Obama gets it right on DOMA
Marriage is an act of union between two people who commit to spend their lives together. It is a voluntary act between two consenting adults that needs no sanction from the state. If the couple desires a religious blessing to be bestowed on that union, they are free and able to proffer the clergy of their choice to receive that blessing.
The state wishes to consolidate it’s power in any and every way possible. The fact that a requirement exists not only to receive state sanction [in most cases, but not all], but to be taxed for the privilege of that sanction speaks volumes.
Of course, we know the reason behind DOMA in the first place. It was designed overtly and specifically to keep homosexuals from entering into a union of matrimony, a union that fundamentalist Christians believed to be in their purview and theirs alone. To defend that argument, they rely on the intellecually debunked assertion that ‘gay’ marriage somehow harms or ‘tears apart’ heterosexual marriage.
But you don’t see the hypocrites arguing to outlaw divorce…….
As for the constitutionality of not enforcing a law…..we’ve allowed Signing Statements, right?
Posted on March 2nd, 2011 by Constitutional Insurgent
Filed under: Uncategorized
This in not the President’s role. He cannot cherry pick what laws the Executive Branch will choose to enforce. Nor is it his job to lay down and not vigorously defend that which has already been signed into law. Too bad he didn’t agree with it. He wasn’t the President then.
If this was a different law, with different players, there would be howls of protest. See this: http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/24/attorney-general-mark-levin-wo
If DOMA is bad law, it will fail in judicial review, That is the way we do things in this country.
Bear in mind: This action he’s taken with regard to DOMA can have an unintended consequence: This may have the added effect of rendering the conditions underwhich DADT was repealed invalid. Remember, the marriage status question was not a part of the DADT language because DOMA was in effect. The President’s action has the effect of changing the terms of the debate after the fact. Pretty sure he cannot do that.
THIS is part of the the “slippery slope” to which many of us, who thought the DADT repeal action was ill advised, referred.
I don’t view this as any different than Presidential Signing Statements….
The problem is that your understanding of Presidential Signing Statements misses a key point:
They don’t supercede exisiting law.
Further, Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution explicitly states that the President must, “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.
This isn’t open for interpretation.
If there were no DOMA and Mr Obama issued a Signing Statement, he’d have tenuous but precedented ground. But since DOMA is codified law, he does not.
I’m not sure that makes much difference. When the Chief Executive signs a bill, it becomes law. Try as I might, I haven’t found anywhere that states whether or not a POTUS has typically signed a Bill first and then issued the Signing Statement, or the other way around.
This statement can be used for a number of reasons, but I am speaking specifically to the occasions where the President has no literal intention of enforcing said bill at the time of signing, but rather uses it as an unconstitutional line item veto.
This analogy can surely be parsed by minute semantic points, but I still see no realistic difference.