First he said "I do."
Now he says "I won't."
Once again you have to ignore what President Obama says and focus entirely on what he does. In this case, he is backing away from his firmly stated belief, uttered before being elected, that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Now he says that's just not constitutional -- and while the law will still be enforced, his administration won't defend it in court.
Leaving behind the duplicity of it all, it's alarming that this president believes he can pick and choose the laws he wants to further. If that's the chief executive's prerogative, then why have two other branches of government? Why even have elections?
When juries ignore the law or the evidence in rendering their verdicts, it's called "jury nullification." What we're seeing in the president's decision this week to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act is "presidential nullification."
A law that has gone into effect is the law of the land until such time as it is struck down in finality by an act of the judiciary. Until that time, the executive branch of the government is obliged to enforce the law.
This president, who famously claimed that deciding when life begins is "above my pay grade," nonetheless has decided, through boycott, to determine when marriage begins.
"Instead of following the will of the people expressed through their representatives in Congress," Coral Ridge Ministries said in a written statement, "the president has substituted his own policy judgment about homosexuality and abdicated his constitutional obligation. We are a 'government of laws and not of men,' but Barack Obama puts that principle in jeopardy by this action."
It's noteworthy that his spokesman says Mr. Obama is "still grappling" with the subject of marriage -- the fundamental building block of American society. Just what, pray tell, does the man believe firmly in?