Dear Mr. Hancock,

       I take exception to this Libertarian comment at http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Discussion-Page.htm?EdNo=001&Info=084521&View=Hide that more than meets the eye.

      The commentator said that he doesn’t believe  “the Supreme Court [representing the law and/or government] has any sort of moral authority over me …”  referring to anyone deciding for himself/herself who or what to marry.

      This irresponsible comment on the issue of “moral authority” of any being or entity over any person wanting to marry anyone either of the same or opposite sex or of marrying anything in the animal and/or plant kingdom, needs a rescue of moral enlightenment. There is always this “moral authority” that induces and even forces any person of sound mind, to act.

     We impose our “moral authority” on the society we create and live in, and we pass laws to enforce it through the agencies of the Government or through the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of legal controversies. Only intellectual amputees are not aware that they have hands to do things with or limbs to walk on.   

     Irresponsible freedom that most radical Libertarians kick in when they attack the existence of the state as unnecessary or berate Lincoln’s government of the people, by the people and for the people [I also resent their agents’ arbitrary use of force] distorts the universal understanding of “moral authority”, as this relates to the morals of our action. As we all know, Individual freedom is not something we do as we please, without any underlying responsibility. Defiance of our accountability prescribed by law that embodies our “moral authority” imposed on the society we formed, limits our individual freedom to do whatever we want.  I think this is fundamentally basic in the average understanding of a lucid person or individual of sound mind. Beyond that the consequences are tragic, and the result of such mindlessness or insolence is fatal.

     But to be unmistakably clear about it, this is the very down-to-earth understanding or enlightenment that I would not hesitate to give if it is asked and the answer to that question is needed -- you cannot squat defiantly in the center of the street to defecate or stubbornly insist to stand in the middle of the traffic to urinate, in defiance of civilized decency [established moral dictum of decency] that violates our laws just because you have the freedom to unzip your trouser or pull down your underwear and expose your private parts for a reason, believing that you are free to do so anytime you want and no “moral authority” except your own could stop you from doing it. 

      On the sane plane in the case of individuals with different sexual orientation, sodomy between homosexuals is done in the privacy of their room or in private places seldom open to public view, which simply shows that even in the practice of what is known to millions the world over as “sexual perversion”, there is a “moral” code to follow, let alone “moral authority” to observe and comply with.

      Citing further similar example, in striking down the Sodomy Law of Texas just a few years back as “unconstitutional” [1], the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that individual freedom to engage in this sort of sexual indulgence can only be practiced in the “privacy of the room.”  Again beyond that the moral boundary is breached making the culprit answerable to the restrictions imposed by our society’s moral and legal authorities.  The punishment for undefined or unqualified animalistic behavior ranges from severe to extremely fatal; it can even extract the ultimate penalty, i.e. loss of life.

      Ironically, President Obama is a prominent violator of this breach of “moral and legal authority”. I was surprised to notice what was published at this website: (http://www.zimbio.com/Ron+Paul/articles/f1jXNdN1XtK/Ron

+Paul+Not+Much+States+Rights+Comes+Gays) where Congressman Ron Paul was severely criticized for calling attention to Obama’s transgression. Paul was denounced as his own “evil twin” in Iowa.

       This remark was not just unkind to the Congressman from Texas whose good name was eviscerated and his reputation disemboweled, but this character assassin speaks of the mind of Ngurah Alit of Bali, Indonesia who married a bitchy cow after a weird brief “romance” with the female bovine whom he claimed had “seduced” him to have sex with the four-legged lover, or that of the tribe of Khanyhan near Calcuta, India, that in 2003 arranged the marriage of a 9-year old girl to a dog to ward off evil omen [2] – a crusading mind of a political assassin that murders reputation with this unusual idea that anyone can marry anybody or anything he/she likes, or in the name of freedom is even free to choose an animal in a lawful wedlock as a lifelong partner till death do they part.

      In this regard, Obama’s breach of “moral and legal authority” is to say the least, impeachable. Section 3 of the present Federal DOMA law [Defense of Marriage Act] passed in 1996 defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.  It “allows states to ignore same sex-marriage” performed in other states. Marriage of same-sex is unlawful in 41 states 3 of which “predates DOMA”, and this prohibition is embodied in the Constitution of 30 states. Arizona is in and out of it, and as of 2008 was back to the prohibition.

