Did you miss it? Obama is No Longer Going to Defend Marriage

There was something buried way down in the news, under Libya going up in flames, the Middle East collapsing, oil exploding in price, budget battles in DC, a looming Democratic-government shutdown, rioting and protesting in Wisconsin, pirates shooting American citizens off Somalia, and the economic forecasts being seriously downgraded. You probably missed it, and that's probably exactly what Democratic President Obama wanted you do to, because if you found out that he had just abandoned another important campaign promise and decided to let special interest groups legalize gay marriage at the federal level, you and many other moderate voters might be a little upset.

Via The Fix, I read Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that the Justice Department would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act. The DOMA, for those of you who don't know, is an act of legislation that was passed in 1996 by the Republican Congress with considerable support from the Democrats and then signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. It is an important act which candidate Obama said he would defend, but now President Obama is no longer going to. Although he himself is married to one woman and his wife would likely get pretty mad if he re-defined marriage to allow him to marry other men and women or animals or whatever, he is abandoning his stated principles and has decided to no longer fight in court for his views and beliefs.

In a practical sense, it means that lawsuits will soon go forward, unchecked by the executive of our nation who is supposed to execute and defend the laws of our nation, that will work to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA in courts that are favorable to liberal views.

In my humble opinion, Section 2 of the Act is clearly constitutional- it excludes same-sex marriages from the Full Faith and Credit Clause in language that quotes from the Constitution itself, which is important because otherwise one liberal state could have a single judge make it legal and thereby make it legal over our entire nation, while Section 3 is also constitutional, in that it defines the word marriage to mean a legal union between one man and one woman, which is the accepted definition of marriage since the beginning of time. In my opinion, there isn't a whole lot that lawsuits could attack, unless they feel that the language in the Constitution itself is 'unconstitutional' (only a matter of time until liberal judges start arguing that) or that the word marriage doesn't mean the union of one man and one woman and perhaps means anything at all (one rock and one man, three women and one man, one man and one man, three man and three dogs, a million men and a million women, etc).

Obama's stance on this issue is one more indication that when you put someone in the White House who believes in everything, you put someone in the White House who believes in nothing. He is an empty suit of a man, weak and unsure of his own beliefs and unwilling to defend or fight for that which he believes is right. America deserved to be punished for the mistake of electing him, it's just too bad that my kids and grandkids are also being punished too for voters stupidity in electing him President.