The Obama administration showed its intention to file a ‘friend-of-the-court‘ brief in support of ‘gay rights’ just before the Supreme Court considers arguments on the Proposition 8 measure, banning gay marriage in California.
A friend-of-the-court brief is defined as: “Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views.”
So the question arises – is this an administrational position or a personal position? If its Obama’s personal opinion then fine, if is an administrational position then it doesn’t qualify as a friend-of-the-court according to the legal definition, and the court should throw it in the trash without reading it.
We know gay rights supporters already have a ‘friend’ on the Supreme Court in one Elena Kagan.
The deadline for filing the brief was Friday 2/22/2013 and as expected a brief was filed under cover of darkness (and the slowest news day of the week), but it wasn’t the brief everyone expected.
In his inaugural address President Obama declared gays should be “treated like anyone else under the law.” Well, under current law they are.
On Wed 2/20/2013 Obama stated “I have to make sure that I’m not interjecting myself too much into this process, particularly when we’re not a party to the case.”
That statement is nothing short of ‘talking out both sides of his mouth.’ Filing a friend-of-the-court brief which is a direct action reflecting his ‘personal’ opinion is interjecting himself, as well as spear-heading the legal assault on DOMA.
This is nothing new for our narcissistic president; he often says things and does the exact opposite or accuses others of doing what he himself is doing.
In 2008, then candidate Obama stated he supported gay marriage but it should be left up to the states. Now he has completely reversed his position and seeks to overturn a law that was voted on and ratified by the people of California, as well as DOMA which was signed into law in 1996.
We clearly see the two faces of Obama – the 2008 face of candidate Obama and the 2013 face of President Obama. The 2008 version -an advocate for states rights and the 2013 version – an enemy of states rights.
With this little ploy he hopes to kill 2 birds with one stone – Payback the gays for their support in the 2008 and 2012 elections continuing to destroy the moral fabric of this country, while expanding the Federal governments reach over states rights.
During his second inaugural address Obama stated “For if we are truly created equal, than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”
If you are going to quote something, then quote it properly – “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” is the correct quote, not Obama’s butchered version.
By the way it says “all men,” not men and women, for clearly men and women were not created equal even though they have equal rights under the law.
The second part of his quote – “than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well” – you can’t be serious. I’m sure every pervert could use this defense to justify their actions.
Ironic isn’t it, the liberals want to tie homosexuality to a statement that mentions God (even though every major religion condemns homosexuality) when it suits them.
Gay’s want to create laws that will benefit and condone their lifestyle, while ignoring the fact the laws of the United States were founded on moral precepts that condemn that lifestyle.
But Obama sees this as an opportunity, using gay rights as tools just like the occupy Wall Street movement, to attack the rights of statehood.
He is not only attacking California’s rights directly, he is seeking to have DOMA, the federal law that defines marriage “as a union between a man and a woman,” struck down as unconstitutional.
If Obama disagrees with the law why doesn’t he work with the Congress to have the law changed? He consistently claims there is ‘overwhelming support’ for gay marriage, but is there? If the support is ‘overwhelming as claimed is should be easy for the elected representatives to change the law. Obviously this ‘overwhelming support’ does not exist, just a small percentage of people making a lot of noise.
To challenge the law in court before any attempts are made to change the law through congressional channels or with the absence of this ‘overwhelming support,’ will result in more divisiveness in a country which can ill afford more.
It was assumed the Obama Administration would file a ‘friend of the court brief,’
which it still may, against Prop 8, but changed direction Friday and filed a “writ of certiorari“ which is defined as “an order a higher court issues in order to review the decision and proceedings in a lower court and determine whether there were any irregularities,” challenging the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).
So the Obama Administration has chosen to use the Supreme Court to try to overturn the decision of lower court. Using the Supreme Court to rule on lower courts rulings is nothing new except: when was the last time a President used the Supreme Court to assault a law they didn’t like?
And when was the last time a President stooped so low as to use the tactic; to “determine whether there were any irregularities” in the previous rulings.
President Obama is deeply involved in this (even though he says he’s not) and he does not believe in states rights (even though he says he does).
The two faces of Obama have been revealed once again, and what is at stake is a founding principle of the Constitution – states rights. The President’s actions in this are not only an assault on our rights they are an embarrassment.