The Supreme Court Rules, President Obama Equivocates

Today, the Supreme Court ruled on two key cases involving same-sex marriage. The first case, United States v. Windsor, which involved the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton, was struck down as unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision, interestingly enough, with Republican President Ronald Reagan's appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing and reading the majority opinion. The other case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, which involved California's Proposition 8, was thrown out by the Court, also in a 5-4 decision, on merits that the Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case.

Here are my thoughts on the cases:

I'm ecstatic DOMA was overturned, however, I figured the Justices would cite the 10th Amendment as justification for doing so. Instead, I had not realized they were looking at the law in context of our welfare state (I wasn't well read on the specifics of the case, but was somewhat familiar with DOMA), and so the Justices cited the 5th Amendment to strike it down, claiming federal benefits must also be given to same-sex couples in the interest of "equal protection" under the law. So, although I'm happy it was struck down and equality under the law embraced, the reasoning behind it is a sad reminder of how ingrained the entitlement system is in our society. I support the rights of gay couples to marry (for my reasons read: Republicans and Their Half-Baked Individualism), and so I hope they now stand with me in my fight for my right to keep 100% of the money I earn. The welfare state must be dismantled if true "fairness" and "equality" is to become a reality. No special treatment to individuals in a marriage versus those who choose to stay single. 

In regards to the Prop. 8 case, I figured they would throw out the case out, again based on the 10th Amendment. It was clear cut that the Court had no constitutional authority to rule on such a case. I'm very happy the Justices showed the proper respect to the Constitution this time around. What a difference a year makes (SCOTUS Affirms Fascism as Domestic Policy). But even though California's courts have affirmed Proposition 8 as unconstitutional (pertaining to California's state constitution), the proper next step is for the California legislature to sign marriage equality into law (this goes against the will of the Californian people, but there is no such right to vote away the rights of others. That is an illegitimate use of democracy and it has no place in a rights-respecting republic). De facto laws based on court rulings are improper, as the courts' role in government is not that of creating law. 

The President's Reaction: 

In response to all of this, President Obama's administration quickly released the following graphic of a quote (perhaps too quickly without much thought) on The Official White House Tumblr page that was truly bizarre to me. He offered the following false equivocation of equality and freedom: 

(TEXT: "When all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free." -President Obama) 

Oy vey. Grab this guy a dictionary. Equality certainly does not mean freedom, nor does it necessarily lead to it. If we are all equally enslaved, how exactly, Mr. President, are we all somehow made more free? Being "equal" and being "free" are two distinct concepts. Certainly I would love it if all humanity was equal in absolute freedom, but such does not change the meaning of the concepts of "equal" and "free." Now, admittedly, I'm nitpicking here (which is a lot of fun), but he's the leader of the semi-free world who marketed himself as the first intellectual president. It would be nice if he acted like it.

Chick-Full-A Hate? Another Contrived Controversy from the Left

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” —Beatrice Hall, “The Friends of Voltaire,” 1906, summating the philosophy of Voltaire.

The world sure has changed from the time of Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire. Gone are the days where we can disagree without being disagreeable and without forcing (or threatening to force) others to accept our premises. 

Of course, I’m referring to the reactions from some of the Statists we live amongst in regards to Chick-fil-A’s “southern values” stance on same-sex marriage (if you haven’t heard, they are opposed to it) which are laughable at best, scary at worst. The Democrats’ love affair with Statism was on full display when a few prominent mayors (including Thomas Menino of Boston, Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, and Vincent C. Gray of Washington, D.C.) gave serious thought to banning this establishment in their cities simply because they are opposed the beliefs of the company’s CEO, Dan Cathy. Mayor Gray took to twitter that Chick-fil-A is "hate chicken." Mayor Emanuel oddly lamented “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values.” Assuming that's true (which seems impossible considering the vast diversity of Chicagoans), so what? Freedom entails that individuals with various value-systems coexist free from the coercion of others. Not to mention the sheer arrogance on their parts to believe that them being elected mayor grants them the power to enforce any one particular value system on the city. The role of mayor is to ensure the rights of the citizens are protected at the city level. That’s it. 

But more than that, this is a great example of the danger of embracing the belief that corporations are not people. Accepting this false premise means that it’s acceptable to initiate force against them, to silence them, even to ban them from a particular area, because only people have rights. The odd thing about this view is that inanimate objects do not hold political views nor do they voice opinions. Of course corporations are people! A corporation is a group of people coming together for a common business purpose. The fact that people join groups (be they a corporation, a charity, a reading/study group, and even a society) does not negate one’s rights as an individual. The reality is that one neither gains nor loses his rights by assembling with others.

The other bizarre thing about this whole controversy is that months ago, President Barack Obama was on the record as being opposed to same-sex marriage. Mayor Emanuel, who oddly enough was President Obama’s Chief of Staff before being elected mayor, never once said that President Obama does not reflect American values or that President Obama was full of "hate." Another fact one should remain cognizant of is that Chick-fil-A has consistently held this view. This is nothing new. It's clear to me that, once again, all this is just a ploy by the left to further distract from the fact that the policies of our Statist president are crumbling our economy and bringing this country to its knees.

On a final note, I couldn’t agree more with the beliefs of Voltaire. I absolutely disapprove of the stance that Chick-fil-A’s CEO has taken, but I defend his right to hold such beliefs and I denounce any political figure who would dare to even suggest using force, threats, and intimidation to silence him. At the end of the day, the beauty of the free market is that if you do not like the policies and views of a business, you are free not to patronize such venue. It’s just that simple. Live and let live to prosper.