HARRY JACKSON JR. OP-ED: Defending Marriage In Troubled Times

The conservative commentator argues for the maintenance of the Defense Of Marriage Act, a U.S. federal law designating marriage as between one man and one woman and which doesn't require one state to acknowledge gay marriages done in another state: "Against the backdrop of record unemployment rates, recessionary trends in an out-of-control economy, and a raging healthcare debate; it’s hard to understand why DOMA is on the president’s radar screen. The administration seems to be unaware that radical gay marriage proponents have nowhere else to go - Independents and Republicans are not going to embrace the marriage redefinition issue. Advancing the agenda of gay marriage is only urgent if the President is watching the meteoric decline of his approval ratings. Even if it’s about popularity, he might find other issues to address, which involve less risk and affect tens of millions."

He continues his commentary: "All of that being said, what are the consequences of repealing DOMA? First of all, in the absence of DOMA, traditional marriage advocates will have no legal mechanism to easily bring the marriage issue to the ballot. While marriage amendments and other measures, which have made gay marriage unlawful in over 30 states, would remain on the books, these measures would be harder to establish and maintain. Therefore, biblical marriage advocates will lose one of their most powerful strategic weapons, while gay marriage advocates would still be free to influence legislatures and runaway courts. Secondly, if DOMA were repealed there would be litigation regarding the Full Faith and Credit issue around same-sex marriage. Although there are very strong arguments that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United State’s Constitution does not force states to recognize the marriage licenses of other states, the average citizen does not understand this aspect of the law. There would certainly be a series of major legal battles in many states. Further, the traditional marriage movement has had very little success when elitist judges make their rulings in a sociological vacuum."

More commentary from Mr. Jackson Jr.: "Americans should be interested in stabilizing both the economy and family foundations. We should also let the administration and our congressmen know that taking DOMA apart will simultaneously destroy their political fortunes. The 2010 elections need to be a severe time of reckoning, realignment, and re-adjustment. If our representatives do not defend DOMA now, we will defend marriage by our vote."

Booker Rising response: It is not the government's business if non-related, consenting adults wish to marry as one man and one woman, two men or two women, one man and two women, one women and one men, and so forth. A far more useful marriage defense would be to spend time tackling America's high divorce rate.