Tag Archives: Defense of Marriage Act

Is This Bill Constitutional?

Posted on by

The inaccurately named Respect for Marriage Act is currently making its way through the Senate. However, there are some questions about whether or not the bill is Constitutional. On Sunday, Just the News posted an article listing some of those concerns.

The article reports:

The bill, HR 8404, was introduced in the House by U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-NY, on July 18 and passed by a vote of 267-157 the next day. The U.S. Senate took it up on Nov. 14.

It would provide “statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages” and repeal several provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The 1996 law received bipartisan support including from then U.S. Sen. Joe Biden and U.S. Rep. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and from Democratic President Bill Clinton, who signed it.

When a constitutional amendment was proposed to ban same-sex marriage in 2006, Sen. Biden told Meet the Press’ Tim Russert, “I can’t believe the American people can’t see through this. We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act … where I voted and others … that marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that. … Why do we need a constitutional amendment? Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Sixteen years later, President Biden now supports replacing DOMA provisions, which “define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex,” with ROMA provisions “that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law,” according to the bill summary.

The article notes:

After their vote, Biden said, “Love is love, and Americans should have the right to marry the person they love,” adding their vote made “the United States one step closer to protecting that right in law.”

Schumer also said he had “zero doubt” the bill “will soon be law of the land.”

But multiple groups disagree, arguing it’s unconstitutional for the same reasons the Supreme Court struck down DOMA. Because the court already ruled Congress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to define marriage under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and because ROMA is nearly identical to DOMA, they argue it will also likely be struck down.

In a letter to Congress, the nonprofit religious freedom organization Liberty Counsel argues the court ruled in Windsor, “DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.” It also ruled, “[b]y history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage . . . has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.”

It is entirely possible that the way to solve this dilemma is to totally remove government from the institution of marriage. Leave marriage with the church–churches should have the right to marry or not to marry anyone they want to. A couple can find a church to do their wedding without having to worry about the government getting involved. A church certificate would be enough to prove the wedding, and the government would not need to be involved. In the case of a divorce, the church certificate would prove the marriage. Let the churches go on record for what they support and what they don’t support.

Where Are We Headed?

Posted on by

Today Taki’s Magazine posted an article titled, “The Bus Never Stops.” The article deals with some of the changes in our social contracts in recent years and how one thing tends to lead to another.

The article reports:

SOMERVILLE, Mass.—Under its new domestic partnership ordinance, the city of Somerville now grants polyamorous groups the rights held by spouses in marriage, such as the right to confer health insurance benefits or make hospital visits. —New York Times, July 5, 2020

First they told us that homosexuality was normal and that there was no need for anyone to be afraid of the ramifications of treating them as normal, even though only about 2 percent of the population are homosexual—giving new meaning to the word “normal.” About 1 percent of babies are born with a heart defect, but we don’t call that normal.

Doubters said that treating as normal people as different as homosexuals would have consequences. First thing—or maybe second thing—they would want to get “married” and have their “marriages” treated as normal.

The article then details the progression that led to gay marriage being legalized:

“Not a prayer,” was the general response. In 1994, according to the Associated Press, Joe Biden joined other senators in voting to “cut off federal funds to any school district that teaches acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle.”

In 2006, Biden told CNN: “Look, marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Also in 2006, Biden said, “We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act…. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

“The left is out to remake society, uprooting and tearing down all customs and standards—not just statues.”

And, during the October 2008 vice presidential debate, Biden said that “[neither] Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.”

Moderator Gwen Ifill pressed: “Let’s try to avoid nuance, senator. Do you support gay marriage?” Biden answered simply, “No.”

In 2008 Barack Obama said, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian—for me—for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

But in 2010 Obama was already becoming woke: “And I think that it [same-sex marriage] is an issue that I wrestle with and think about, because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents.”

The article notes the next expected progression:

Now the question is, what’s next? Or perhaps, what’s left? The left is out to remake society, uprooting and tearing down all customs and standards—not just statues.

