Uncategorized

Marchant: Gay Rights Need Strong President

As we await the decisions of some key cases before the United States Supreme Court, it reminds me of a wonderful opportunity I had earlier in the spring as I traveled with fellow law students form the Charlotte School Of Law to sit in on a portion of the arguments…

As we await the decisions of some key cases before the United States Supreme Court, it reminds me of a wonderful opportunity I had earlier in the spring as I traveled with fellow law students form the Charlotte School Of Law to sit in on a portion of the arguments concerning the issue of gay marriage.

During oral arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Chief Justice Roberts commented that the President should have the “courage” to stop executing statutes he deems unconstitutional and not rely on the courts to sort it out. The Constitution not only requires the President execute laws made by the Congress, but, more importantly, uphold the Constitution.

Like the majority of Americans I am not “anti-gay” nor am I “anti-gay marriage.” I have been a casual observer of the debate, occasionally reading an article or watching a news segment on point. Regardless, one cannot have a laissez-faire attitude toward the issue raised by the Chief Justice: Why is the President allowing the courts to determine whether gay marriage is constitutional, rather than publicly declaring DOMA unconstitutional and forcing the courts to make him uphold the law?

While giving a speech, a famous judge once said, “politics doesn’t enter the courtroom  … and I believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.” I reference this old joke not to make light of our judicial system, but to highlight the dynamic relationship between the judiciary branch and politics, which I suspect are at play in the President’s actions, or lack thereof, to LEAD on the issue of gay marriage. Same-sex marriage, and the benefits granted to married couples, is monumental for our nation, both politically and legally.

Hit it out of the park, Mr. President!

Concerning DOMA, President Obama has two issues to resolve in fulfilling his constitutionally demanded duty: He must respect the legislative process while preserving and upholding the Constitution. When there is a conflict between these obligations, the Constitution dictates its protection prevails.

President Obama inherited DOMA and his administration, while publically criticizing it, still has chosen to enforce the law. President Obama has on many occasions publically stated DOMA is unconstitutional and often cites the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It is that Clause, along with the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment, and almost 100 years of struggle that finally gave African-Americans civil rights.

I agree with the President that DOMA is an Equal Protection Clause issue, for the congressional testimony specifically singled out a class of citizens. What I do not agree with is Obama’s refusal to take the ultimate stand and defend the constitution if he does in fact think it is unconstitutional.

If President Obama truly believed DOMA to be unconstitutional, he should not only declare it to be so, but also use the powers vested in him by refusing to administer such an unconstitutional act. Then the Court would be in the position of forcing his administration to administer the Act or not, instead of trying to legislative from the bench as the President has passed this on to them as Chief Justice Roberts stated months ago.

My theory on the President’s lack of action is not based on law but on politics. The President is pandering to both gay rights advocates and African-Americans (African Americans tend to have a more conservative stance on homosexuality as a whole based on much polling data). That’s why I believe President Obama refuses to lead in this area. Therefore, Obama allows the IRS to aggressively tax gay couples (in states which allow gay marriage) differently than it does straight married couples, especially with regard to enforcement of estate taxes. This refusal on the part of the President is pure political cowardice.

Why cowardice?  Because while it is rare, there are examples where the President of the United States has refused to enforce a congressional act because he felt it unconstitutional.

  • The House of Representatives impeached President Andrew Johnson because he claimed the authority to ignore a statute that he viewed as unconstitutional.Johnson fired his Secretary of War without first obtaining Senate consent. Arguably, the Tenure of Office Act required consent, which Congress had enacted over Johnson’s veto.
  • President John F. Kennedy refused to enforce a “separate but equal” provision in federal funding of hospitals.
  • President Clinton refused to sign a Defense Authorization Act that granted $265 billion for military programs because of a provision requiring the armed forces discharge individuals infected with HIV. Clinton concluded the provision violate[d] equal protection by requiring the discharge of qualified service members living with HIV who are medically able to serve, without furthering any legitimate governmental purpose.”
  • President Obama himself has exercised that authority concerning certain sections of federal immigration laws, internet gambling and the “no child left behind” education act, none of which come close to being as politically charged as the same-sex marriage issue.

In short, it’s as if the DOMA congressional record was a giant softball, pitched to the President, perfectly positioned for him to swing for the fence. Instead, Obama chose to walk.  While safely on first base, he stayed in the game, without being a target.  Yet, that isn’t what the courts wanted. It isn’t what the Constitution demands of him. It shouldn’t be what advocates of same-sex rights want. And its definitely not what America needs.

