And these are the people who want to run the government?  I read a post yesterday about Newt Gingrich - former Speaker of the House of Representatives, prospective 2012 GOP presidential candidate - calling for Congress to force President Obama to continue defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Section 3 is the one that says, essentially, that even if a same-sex couple is legally married in the state where they reside, they are not considered as married for purposes of federal law.  (And forget about civil unions and domestic partnerships - everyone knows they're not really marriages.)

As you may have heard, the President, with the concurrence of Attorney General Eric Holder, issued a statement saying:  (1) that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be examined using heightened scrutiny; (2) that under such scrutiny, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional based on the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment; and therefore (3) the Department of Justice will no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA in court.  

(The President also tossed a little bomb in the laps of the House of Representatives, saying in effect, "If you want to defend Section 3 in court, go right ahead.  We won't stop you."  How many Representatives do you think want to take an active role in defending Section 3?  As one online commentator put it, "Just wait until the first surviving same-sex spouse of a serviceperson killed in the line of duty files for survivor benefits, after 'don't ask, don't tell' is repealed.")

So Mr. Gingrich opened his yap yesterday and said the following:  "I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.  His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent."

According to the Constitution, the Presidential oath of office reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Only two tasks mentioned there: faithfully execute the office of President; and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

The Constitution also states that the President "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Well, since section 3 of DOMA has not been repealed by Congress nor declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, same-sex couples are still not considered married for purposes of Federal law. That has not changed, and it is still being "faithfully executed". But NOTHING says the President has to spend money and manpower to defend a law, or part of a law, in court.

So one can argue that the President, considering section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, is fulfilling his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution by declaring his opinion that a section of a law is unconstitutional, and by not taking part in defending that which he deems to be unconstitutional.

And any Senator or Representative, current or former, who says that this is an impeachable offense has no understanding of what the Constitution says, much less what it means.