announces that he/she will "no longer continue to argue the constitutionality" of Roe v. Wade, you'll be standing by his/her side cheering, right?

You really ARE clueless. The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. A Law doesn't have to be explicitly written and spelled-out to be Constitutional; it merely has to be able to pass "the smell test". DOMA was signed into law. It hasn't been judged "unconstitutional"; far from it. The President and his Attorney General have decided, without benefit of the law in the broader sense, that they won't stop others from violating it. That's not really something that a President can do; the Constitution does not vest the office with that kind of authority.

That is a direct abrogation of his oath, and an abuse of power.

Additionally, you fail to understand that the Federal Judge's RULING on ObamaCare DOES mean that it's implementation MUST cease. We know this is true because Obama and his administration have not asked for a Legal "stay", which would be tantamount to acknowledging the Judge's ruling, meaning that implementation would have to stop. In other words, Obama is pretending he didn't hear the judge. Again, will you be happy when the next Conservative President decides to ignore a Judge's ruling on abortion, or right-to-work, etc?

You're a phony, and not a well-informed one, either. Now go home and argue with the other 8th graders, please.

RCV| 2.25.11 @ 2:54PM

As a lawyer who has specialized in constitutional litigation for over 30 years, I have a better understanding of the details of the legal issues and ramifications than you apparently do. District Court orders do not become final until the time for appeal has run out. That will be the time for a request for a stay to the district court and/or the court of appeal.

The President' s determination on DOMA is entirely within his perogative in deciding what decisions the United States will appeal or not appeal. If he agrees with a court's determination on an act's unconstitutionality, he is not obliged to appeal or to continue to argue a position he believes to be constitutionally unjustified. The Act on its face plainly violates the Constitutional requirement that states MUST give full faith and credit to the laws of sister states, even apart from the Equal Protection issue on which three separate district courts have agreed with the President's determination.

Roe v. Wade is not a Congressional enactment. It is a final determination of the Supreme Court on an issue of Constitutional law, and it is binding unless and until the Constitution is amended or the Court revisits its analysis the way it did in Plessy/Brown on "separate but equal".

Sorry if these constitutional principles aren't to your liking.

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 3:14PM

"As a lawyer who has specialized in constitutional litigation for over 30 years"

Yeah. Suuuuure. Right.

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 3:15PM

So tell me, "Counselor"...What "issue of Constitutional law" supports Roe V. Wade..?

Hmmmmmmmmmm...????

What? You want to adjourn?!?!

......

RCV| 2.25.11 @ 5:20PM

No, I don't want to adjourn. You can read the Court's opinion to find out the basis of their analysis of the Ninth Amendment right of privacy. But I suspect actually reading the opinions and analyzing the issue is a bit beyond what you want to do, which is basically rant.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:24PM

The only problem, RCV, is that the USA is suffering from a birth dearth, and a marriage maintenance problem, especially among the middle class. For both these reasons, something akin to DOMA would be useful to have, even including express written implementation of Civil Unions for gay couples. But I'm not sure how much more battering marriage can take.

RCV| 2.25.11 @ 11:22PM

Allowing committed gay couples to marry is hardly going to put a dent in the birthrate, Occam. Get real. The Charlie Sheens of the world -- indeed, the Newt Gingriches and Rudy Guilianis --have done far more damage to the institution of marriage and the stability of families than gay marriage ever will.

John Navratil| 2.26.11 @ 10:06AM

RCV,

Isn't that a bit like saying that wrecking an automobile does more damage to the auto industry than nationalizing it?

Pelligrino| 2.26.11 @ 11:45PM

Dumb comment, RCV.

No one I know takes Guiliani seriously. Certainly not on matters of fundamental family living or morality (just what has Rudy done since being NYC Mayor? Nothing but TV stints. The broader American public give him no credence.) Ditto for Gingrich. He is a good historian and debater. He'd probably make for an interesting lecturing professor. Beyond that, he has no bearing on the nation at large.

It will matter when your nephew relates to you about his male 5th grade teacher smooching intensively with another male (the one who left the bouquet of roses on the desk?) during the period after art class on Valentines Day.

Try unwinding that 5th grader's mind on that.

Notice that I didn't mention Sheen. Notice? Real men and thinkers don't use nonsense to make a point.

Just what have you been doing for 30 years?

John Navratil| 2.26.11 @ 9:38AM

RCV,

It seems you opinion that "full faith and credit" trumps the 10th amendment. The Constitution is silent on marriage (no surprise and everyone knew what marriage was at the time).

If my state passes a law allowing drug use, does that mean that I can use drugs in any state?

ENOUGH ROPE| 2.25.11 @ 4:18PM

Here is strong evidence that Obama is a Marxist. Search for the site American Thinker and then search for Meeting Young Obama.

Obama is a SMILING COBRA.

numero uno| 2.25.11 @ 8:58PM

THANK YOU..OH SO RIGHT (RCV)

BackToBasics| 2.25.11 @ 10:54PM

from RCV's post - The President did not announce that he would not "uphold" the Congressional Act. He announced that the Justice Dept would no longer continue to argue the law's constitutionality...."

But the basic question still remains; why is it so important that Obam and Holder do this now or even at all on this PARTICULAR issue?

You miss the point entirely by your hair-splitting about the "defending" the constitutionality of this law as opposed to enforcing it. Why this law? And the fact that he would do this does not bode well for the enforcement of it either.

He could not go after the enforcement aspect to "get rid" of it but his annoucement will more slowly accomplish the same end, non-enforcement, while seeming to do otherwise.

THAT is his INTENT and those who voice concerns about it know it instinctively and factually too. Your instincts are not correct on this one and you miss his intent.

RCV| 2.25.11 @ 11:29PM

The law is patently unconstitutional, as several courts have now ruled. The President's Democratic constituency has been pressing for him to oppose the law since even before his election, and the court rulings have made it easy for him to now do so. The Congressional backers of the legislation have every right and will continue to defend its constitutionality, so there is simply no reason for Obama to continue to alienate his base.

Mike| 2.26.11 @ 9:57AM

RCV,

I need some help on this concept of reciprocity. Since I have a concealed carry permit issued under the authority of my state's law then, say, New York and California are obligated to allow me to carry my concealed weapon within their borders regardless of their state laws? Just asking.

Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)

RCV| 2.28.11 @ 11:44AM

Mike, in answer to your question, the situations are not analagous. New York and California only issue permits to carry in their own states; they do not have and do not purport to have the power extend that permit beyond their border. Status determinations are different in character. You are still married to your wife if the two of you travel from Los Angeles to Nevada.

BackToBasics| 2.26.11 @ 2:19PM

From your post - The law is patently unconstitutional, as several courts have now ruled"

The 9th Circuit and a judge in Massachusettes did rule the DOMA law, passed in 1996, as unconstitutional. It is interesting to note that both rulings occured after Obam was sworn into office even though the law has been on the books since 1996. And many argue that Administration presented a weak defense of the act which I do not doubt. The rulings also took place in 2 of the most liberal courts in the land.

Your reply to me about Obam not wanting to further anatagonize his base by defending the consitutionality of DOMA is correct.

But the machinations behind the scenes present a picture more of what I was saying above. It goes beyond the immediate politics of keeping the homosexual and transgender base. It also goes towards eventual elimination of the DOMA law either through an eventual overturning of it or else the eventual non-enforcement of it.

In either case, conservatives see this as just one more attack on the institutional and moral fabric of America in an attempt to eventaully radically transform our country into some sort of multicultural mishmash of socialism, secualrism, paganism, even some Islam thrown into the mix while weakening the Judeo-Christian, humanism that made our contry free and great.

Again, Obam's INTENT is to abrogate the law completely. This among MANY other things he and the Democrats have done and will continue to do to design a future America to what they think will be to their liking. They will be mistaken in this but that is another arguemnt.

W| 2.27.11 @ 1:57PM

there was some constitutional authority and belief that all three branches of our government had the right and oblilgation to decide if a law is constitutional. thus a president could refuse to enforce a law that he believes is unonstitutional. but, one the supreme court has declared a law constitutional or unconstitutional, its holding must be followed.
there is a presumption that a law passed by congress is constitutional, and for a president to say it is not constitutional, he must present some compelling reasons to rebut the presumption that the law is constitutional. obama's reason is to appeal to his base for the next election; that is not a valid reason.

Yosemeti Sam| 2.25.11 @ 11:07AM

" ... 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."...."

There you have it - a quintessential rogue OREO cookie of Leftoid enabled politics:

BHO on top, Holder on the bottom; Leftoid (are there any other kind now) Democrats
in-between.

Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.25.11 @ 12:06PM

If part of the President's job is upholding the Constitution, then he has made the correct decision here. There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment. Also, unlike married Straight couples, married Gay couples become "UN-married" if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause.

Face it: There's no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted. Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want. Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.

This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law.

KyMouse| 2.25.11 @ 12:32PM

So, why just "couples"? Why not polygamy? Don't polygamists deserve equal treatment under the law?

And if close relatives want to marry each other, who is to say they shouldn't? Brothers marrying their father, or Mom marrying all of her kids once Dad dies?

Hey, the sky's the limit!

Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.25.11 @ 1:30PM

DEAR KYMOUSE:

The issues of polygamy and incestuous relationships have no more to do with Gay marriage than they do with Straight marriage.

By your logic, if you allow a man to marry ONE woman, you have to let him marry as many women as he wants. But the issue of polygamy was settled a long time ago, when Utah sought statehood.

The only difference between a Gay married couple and a Straight married couple is the gender of the two people in the relationship.

Al Adab| 2.25.11 @ 3:15PM

This is one of the two issues that reveal so clearly the fault line between Conservatives and Libertarians.

Like it or not, there are certain Truths which do not change even when we choose to ignore them. Government, rightly understood, must recognize such whether we agree or not. The 2500 years of Western Civ. show the way and we ignore that at our peril.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:25PM

Correct, Al Adab (of course, you usually are).

Al Adab| 2.25.11 @ 9:05PM

Thank you, OT. You humble me.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.25.11 @ 12:12PM

lmn| 2.25.11 @ 12:29PM

He's just adding his own little signing statement, post signing.

Al Adab| 2.25.11 @ 12:35PM

Signed by Clinton wasn't it?

Wayne | 2.25.11 @ 12:34PM

As I think about this. The Government should get out of the business of marriage all together. Just treat all people as individuals. Give up the concept of spouse or mate. It is a private matter. Don't own it and certainly don't redefine it.

David| 2.25.11 @ 12:48PM

Chuck, thank you for acknowledging that this debate can be had without discussing religion. Although I don't think it can be discussed without a moral dimension.

Homosexuals don't want equal treatment under the law - they want acceptance and special treatment under the law. Everything a hetero married can get a homo couple can get via various legal documents. What you don't want is anyone to challenge your Wills although it happens a lot of the time when hetero couples are involved.

You don't want to be left alone in your bedrooms, you want to drag what you do into the streets and into the public schools and demand that our children be taught that what you do is okay.

You don't just want to get married, you want to adopt children, when every study ever performed states that the ideal situation for children is to live with their biological mother and father, or alternatively, with mother and father figures.

In short, you want to force everyone to accept you and what you do. You want everyone to say it is okay when the majority of people do not believe it is okay.

What you do is not natural. If it was, our a-holes would have been made for sex. They are not - ask any gastroenterologist. If it was natural, 2 men or 2 women would be able to procreate.

If it were natural, mankind would have realized it and accepted it long before now.

David| 2.25.11 @ 12:53PM

Chuck, as KyMouse points out, are you willing to say that if 2 men or women can marry, then any number of consenting adults in whatever combination should also be able to marry?

Or are you going to be polyphobic and bygaphobic when it comes to them? Just kidding on those words, but I can see them being used one day.

I have asked that question before and no pro-homo marriage supporter will answer it.

Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.25.11 @ 1:32PM

DEAR DAVID:

I'll respond the same way I responded to KyMouse:

The issues of polygamy and incestuous relationships have no more to do with Gay marriage than they do with Straight marriage.

By your logic, if you allow a man to marry ONE woman, you have to let him marry as many women as he wants. But the issue of polygamy was settled a long time ago, when Utah sought statehood.

The only difference between a Gay married couple and a Straight married couple is the gender of the two people in the relationship.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:26PM

I think the point being made here is that there are no moral reasons to prohibit polygamy if gay marriage goes through. Indeed, polygamy is more pro-child than gay marriage, so...

