Close this search box.

Proposition 8 and Obama’s Oblivion

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Looking ahead to Tuesday — when the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could determine the future of marriage — President Obama recently “explained the legal argument for same-sex marriage” claiming that the Constitution does support a fundamental right to same-sex “marriage.”

Obama argued at an impromptu press conference his legal argument for same-sex marriage when asked a question about the Supreme Court’s review of California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage. ABC News reported that the President said,

“[T]he Supreme Court needs to ask the state why it’s doing it, and if the state doesn’t have a good reason it should be struck down. … Whenever a particular group is being discriminated against, the court asks the question, what’s the rationale for this, and it better be a good reason, and if you don’t have a good reason we’re going to strike it down.”

It is funny how the President says, “We’re going to strike it down,” as if he is the Chief Justice rather than the President of the United States.  President Obama should work on improving his execution of the job he was elected to before moving onto another position. If he took the time to brush up on the judicial case law of this country – in which he sits not as a judge, but as president –  not only would he clearly see the reason not precedent for staying in the Oval Office and out of the courtroom, his erroneous legal views on marriage would also be exposed.

Sadly, it appears the president’s understanding of our nation’s Constitution and case law is similar to his understanding of economics…or should I say, lack of it?

It appears the president is also forgetting one of the leading cases regarding same-sex marriage, Barker v Nelson, which reasoned, “The Constitution does not protect a fundamental right for same-sex couples to get married.”

Furthermore, the most common case cited by same-sex marriage advocates is the Supreme Court case, Loving v Virginia. The issue in Loving v Virginia was the validity of “Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statutes, the central features of which are the absolute prohibition of a white person marrying any person other than a white person.” Although the case focused on racial discrimination in light of the 14th Amendment and not same-sex unions, Chief Justice Warren stated, “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to existence and survival.” The court mentioned nothing of a civil right for same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) later this month.  It wouldn’t be a surprise if this group of Justices again ignores the parameters of the Constitution and forever changes history.

Concerned Women for America encourages those who wish to protect the U.S. Constitution and the definition of marriage to come to D.C. for the Marriage March set for the morning of March 26, 2013, the day the Supreme Court is set to begin hearing oral arguments on these important cases.

Today’s guest blogger is Alex Swoyer, Chapter President of Young Women for America for Ave Maria School of Law.