The Middle East is on fire. Every Arab nation with the exception of Saudi Arabia is in a state of revolt or at war. Our oil prices are about to skyrocket off the charts. Stateside, there are public union employee protests in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Illinois. Van Jones, the unions, and the other communist/socialist agitators are calling for protests in every state capital. There are a large number of protests scheduled for this Saturday. Meanwhile, while the public's attention is on the protests and the growing violence in Libya (and the potential increases in crude oil prices), the President and his Attorney General unilaterally decided that discrimination against gays is unconstitutional and any law discriminating in such a way is subject to heightened scrutiny. In short, the President, without any Supreme Court precedent or legislative action to support him, has decided, apparently, by executive fiat, that: 1) his Department of Justice will no longer defend the US government in lawsuits filed against the Defense of Marriage Act; and 2) that, the DOJ is going to subject state laws that discriminate against gays to the same standard that they use in prosecuting cases of discrimination on the basis of age, gender, and race. Said differently, the President is extending rights to a complete group of people based solely on their sexual orientation. It is rule by edict. King Obama has no qualms about circumventing the law when it doesn't comport with his political agenda. It is a spit in the face of judicial process and the legislature. Congressmen and the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court: you are now officially irrelevant.
By the way, this is the same President who, as a candidate, defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Why is he backtracking now? (More on that later). When the Iranian government hanged two gay men for the simple fact that they were gay during the recent protests in Iran, where was the President advocating on behalf of human rights and the rights of gays in particular?
The President is backtracking on a campaign position because that was never really his position. He wanted to appear more centrist to further his attempts to fool Americans into believing that he wasn't a died in the wool radical. Not only did he lie during the campaign, but, now, his minions want you to believe that this has always been his stated position. Whatever.
The other reason is the following: the labor movement is up in arms over austerity measures taken by state governments that are on the brink of insolvency. The states can no longer continue to fund public employee pensions and other benefits at their present levels. There simply is no more money in the states' coffers to continue paying these ridiculous pension plan and health insurance rates. As a result, we have the aforementioned protests in a number of states protesting what our esteemed Union Sock Puppet in Chief labels an "attack on unions." How does that connect to today's letter from Holder?
If the Justice Department takes that position, then doesn't it follow that states can no longer have laws that prohibit gay marriage? Doesn't it also mean that public employee benefits and, indeed, private benefits such as health insurance, retirement, etc., have to be extended to gay and their partners? Isn't this going to impose a greater financial burden on states who now have to extend the same benefits to the partners/spouses/etc. of gays as they do for heterosexuals?
No comments:
Post a Comment