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 12:54PM

Regardless of how this eventually plays out in the legal system, it's irrelevant.

There's NO such thing as "gay marriage".

A man cannot "marry" a man; a woman cannot "marry" a woman.

It's sad how people think they can play games with God's word, and he was QUITE clear with the issue of homosexuality.

So remember: The Judge who issues a marriage license to a gay "couple" is NOT the Judge to be concerned about.

Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.25.11 @ 1:37PM

DEAR DOCTOR RIGHT:

If your personal religious beliefs inform you that Gay marriage is wrong, please don't marry someone of the same sex, and make sure you ignore any invitations you receive to Gay weddings.

But the United States is not yet a theocracy. Until it is, we rely on the Constitution for our law, not the Bible, the Quran, nor the Bhagvad Gita. And from a purely Constitutional standpoint, there is not justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits that married Straight couples have always taken for granted.

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 2:11PM

Dear Chuck:

The point I made has clearly sailed...WHOOOOOSH!!!!...Right over your head.

Dial-down the drama, and re-read my post. If you do, you'll see that the main point is that it doesn't really mater what I think about "gay marriage", and it doesn't matter what you think, or about what some Judge thinks.

The only opinion that matters is that of God, and he has expressed himself on this matter without ambiguity.

What's that? You don't believe in God? You don't believe His word? Or don't care?

Then I pity you. He believes in you. And one day, he will judge you, and he won't really care about your human rationalizations.

Work out your salvation "with fear and trembling", Chuck. There's no debating with God.

Purple Lips| 2.25.11 @ 4:32PM

Chuck,
I hate to inform you of this, but the ACLU is working on a project to incorporate Sharia into our jurisprudence. Don't take my word -look it up. Muslims have been pretty successful in doing this in the UK. And let's just say that in certain neighborhoods in London (the Eastside for example), or cities ( Birmingham and other cities in Yorkshire) holding hands with your gay boyfriend; or, being a female without a hijab on your noggin. The religious police in many of these no-go zones carry switches and tend to beat on gays and uncovered females. And it all started there by weakening our civic and Christian institutions first, and then later demandin Islamic customs and institutions take thier place.

BackToBasics| 2.25.11 @ 5:28PM

Amazing how the left won't raise cry the slightest objection to caning or switching or even worse if it is done by Muslims.

They are definitely on top of the PoliticallyCorr chain. homosexuals are second in PC reckoning in my estimation. I'm not into PC at all but just noting it. Interesting to me though is the very high ranking of Muslims now.

BackToBasics| 2.25.11 @ 5:29PM

typo - raise a cry or the slightest objection...

David| 2.25.11 @ 12:55PM

Wayne, the government can't get completely out of the marriage business because many people don't want to get married in a religious ceremony.

Handy| 2.25.11 @ 1:11PM

Typical Marriage Autocrat.

There is no dignity in marriage. It is a total scam to rob single people on the sham of a moral high horse (painted pony).

All marriages should be outlawed and all marriage benefits shut off. Why should us single folks subsidize your lascivious behavior and your rotten whelps' schooling? How come, according to your code, you get to copulate, and we cannot.

Look, I hate Obama more than the next guy, and I think queers are just plain odd and sad folks, but I am getting a bit tired of the sanctimony of the "Marriageists." If you have found connubial bliss and your kids are all blessings, then be happy "fer cripes sake." Just don't make us pay for your bliss and your blessings while lording them over us.

And, while you are up there on your moral-marriage high ground, don't cheat on your spouses. Oh wait. That's not gonna happen. At least the cheating wives should pop for the condoms or the abortions. Naw, that aint gonna happen either.

Cut off the bennies, and the homos won't want anything to do with getting hitched.

I support the GROMA (Get Rid Of Marriage Act).

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:31PM

Because married people have kids, who pay for YOUR Social Security when you grow old, Handy, as your parents had you.

Single people with no kids contribute very little to their own care in old age. The government "benefits" to married people and those with children do not offset the costs of raising kids, which is the primary purpose of marriage (as RCV is a Constitutional Lawyer, I AM a Board Certified Psychiatrist---I know what I'm talking about here from years in the field). The benefits that those who raise children contribute to the society far outweigh that of most Singletons who are childless.

Handy| 2.25.11 @ 9:42PM

Support the GROSSA (Get Rid Of Social Security Act), as well.

And, as has been observed by many over the years, psychotherapists, if they truly believe what they say, would and should, never marry. Certainly they should not have kiddies. That is just plain child abuse.

Board certified? Hah. Your governing council says that being queer is not queer. Dr. Psycho, turn in your badge! You are an apostate. Seek therapy.

Your ball, Doc Occ.

David| 2.25.11 @ 1:55PM

Chuck, thanks for trying to completely confuse the issue, but you have not done so. The issue is that one man and one woman is the norm in America and the civilized world. Two men would not be the norm. So the question is will you allow 3 or 4 men to marry? After all, they are consenting adults.

David| 2.25.11 @ 2:03PM

Chuck, so I am clear, IF we allow 2 men or 2 women to actually marry, thereby condoning such behavior, then I say we should allow any number and any combination of consenting adults to marry. It would not be fair otherwise. Then people who want such relationships could legitimately claim they are being denied rights that homo and hetero couples have. I don't know how it could be legal to deny them their wish to marry however many people they choose to marry.

Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.25.11 @ 2:36PM

DEAR DAVID:

Do you believe that if a man can marry one woman, he has to be allowed to marry as many women as he wants?

NO?

Then why are you saying that allowing Gay couples to marry will automatically lead to polygamy, when allowing Straight couples to marry will not?

You keep on throwing out these red herrings without even thinking about how illogical they are.

Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.25.11 @ 2:35PM

DEAR DAVID:

Do you believe that if a man can marry one woman, he has to be allowed to marry as many women as he wants?

NO?

Then why are you saying that allowing Gay couples to marry will automatically lead to polygamy, when allowing Straight couples to marry will not?

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 2:36PM

Gays (mostly) vote for Liberals.

Liberals (mostly) support the Left.

The Left (mostly) supports the Arabs against Israel.

The Arabs (mostly) are Muslims.

Muslims (mostly) have no problems KILLING Gays.

...Weird, huh..?

