Don't speak, I know what you're thinking...

(Please recall past statements by our president, including but not limited to this speech: from just before his inauguration)

It's not that I don't want a fierce advocate. If this however is what a fierce advocate does, I think I was much better before hand without one. Before we start, let's get the standard disclosures out of the way: I'm a pinko lefty scary liberal. I voted for Obama. I don't think he's a socialist, blah blah blah. But let's also be clear: I'd rather not be on the agenda, than be run through the mud by my "fierce advocate in chief" and his administration with where I am on the agenda.

There's a difference between upholding the law by going through the motions and upholding the law with overzealous extremism. It is one thing for a legal brief to say in essence "this is the law of the land that we are required to uphold, despite our better judgment." It is quite another to defend it by equating anything but that law as the very bastion upon which all moral depravity will stem should this law not be upheld. Including the justification that hate is still something legal in the constitution is appalling and would suggest that none of us are truly free, just free at the moment from hate and legal intolerance. To suggest that Gay Marriage is on par with incest, bestiality, or other criminal acts runs counter intuitively to previous rulings and common sense.

Provided that the historical effort to push for recognized gay rights and true social equality has blossomed in its own right within the last 45 years, and the criminal underpinnings of our society predate the constitution, it seems impossible to suggest that gay marriage is to blame for all crime. Anyone who has read the sermons of historical record from this nation's founding will recognize moral depravity is a constant theme and not one that has always relied on homosexuality as the root of all things evil. Indeed, during the events leading up to prohibition of alcohol, the fiery sermons claimed alcohol caused it all. I doubt very much gay marriage has caused any evil in its own right. States that recognize gay marriage haven't fallen off the map yet, or had their criminal elements explode since recognition. That should have happened in the states that have allowed Gay Marriage, Employee Non-Discrimination Acts, Hate Crime Legislation, or any of the other equality legislative acts that have occurred in some states.

I can't discredit the people who defend Obama by saying these legal briefs are not his personal opinion. I can't even disprove them by showing Obama agrees with them explicitly. But he is agreeing with them implicitly. Truman, another previous president, somehow was able to by executive order desegregate the military. Apparently the rule of land by fiat ruling has changed so much since then, Obama cannot do the same by even suspending DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell - the federal prohibition of honesty among soldiers in the Military). I'm not sure how we would know since Obama isn't actively trying.

In fact, Obama has actively been doing the opposite. It's a well established fact that Obama doesn't think I should get married. It's also well established that he doesn't think the federal government has any business in this legal discussion, concluding it a "states" issue. I sometimes wonder if he would do the same with DADT. I would like to see a progressive state like IA decide for its National Guard that how you do your job is more important than what happens in your bedroom. Obama hasn't talked about gay issues more than he has had to thus far.

By permitting the legal argument supporting DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) to proceed as written will make it impossible for Obama to be anything better than previous presidents on social justice issues. Provided that his administration (which would include him as well as the writer of the brief) permits such bull puckey as the implication that gays are little more than bestial incestuous child molesters seeking to usurp the rule of law, there is little chance he can also extend equality by changing DOMA or DADT or quite frankly anything else related to social justice. If Obama's left hand wants to repeal the law, his right hand should at least be supportive of this endeavor.

I understand that Obama doesn't want to rock the boat of this nation. I get it that he thinks it's permissible to abridge the rights of a minority (as if that doesn't somehow limit how broad his own rights are). But that makes him a hypocrite, an idiot, and not a fierce advocate. If Obama truly wants to be the change I can believe in, he has to actually change how things have been. I understand that sometimes, things happen by the groundswell of public support driven by fine the people, congressional members, and statesmen (such as real advocates of change like Dianna DeGette and Linda Newell). Sometimes it takes a President to make something happen. If you need an example, you can look at the record of someone like President Johnson (who was from that scary liberal state you and I call Texas). You won't see that with Obama's current social justice platform. Not now at least. And to quote the past: if not now, when? I can't actively support someone who thinks, which he must given his continual silence on any matter gay rights related, that I'm a child molester. This is his administration, and therefore, his tone. He can change it at anytime, but he could have set it from the beginning just as he said he would before and after the election. I expect more from a fierce advocate than a few forced tokens of change and a speech or two. If this makes me a fierce advocate of our president, loca look out.