Yesterday, I was encouraged to see the news that President Obama announced that his administration would no longer defend the "Defense of Marriage" act.
The Defense of Marriage Act will no longer be defended by the Obama administration. The President has concluded that his administration cannot continue to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage, because it only defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."
"Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act," Holder said in a statement. He also noted that the Supreme Court has ruled laws which criminalize homosexual conduct are unconstitutional.
According to Holder, the President has concluded that given a documented history of discrimination against gays, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny than the department had been applying in legal challenges to the act up to now.
1. Obama announces he will ignore a law passed by Congress and signed by Clinton that bans homosexual marriage. He says the law is unfair and so won't enforce it. A new low in legal jurisprudence.
2. NC Senate (now under GOP control) introduces bill to ban homosexual marriage from the NC Constitution (widely expected to pass).
3. CMPD running sting operations against homosexuals in Mecklenburg County Parks because they set up web sites telling other homosexuals where to go for 'public sex'. Kids exposed but homosexual leaders say they have their rights also. They claim that it doesn't harm kids to be exposed to their 'activities'.
But wait, there's more:
The compelling interest of government is to protect the public from predators foreign or domestic.
In particular, from sexual predators, which homosexuals most certainly are. As a homosexual organization said correctly yesterday (and I said in different words about 4 weeks ago)
And then there is this:
Homosexuals are sexual predators because they get a thrill out of public sex and know (any reasonable person would know) that doing so in a park means that a child or others could be exposed to the behavior.
I wonder if James sits at home monitoring the news for the word "homosexual" so that he can spread his rhetoric on social media and in e-mails? Didn't we just have this discussion?