RCV| 2.25.11 @ 3:09PM

Evangelical Christians (mostly) vote for Conservatives;

Conservatives (mostly) support the Republican Party;

The Republican Party (mostly) supports close ties with Saudi Arabia;

Saudi Arabia persecutes Evangelical Christians.

...weird, huh?

P.s. - you can do this silliness a hundred times over.

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 3:27PM

Nope.

Not weird at all. Watch:

Liberals (mostly) are against drilling for oil in the continental USA.

Cars (mostly) run on gasoline, which is made from oil.

Americans (mostly) use cars for transportation.

Saudi Arabia sells (mostly) oil.

Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country.

Many Muslims want to kill Americans.

If Americans could drill for our own oil, we (mostly) would have to buy as much from Islamic countries.

Republicans (mostly) support drilling for oil in the continental USA.

Therefore...

Liberals (mostly) and their idiotic energy policies (mostly) are responsible for us having to buy oil from Saudi Arabia.

RCV (always) makes a fool out of himself when he tries to tangle with Doctor Right.

...Some lawyer you are.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:40PM

My Dear RCV,

Doctor Right is harsher than I am to you, but the majority of anti-Israel Congressmen are Democrats, not Republicans. In my home state, the three most anti-Israel Congressmen(women) are Betty McDermott,Ellison, and Collin Peterson. All three are Democrats. Kucinich is the most anti-Israel Democrat, he's up there with Paul, who, father and son, are the only consistently anti-Israel Republican Congressmen or Senator of any note. (Paul Sr. much worse than Rand.)

Other anti-Israel Dems include Pete Stark, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Maxine Waters---it actually goes on quite a bit.

Now, the majority of Dems are pro-Israel. But the most leftist contingent meets with the Paulites and the Lew Rockwell types in their hatred for Israel. Sorry, but complete this sentence: Noam Chomsky is ____ regarding Israel (answer: in agreement with Ron Paul).

Clint| 2.26.11 @ 1:21AM

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

RCV| 2.26.11 @ 12:22PM

Noam Chomsky, a self-described anarchist, is close to Ron Paul on a lot of issues. As a mainstream Democrat I can honestly say there are few things I have ever agreed with the man about.

Most Democrats, as you say, are supporters of Israel, and many -- including Henry Waxman, Howard Berman and other liberal California Democrats -- are among its most steadfast allies. Yes, there are Kuchinich and Waters and others in our party, but there is also a strong antisemitic element on the right, that incuded not only Ron Paul, but Pat (WW II was Churchill's fault) Buchannan, as well as our mutual friend, Tim*/Clint.

Clint| 2.27.11 @ 11:05AM

Uh Oh !
ObamaBoy RCV Plays The Anti Semetic Card on Tea Party Patriot Clint,Tea Party Favorite & Chairman of The House Monetary Sub-Committee Dr. Ron Paul & Pat Buchanan & brags on Democrats Waxman/Nostraldamus, Berman & California Democrats.

Frankie| 2.25.11 @ 3:16PM

Hey, Doctor,

The fanatical, fundamentalist Islamists have no problem killing young women who have been intimate with a boyfriend, women who have committed adultury, and some men (women mostly) who have committed adultury.

The fundametalist Islamists adhere to a medieval moral code of behavior, and it looks to me like many of the posters on here do likewise.

Turn your eyes from dark superstition and embrace the light of 21st century psychology and science.

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 3:28PM

What's your point? Do you have one?

Young Conservative| 2.25.11 @ 6:11PM

We aren't asking for any executions.
There's quite a difference between disapproving of someone's actions and killing him/her.
Also, are you are aware of the scientific evidence that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage often devastates the individuals involved?
If you have suffered hateful remarks of people who berated you, I apologize for them. May even more advocates of morality remember that self-righteousness is wrong.... and that compassion is necessary.

ENOUGH ROPE| 2.25.11 @ 4:19PM

Here is strong evidence that Obama is a Marxist. Search for the site American Thinker and then search for Meeting Young Obama.

Obama is a SMILING COBRA.

VinnieCCT| 2.25.11 @ 2:44PM

Repealing DADT and this stunt leads to the inevitable... The US Government will be forced to declare homosexuality acceptable and moral. The Government will mandate sensitivity training and declare homosexuality a civil right.

harrington| 2.25.11 @ 3:22PM

This from today's Washington Times:

American combat troops will get sensitivity training directly on the battlefield about the military’s new policy on gays instead of waiting until they return to home base in the United States, the senior enlisted man in Afghanistan said Thursday.

The Pentagon is launching an extensive force-wide program to ease the process of integrating open homosexuals into the ranks, including into close-knit fighting units.

Army Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill, the top enlisted man in Afghanistan where 100,000 U.S. troops are deployed, said that the sessions on respecting gays’ rights will go right down to the forward operating bases, where troops fight Taliban militants.

VinnieCCT, why don't you come to terms with the fact that gays demand equality, and they are going to get it.

And that's fine with me.

VinnieCCT| 2.25.11 @ 6:51PM

How fair is it to force 97% of the population to "accept" something that is against their religion. That violates First Amendment rights. I will not "come to terms" with it. God knows where I stand. Christian soldiers should be allowed to sit out the training for religious reasons.

bobmontgomery| 2.25.11 @ 3:34PM

We all know about Obama. Yes, he abandons marriage, but he also abandoned his grandmother. Here is, or should be, more of a sting: Joe Biden has bandoned his Catholicism.
Get used to it, says Joe. Well, well, well. Abortion, same sex marriage....can murder be far behind?

syd chaden| 2.25.11 @ 3:35PM

President Obama has had much to say about adopting a new relationship with the Islamic World, but he has had nothing to say about the Shariah. He has had much to say about supporting “rights” for homosexuals, but he has had nothing to say about Islam’s prohibition of homosexual behavior. The “homosexual community” doesn’t seem to have much to say about Islam, and its Shariah, which decrees death as the suitable punishment for homosexual behavior.
Why the silence about Islam? The homosexual community should certainly be concerned. Islam is the dominant force in many of the countries of the world, and is the fastest growing. The more radical Islamic elements have already attacked many of the countries in the non-Muslim world, and the avowed goal of Islam is to establish Islam in the entire world, and to bring non-believers into its fold. Their success would mean that all homosexuals would either be dead or in hiding. There would be no more educational programs in US schools, extolling the virtues, beauty and normalcy of homosexual relationships, no more gay marriages or civil ceremonies, no more movies and TV shows depicting homosexual life. There would be Islam, and the Shariah.
One would think that the activist homosexual groups would be very alarmed over the threat. Today, only the US military combats radical Islamic domination, and the US military will now permit openly gay people to join its ranks. So, where is the surge of enlistments, and support for the US military, from homosexuals? Why aren’t they supporting the ROTC programs at the universities? Why aren’t they supporting Israel, which permits Gay Pride parades, instead of supporting those who would destroy Israel, and homosexuals, as well?
The answer is, the issue isn’t really what is done, it is who does it. That is true in politics, and it is true with homosexual activists, as well.

Da'ud Maud'dib| 2.25.11 @ 3:35PM

The Obama administration and the Justice department will no longer defend the constitutionality of the law, let me repeat, defend the constitutionality. It will still defend the law itself when suits arise challenging the interpretation of the law but when suits arise challenging the constitutionality of the law then the executive branch will not defend its constitutionality. If you begin with the premise that homosexuality is not chosen and homosexuals are full citizens, as the president and AG Holder have, then to discriminate against them is unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment. This isn’t a giant leap it is just that the previous challenges have been in circuits whose precedents say judges use a test that presumes automatically that the law is constitutional; so the constitutionality of the law hasn’t been the issue. Upcoming cases are in jurisdictions and worded in such a way that the very constitutionality of the law is what is being questioned. The test of which the Obama Administration can’t defend once it took the stand that gays are full citizens entitled to full and equal protection under the constitution and should be able to serve without challenge in the armed forces. It is the idea of gays as full and equal citizens deserving equal protection that puts provisions of DoMA in question. You may not like it but to imply that this is a great shift from what he stated while running and what his administration has been working for since elected is either because you haven’t walked through all of the reasoning and implications or because you are just being disingenuous because reality doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas. It would have been better to coach your disagreement and disappointment in language stating that Obama is showing his propensity to take and follow through on liberal ideas by… then to feign surprise that this center left president has taken the logical step after dismantling DADT. If you are trying to show undecided Americans why his ideas are wrong, it would be best to start by correctly stating what he is doing and on what principle he is doing it before you try to show the error in his decision. When two people or ideologies have an honest difference of opinion and are trying to sway the undecided to their way of thinking it helps if both sides start from the same premise, definition of words and agree on the same basic facts. Obama was elected with 52% of the vote and has as much of a mandate to follow the ideas, principles and direction that he was elected on as does the new Republican majority in the house whose very majority shows the congressional mandate they received to follow the ideas, principles and direction that they were elected on.

Al Adab| 2.25.11 @ 5:56PM

Usul:
Muad'dib I follow but why Da'ud? He was the rather young bedoin "companion" of T. E. Lawrence.

BackToBasics| 2.25.11 @ 10:59PM

I repeat my post to RCV from above:

from your post - The Obama administration and the Justice department will no longer defend the constitutionality of the law, let me repeat, defend the constitutionality...

But the basic question still remains; why is it so important that Obam and Holder do this now or even at all on this PARTICULAR issue?

He could not go after the enforcement aspect to "get rid" of it but his annoucement will more slowly accomplish the same end, non-enforcement, while seeming to do otherwise.

THAT is his INTENT and those who voice concerns about it know it instinctively and factually too. Your instincts are not correct on this one and you miss his intent.

John Navratil| 2.26.11 @ 10:57AM

BackToBasics,

We'll see what the final outcome is, but this is a case of getting through the courts what could not be gotten through the legislature.

If DOMA is unconstitutional, the legislature will have to find a constitutional remedy. If, as in Roe v. Wade, the courts invent a right and take it out of the public forum, look for the same sort of repercussions.

As I said to RCV, this appears to be a conflict between "full faith and credit" and the 10th amendment. As with Roe, it will be much better to let the states work this out themselves.

BackToBasics| 2.26.11 @ 2:32PM

Good points here and above also. Lawyers sometimes seem to get caught up in the minutae and proceedings of the cases and miss so many external cues; such as your point above abount inventing a "right to privacy" as a foundation for Roe V. Wade. They also perhaps conveniently overlook the 10th amendment and welcome Federal "pwer-grab" Law over that of the states.

But we know where this is all heading and the left does too.

ENOUGH ROPE| 2.25.11 @ 4:19PM

Here is strong evidence that Obama is a Marxist. Search for the site American Thinker and then search for Meeting Young Obama.

Obama is a SMILING COBRA.

WAKE UP| 2.25.11 @ 6:07PM

The Middle East is burning, Europe's a mess, the economy is tanking, China and Russia are flexing muscles, and Obama has time for THIS? What's the real reason? Distraction? Newt Gingrich has already fallen for it by bothering to respond(though he's right that it's an impeachable offence).

The best treatment of this little ploy would be to laugh Obama out of the room.

david| 2.25.11 @ 6:24PM

Chuck, You said: Do you believe that if a man can marry one woman, he has to be allowed to marry as many women as he wants?

I say: No, not at all. Marriage should remain as it has been defined for the past 2,000 years in the West, The Civilized World, between one man and one woman.

You want to change that definition; you want to force it down society's throat, just like Islamicists want to force their lifestyle down our throats.

You said: Then why are you saying that allowing Gay couples to marry will automatically lead to polygamy, when allowing Straight couples to marry will not? You keep on throwing out these red herrings without even thinking about how illogical they are.

I say: I am not saying allowing homos to marry will AUTOMATICALLY lead to polygamy. And the reason that men don't have multiple wives is that we have BOUNDARIES, LAWS, that prohibit it.

But, the point is, if civilized society can change the definition of marriage for YOU, why not change it so that any number of men, women, or combination thereof cannot be considered married?

You have not answered the question. IF, IF, IF, society decides to APPROVE of what you do, and call you MARRIED, then will you accept that any number of consenting adults in any combination should also be APPROVED by society?

Please do answer the question without obfuscating the issue with slippery slope arguments. Slippery slope or not, polygamous and incestous marriages will happen and no one can fairly, morally, or legally argue against them once society condones marriages between 2 men or 2 women.

