Diary

Obama’s “Other Persons” Compromise

Even though the fawning media and rObots are always quick to mention that President Obama is a constitutional scholar, I’ve always thought the title a gross exaggeration considering he went unpublished as President of the Harvard Law Review and produced no original scholarly works in the field.

This month he proved me wrong.

You see, the President was in quandary trying to figure out how to put to rest some of these fantastical campaign promises such as repealing DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. How does he appease yet another disgruntled voting bloc (LGBT) without alienating at least three others (blacks, moderates, and blue dawgs) not to mention the majority of voters in every state the gay marriage issue has been put to a vote? Declaring June LGBT Pride Month was not a substantial enough smoke screen to cover his backing off of campaign commitments to defend DOMA.

He needed more, and this is what he delivered:

“Many of our government’s hard-working and dedicated, patriotic public servants have long been denied basic rights that their colleagues enjoy, for one simple reason: The people they love are of the same sex,”… Still, Obama noted that by law, the government cannot grant gay couples the same range of benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. ~ Washington Post

Give those “other persons” a portion of benefits as if they don’t really deserve the full dose, how did he decide to take such a “measured” action? Maybe it was his scholarly pursuit that I had once so scoffed that guided him to this solution. He seemed to take his inspiration from a part of the United States Constitution itself, albeit one better off left in its disreputable place in American history he found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

What a grand compromise! Obama has always said that marriage should be between a man and a woman, yet the LGBT went ahead and voted for him in droves. Taking a cue from constitutional history the President thinks he has figured out how to appease this very vocal voting bloc while still managing his larger moderate base by treating the LGBT as those “other persons”.

Will they be satisfied with a fraction of the benefits afforded to the LWHC (Legally Wedded Heterosexual Couples)?

I don’t think that’s the distant drum beat of June pride parades we are beginning to hear, but instead it just might be the gay guns of secession firing on Obama’s Fort Sumter.