Jonathan Adler has an interesting take on Obama's Gay marriage position here:
Yesterday the President told ABC News that
he believes same-sex couples should be able to get married. So far so
good. He further told ABC that he believes this is an issue that should
be left to the states which are “arriving at different conclusions at
different times.” I have nothing to complain about here, as this is my
position as well. I believe in recognition of same-sex marriage, but
also believe that this is the sort of question entrusted to state
governments under our constitutional system, and that, as with many
questions of social policy about which I have strong preferences,
different states are and should be free to come to different conclusions
on the matter. I also believe that as more states elect to recognize
gay marriage (particularly insofar as this is done by legislatures and
ballot initiatives, rather than by courts) many of those who are
currently uneasy with the idea of gay marriage will learn they have
nothing to fear and opposition to gay marriage will slowly melt away.
The problem with the President’s position is that it cannot be
reconciled with the Administration’s stance on the constitutionality of
the Defense of Marriage Act. According to Attorney General Eric Holder,
he and the President concluded that the constitutionality of legal
distinctions based upon sexual preference cannot be defended. In their
view, because DOMA precludes federal recognition of same-sex marriages,
it violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the
Fifth Amendment. Further, according to Holder’s
statement, they
concluded that no “reasonable” constitutional argument could be made in
DOMA’s defense.
Yet if DOMA is unconstitutional under equal protection,
which applies to the state and federal governments equally, then how
could any state law barring recognition of same-sex marriages survive
constitutional scrutiny? In other words, while the President says he
believes that states should be allowed to reach “different conclusions
at different times” on the question of same-sex marriage, the
administration’s legal position is that a state’s refusal to treat
opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike is unconstitutional. So while
the President may say he’d like to leave this question to the states,
that’s an option his administration has already taken off the table.
<<READ MORE>>
This blog is devoted to evaluating vulnerable Democratic candidates, political news, law and current affairs. Author is a Political consultant specializing in opposition research for conservative candidates, attorneys and PACS at the local, state, and federal level. “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ― Patrick Henry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment