Quote of the Day
Some people come into our lives and quickly go.
Some people move our souls to dance.
They awaken us to new understanding with the passing whisper of their wisdom.
Some people make the sky more beautiful to gaze upon.
They stay in our lives for awhile, leave footprints in our hearts, and
We are never, ever the same.
Anonymous
Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional? Thumbs DOWN!
Obama's Incoherent Hidden Agenda Exposed
The Defense of Marriage Act does primarily two things: it simply put into language the indisputable fact that for thousands of years, across cultures and religions, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman; second, it ensured that other states couldn't enforce mutual reciprocity agreements for one state to undermine another state's definition of marriage. For instance, if Massachusetts, by judicial fiat, unilaterally decided to call gay domestic partnerships "marriages", "married" gay partners moving to a traditional marriage state (say, Texas) could attempt to go to court to argue equal protection or some similar legal principle to force a change in Texas' definition of marriage.
From my personal opinion, DOMA should have been unnecessary. For example, the traditional definition of marriage, which held fundamentally the same in all 50 states and on the federal level was true until a Massachusetts state court decided to implement a nontraditional change to marriage; by the Constitution, for federal purposes (e.g., income tax filing status), federal law trumps state law (i.e., the supremacy clause). Moreover, I believe that traditional state regulation of marriage is protected by the Tenth Amendment; a state like Massachusetts cannot change the rules of reciprocity after the agreement.
As a Christian, I hold traditional moral values and feel that our society and law should promote those values. At the same time, I think that a limited government enables individual self-actualization, rights and responsibilities. If the Massachusetts Supreme Court or even the US Supreme Court decides to call gay partnerships "marriage", it doesn't trump God's laws: those of us in the Judaic-Christian tradition refuse to surrender to popular culture's assault on traditional values (Matthew 22:21). I would prefer that whatever changes are made to recognize nontraditional relationships (whether it's gay relationships, polygamy, bestiality, cybermates, or robotic partners, etc.), not to use the world "marriage". (Call it "certified couples"--whatever, including both traditional marriage and domestic partnerships.) But if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig...
I would have supported the Defense of Marriage Act, even if I felt it was unnecessary: at minimum, it established a baseline definition for judicial reference before any state sanctioned a nontraditional relationship. (Presumably when taxpayers filed as married before 1996, federal law had some implicit definition in order to decide who is or isn't married; it had to be consistent in order to ensure equal protection.)
But let us remember what 2004 US Senate candidate Barack Obama said to gay rights supporters:
For the record, I opposed DOMA [ the Defense of Marriage Act ] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying.
Now as to the constitutionality argument: I agree if there were artificial or arbitrary constraints (e.g., like interracial restrictions) on marriage, those would be unconstitutional, and DOMA would be an exercise in futility in the sense that it would constitute a majoritarian abuse of power and would violate the Bill of Rights. (In fact, Obama seems to believe the latter.) But it simply isn't the case that gay "marriages" are an arbitrary restriction; there is nothing intrinsic or comparable with the concept of marriage and family in a homosexual relationship (because it is physically impossible for same-gender partners to have children in the context of the relationship).
In any event, I was both amused and incredulous as I heard Fox News talking heads over the past year (e.g., Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and Dana Perrino) repeatedly reference President Obama's statements in favor of the traditional defense of marriage: just do a count in this blog on how many times I've said about Obama the last 3 years: DON'T LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAYS: LOOK AT WHAT HE DOES. (Matthew 7:16.) Actually, anyone familiar with progressive Democrats (e.g., John Kerry et al.) knows that they try to triangulate the issue by paying lip service to the traditional definition of marriage while promoting socially-recognized, privileged domestic partnership for gays. Barack Obama knows that even liberal states like Maine and California have voted down the introduction of gay "marriages".
One of the things I thought was obvious (I don't think I published the prediction at the time) was when the lame duck session resulted in the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' in military service, it was simply a matter of time before he moved on to the gay marriage issue. Not many of the talking heads on Fox News seem to be aware of Democratic Presidential nominee Obama's position on California's Proposition 8, which was designed to restore the traditional definition of marriage, struck down by the California Supreme Court:
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.