To the big eyes in Washington:  I’m simply disagreeing with the process route the President is taking on this issue.  I am not anti-American, I love my country and I pray this doesn’t snag me under the “Patriot Act.”

Larry Marchant is a former elected official, aides to a Governor and Congressman and currently a political and public relations consultant and is just over 30 hours shy of a Juris Doctorate from the Charlotte School of Law.  He resides in Columbia, S.C.

***

Related posts

Uncategorized

Escaping Your Timeshare Contract Safely & Effectively

FITSForum
Uncategorized

Spy Apps: Balancing Privacy And Practicality

FITSForum
Murdaughs

Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons

62 comments

Cicero June 25, 2013 at 3:31 pm

The affairs, the Nikki Haley allegations (“And eva-one knows that aftuh Midnaht is when you have ssssex with ladies in they-uh VAGINAS!”), and generally sleaziness.

Larry Marchant, ladies and germs, expert in all things sexualem ethicam.

Reply
Larry June 25, 2013 at 3:59 pm Reply
Cicero June 25, 2013 at 3:31 pm

The affairs, the Nikki Haley allegations (“And eva-one knows that aftuh Midnaht is when you have ssssex with ladies in they-uh VAGINAS!”), and generally sleaziness.

Larry Marchant, ladies and germs, expert in all things sexualem ethicam.

Reply
Larry June 25, 2013 at 3:59 pm Reply
Smirks June 25, 2013 at 3:34 pm

Obama has always been seen as questionable when it comes to his support of gay rights.

Reply
Smirks June 25, 2013 at 3:34 pm

Obama has always been seen as questionable when it comes to his support of gay rights.

Reply
GrandTango June 25, 2013 at 3:36 pm

Obama got bullish for the gays BEFORE the election, when he thought he needed votes…

In other words: Obama bent you over and REAMED you out, then, and you LOVED it…so why are you complaining????

That said: you have to have Obama tell you your Sexual Preference is a Civil Right????..That’s Bull-$#!*…

You can Marry ANYBODY you want. There are all sorts of “Churches” that cater to gay and pop culture morality demands…

You just want to the government to sanction another reason to put another Liberal Special Intrest Group on the Government Gimme-Train (no pun)….

Reply
SC Citizen June 25, 2013 at 5:44 pm

Yeah, but can I go to a county probate judge to get married? The answer is no. So, how is it I can marry whoever I like?

Reply
GrandTango June 25, 2013 at 5:52 pm

Why do you have to force the state to accept your re-invented definition of marriage? Is Sexual preference a Civil Right?….The answer is NO!!!! …

But you can go to many churches or officials to marry you, if all you want is to be married. You can go corn-hole a tree for all I care. But you want to FORCE churches to accept your lifestyle. If marriage is redefined, just for you..that is what will happen. Churches will be prosecuted for telling you No.

No one is Guaranteed that the state will accept everything they want as their Civil Right…So STFU and go do what you..and GTFOMF….

Reply
SC Citizen June 25, 2013 at 6:07 pm

You STFU, Pussy! I goddamn do deserve the right to the liberties everyone else gets. Where in the hell did I mention “church?” I don’t need a fucking church to marry a woman, now do I?

Reply
GrandTango June 25, 2013 at 6:10 pm

If Homosexuals are given marriage as a Civil Right, churches SHOULD be prosecuted for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony… So quit lying…

PS: You may have thought you wanted it up the @$$…but when I reamed you out…it weren’t so nice was it…Hahahahaha…

SC Citizen June 25, 2013 at 6:29 pm

I’m not sme queen in a tutu; I’ll whp your ass.

SC Citizen June 25, 2013 at 6:31 pm

Knowing the hypocrites, you’ll probably enjoy it…

GrandTango June 25, 2013 at 6:58 pm

So if you gays don’t get your way…you resort to brutal violence…
Nice, reasonable people…Hitler would be proud of you…

SC Citizen June 25, 2013 at 7:04 pm

No, Hitler would have you round them up just like he did years back.

GrandTango June 25, 2013 at 7:19 pm

More myth than truth. Gays, like many groups, including Christians were targeted by Hitler…And only a small percentage of the gays in Germany were sentenced. Not evidence that they were killed, like there is that the faith-based were murdered.

Today: Gays are exalted…while Hateful Bigots like you and Obama persecute Christians…

So you’ve been delivered from your tormentors…why must you Hate me, because I’m not in your special interest group????

