It is fitting that the President’s current residence is colorless (white being about as colorless as you can get). In some sense it is beautifully symbolic like the white of a wedding dress or funeral attire in some Eastern cultures. It suggests purity of intention, if not the purity of the occupant themselves. The colorlessness and the pure intent is constant, to remind the occupant that they are President to all of the people (not just those of his party.)

Respect for the office and subordinating one’s self to the office which they hold is what separates a good President from a poor one. Understanding that in spite of realizing one’s highest ambition, he has attained the highest office in the land and indeed the most powerful position in the world. The President should be humble and remember that the office of President is the role of a servant-leader, not that of a King or Emperor.

Interestingly, this week President Obama disrespected the office and the American people two times in two essentially opposite ways. First when a heckler from the LGBT community interrupted a statement that the President was making at the White House, the President scolded the person saying the “this is my house” and implying rudeness on the part of the heckler for coming to “my house” and interrupting my speech.

The second sign of disrespect for the office was the rainbow (colors of the LGBTQ flag) illumination of the White House on Friday night after the Supreme Court handed down its decision on marriage equality.

Now, before the emails calling me a "homophobic bigot" start pouring in, try to keep your ears open long enough to let me explain my point.  For the president to scold a person at the LGBT event for being rude to him in his house was disrespectful to the office, that person, and to the American people who have granted Mr. Obama and his family temporary residence in the People’s House. By illuminating the White House in the rainbow colors, it disrespected the office, a large minority of the American people who have sincere and deeply held beliefs regarding marriage who disagree with the SCOTUS decision, and the American people in general by turning the White House into a bill board that elevated one segment of the population (the gay population, which is estimated to be between 3 to 4%) and their sincerely held beliefs over another for his own aggrandizement.

Let us not forget that in 2008 and 2012, candidate Obama spoke with great conviction of his belief that marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman. After his re-election and (rather coincidentally) after a shift in public opinion polls from unfavorable to favorable toward gay marriage, President Obama’s deeply held convictions on the question of gay marriage “evolved” just in time for him to take credit for being an advocate for this new form of civil rights.

As President of all the American people, Mr. Obama once again missed an opportunity to reassure the people who were disappointed by the SCOTUS decision that he would work to preserve religious liberty and reconcile it fairly with the SCOTUS decision. Instead, he seized upon an opportunity to take political advantage, typical of a political organizer and not a really leader of people.

On Friday Mr. Obama descended to the lowest form of political pandering, made all the worse by the President’s use of the White House to further inflame division among the people whose house he occupies.

So, again, before the emails come flooding in about me being a homophobic — and now racist — bigot for criticizing the president on his “evolution” on this issue, I will once again restate my position that has remained consistent throughout this debate.

I believe the “state” should be totally out of the business of marriage. As far as the state is concerned, they should only be concerned about the “contract” involved in two or more people who wish to declare unity. Once the state acknowledges the “contract” then the people can ask their church to “marry” them.

Oh, by the way; yes, you heard me say two or more, because in my estimation those of you who believe people of the same sex should be allowed to “marry,” or in my terms  enter into a “contract,” then it would be intellectually dishonest and hypocritical for you to not approve of polygamy.

You see the argument put forth by people who support same sex marriage is the exact same argument that can be applied to polygamy.

Why would someone who supports same sex marriage and does not support polygamy be intellectually dishonest? Well, now that we’ve defined that love, devotion, and family isn’t driven by gender or need for procreation alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals?

If the SCOTUS decision on “marriage” equality is based on a contract and the question of equal protection under the law, then I would agree. This contract law then must be applied nation-wide to give all people freedom of mobility so that their contract/marriages and all of the associated benefits will be portable from state to state. I acknowledge that there will be some difficult questions that will have to be dealt with regarding religious freedom and other more controversial forms of marriage that will surely arise as an unintended consequence of this decision. However, that is both the beauty and the ugliness of our system of government. Things are very rarely completely settled.

Let’s discuss this tomorrow (Monday) on my show The Live with Renk show, which airs Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to noon, to let me know your thoughts at (269) 441-9595.

Or please feel free to start a discussion and write your thoughts in the comment section