Ramirez on Obama’s gay marriage flip-flop
posted at 2:41 pm on May 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Last week, Barack Obama finished “evolving” on same-sex marriage with his statement endorsing legalization. Entirely coincidentally, that was just in time for a big Hollywood fundraiser at George Clooney’s mansion that raised $15 million for Team Obama’s coffers after reports of anger in the entertainment industry began to percolate in the media. Two-time Pulitzer Prize winning editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez captures the essence of Obama’s flip-flop on gay marriage for Investors Business Daily:
Just how committed to his evolutionary conversion is Obama? His appearance on The View paints him as a man of … inaction:
During an appearance on ABC’s “The View” taped Monday, Obama said his administration views DOMA as unconstitutional, but came up shy of saying it should be repealed.
“Congress is clearly on notice that I think it’s a bad idea,” said Obama, who last week endorsed gay marriage for the first time.
The Justice Department has served notice that it will no longer enforce DOMA, which would prevent states from marrying gay and lesbian couples. But as long as the law is on the books, it could conceivably be enforced by future administrations to outlaw gay marriage.
Obama has said he think the issue is a state issue.
Actually, DOMA has nothing to do with whether states can marry gay and lesbian couples. It only allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, providing an exception to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. This is the actual text of DOMA:
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
If Obama truly believes this to be unconstitutional, shouldn’t he be pushing Congress to repeal it? He had plenty of opportunity in 2009-10, when his party held substantial majorities in both chambers of Congress. His own oath of office requires him to defend the Constitution. So why doesn’t he take action and demand a repeal? Because it would amplify the damage he’s already done to himself with last week’s statement, that’s why, and he knows it.
Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history. Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here. And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.