First of all, where would this right spring from? Is it just something people should be able to do? Is it a "human right," whatever that means? A constitutional right? If it's a constitutional right, does it spring from substantive due process or equal protection? Does it apply to the federal government through the 5th amendment or only state governments through the 14th amendment? Assuming that it's a constitutional equal protection right, why the hell is the president telling the Supreme Court how to do their job? Your example with black and white children attending the same schools is a totally different situation: there, the Supreme Court had ALREADY decided black and white children had a right to attend the same schools. The executive branch was dragging its feet in executing EXISTING LAW. I may be incorrect here, but I know of very little historical precedent for the president making a public statement about how laws should be interpreted. That's simply not his job. If Obama truly believes that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, what action should he take? As President, he needs to enforce the laws. So he needs to go after 42 states for violating the federal constitution, even though the Supreme Court does not believe these states are in violation of the constitution? FInally, Obama saying that gay couples "have a right" to marry is patently false. Under current civil rights jurisprudence, they don't. This would be like JFK saying that women "have a right" to an abortion in the 60s. It's simply not true. I guess if you wanted to get really nitpicky, you could ask that Obama say something further, like "I believe that gay couples should be able to marry. I encourage the Supreme Court to accept certiorari in Perry v. Brown and not only affirm the 9th Circuit's decision but find that equal protection extends to same-sex marriage." That gets you maybe halfway to a President straight up saying gay couples "have the right" to marriage. And can't you see how overreaching this statement is compared to an expression of his personal beliefs? Anyway, I hope this rant was somewhat coherent. To the general public, there is little difference between "should be able to" and "have a right to." To the legal and political community, there is a major difference between a president expressing his personal views on a political issue and a president expressing a patently incorrect interpretation of the law.
- FInally, Obama saying that gay couples "have a right" to marry is patently false. Under current civil rights jurisprudence, they don't. This would be like JFK saying that women "have a right" to an abortion in the 60s.
This is a poor analogy. Abortion was legalized under due process concerns, while schools were desegregated under the equal protection clause. The current issue is definitely one of equal protection, so desegregation is a better analogy. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because people are not granted rights by the Court (you know, that whole "inalienable" thing). People are inherently free and the Court gets to sometimes decide what, exactly, this means under the law. That doesn't mean that politicians (or you or I, all of whom enjoy free speech) can't advocate for what they view as a human right. He has as much right as you or I to say if he does or does not view this issue as one of civil or human rights. I didn't make a reference to schools, btw. I said Jim Crow, which is far more encompassing, and the Court didn't decide on. Jim Crow was ended by an act of legislation, independent of the courts, that LBJ lobbied for relentlessly. I don't know where you're possibly getting the idea that only courts can be the arbiters of what is and isn't a right. The Federal government could pass a law tomorrow making any type of marriage legal, which would automatically make all the state laws barring it null and void. The courts could then decide on the Constitutional legality, if it were challenged. What else is there to executing the laws of the land? Its a constant interpretation. The executive branch has to set up non-specified regulations, decide which illegals to arrest, decide how forcefully it will pursue the war on drugs, etc, etc, etc. They make interpretations every day. (Remember the Bush memos about torture? The whole Bush Doctrine, for that matter?) The Court doesn't do this. The Court only rules on what is legally challenged, and they have no standing to arbitrarily say "this law is unconstitutional" without some party bringing suit.I know of very little historical precedent for the president making a public statement about how laws should be interpreted.