Please tell us what your position will be. If you don't answer this time, don't bother responding because I am through talking in circles with you.

oh god, a liberal!| 2.25.11 @ 6:48PM

most of the comments on this article are offensive in their absurdity - at least the article was well-written.

that said, i personally find the (predictable) conservative reaction to this issue disgusting. you can throw layers over it and say 'oh, obama crossed the line', 'oh he's politicizing everything', but at its core this is about civil rights and equality. this topic aside, if you were asked if you believe in civil rights or if you believe in equality, i'm pretty sure most of you would answer affirmatively (if i'm wrong, well, that's rather frightening). so why is it so different with gay marriage (and the quotation marks around the word marriage in the article were unnecessarily snarky)? if two men or two women are in love and want to take the next step, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so when the rest of the population can? and since them doing so would not affect your life in the slightest, why do you care so much? it's not your life - if you don't approve of gay marriage for whatever reason (and i'm not trying to demean anyone's religious beliefs), then just don't get one. it's as simple as that.

i would actually like to see some honest answers to my questions. i know i'm going to get slammed and called a troll, and if that will really make you feel better, then go right ahead - just answer my questions in the process.

oh, and please, don't use the slippery slope argument in your answers. the idea that more people getting married will lead to a degradation of the whole institution is illogical and alarmist. so don't bring up incestual and pansexualistic marriages, please.

p.s. this line, "which are high-risk, dysfunctional, and entail consequences that, ultimately, are a drain on both the national treasury and the nation's social infrastructure," was also completely unnecessary and fairly bigoted. gay relationships/marriages are not by definition "high-risk" and "dysfunctional" any more than straight relationships/marriages are. just saying. now bash away.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:56PM

This is a very simple argument.

Data shows that the lower and middle middle class are having more and more problems with maintaining (and even getting) married. They are beginning to resemble lower class folks with "baby mamas" in that way. This undermines the institution of marriage, and poor marriages lead to poor outcomes for kids.

Further, places like Europe (and New Zealand, where I practiced for a year) that encourage "partnerhood" instead of marriage have a birthrate that ranges from death spiral (Germany, Italy, and Spain), to barely keeping up (New Zealand---and the Maoris have a great number of kids and tend to be less married and more poorly educated than Pakeha).

The US, with a baby boom generation about to retire, is facing a birth dearth among its legal, tax paying citizens. For example, half of the kids born in LA County are born to illegals. (Source, LA Dept. of Health website)

Without kids who grow up to be productive adults, our safety net is doomed. Without laws protecting and supporting traditional marriage, it is doomed. THE MAJOR PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE IS TO CREATE A STABLE PLACE TO RAISE KIDS. That is falling apart in the USA, particularly among all groups below the Upper Middle Class and above, and is a major reason why the lower middle class CAN'T rise. Marriage exists for children, and also is a wealth generator for families.

Marriage does not deserve, and cannot sustain, any more attacks. Therefore, some legal protection for traditional marriage is both appropriate and needed for Civilizational survival.

I hope this answers your question, Liberal One. Don't take my word on the Demographic arguments---do your own review. For Demographic data, go to the UN Demographic website or the CIA factbook website. Look at Western Europe versus, say, Israel. Note births per woman and average ages. Nations where the average age is in the 20s have a higher GNP than those whose populations are in the 40s on average. They also have more military potential. Then look at Yemen and Saudi. That's all. Happy reading!

Handy| 2.25.11 @ 10:07PM

A license to practice psychotherapy is really only a learner's permit. When "shrinks" gain common sense and the ability to reason, we should welcome them back to the Human Race.

Until then, keep the demographic and economic data under lock and key. Like the Razor, they could overdose themselves. And, come hell or high water, make sure they never replicate.

The very thought makes "Me timbers shiver, Matey." We don't need no shrinky-dinkies on this pirate ship to recover our lost treasure: Freedom.

Doc Occ needs a tox screen. STAT!!!

BackToBasics| 2.25.11 @ 10:42PM

Good stats and arguments, all true. What Handy says makes no sense.

This announcement by Holder is just another add-on to Obam's plans to remake America. With all the turmoil in the 3rd world, especially in the Muslim countries, assaults within our own and stats such as you cite in Western countries, we may be looking at the beginings of a new Dark Age.

numero uno| 2.25.11 @ 9:16PM

can i get an amennnnnn!

John Navratil| 2.26.11 @ 10:37AM

oh god, a liberal!,

(Apologies to those who may have read some of this before.)

Reviewing the events of marriage, observe that some societies required a reading of the banns for three weeks prior to a wedding. Why? To get the word out so that anyone with a problem had time to respond. For example, the groom might have a wife in the next village. Why? Who cares? The society cared. Still today, all are charged with supporting they newlyweds in their marriage. The Christian religious ceremony ends with the admonition that no man should interfere with the marriage.

Marriage involves the entire community. Why? Property rights and succession were certainly one. But the biggie was children.

Prior to this age of wealth when people lived a lot closer to the earth, a succession was a necessity (someone to work the farm and take care of you in your later years) and a great expense. It took an otherwise productive working mother out of commission to raise children up to their productive years. Having someone's bastard children around was a burden on the community. To help motivate the poor farm girl to resist the plaintiff calls of the local Lothario, the laws of bastardy prevented a bastard child from inheriting from the father. Again why? It was a recognition that the continued existence of society required a next generation, children without support were a burden on the collective and the best way for children to be raised was in a family. The marriage provided this structure and imposed obligations on the parents in order to benefit the society as a whole. Love made it a whole lot easier to build a solid family, but nowhere is it considered a requirement for marriage. Arranged marriages existed then and now.

You may argue that today the rules are different. We can afford different family structures. Indeed you are, in some respects, correct. However we still need a next generation (it's kind of the point of life, isn't it) and while other arrangements may be adequate, a two-parent family is still regarded as the best way of bring up the next generation. We are currently reaping the "benefit" of having a under-class of women who have effectively "married" the government.

You invert the meaning of marriage when you center it on the couple. This is why most commentators here don't much care what people do in their own bedroom, but are opposed to the redefinition of marriage.

BackToBasics| 2.27.11 @ 1:58PM

from liberal's post - "if two men or two women are in love and want to take the next step"

You seem to make comments about conservatives as if we do not know any liberals. I'll bet most conservative commentators here have immediate and / or extended family members that are liberal as do I. I'll bet every commentator here also works with liberals or has worked in the past with them.

