Obama: If I was on the Supreme Court, I’d strike down bans on gay marriage in every state

posted at 7:21 pm on March 1, 2013 by Allahpundit

In case there was any lingering doubt after last night’s post that O wants prohibitions on SSM neutralized coast to coast, not just in California, here’s the man himself at today’s presser to clarify.

Obama responded by saying: “What we’ve said is that same-sex couples are a group, a class that deserves heightened scrutiny. The 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. That’s the core principle, as applied to this case.

“Now, what the court may decide that if it doesn’t apply in this case, it probably can’t apply in any case. There’s no good reason for it. If I were on the court, that would probably be the view that I would put forward. But I’m not a judge, I’m the president.”

Two things. One: If he believes state-enacted bans on gay marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause, why isn’t he pushing Congress for a federal statute to legalize SSM? He swore an oath to defend the Constitution; his reading of the Constitution holds that laws prohibiting gays from marrying are barred by the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress could, theoretically, pass something under Section 5 of that amendment to nullify those laws. Granted, there’s little chance it would get through the Republican House, but so what? There’s zero chance that Feinstein’s assault-weapons ban will get through the House but good luck getting The One to shut up about that. He’s happy to make the GOP take a tough vote on guns; why wouldn’t he make them take a tough vote on this, especially as prominent Republicans elsewhere emerge as supporters of SSM? The answer, of course, is that O’s still thinking about the bottom line electorally. That’s why he didn’t “evolve” on this issue in 2008 and that’s why he’s not pressing Congress now — namely, because red-state Senate Democrats who are up for reelection next year would have to take a tough vote on this too and they already have their hands full with gun control and immigration. Obama has no choice but to make them vote on those two issues but he does have a choice on gay marriage: He can try to get this done through the courts instead. In other words, even when he’s in gay-rights-warrior mode, The One is still shortchanging gays by not fully ventilating their legal options. And in this case, he’s ignoring his own reading of equal protection to do it.

Two: I didn’t see all of today’s presser, but can it really be true that no reporter followed up on this by pressing him to explain, precisely, how he went from gay-marriage opponent five years ago to federalist gay-marriage supporter last year to advocate of compulsory gay-marriage legalization via the Fourteenth Amendment today? We all know he’s “evolved” but this isn’t the typical “evolution” on SSM where an opponent looks at the policy in action and gradually decides that it’s not that big a deal. O’s not some average voter. He’s a Harvard-trained former law professor who’s moved, in an astoundingly short period of time, between two (or even three) distinct constitutional views of gay marriage. In 2008, when he was (pretending to be) opposed to SSM on the merits, he must have thought that state laws banning SSM were permissible under the Equal Protection Clause. The alternative, that he didn’t think they were permissible even when he opposed SSM, would necessarily mean that he was pushing a policy which he himself thought was unconstitutional. Last year, when he switched to the pro-federalist position, presumably he still thought there was no equal-protection problem with bans on gay-marriage. You can’t be a federalist on a subject if you think the Constitution bars the states from regulating that subject. Flash forward to today and suddenly he’s telling people openly that if he were on the Court, he’d use the Fourteenth Amendment to nuke every last one of those bans. I’d bet there’s not a single law prof in all the land who’s changed their interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause that dramatically in so short a period of time. Obviously, O thought gay-marriage bans were unconstitutional all along and yet he kept that fact to himself, in contravention of his oath, for four full years. And the media, oddly, seems incurious about it even though legalizing gay marriage is one of their ultimate pet issues. Go figure.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 11:25 PM

I had hoped that legal protections of secular civil unions would end this divisive issue.

Unfortunately it did not.

There is no tolerance for reasonable compromise in Fascism…

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 12:15 AM

And that’s all this is a legal device among many to dismantle the Constitution.

It’s the Fascist Way

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 12:19 AM

Three-faced, three card Monty Barack believes whatever the voting majority believes.

And when it changes, Barack’s ‘core beliefs’ change with it.

A windsock with no spine, just a stack of hard-packed lies in its notochordal place.

profitsbeard on March 2, 2013 at 12:20 AM

I wondered what Bawney Fwank meant when he was all for back taxes?

Now I know. Yeeeech….

viking01 on March 1, 2013 at 7:46 PM

I think that he meant going into arrears for taxes… I know, not quite right if you want to get all anal about it…

rgranger on March 2, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Wait a minute Mr President. Our country is imploding. World Muslim fascism is exploding, and your’e distracted about the happiness of less than 2% of our population which gets less than 50% support & the outcome of the SCOTUS decision? How are you going to spin this so Bush get the hit?

RdLake on March 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM

A primary goal of the Left has always been to replace the family with the state, because, as Mark Levin wrote in Ameritopia, the individual’s “first duty must be to the state—not family, community, and faith, all of which challenge the authority of the state.”

Abortion, progressive schooling, and the redefining of marriage are tools of the Left that destroy these “little platoons” to which we each belong, and in which we each first find our identity.

Some of those platoons are pretty bad and have done some of us harm, but that should motivate us to improve them, not destroy the model.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 3:11 AM

A primary goal of the Left has always been to replace the family with the state, because, as Mark Levin wrote in Ameritopia, the individual’s “first duty must be to the state—not family, community, and faith, all of which challenge the authority of the state.”

INC on March 2, 2013 at 3:11 AM

Oh, but various psychologists have pointed out that having gay parents of the same sex is the same (if not better) than traditional family make ups. C’mon, get with the times. /s

As always, the Left largely through Hollywood has emoted sympathy for the gay cause. Just look at the success of films like Philadelphia and TV shows like Will and Grace.

The constant bombardment of propaganda really does work. Madison Avenue figured that out decades ago.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 2, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Wait a minute Mr President. Our country is imploding. World Muslim fascism is exploding, and you’re distracted about the happiness of less than 2% of our population which gets less than 50% support & the outcome of the SCOTUS decision? How are you going to spin this so Bush get the hit?

RdLake on March 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM

The US Titanic is heading towards a deadly fiscal iceberg and Obama wants to paint the deck chairs pink.

Paul-Cincy on March 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I think we spent too much time demanding those opposed to gay marriage to come up with a good reason for their opposition. It’s hard to find a very good reason to legalize it. “It’s only fair” and “love is love”, which most of the arguments for gay marriage boil down to, aren’t up to snuff.

jas88 on March 2, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Not much chance of that. Oh by the way,why did you and mooch turn in your law licenses?

scboy on March 2, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Anything else you’d like cleared up?

righty45 on March 1, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Nope.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 11:39 PM

Great. Please remember this exchange in the future before you hastily write lengthy, strident posts criticizing others for their stupidity.

righty45 on March 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Like Obama doesn’t discriminate against the “rich” as a class.

J_Crater on March 2, 2013 at 8:48 PM

I think we spent too much time demanding those opposed to gay marriage to come up with a good reason for their opposition. It’s hard to find a very good reason to legalize it. “It’s only fair” and “love is love”, which most of the arguments for gay marriage boil down to, aren’t up to snuff.

jas88 on March 2, 2013 at 11:25 AM

+1. Even if you absolutely plant your head in the sand regarding the health risks, societal-breakdown dangers, and blatantly obvious loss of religious freedom as reasons AGAINST…the reasons FOR are painfully inadequate.

When you are debating changing an institution that has been a recognized pillar of civilized society since Tubal-Cain was figuring out bronze tools, for the benefit of a sliver of your current society (which is an eyeblink compared to history), rehashed liberal “fairness” arguments do not cut the mustard.

MelonCollie on March 3, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2