What’s next? What’s wrong, really, with having children watch pornography? It’s everywhere, and there’s essentially no effort to eliminate it. How do we know that? Because there is no serious effort by Republicans to stop it.

And if children can watch it, why shouldn’t they do it? What’s the effective difference?

And what’s wrong, really, with sex with children, so long as there’s an adult in the room?

“Don’t be absurd,” you say. But you said that years ago when homosexuality was normalized. And again when homosexual marriage was normalized. Now when polyamorous relationships are normalized, are you saying that we have reached the terminus: that the bus stops here?

Please. The bus never stops. Unless someone stops it.

The article concludes:

Not only would Biden not stop child pornography, he’d probably go along with criminalizing any effort to stop it. People who object to polyamorous relationships, and to child sex, will be accused of hate crimes, like the people who objected to painting the streets with big yellow Black Lives Matter signs.

It’s just a matter of time. The bus never stops.

Unless someone stops it.

That is another reason to vote for President Trump in November.

The Legal Double Standard

Posted on by

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal posted an article about Kim Davis, the county clerk for Kentucky’s Rowan Country.Ms. Davis is now in jail because she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because it was against her religious beliefs. There are some people who believe that because she is an elected official, her religious beliefs are not allowed to influence the way she does her job, but there is a bit of inconsistency here.

The article reports:

We don’t recall President Obama insisting on “the rule of law” when his then Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced in 2011 that he wouldn’t defend challenges to what was then the law—the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton—in the courts. Nor did we hear about upholding the law when mayors such as Gavin Newsom in San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state laws.

Officials such as Messrs. Holder and Newsom were as guilty as Ms. Davis of elevating personal preferences over the law. Yet they were lionized by those now holding up an obscure Kentucky clerk as a national villain. Meanwhile, five of Rowan County’s six deputy clerks say they will start processing licenses for same-sex couples Friday, but Miss Davis says she will not authorize them.

I don’t have the answer to this dilemma. I do believe religious beliefs should be protected, but I am not sure how that would play out in this situation. I suspect our Founding Fathers would come down on the side of Ms. Davis. However, the past behavior of the Obama Administration seems to indicate that if you disagree with a law, you don’t have to enforce (or follow) it. Obviously you can’t have it both ways.

Don’t Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out

Posted on by

I am glad to see Eric Holder leave the Obama Administration. Although he is not the first Attorney General to have politicized the office, he certainly took that politicization to a new level. Unfortunately, his replacement will probably be more of the same.

The Daily Signal posted an article listing the various controversies surrounding Eric Holder during his time in office. They are listed in no particular order. This is my summary of the list:

1. Attempting to bring the 9/11 plotters to a civilian trial in New York City. Eventually he was forced to bow to public pressure and the trials were moved to Guantanamo.

2. Operation Fast and Furious.

3. Refusing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) despite being charged as Attorney General to uphold the law of the land.

4. Eric Holder is the first Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress for withholding documents relating to Fast and Furious.

5. Targeting journalists. The Department of Justice under Eric Holder seized a broad array of phone records of Associated Press journalists.

6. Operation Choke Point, originally established to stop consumer fraud is being used to target gun shops and pawn shops that sell guns.

7. Stonewalling in the investigation of the Internal Revenue Service‘s targeting of conservative groups.

8. Intervention in the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson.

9. Blocking Inspectors General from accessing documents related to Congressional investigations.

The article concludes:

Often cited among Holder’s controversies are his targeting of journalists and federal whistleblowers. Last year, it was revealed that the Justice Department had labeled Fox News reporters James Rosen a “co-conspirator” in one leak investigation and had seized phone records of Associated Press reporters in another.

More than two dozen news organizations signed a letter of objection, prompting Holder to modify Justice Department policies. Additionally, Holder has refused to answer questions first posed by a U.S. senator in July 2013 regarding the unauthorized, remote intrusions of my computers.

