SHARE

U.S. President Barack Obama has ordered his Justice Department to stop defending a federal ban against gay marriages – and to begin arguing that the 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act” is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

In a letter sent to the U.S. Congress by Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama’s administration argues that enforcing the law is a violation of a gay couple’s right to “equal protection” under the law.

“The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny,” Holder wrote to Congress, adding that the “fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.”

Wait … isn’t it up to the courts to make that kind of determination?

It is … but Obama apparently thinks he is above the courts, as evidenced by his administration’s refusal to stop implementing a new socialized medicine law even though a federal judge has struck it down in its entirety.

Gay marriage is currently legal in only five of the fifty United States – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.  It is also recognized in the District of Columbia.

We’ve been unambiguous in our support of gay rights here at FITS, and we believe that any law which permits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong. That’s why we have consistently opposed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays serving openly in the U.S. Armed Forces.

As we’ve said before there is no “gay way” to save taxpayer money, just as their is no “straight way” to waste it.

As for gay marriage, we don’t have a problem with it – but if civil unions already provide homosexual couples with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, we don’t see the necessity of changing the law.

In fact if civil unions are permitted (and gay couples are not discriminated against in terms of the benefits they are entitled to)  then the only reason to seek “marriage equality” is to impose a new definition on an institution that a lot of people view as sacred.

Also, the way Obama is going about this “change” seems heavy-handed … not to mention the fact that it’s clearly part of a strategy to shift the country’s focus away from his fiscally-reprehensible budget proposal.

***