Let me vent here a bit: the first few thousand times I heard Obama use the word 'divisive', which is progressive-speak for any policy progressives disagree with, I let it go by; but I'm beginning to tire of political spin 100% of the time from this politician: I want to say that Obama's spending policies are divisive, Obama's apology tours and Bush-bashing were divisive, Obama's interference in Wisconsin's budget battle was divisive, Obama's class warfare politics is divisive, Obama's health care politics is divisive, Obama's political attack on the Supreme Court was divisive--do I really need to go on??? The traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory: really? Thousands of years in the Judaic-Christian tradition has been discriminatory? The first 225 or more years of this country across every single state was discriminatory?
So when then Governor Schwarzenegger and then Attorney General Jerry Brown both REFUSED to defend California Proposition 8, in my opinion an unconscionable dereliction of duty, is it really a surprise to see President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder follow their example? I think this is all about politics: President Obama is clearly worried about the general election late next year; I'm not at all surprised that Obama is trying to rally his traditional special interest groups--there was his none-too-subtle attempts to interfere in Wisconsin's budget battle on behalf of crony union interests, his flagrant attempts to lock in a 25% increase in domestic expenditures, vowing a veto of a $61B cut in a $1.65T federal deficit, and now this blatant attempt to motivate his gay rights constituency?
Obama's Remarks Today On Libya: Too Little, Too Late
I had FOX-TV on when Glenn Beck's show was interrupted live for the President's short statement, his first on the Libya uprising and the recent unprovoked slaughter of unarmed, defenseless Libyan protesters by the country's air force. It was intriguing how Beck and I responded in almost exactly the same way; it was a very disappointing speech on many levels. But I just wanted to focus on a few points.
First, Obama's address was indirect; how mind-boggling is it that Obama never once mentioned Qaddafi's name? Second, it was full of predictable fuzzy political rhetoric, with denunciations of violence and affirming the rights of people (as if a leader who orders Air Force pilots to shoot to kill protesters is particularly interested in listening to whatever Obama has to say about his fellow Libyans' human rights!) Third, Obama failed to demonstrate leadership; he actually bent over backwards trying to show that he was working with other leaders behind the scenes and the US being one of many. He did make a single reference to his advisors' preparing an undefined full list of options, but given its lack of specificity, my guess is that Qaddafi simply read it as a bluff or sign of weakness. Going back to the other leaders, tell me--when was the last time that the UN actually resolved an issue like ethnic cleansing by the Serbs, Darfur, or the Hutu genocide in Rwanda?
I wanted to see more specific actions from Obama--something more than sending Hillary Clinton to a meeting overseas. Don't forget that Qaddafi gave up his nuclear ambitions after the invasion of Iraq; in part, this reflects a concern over just the thought of a possible American invasion. Obama would likely be able to get Qaddafi's attention just by doing things like recalling the American ambassador from Libya, announcing the dispatch of more ships to the area, establishing no-fly areas over Libya, calling for Col. Qaddafi's full, immediate, unconditional resignation, etc.; I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.
Political Humor
Gadhafi said he will fight the protestors until the end and he will die as a martyr. The protestors responded by saying, “Deal.” - Jay Leno
[Pro-democratic lawyers have already submitted the paperwork for the surname change as Muammar's last request.]
I spent Presidents Day acting like a president. I took someone else’s money and spent it on something I don’t need. - Jay Leno
[President Obama got a supertrain set as a President's Day present. Unfortunately, it derailed halfway the first time around the track...]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Andy Gibb, "I Just Want To Be Your Everything". The youngest Brother Gibb, Andy Gibb became the first male solo artist to score three consecutive #1 hits in the US (and hit the top 10 with his next 3 singles as well. This signature tune was co-written with his oldest brother, Barry. Technically some of the songs I've presented have been solo hits, but the one or more of the Bee Gees are providing backing vocals in the chorus.
