I think the slang term for President Obama’s former position on gay marriage is “frontin’.”
When someone tries to be something he’s not, or takes a position that he doesn’t really hold, that person is said to be “frontin’.” As in being disingenuous. As in faking it.
Before last Wednesday, Obama’s position on gay marriage was that his position on it was “evolving.”
In a flapdoodle-free world, Obama’s old position could have been translated this way: “I support gay marriage; I just don’t have the guts to say so outright.”
Last Wednesday, the president finally found his backbone on the issue. During an interview, Obama officially went from “evolving” on the issue of gay marriage to supporting it outright.
But once again, the president was “frontin’.”
Obama’s supported gay marriage all along. That’s why he ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being a union between a man and a woman.
So, in spite of the predictable praise Obama has received from gay and lesbian organizations as a result of his announcement, the real issue isn’t Obama’s views on gay marriage. The real issue that we should be talking about is Obama’s violation of his oath of office.
By having the Justice Department refuse to defend DOMA, Obama in essence is telling Americans that he will choose which laws his administration will enforce, and which ones it won’t.
At his 2009 inauguration, Obama swore to uphold the laws of the United States. Many of us saw and/or heard him take that oath.
I’m sure none of us heard Obama say, “I will uphold and enforce all laws, except the Defense of Marriage Act.” Obama was “frontin’ ” for three years about his views on gay marriage. Apparently, he was “frontin’ ” when he took his oath of office too.
A principled, informed electorate would boot Obama right out of office for brazenly violating his oath of office. But Obama owes his presidency to an electorate that was, in 2008, for the most part uninformed, unprincipled and unbothered by his weak qualifications for the job.
Despite the charges that many are opposed to Obama because he’s black, the fact remains many people voted for him precisely because he is black. They’d have never considered voting for a white guy with the same weak credentials.
The media would have crucified a white president — especially a conservative, Republican one — who decided he wouldn’t uphold a federal law. The media would have reminded us — and rightly so — that there’s a problem with people in the executive branch of government picking and choosing which laws they’ll enforce.
It’s an affliction that seems to affect, mainly, Democrats.
Pima County, Ariz., Sheriff Clarence Dupnik — more a Democratic Party apparatchik than a law enforcement officer — refused to have his deputies enforce the state’s SB 1070 law requiring them to ask about the immigration status of anyone legally stopped.
Back east, in Baltimore, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake — another Democratic Party apparatchik and Obama supporter — has taken steps to make sure her town is the East Coast’s largest sanctuary city for illegal immigrants.
Rawlings-Blake has forbidden Baltimore police officers from inquiring about immigration status. So anyone who’s stopped for running a red light, who doesn’t have a driver’s license, state identification, a green card or any other form of identification and who speaks no English has nothing to fear in Baltimore.
This year’s presidential election shouldn’t be about gay marriage. It should be about who will enforce this nation’s laws, and who won’t.
Examiner Columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.
