Obama's Bogus Excuses for Enforcing Discriminatory Laws

Given the recent example of former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's refusal to appeal Judge Walker's ruling in the Proposition 8 trial, one must wonder - or at least I - why Barack Obama in contrast continues to fight to uphold discriminatory anti-gay laws such as DADT and DOMA? In the case of gay marriage of gay marriage, is Obama still allowing his personal religious views to trump equality under the U.S, Constitution or is he merely still kissing the fat asses of folks like his BFF Rick Warren? And in the case of DADT which is in the process of legislative repeal, why isn't he allowing the courts to simply kill the law as unconstitutional once and for all? Something does NOT add up and, personally, I am sick to death of the White House's constant conflicting messages. Newsweek had a story that bears revisiting and which asked whether or not Obama's excuses are legitimate. The answer is, even as Obama's DOJ continues to strive to uphold DOMA and to stop the progress of the DADT ruling in California, no his excuses for working to uphold these discriminatory laws are NOT legitimate. So yes, despite legislative action on DADT, the LGBT community continues to be given another line of bullshit from the Liar-in-Chief. Here are highlights from the Newsweek article that need repeating:
*
President Obama claims he must defend and enforce the ban on gays serving in the military, even though he opposes it. But most experts in constitutional and military law say he has other options.
*
There are two different arguments for why Obama could choose not to enforce the law. The first one: he could say it was unconstitutional. At the time that DADT was passed, it was constitutional because there was no Supreme Court precedent establishing that homosexual relationships are protected under the implied privacy rights of the Bill of Rights. Then, 10 years later, the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas overturned an anti-sodomy statute on the grounds that it violated the privacy rights of gay couples. Since then, laws that impinge upon the sexual-privacy rights of gay couples are presumed unconstitutional if they have no rational state interest to justify them. “Since Lawrence v. Texas, you can no longer discriminate against gays without reason,” says [law professor Diane] Mazur. “The constitutionality of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ has changed since Congress enacted it.”
*
The Obama administration has consistently argued that it must vigorously defend laws that it opposes as part of its obligation to “faithfully execute” the president’s duties. But not all experts agree with that interpretation. “Why not just let the injunction stand?” Corn demands. “You don’t enforce laws overturned by the highest court in land, so why not accept the lower court ruling?” Many scholars say that there is no requirement for Obama to appeal. “The president has complete authority not to appeal the decision in these cases,” says [Jonathan] Turley, [a constitutional law expert at George Washington University], who in 1989 successfully argued in federal appeals court for overturning a law and saw the George H.W. Bush administration choose not to ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision. “The appeal is completely discretionary. Whatever duty the president has to defend the existing statute was satisfied before the trial court.”
*
In my view, it's far past time for Obama's apologists in the LGBT community to start demanding that Obama cease the appeals to uphold DOMA and other of anti-gay laws. His first duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution which trumps acts of Congress - especially when such laws do nothing but enshrine religious based discrimination into the nation's laws. Either religious based discrimination is unconstitutional or it's not. Obama must stop trying to have it both ways.