Nobody herre lives in bubbles. In my work experience over the years I have worked in places that where some of my co-workers were homosexuals, both men and women.

I want to give you an honest and objective assessment of my observation of the homosexual co-workers. If they were professional I personally did not have a problem working with them. But most of the men, especially the non-professionals, seemed to have HUGE NEEDS of reassurance and they seemed to go from person to person in what seemed like an effort to "get filled" with love and reassurance. But often enough they seem to go over the line and somehow think that a big percentage of this NEED could be filled with having a sexual relationship. this is done subtly but it is a distraction and even intrusive at least to the straight men on the receiving end.

And here's the main point I wanted to make. With the homosexual men who were less professional, and this was most of them, it DID NOT MATTER if they had a partner already. They seemed to be ALWAYS LOOKING for some "extra" "need-filler." This is NOT LOVE. And is shows no love or respect or commitment towards their partners either.

Do heterosexuals do this? Some do, too many in fact. But they seem less desperate in their goings-about-it than the non-professional homesexuals I've worked with.

To me, this drive towards allowing homosexual marriages has three main purposes:

First, the "partners" want the money and benefits that married couples get.

Second, homosexuals are trying to get the reassurance that they so desperately need.

Third, it WILL weaken our country as it weakens the fabric and instituion of marriage as God intended. In that sense homosexuals are just pawns to be used by the big power-grabbers on the left.

The only One who have fill the needs that we ALL have, including homosexuals is Jesus Christ. He is the one they should turn to to fill their needs, hopes and salvation; not the Federal Government.

BackToBasics| 2.27.11 @ 1:59PM

typo - last paragraph - The only One who can fill the needs

david| 2.25.11 @ 7:07PM

To the liberal who posted at 6:48 pm.

First, it is quite unfair for you to tell those opposed what arguments can't and can't be used as in your slippery slope statement.

You said: " if two men or two women are in love and want to take the next step, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so when the rest of the population can?"

I say: If 3, 5, or 10 consenting adults of any combination are in love and want to take the next step, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so when the rest of the population can? Sound familiar???

Your answer, please.

For further explanation, please read all of the other comments on this site, and I will specifically refer you to mine, which are posted at:

9:46 a.m., 12:48, 12:53, 12:55, 1:55, 2:03, and 6:24.

For complete context, read Chuck A's comments, which are interspersed throughout mine.

If you don't understand the objections after that, and you can't answer my question above, then don't bother responding as I have wasted enough time with the nonsensical reasoning of Chuck.

Pelligrino| 2.27.11 @ 12:05AM

David, thanks for your posts like the one above throughout this comment page.

You are right. Life, marriage, family, and the good life are rooted in just a simple formula called the sanctity of a union between one man and one woman.

All else is perverted and evil.

Will the evil and perverted challenge this? Yes. They are blind and lost.

You are resolutely arguing for the foundation (a husband and wife form the foundation) of any home, street, community, county, state, and nation.

Without this foundation we fail -- at every level.

Thank you. Stay strong. Keep it up.

Brian Astby| 2.25.11 @ 9:12PM

Didn't GW Bush abandon Immagration Laws?

John Navratil| 2.26.11 @ 10:42AM

Nope, enforcement and deportations continued under his watch. No attempt to ignore the law. He may have supported "comprehensive" reform, but supporting a change in the law isn't quite the same thing as failing to do his required task of enforcing what we have.

david| 2.25.11 @ 10:30PM

Brian Astby, yes he did. And do did the 3 or 4 presidents bef0re him. How does it happen, when the executive, the branch charged with enforcing the law, can simply ignore it? That is a huge issue that is being ignored, and any repub prez candidate ought to address it!!!

Lisa| 2.25.11 @ 11:04PM

"... same-sex sexual relationships... are high-risk, dysfunctional, and entail consequences that, ultimately, are a drain on both the national treasury and the nation's social infrastructure."

Please cite any credible references to back up that incredible claim (and, no what you pull out of your butt is not a credible reference).

Wayne | 2.25.11 @ 11:47PM

It is easy. There is no such thing. Being of the same sex, they can not by definition have sex.

r & r| 2.26.11 @ 9:48AM

Ever masturbated, Wayne?

Frisbee| 2.28.11 @ 9:27PM

Wayne is correct.

RCV| 2.28.11 @ 11:40AM

Wayne must have been Clinton's lexiconic advisor during his deposition.

Rowdy Boots| 2.27.11 @ 10:51AM

Well,
it goes to show that Obama has taken his lessons well from Quaddafi and Chavez and Castro:

Be a Dictator and you will not have to deal with the sticky messy irritations of Democracy, like having to do what your Subjects want.

WE HAVE TO GET RID OF THIS CRETIN IN 2012-

JeffT| 2.27.11 @ 1:00PM

If there were ever any doubt that Obama cares not a whit for this country, this latest lawlessness cements it. Not that anyone paying attention is surprised by his transformation of America into ??? exactly. To the 53% who made this possible, may you rot in, well, you know where.

NJK| 2.27.11 @ 4:40PM

Obama abandons the law. You have to be Natural Born to be President, no problem, just ignore it and run anyway. When they ask just get attorneys to keep it under lock and key. After all no one wants to attack the "first African American President." Just convince the general public all Americans who ask for proof are kooks. Alinsky would be proud.

Obamacare ruled unconstitutional? No problem, move ahead.

Contempt of Court for imposing a drilling moratorium when the judge in LA said not to? No problem ignore it, and just tell the court, "It takes a long time and is very involved to issue new permits."

DOMA? He doesn't like it so that's all that matters. He now makes laws too.

Obama is a committed Christian, he said so.
So ignore the obvious. After all only a committed Christian would say, "We are not a Christian Nation," skip the National Prayer Breakfast, have Georgetown University cover up any sign of Jesus when he spoke there, leave the word creator out of the Declaration of Independence at least three times......Yes, just throw away your common sense.

What Does Gadhafi Think Of Obama? He's a "Muslim" With Kenyan African Origins Who Should Be "President Forever"

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/02.....a-hes.html

Oh and don't forget this:
"A Pakistani minister wants Obama to offer Eid Prayers at Ground Zero and declare himself the new Caliph of the Muslim World.