Holder also leaves the Justice Department in the middle of its investigation into the IRS’ targeting of conservative and tea party groups. The Justice Department has faced conflict-of-interest allegations because at the same time it is supposed to be independently investigating the IRS, it is also defending the IRS in civil litigation. Holder has said that his agency is impartially investigating the IRS and that no politics are at play.

It became obvious that Eric Holder was not going to dispense justice in an even-handed manner when he dropped the voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia. The video that went viral on Facebook clearly showed the Panthers intimidating voters, but the Holder Justice Department dismissed the charges. Eric Holder has also used the Justice Department to attack laws that would ensure less fraud in American elections. I am not sad to see him leave. My only regret is that he will be replaced by someone equally politically corrupt.

The Defense Of Marriage Act Is Headed For The Supreme Court

Posted on by

According to USA Today, on April 2, President Obama said the following:

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

The President was referring to the Supreme Court taking up the Obamacare case. The article reminds us:

…the health care law wasn’t passed by a “strong” majority, either. In the House, the final vote was 219 to 212, with all Republicans and even 34 Democrats voting in opposition.

The health care law passed in the Senate on a party-line vote of 60–39.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is now headed for the Supreme Court. DOMA was passed in 1996 by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House. President Obama has previously stated that his Department of Justice would not support DOMA in the courts.

I wonder if the President will take the same position on the Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA as he has with Obamacare.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is This News ? Not Really. Is It Important ? Maybe.

Posted on by

Wednesday morning President Obama stated in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America‘s” Robin Roberts, “I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

He cited an evolution involving his Christian faith for the reason for changing the position he held in 2008. Needless to say, various spiritual leaders across the country are making statements saying that the position he is supporting is not the Biblical position.

Today’s Weekly Standard points out:

But what this might actually mean in terms of policy is a little murkier. Perhaps most pressing is the issue of a so-called “nondiscrimination executive order” that gay-rights groups have been pushing. The president has refused—and continues to refuse—to sign it.

“The order, which has been drafted for months awaiting the president’s signature, would prohibit discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” the Washington Post reported. “It has become a major focus for gay-rights groups, but in recent weeks activists began to worry that the White House might opt against approval.”

Why do I not consider this news? The President worked to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” The President stated that his Justice Department would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Why is his statement a surprise to anyone?

There is one thing about this discussion that concerns me. If gay marriage becomes legal, will there be a conscience clause that allows people who hold the Biblical view of marriage to opt out of performing or supporting gay marriages in any way?

The U. S. Constitution has always supported the right of Americans to practice their religion freely without government interference, will the President’s statement on gay marriage change this?

Gay marriage changes thousands of years of cultural tradition. I need to mention that I am not opposed to Civil Unions–I want gay couples to have healthcare rights, visitation rights in hospitals, legacy rights, etc. I just think that if gay marriage is legalized, the rights of Bible-believing Christians will be compromised.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Posted on by

The American (the online magazine of the American Enterprise Institute) posted an article yesterday by Marc Theissen about some recent actions by President Obama regarding the Supreme Court.

The article reported some events this week in a Boston, Massachusetts, court:

On Wednesday, oral arguments took place over another law passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” — the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Indeed, both cases feature the same lawyer — former solicitor general Paul Clement — who delivered the argument against Obamacare before the Supreme Court last week and in defense of DOMA before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit this week.

Why is Clement, and not the Justice Department, defending this law in federal court? Because the Obama administration announced last year that it had decided that it would no longer defend DOMA in court. Quite the opposite, the Justice Department is actively urging district courts around the country to … you guessed it … overturn this law.

The irony here is that DOMA was passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” In the House the vote was 342-67, and in the Senate the vote was 85-14. That actually is a strong majority.

Last year in a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, Attorney General Eric Holder stated:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

So the President and the Attorney General have decided only to uphold those laws that they happen to agree with.

Has anyone in this administration read the U. S. Constitution?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta