Obama: The Defense of Marriage Act is Indefensible

Nearly ten years have passed since President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. Under DOMA, the federal government defined "marriage" exclusively as a union between one man and one woman. It also granted that states would not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Since then, society's views on gay and lesbian citizens have evolved considerably; more than a handful of states now recognize and perform gay marriages, anti-hate-crime legislation intended to protect gay citizens has been passed, and, most recently, the policy that ejected openly gay service members from the military was repealed.

Last week, the nation moved one step closer to achieving true equality for all its citizens. President Obama's Department of Justice announced that it would cease to defend DOMA in court because the administration considers the law to be unconstitutional.

But many social conservatives were predictably unhappy. Coming to the defense of the "sanctity of marriage" was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is now on his third marriage; his two previous marriages ended in divorce following his extra-marital affairs.

Gingrich raised the specter of impeachment due to Obama's supposed "dereliction of duty and ...  violation of his constitutional oath."

In this case, Gingrich said that Obama's decision to cease defending DOMA and to "start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent."

Indeed, it would be disconcerting if Obama had decided to forgo enforcing an existing law and replace it with his own. But that's not the case.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that while the Department of Justice would no longer defend DOMA in court, it would continue to enforce the law until Congress repealed it or until the courts rendered "a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality."

Both Obama and Holder believe DOMA to be unconstitutional. The very oath of office that Gingrich said Obama was in violation of requires the president to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. Therefore, far from violating his oath of office, Obama is actually upholding it by refusing to defend a law that he believes to be in conflict with the Constitution.

That decision is not without precedent; Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush have all refused to defend laws that they considered to be in violation of the Constitution.

Of course, the final word on the constitutionality of DOMA rests with the courts. Even so, the law is clearly in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

Under the law, married same-sex couples are denied the full federal benefits that are afforded to married opposite-sex couples. Namely, these marriage related benefits include social security benefits, federal employee benefits, work leave to provide care for a spouse, and even survivor benefits for widows and widowers.

It is evident that DOMA creates a situation in which married gay couples are not treated in a manner that is "equal" to that of married straight couples.

Attorney General Holder wrote that, because gays and lesbians are a disadvantaged group with a history of discrimination, the courts should review cases challenging DOMA under a heightened standard of scrutiny.

Should the courts agree, DOMA supporters will have to prove that denying federal recognition to same-sex couples is "substantially related to an important government objective."

Can DOMA supporters really muster the nerve to argue that the denial of basic happiness and equality to a select group constitutes an important objective of the U.S. government?

Mississippi, Don't Commemorate a KKK Leader

Every time I see the word ‘Mississippi' in a headline I instantly cringe. That's because I know that whatever follows will only serve as a reaffirmation of the negative stereotypes many hold about our state. Despite my best efforts to convince others that my state really isn't as backwards as we're portrayed, something always happens in our state so indefensible that I feel disingenuous for even attempting to defend the ‘hospitality state.'

The most recent stupidity to grab national headlines are the considerations under way for a special license plate to commemorate Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. The Mississippi Branch of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans is behind the push.

Interestingly, Forrest was once Southern Miss' mascot. Having him as Southern Miss' mascot was far more offensive than Ole Miss' generic Colonel Reb; Forrest had a somewhat more shady history. In other words, there's a very good reason Seymour took over for General Forrest long before Colonel Reb was devoured by a black bear.

Forrest was responsible for numerous atrocities as a Confederate general, including the Fort Pillow massacre, in which Forrest mercilessly slaughtered black Union soldiers.

In a letter to his sister, Confederate Soldier Achilles Clark described witnessing the massacre with repulsion:

"The poor ... negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees, and with uplifted hands scream for mercy, but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. I, with several others, tried to stop the butchery ... but General Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued."

In later life, after the war was over, Forrest went on to help found the Ku Klux Klan. His activities included nighttime "ghost parades" in which he and his fellow hooded freaks would go around attacking and killing blacks in an effort to intimidate black voters.

Yet for some reason, the Sons of Confederate Veterans seem to think Forrest is worthy of commemoration on Mississippi's license plates.

Member Greg Stewart said that Forrest deserved the dignity of Christian redemption and that he had redeemed himself later in life.  Even if it were true that he had redeemed himself in time to meet his maker, that wouldn't mean he is deserving of special recognition by the state of Mississippi.

There's a very good reason we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and not Malcolm X Day — despite Malcolm X's late religious epiphany and rejection of his former doctrine of violence. But it almost sounds ludicrous to even compare Malcolm X to Forrest; Malcolm X never even came close to the kind of cruelty Forrest unleashed before his supposed "redemption."

Bottom line? Putting Forrest on any license plate is an awful idea. Any state legislator who would be complicit in making such a license plate an option deserves nothing but the greatest scorn from the people of Mississippi. After all, they that perpetuate these stupid ideas are the ones who give us all a bad name.

Mississippi, we're better than that.