Opinion> Terence Jeffrey> Obama S Mandate For Nationalized Same Sex Marriage

	15 Feb 2012 Can Obama Order Grocers to Give Away Bread? In October 2009, I published a column titled, "Can Obama and Congress Order You to Buy Broccoli?" … Read More.
	8 Feb 2012 Did Mass. Constitution Authorize Romney to Mandate Health Insurance? You can now divide Americans into two groups: Those who believe government rightfully has the power to force … Read More.
	1 Feb 2012 Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills A defining moment in Mitt Romney's post-pro-life-conversion political career came in his third year as … Read More.

Obama's Mandate for Nationalized Same-Sex Marriage

Appearing Monday on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," Joe Biden made the most high-profile statement yet of the Obama-Biden position on same-sex marriage.

DeGeneres asked where he stands on California's Proposition 8, a 14-word proposal that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Those exact words were enacted originally as a California statute in 2000, when 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act. This May, in a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court threw out Proposition 22, declaring same-sex marriage a "right" under the California Constitution.

Proposition 8 would amend that constitution to include the 14 words Proposition 22 originally made state law. If Proposition 8 wins, same-sex marriage will be prohibited in California. If Proposition 8 loses, same-sex marriage will be permitted. In other words, if you are against same-sex marriage, you want Proposition 8 to win. If you are for same-sex marriage, you want Proposition 8 to lose. There is no middle ground.

In the vice presidential debate, moderator Gwen Ifill asked Biden directly whether he supports same-sex marriage.

"Do you support gay marriage?" she asked.

"No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage," said Biden. "We do not support that."

Were this actually Biden and Obama's position, they would be for Proposition 8. But they are not.

"If I lived in California, I'd clearly vote against Prop. 8," Biden told DeGeneres.

The actual Obama-Biden position on same-sex marriage goes beyond merely opposing Proposition 8. In fact, their position sets the stage for liberal federal judges to impose same-sex marriage nationwide by forcing states that have passed their own acts in defense of marriage to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in states such as California, where state judges declare a state "right" to same-sex marriage.

In June, Obama sent a letter to the San Francisco-based Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club. It was read at the club's June 29 meeting and reprinted in full in the July 2 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle under the headline "Obama opposes proposed ban on gay marriage."

Yet that was not all Obama said he opposes — or supports — in this letter.

He also declared that he opposes all state constitutional amendments that limit marriage to a man and a woman, that he opposes a federal amendment that would prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages, that he wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and that he wants to fully open the military to gays.

"I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks," Obama wrote. "I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."

To make clear that he wants no distinction in law between traditional married couples and same-sex couples — including in laws regarding the adoption of babies — Obama sent a second letter Aug. 1 to the Family Equality Council, a group that says it envisions "a country that celebrates a diversity of family constellations."

"We also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT families," Obama told this council. "And that's why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws."

The federal Defense of Marriage Act that Obama wants repealed does two things. It defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman, and it says states will not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states, as they ordinarily would under the Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause."

The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires all states to recognize the judicial acts of other states but says, "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

If the policies Obama supports come to pass, California will have same-sex marriage, and the federal law protecting other states from recognizing California's same-sex marriages will be repealed.

Then it would be up to the sort of federal judges Obama would appoint to decide whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause — barring an act of Congress saying otherwise — would require every other state in the union to accept California's marriage law as their own.

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor in chief of CSNnews.com. To find out more about him, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment

Sir;... This problemyou have with portable civil rights is something you can rectify with the constitution... It is hard enough to get those near and dear to recognize ones rights, but to require recognition of over fifty percent nationwide to have a right is asking too much... If you don't like it, why make the issue one of the presidential campaign??? Does that not seem a little low??? Before you can deny a right, in my opinion, you must be able to make a case of over whelming danger or injury from the use of the right...Now; I would do that in regard to private ownership of productive property, and all the more so when that property also represents real influence of government...What is the real danger of those who say they love being able to marry??? Would they be lieing???Is their oath less than your own in value??? I think it is strange indeed that anyone so outside the norm would need the forms of a normal society, which is not to condemn the behavior as abnormal in the deviant sense... It is not classed as a disease for very good reason...Gay republicans are like every republican, and only gay... And gay democrats are just like every democrats, and only gay... I don't think they hurt you, and I know they don't hurt me, but what hurts everyone is any group deprived of rights with insufficient cause......... Marriage is a formal relationship... Why do they reject some forms and accept others???. I am married, and it is formal, but also informal because it is not the form that matters to me, but the love... If people love, which I admit is another form of relationship, then they have the best of any form just by having the loving relationship, and the addition of formdoes not improve upon the best...... I think it may be possible that these people are just people on the one hand, and want to make a big formal deal of their relationships; And may be just like others and want to give some protection to common property with a social form; Yet, maybe they just want what they feel is their due, which is some recognition of their equal rights... When they go to pay income tax, no asks them if they are gay... If they pay the same they should have the same... If they are drafted no one says, if you are gay, you can't serve...In any event, you are left with the constitution saying rights are portable, and not local... YOu can try to change the constitution to deny rights instead of being a guarantee of rights... In fact, that would be bad since it could be turned as easily against the right to speech, or religion... If you want to limit rights you limit membership in your society...Who ever leaves your society can join mine...Thanks...Sweeney

Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:47 PM