"http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/09/paki-minister-wants-obama-to-offer-eid-prayers-at-ground-zero-declare-himself-caliph-of-all-muslims/

It should make everyone feel very safe that just nine short years after 9/11 we have a man with the name Hussein, who seems to really want to destroy America in the White House who we know nothing about. He refuses to release his birth certificate, college records, medical records, and we're all supposed to be ok with it. Makes perfect sense to me.

Brian| 2.27.11 @ 5:11PM

Switzerland is considering the decriminalization of incest. That's the next step in our brave new world. As you can see by the comment onslaught as well as what voters experienced here in Maine, the Stalinism of the gay lobby will not be stopped. Unless we vote out people like Obama.

Frisbee| 2.28.11 @ 9:28PM

Canada approved of Child Porn around the same time they approved of Man Man nuptials.

Timely Renewed | 3.1.11 @ 11:30PM

Obama has based this move on the expansion of the 14th amendment through the Supreme Court's illegitimate addition of the "privacy" doctrine to the hopelessly vague first section of the 14th amendment. In order to have the rule of law, those charged with power in a polity must respect the original written text of the laws. If they are allowed a very broad discretion in the interpretation of the text, you quickly are reduced to the rule of men, where legal power is based on what the rulers can get away with rather than some pre-agreed foundational understanding. The 14th Amendment was about prohibiting government race discrimination. In expanding this original meaning, the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the power to effectively amend the Constitution, a procedure for which the document itself requires approval by super-majorities of democratically elected legislators. The real solution is to amend the 14th amendment to restore its original meaning as a ban on governmental race discrimination. This will end not only the Obama administration's move toward supporting the judicial imposition of gay marriage nationwide, but a host of other constitutional abuses by the modern Supreme Court. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 2:46AM

is good

العاب | 4.11.12 @ 5:21PM

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|1 comment

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|2 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|4 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|1 comment

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|3 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman

The Devils Koch

Marta H. Mossburg

The Spectacle Blog

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.23.13

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5.23.13

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 5.23.13

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 5.23.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

A Further Perspective

Obama Abandons Marriage

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (230) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Appleby| 2.25.11 @ 6:36AM

Chicken Little| 2.25.11 @ 10:23AM

Miss Piggy| 2.25.11 @ 10:40AM

Speedy Gonzales| 2.25.11 @ 10:41AM

Al Adab| 2.25.11 @ 12:33PM

Frisbee| 2.26.11 @ 10:24PM

Pelligrino| 2.26.11 @ 11:08PM

Chicken Little| 2.27.11 @ 10:45AM

FOXY LOXY| 2.27.11 @ 10:50AM

Goosey Loosey| 2.27.11 @ 12:26PM

Frisbee| 2.28.11 @ 9:24PM

K. A. Poole| 2.25.11 @ 12:43PM

Wilford Clapper| 2.25.11 @ 1:29PM

o. p.| 2.25.11 @ 1:32PM

Wilford Clapper| 2.25.11 @ 1:34PM

Jimmy from Jacksonville| 2.25.11 @ 3:30PM

An Actual Redneck| 2.25.11 @ 4:53PM

numero uno| 2.25.11 @ 8:19PM

Purple Lips| 2.25.11 @ 4:22PM

o.p.| 2.25.11 @ 10:16PM

Mr. AmSpec NutJob| 2.27.11 @ 11:24AM

Teabagger Bunny| 2.27.11 @ 12:28PM

r p i 23| 2.27.11 @ 2:29PM

Purple Lips| 2.25.11 @ 11:23AM

Deputy Dawg from Spartanburg| 2.25.11 @ 11:56AM

Reverend Rufus Redneck| 2.25.11 @ 12:00PM

Wayne | 2.25.11 @ 12:27PM

K. A. Poole| 2.25.11 @ 12:55PM

ENOUGH ROPE| 2.25.11 @ 1:03PM

numero uno| 2.25.11 @ 8:26PM

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.25.11 @ 12:13PM

ENOUGH ROPE| 2.25.11 @ 4:15PM

numero uno| 2.25.11 @ 8:31PM

Alan Brooks| 2.25.11 @ 12:44PM

Steve A| 2.25.11 @ 1:34PM

Doctor Right| 2.25.11 @ 3:11PM

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:15PM

josephsantin@sbcglobal.net| 2.25.11 @ 4:02PM

Alan Brooks| 2.26.11 @ 4:06PM

W| 2.27.11 @ 1:49PM

Alan Brooks| 2.27.11 @ 10:00PM

mames| 2.26.11 @ 6:19PM

Barack Obama| 2.27.11 @ 8:13PM

Jason| 2.25.11 @ 6:55AM

Larry| 2.25.11 @ 8:01AM

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 10:37PM

John Navratil| 2.25.11 @ 8:09AM

Appleby| 2.25.11 @ 11:05AM

Handy| 2.25.11 @ 1:50PM

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 7:16PM

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 10:42PM

John Navratil| 2.26.11 @ 9:15AM

jolizoom| 2.26.11 @ 10:35PM

Carpenter| 2.25.11 @ 8:10AM

Wayne | 2.25.11 @ 12:29PM

Sigma Tau Delta (the STD's)| 2.25.11 @ 12:57PM

Appleby| 2.26.11 @ 7:52AM

John Navratil| 2.26.11 @ 9:19AM

Stephanie| 2.26.11 @ 9:35PM

John Navratil| 2.27.11 @ 9:18AM

mames| 2.26.11 @ 6:24PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.25.11 @ 6:56AM

Teaghan| 2.25.11 @ 8:03AM

Bob Grant| 2.25.11 @ 11:47AM

g r d| 2.25.11 @ 10:07PM

optyson| 2.26.11 @ 11:32AM

numero uno| 2.25.11 @ 8:40PM

mames| 2.26.11 @ 6:30PM

jolizoom| 2.26.11 @ 10:39PM

Frisbee| 2.25.11 @ 10:50PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.26.11 @ 7:03PM

Frisbee| 3.14.11 @ 2:45PM

Melvin| 2.25.11 @ 7:28AM

John Daniel| 2.25.11 @ 7:29AM

No Regrets| 2.25.11 @ 11:05AM