President Obama has finally decided to be honest. Ever since he began running for president, he invented the fiction that he was not in favor of homosexual marriage. After all, saying you approve of marriage between two men or two women was not a vote-getter in states where he had to appear as a moderate. Now he has come out of the closet, so to speak.
On Wednesday, the Obama administration announced that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] against legal challenges. A letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Speaker of the House John Boehner states that both he and President Obama consider the law to be unconstitutional. Yes, you heard that correctly—defining marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman is “unconstitutional.”
What kind of legal reasoning led to this declaration? According to Holder,
The [legislative] record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships—exactly the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.
Well, I have animus against the promotion of sexual relations between adults and children. I’m also opposed to human beings having sexual relations with animals. Are those protected by the Equal Protection Clause as well? Should I be ashamed of my blatant stereotyping of individuals who practice such things? Am I a horrible person for expressing moral disapproval of those activities? The slippery slope has never gone away; it still exists, and we are seeing it in operation now.
It’s fascinating how the president and the attorney general have this greater grasp of the essence of our Constitution than the Founders. Apparently their history lessons and legal understanding differ from mine. We must bow to their superior insight and learn to change our views of American history:
In one sense, I’m glad to see Obama show his true colors. His views are now on full display: he approves of homosexual marriage, no matter how he may continue to dissemble. If you are unwilling to defend the traditional definition of marriage, then that means you believe other types of marriages should be allowed.
What’s a little more puzzling is why he decided to take this step publicly. It certainly consolidates his base, but that’s a base that comprises no more than 20% or so of the electorate. I would venture that this declaration of the “unconstitutionality” of heterosexual-only marriage will cost him many more votes than it will win.
What other pronouncements can he make now to rival this one? I suggest he go ahead and make a public commitment to socialism instead of perpetuating the pretense that he is not a socialist. I recommend he state categorically that he wants the United States to be a declining power in the world rather than simply letting the country slip into irrelevance.
Since he has finally decided to come clean on the marriage issue, it’s now time to let the people of this nation know who he really is without the political doublespeak. Of course, I and many others have known all along who he is, but unfortunately, many still have eyes that don’t see and ears that don’t hear.
May that blindness and deafness be cured.