         I fully agree with the Congressman when he spoke in Iowa that under DOMA no state can be “forced” to recognize marriage of same sex performed in another state.  The critic in this website berated Paul for taking a legal position with such determined conviction when he insulted him that in fact the Congressman was not even a lawyer. This undersigned lawyer wants to challenge this arrogant reputation serial killer that the principle of state recognition of statutory acts under the doctrine of State Comity prescribed in the Constitution allows exceptions.  State A can not be forced to recognize the action of State B that is inimical, detrimental or contrary to the interest of State A, let alone in violation of its own Constitution or State laws. In this Paul-bashing incident in Iowa, a dishonest lawyer that hoodwinks the public to serve his interest as in his obvious personal quarrel with the Congressman clearly shows, can be subjected to disbarment.

        In the middle of last year, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional because “it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage, and denies married gay couples an array of federal benefits given to heterosexual marriage couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.”

        The government, particularly the Department of Justice, is mandated by law to appeal this adverse decision to the higher court. The appeal is now pending in the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

       Obama violated this dictate of the law requiring the government to appeal the adverse decision of the lower court against the Federal Government when on February 23, 2011, Attorney-General Eric Holder announced that “the Justice Department would cease legal defense of the Act's Section 3 at the direction of President Barack Obama, who had reached a conclusion that Section 3 was unconstitutional. [underscored]  Obama did not only violate the law on court appeal, but also absconded his duty as President and head of the Executive Department, one of the co-equal bodies inscribed in the Constitution. He preempted the higher courts of the land in the exercise of their separate constitutional role to decide cases as the final arbiters of legal challenges in court for the dispensation of justice … in gross violation [impeachable] of the Separation of Powers.

        "The Department of Justice has a long-standing practice of defending federal statutes when they are challenged in court, including by appealing adverse decisions of lower courts," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. [3]

       The Obama administration “is obligated to continue enforcing the law until it is either repealed by Congress or finally declared unconstitutional in court.” [4]

        It is a mandate of constitutional ethics let alone the dictate of law that Obama has to follow this legal procedure as head of the Executive Department that enforces the law. What he thinks about the law in question is irrelevant. Deciding for himself that DOMA is unconstitutional is not only impertinent but grossly imprudent, and to say the least, disrespectful to the Judiciary and Congress. As a lawyer, let me remind him and his subalterns that he is not signing a bill into law sent to him by Congress which he may ignore or refuse to sign because he didn’t like it. The law has been existing since 1996 and has been implemented by presidents before him.  This betrayal of the people’s trust on him is to say the least as I said [supra], impeachable.

      Finally, going to another faulty commentary published at this site, the argument that marriage between a man and a woman is nothing but a capricious imposition of the Church and State that is not morally binding to any person wanting to wed someone of the same sex, lacks an adequate understanding of what the union of opposite sexes in a civil and holy matrimony is all about under our moral and legal laws. The “moral” values attached to marriage is founded on the “principle of procreation” mandated under the law of God and man for the preservation of the human specie. 

        There is no need to present a strong support behind this by unraveling the biblical dicta, as well the legal edicts of the state in olden times with regards to the formation of a “family” headed by a man and woman joined under the solemn celebration of ancient nuptial rites that would become the biological parents of the offspring they procreate. Without going any farther which would invite boredom, marriage between homosexuals or gays violates this moral principle of procreation for the propagation of the human race.

       It is clear that in the ruling handed down by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, same-sex marriage refers only to the marriage of convenience that should give “married gay couples an array of federal benefits given to heterosexual marriage couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.”

        Same-sex marriage for the privilege of filing a joint tax return is extremely ridiculous.  There should be more cerebral meat in the Judge’s  ruling.

        The State and the Federal Government are custodial guardians of and legal authority for the disposition of our public tax money.  Their responsibility includes the right to set up a standard requirement as to who are qualified to receive benefits paid for by our tax money. If married gay couples -- whose purpose among others is only to enjoy the privilege of filing joint tax returns -- are not qualified to receive such benefit because their marriage violates DOMA or breaks the law that marriage should be only between a man and woman, the underlying outrage that this inhibition is just a dictatorial imposition of the Church or state, is like one complaining of pain in the ankle when the hammer hits the head.

JVdville