National Organization For Marriage President Brian Brown Thinks It “Egregious” President Obama Declare Homosexuals Protected Class Under Constitutional, Sam Guzman Suggests Decision Not To Defend Defense Of Marriage Act Sign Government “Trying To Abolish God”

The Washington Post permits Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, to pen an opinion piece on the decision by President Obama not to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act. Writes Brown, who tends to revise judicial history, “President Obama's announcement Wednesday that he will refuse to do his job when it comes to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is part of this stunning pattern of rejecting the democratic process. Obama said that his administration would not defend the law in legal challenges because it is unconstitutional but that it would continue to enforce the law selectively. This is incomprehensible and incoherent, except in nakedly political terms. The president is using his power to do what he - and his base - wants. Particularly egregious is Obama's unilateral declaration that homosexuals are a specially protected class under the Constitution and that this is the reason DOMA is unconstitutional. But the Constitution does not directly say so. Congress has passed no such law. Nor has the Supreme Court ever said that homosexual people are a protected class.”

Meanwhile, at the Christian Science Monitor, Sam Guzman, composes an opinions piece suggesting that the decision by the Obama Administration is an indication that the government is “trying to abolish God.” He too, struggles with recorded history, writing “Ancient wisdom holds that law makes man. Today, we mistakenly think that man makes law, which is why our government now suggests that God’s creation of two sexes – male and female – is an irrelevant principle in forming a family. But what right does government have to interfere in what has historically been a religious institution? It’s one thing for states to codify standards – like minimum-age requirements – and establish spousal legal benefits. But it’s quite another for government to radically redefine marriage itself. If the government has this kind of authority, couldn’t it just as easily begin to regulate things like religious worship or proselytizing? It is a smaller step than we may think from tampering with marriage to targeting people of faith with so-called hate crimes because they publicly uphold moral principles. It is ironic that those who most strongly advocate the separation of church and state will just as strongly advocate the government’s intrusion into an issue that has historically been an issue reserved for religious institutions to bless and define. It is ironic, but not surprising. For we have essentially abolished God and any trace of divine authority from the public sphere. And what has filled the void (for something always fills the void)? Government. It has taken on the role of God, and only too gladly.”