SC Citizen June 26, 2013 at 10:53 am

Well, looks like my civil rights might happen after all. Suck it, T!

9" June 26, 2013 at 3:19 pm

GT,does this mean you need another good butt-fucking this week(your ass is getting a little loose)? The bag over your head just ain’t working for me anymore…

‘you read the news today?

nitrat June 25, 2013 at 3:46 pm

Gee, having seen Marchant on TV making his claims about Haley, if he’s not gay, he’s missing a golden opportunity.

Reply
Smirks June 25, 2013 at 3:59 pm

Maybe Nikki is actually Niko? Ruh roh! Willie, you’s got some splainin’ to do!

Reply
Finius Nullis June 25, 2013 at 4:16 pm

Smirks, you have been on a roll with these new quips (chuckle). There is an old joke:
Two men were discussing politics, families, and other important issues when one asked the other, “How is your wife today?” His friend answers, “Oh, she is in bed with hepatitis.” The first guy says, “What! Is that Greek back in town?”

Reply
nitrat June 25, 2013 at 3:46 pm

Gee, having seen Marchant on TV making his claims about Haley, if he’s not gay, he’s missing a golden opportunity.

Reply
Smirks June 25, 2013 at 3:59 pm

Maybe Nikki is actually Niko? Ruh roh! Willie, you’s got some splainin’ to do!

Reply
Finius Nullis June 25, 2013 at 4:16 pm

Smirks, you have been on a roll with these new quips (chuckle). There is an old joke:
Two men were discussing politics, families, and other important issues when one asked the other, “How is your wife today?” His friend answers, “Oh, she is in bed with hepatitis.” The first guy says, “What! Is that Greek back in town?”

Reply
Uninformed and Wondering June 25, 2013 at 3:47 pm

What will gay marriage gain for the gays? Please, enlighten me. I know what it will mean for divorce attorneys, insurance companies, businesses, adoption regulations, Fair Housing and so forth and so on. But what does it do for the Gays?

Reply
Curious June 25, 2013 at 4:45 pm

“There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.” Here’s an overview: http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

Reply
GrandTango June 25, 2013 at 6:07 pm

Just like I thought: The real incentive is Government Check-Gobbler Greed, and the forcing of employers to give more freebies….

The Government is BROKE Idiot…get a F*@^in Job…I cannot afford to anymore handouts to lazy-@$$#d idiots…who would rather sit on their @$$#$ than contribute to society….

We need more WORKERS…not more FREELOADERS in Pink Nighties and mustaches…..

Reply
Sex Wax June 25, 2013 at 6:16 pm

Wow! How about making laws that only healthy, wealthy, no family history of diabetes, high blood pressure…(you may get the point) be allowed to marry? Think of all the money we could save!

Reply
SC Citizen June 25, 2013 at 6:09 pm

Right on, now someone inforn that shithead Grand Tango.

Reply
Uninformed and Wondering June 25, 2013 at 3:47 pm

What will gay marriage gain for the gays? Please, enlighten me. I know what it will mean for divorce attorneys, insurance companies, businesses, adoption regulations, Fair Housing and so forth and so on. But what does it do for the Gays?

Reply
Curious June 25, 2013 at 4:45 pm

“There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.” Here’s an overview: http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

Reply
SC Citizen June 25, 2013 at 6:09 pm

Right on, now someone inforn that shithead Grand Tango.

Reply
Beavis & Butthead June 25, 2013 at 3:48 pm

Larry said “oral”.

Heh, heh, heh heh…..hee hee hee hee…

Where’s Nikki, Larry?

Reply
Beavis & Butthead June 25, 2013 at 3:48 pm

Larry said “oral”.

Heh, heh, heh heh…..hee hee hee hee…

Where’s Nikki, Larry?

Reply
GrandTango June 25, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Any truth to the rumors that Marchant has petitioned for a 3-way legal marriage, binding him to FITS and Haley, set for propsal to both, 3 days before the Nov. 2014 election????…And he’s asking his, and FITS, High Preist Obama to grant him absolution…

Reply
Sex Wax June 25, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Shit, Biggie…you made me laugh with you.

Reply
Marie Harrison June 25, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Wonder why Lindsey won’t fess up.

Reply
GrandTango June 25, 2013 at 5:25 pm

Unless you mean being a CLOSET Liberal…It’s not my, or your, business…

I don’t need to know…regardless of those who want to Force knowledge of their personal habits on us…for political purposes…

Reply
Marie Harrison June 25, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Wonder why Lindsey won’t fess up.

