Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Adulterates Marriage and Federalism
Townhall.com | March 9, 2013 | Janet M. LaRue

Posted on 03/09/2013 8:43:49 AM PST by Kaslin

“Marriage, it doesn’t mean anything.” That’s what Barack Obama told wife Michelle while they were dating, according to her 2008 interview in The New Yorker. Marriage won’t mean anything if Obama has his way with the Supreme Court.

As a suitor of voters, Obama expressed his “sacred” version in response to a question from Pastor Rick Warren just before the 2008 election:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix.”

Obama has had more marriage evolutions than Liz Taylor. You can review them on Politico.com.

At Obama’s direction and input, the U.S. Solicitor General has filed an amicus brief in the Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry. The brief supports homosexual couples who arechallenging the constitutionality of “Proposition 8,” which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Prop 8 is a California ballot proposition and amendment to the California Constitution approved by more than seven million Californians in 2008, otherwise known as democracy.

Obama’s brief challenges what has been dubbed “the eight-state solution.” For better or for worse, California and seven other states, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island, have granted the substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, calling them either civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Perhaps they followed the lead of Obama, the fickle constitutional professor, when he told the Windy City Times in 2004:

I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example.”

Obama specifically endorsed “strong civil unions,” not “a weak version” in a 2007 primary debate.

California’s law is the “strong version,” granting “all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage” to same-sex “domestic partners.” Even so, Obama is telling the Court that this is precisely what’s wrong with it. Follow the spin.

The voters’ failure, according to Obama’s brief, was in granting same-sex domestic partners all of the benefits without calling it marriage:

“Proposition 8’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples, particularly where California at the same time grants same-sex partners all the substantive rights of marriage, violates equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection embodies a defining constitutional ideal that “all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”

Obama doesn’t explain how a sterile coupling of two men are “similarly situated” to a husband and wife becoming one by naturally consummating their marriage.

Obama still says that marriage law should be decided by the states, unless, of course, they decide wrongly. It’s Obama’s version of federalism. Just substitute the votes of five lawyers on the Supreme Court for seven million Californians.

Obama explained his elusive evolution on marriage to the White House press corps last Friday:

“As everybody here knows, last year, upon a long period of reflection, I concluded that we cannot discriminate against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage; that the basic principle that America is founded on -- the idea that we're all created equal -- applies to everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, as well as race or gender or religion or ethnicity.

“And I think that the same evolution that I've gone through is an evolution that the country as a whole has gone through. And I think it is a profoundly positive thing.”

With 41 states disagreeing with him about marriage, only a progressive could see his evolved view as “a profoundly positive thing.” It helps explain why he doesn’t think he has a spending problem.

Obama believes that “impermissible prejudice” by seven million Californians of all races, creeds, and walks of life is the only plausible explanation for Prop 8. To soften his slur, he says their prejudice is not necessarily motivated by “ill will.” Perhaps they’re simply insensitive, irrational xenophobes who haven’t evolved:

‘‘Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.”

The brief doesn’t challenge state laws such as Texas, which ban same-sex “marriage,” civil unions and domestic partnerships. If he has his way in Perry, Obama will accuse these states in a future case of violating equal protection and the liberty rights of same-sex couples under the due process clause of the 14h Amendment.

The Court will hear oral arguments in Perry at the end of March along with a challenge to the federal “Defense of Marriage Act” in U.S. v. Windsor. The decisions will be issued by the end of June.

Regardless, marriage is what it is?the God-ordained union of one man and one woman, upon which depends the continuation of humankind. Two men or two women do not a marriage make any more than O2H makes water.

As Obama once said: “God’s in the mix.”

God doesn’t evolve. Neither does the Constitution unless amended by We the People.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: barackobama; defofmarriageact; federalism; marriage
Link to the article
1 posted on 03/09/2013 8:43:49 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Good article.

“America is founded on — the idea that we’re all created equal — applies to everybody, regardless of sexual orientation”

Where in God’s name does the constitution, or ANY other document from the time, written by the Founders, even mention homosexuality? There is no evidence to support the outlandish claim that this perversion of equality is an idea America was founded on. It’s like saying Saudi Arabia was founded on the idea of women’s rights.


2 posted on 03/09/2013 8:57:49 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I find the process by which we are adopting homosexual marriage to be very disturbing. Judges are making this up as they go along.

We’re saying that marriage is a state issue, that the federal government has no right to define marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act. Yet we’re also saying that California had no right to define marriage via Proposition 8. This is a big contradiction which liberals are never called on to explain.

Also, there is no equal protection argument, because under current marriage law, everyone is treated equally. We’re all limited to marrying an opposite sex partner. We’re all limited to one spouse at a time, etc.

I understand that a homosexual doesn’t want to marry an opposite sex partner, but he.she has the right to do so.

Finally, this whole area of sexual identity/sexual orientation is not a protected class under civil rights laws. Here, judges are making this up, deciding that sexual orientation SHOULD be such a protected, class, and then, having decided that it SHOULD be such a legal classification, proceed to declare marriage laws discriminatory.

So, if liberals tell us that the federal government cannot define marriage as a legal term or legal status, and states can’t either if they don’t allow ho osexual marriage, then who exactly defines marriage? Only judges? Only liberals??


3 posted on 03/09/2013 9:00:50 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Todays parents spoil their kids badly. They buy them anything they want and they fight teachers and schools for correcting their kids, Nothing their kids do is wrong.—————Including homosexuality.

That is the problem.


4 posted on 03/09/2013 9:23:40 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Kaslin.
“Marriage, it doesn’t mean anything." That’s what Barack Obama told wife Michelle while they were dating, according to her 2008 interview in The New Yorker.
The garbage that Zero and Moochelle *will talk about* is so ugly and/or frightening, that: 1) why would anyone vote for him, and 2) *just imagine* how bad is the stuff they *refuse* to talk about.


5 posted on 03/09/2013 10:00:36 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
“We would have this running debate throughout our relationship about whether marriage was necessary,” Obama told me. “It was sort of a bone of contention, because I was, like, ‘Look, buddy, I’m not one of these who’ll just hang out forever.’ You know, that’s just not who I am. He was, like”—she broke into a wishy-washy voice—“ ‘Marriage, it doesn’t mean anything, it’s really how you feel.’ And I was, like, ‘Yeah, right.’ ”

BO was of course right.

Marriage, as such, the ceremony and all, is meaningless. Any meaning comes because you assign value to it and determine to make it mean something.

Which of course isn't usually the case with people who think it doesn't mean anything.

6 posted on 03/09/2013 10:36:16 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

It matters for the odds of a successful outcome for the children.
http://tamarawilhite.hubpages.com/hub/What-are-the-benefits-to-staying-together-for-the-kids


7 posted on 03/09/2013 10:53:06 AM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

That is a match made in Hell, and Barry is more a homosexual now than when he first tied the knot with Moochelle. ...The real reason White House tours have been canceled is because they get in the way of the gay debauchery that goes on there.


8 posted on 03/09/2013 12:02:52 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The real reason it does not qualify under equal protection is because homosexuality is a choice. I would say 80% of homosexuals I have met, have been married and have children.
One is not born homosexual, it is a selfish sexual perversion condemned by God.


9 posted on 03/10/2013 8:41:07 AM PDT by thirst4truth (www.Believer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson