By the influx of over one million dollars in donations within 90 minutes of the announcement, and his well timed new line of LGBT Pride swag it looks like Obama is banking on the public making precisely this assumption. Granted he did (to my utter surprise) admit it is an issue that should be left to the states, you can bet your bottom dollar (not referring to the mode of payment for male strippers) that his constituency either: A. Tuned out during their prostration to herr Obama, or B. Has no idea what that even means…

All according to plan! [insert diabolical laugh here]

The reason his statement bears no weight and should bear none, is because the Federal Government, let alone the President, has no authority over regulating marriage one way or another. Any person who would willfully grant such authority to the executive is ignorantly supporting an authoritarian system of government simply because the dictator-du-jour may share that one solitary sentiment.

A person or group with that mindset is inevitably setting themselves up for disappointment. The moment a President is elected who carries opposing beliefs may, by matter of precedent embark on an enormous waste of time, money and energy to prohibit their rights once more.

What needs to happen is that the burgeoning generations should (and are) move to a paradigm where Government is not in the business of controlling the harmless personal decisions of individuals. Otherwise the pendulum of a big-bickering-government will continue swinging indefinitely.

So what would it look like if we consulted the Constitution on this matter? Same sex marriage would be left to the people to use our last vestige of the democratic process to decide. State elections. That means however, that in some states gay marriage would be legal while in others it would not. Some people may argue that it should be legal in every state; and from a human rights standpoint it should. But we must remember to rely on the involvement of the people to create this reality through open dialog and local government involvement rather than deferring to the dictates of a man who, by any other measure may be described as a tyrant.

To the social conservatives, please understand, this position is not a slight to “traditional marriage”. Tradition is a personal and cultural standard, not national or federal. There are numerous other blemishes on the face of traditional marriage which are rarely mentioned along side same-sex unions. Is a drunken Elvis themed Las Vegas wedding any more traditional? How about polygamy? Romney would surely be scolded if he decried a sweeping mandate forcing all states and institutions to recognize polygamist unions. Then there is the often, and conveniently overlooked perversion of traditional marriage. Divorce. After-all, if the “Till death do us part” vow is empty of meaning and easily voided then how can anyone defend the institution as sacred?

To digress, let us revisit a lesson taught in every elementary school social-studies class. Our Government is supposed to uphold a separation between church and state. However, witnessing the partisan pomp and hot air rampant in the wake of this “revelation” it appears the vast majority of establishment Republicans and Democrats wouldn’t make it past the first round of “Are you smarter than a 5th grader?”.