Reply
Polyphemos June 26, 2013 at 12:07 am

Expecting Barack Obama to lead on anything is like expecting spit to be a thunderstorm.

Reply
Slartibartfast June 26, 2013 at 12:07 am

Expecting Barack Obama to lead on anything is like expecting spit to be a thunderstorm.

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 3:46 am

‘Artists to my mind are the real architects of change, and not the political legislators who implement change after the fact.’

William S. Burroughs

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 3:46 am

‘Artists to my mind are the real architects of change, and not the political legislators who implement change after the fact.’

William S. Burroughs

Reply
Roberto June 26, 2013 at 5:52 am

I have to agree with Mr. Marchant. I am pretty sure the constitution grants equal protection under the law, and that would cover two gays who want to be married.

Married, to the state, is a legal status. It has noting to do with a religious ceremony. A couple is granted a license to marry by the state, then a ceremony can be either civil or religious, but either way the person conducting the ceremony also must be licensed.

To quell the paranoia:
(1) federal and state benefits accrued by virtue of marriage should either be granted to gay couples or alleviated from the system, and

(2) churches never will be forced to conduct ceremonies that they do not hold sacred. I am legally divorced, but cannot be married in the Catholic church by their rules.

Society needs to accept the fact that gays exist, they are a vibrant and valuable part of our society, and their conduct of marriage cannot be worse than we straights have done.

And the constitution guarantees them this right.

Reply
St. Judas Goat June 26, 2013 at 9:16 am

Actually you can marry in a Catholic church now but not before getting the bishop to sign off on it. To sign off, the bishop will listen to the parish priest who will get to know you and the reasons for your divorce. In many cases, a person ends up divorced due to fleeing a dangerous or criminal environment and the church is showing leniency on that front.

That said, if you traded in your old lady for a newer model, well you are probably not wishing to receive the Holy Sacrament on Sunday anyway and the parish priest will not be going to bat for you in the first place.

Reply
Roberto June 26, 2013 at 5:52 am

I have to agree with Mr. Marchant. I am pretty sure the constitution grants equal protection under the law, and that would cover two gays who want to be married.

Married, to the state, is a legal status. It has noting to do with a religious ceremony. A couple is granted a license to marry by the state, then a ceremony can be either civil or religious, but either way the person conducting the ceremony also must be licensed.

To quell the paranoia:
(1) federal and state benefits accrued by virtue of marriage should either be granted to gay couples or alleviated from the system, and

(2) churches never will be forced to conduct ceremonies that they do not hold sacred. I am legally divorced, but cannot be married in the Catholic church by their rules.

Society needs to accept the fact that gays exist, they are a vibrant and valuable part of our society, and their conduct of marriage cannot be worse than we straights have done.

And the constitution guarantees them this right.

Reply
St. Judas Goat June 26, 2013 at 9:16 am

Actually you can marry in a Catholic church now but not before getting the bishop to sign off on it. To sign off, the bishop will listen to the parish priest who will get to know you and the reasons for your divorce. In many cases, a person ends up divorced due to fleeing a dangerous or criminal environment and the church is showing leniency on that front.

That said, if you traded in your old lady for a newer model, well you are probably not wishing to receive the Holy Sacrament on Sunday anyway and the parish priest will not be going to bat for you in the first place.

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 3:25 pm

This has been going on for decades,and presidents don’t matter much,butt I’d love a date w/Larry…

Reply
9" June 26, 2013 at 3:25 pm

This has been going on for decades,and presidents don’t matter much,butt I’d love a date w/Larry…

Reply
Tyrone Butternuts June 27, 2013 at 8:21 am

Who gives a crap what gay people do. Leave them alone. They pay taxes, they vote, they work, they raise families, they buy cars, they contribute to society like everyone else.

Reply
Tyrone Butternuts June 27, 2013 at 8:21 am

Who gives a crap what gay people do. Leave them alone. They pay taxes, they vote, they work, they raise families, they buy cars, they contribute to society like everyone else.

Reply
Jeffy01 June 27, 2013 at 8:58 am

Charlotte has a law school?? That’s funny. Next you will tell me there is one in Charleston. Hilarious.

Reply
Jeffy01 June 27, 2013 at 8:58 am

Charlotte has a law school?? That’s funny. Next you will tell me there is one in Charleston. Hilarious.

Reply

Leave a Comment