Janet M. LaRue

California’s law is the “strong version,” granting “all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage” to same-sex “domestic partners.” Even so, Obama is telling the Court that this is precisely what’s wrong with it. Follow the spin.

The voters’ failure, according to Obama’s brief, was in granting same-sex domestic partners all of the benefits without calling it marriage:

“Proposition 8’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples, particularly where California at the same time grants same-sex partners all the substantive rights of marriage, violates equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection embodies a defining constitutional ideal that “all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”

Obama doesn’t explain how a sterile coupling of two men are “similarly situated” to a husband and wife becoming one by naturally consummating their marriage.

Obama still says that marriage law should be decided by the states, unless, of course, they decide wrongly. It’s Obama’s version of federalism. Just substitute the votes of five lawyers on the Supreme Court for seven million Californians.

Obama explained his elusive evolution on marriage to the White House press corps last Friday:

“As everybody here knows, last year, upon a long period of reflection, I concluded that we cannot discriminate against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage; that the basic principle that America is founded on -- the idea that we're all created equal -- applies to everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, as well as race or gender or religion or ethnicity.

“And I think that the same evolution that I've gone through is an evolution that the country as a whole has gone through. And I think it is a profoundly positive thing.”

With 41 states disagreeing with him about marriage, only a progressive could see his evolved view as “a profoundly positive thing.” It helps explain why he doesn’t think he has a spending problem.

Obama believes that “impermissible prejudice” by seven million Californians of all races, creeds, and walks of life is the only plausible explanation for Prop 8. To soften his slur, he says their prejudice is not necessarily motivated by “ill will.” Perhaps they’re simply insensitive, irrational xenophobes who haven’t evolved:

‘‘Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.”

The brief doesn’t challenge state laws such as Texas, which ban same-sex “marriage,” civil unions and domestic partnerships. If he has his way in Perry, Obama will accuse these states in a future case of violating equal protection and the liberty rights of same-sex couples under the due process clause of the 14h Amendment.

The Court will hear oral arguments in Perry at the end of March along with a challenge to the federal “Defense of Marriage Act” in U.S. v. Windsor. The decisions will be issued by the end of June.

Regardless, marriage is what it is?the God-ordained union of one man and one woman, upon which depends the continuation of humankind. Two men or two women do not a marriage make any more than O2H makes water.

As Obama once said: “God’s in the mix.”

God doesn’t evolve. Neither does the Constitution unless amended by We the People.

Janet M. LaRue

Jan LaRue is Senior Legal Analyst with the American Civil Rights Union; former Chief Counsel at Concerned for Women; Legal Studies Director at Family Research Council; and Senior Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families. Be the first to read Janet LaRue's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.