The President's failure to defend DOMA violates his oath
March 2, 2011
The St. Petersburg Times editorial this week supporting the President’s decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act proves once again that the left-leaning Times is out of touch with reality. The Times describes the President’s decision as “legally and morally correct.” They are wrong on both counts (and by the way, who made them the final arbiter on issues of legality and morality?).
The Times suggest that since the Defense of Marriage Act was passed 15 years ago that the views of the public regarding marriage (particularly same-sex marriage) have evolved. Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t. But that is no excuse for the President of the United States to ignore a law passed by the Congress and signed in to law by a prior President. After all, he did take on oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The President defended his action (or inaction) because one federal court has determined that DOMA is unconstitutional. Applying that logic, the President should also stop the enforcement of his health care act since more than one federal court has determined that the legislation is unconstitutional. Not surprising the folks at the St. Pete Times thinks it is “legally and morally correct” to force American to buy something from a third party — the Constitution be damned.
Can you imagine if a conservative President decided not to enforce Roe v. Wade because he or she believed that Roe is “legally and morally correct”? I can assure you that more than one President shared that view. However, no prior President had such blatant disregard for the law and Constitution of this nation.
If anything, it is both legally and morally wrong for a President to deliberately fail to enforce the law. If you don’t like the Defense of Marriage Act, then pass legislation to repeal it. But don’t ignore the law, Mr. President, just because you don’t like it. After all, this is a Republic — not a dictatorship.