Obama Supports Overthrow of Defence of Marriage Act, Paving the Way for Federal Support of Same-Sex Marriage

Friday, August 21, 2009

NOM's President, Maggie Gallagher, asks a pretty good question: "Why has President Obama's Justice Department abruptly attempted to sabotage the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court?"

Is there no justice for marriage?

Justice is supposed to be blind. And the Justice Department is supposed to do justice without regard to politics.

When Congress passed DOMA in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support, it laid out clear reasons why marriage deserves legal protection:

"At bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing."

As Maggie says, "This is not some kind of weird side argument drummed up by folks who don't like gay people. It has been at the heart of America's marriage tradition since the dawn of the Republic."

Dozens of courts have ruled that procreation is a key purpose of marriage -- long before anyone was thinking about gay marriage. A New Jersey judge in 1921 waxed pretty lyrical:"Lord Penzance has observed that the procreation of children is one of the ends of marriage. I do not hesitate to say that it is the most important object of matrimony, for without it the human race itself would perish from the earth."

Even in liberal states like New York, Washington, and Maryland, state supreme courts have ruled: Marriage is not discrimination, because unions of husband and wife really are different, and they serve the government interest in promoting responsible procreation in a special way. It's not discrimination to treat different relationships differently. It's common sense.

But Pres. Obama's Justice department, in a nakedly political move after political protests, speaking on behalf of you and me as the government of the United States, just told a federal court of law: "The government does not contend that there are legitimate government interests in 'creating a legal structure that promotes the raising of children by both of their biological parents' or that the government's interest in 'responsible procreation' justifies Congress's decision to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman."

"I couldn't believe it," one high-powered lawyer emailed me. "I mean, it's one thing for Jerry Brown to make an argument like that to the California courts. It's another thing for the United States Justice Department to do it."

What just happened? Maggie said it better than I could: "A loud interest group that helped fund President Obama's victory succeeded this week by belligerent protests in gaining a key shift in Justice Department legal arguments. ...President Obama is sabotaging DOMA while pretending to defend it in court, in order to please a core political interest group that donated money to support his campaign."

If you have already taken action to send a message to Pres. Obama, thank you. If you haven't, fight back today! Justice for marriage today!

"Five Predictions About Gay Marriage"
Maggie Gallagher
National Review Online
August 20, 2009

Let me make a few preliminary predictions about the short-term effects of Same Sex Marriage:

  1. In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way.

  2. Public schools will teach about gay marriage.

  3. Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accomodated in any way.

  4. Religous institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married).

  5. Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline.


Post a Comment


Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.

Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).