The American Kafir

2010/07/10

Obama Administration is Sabotaging Defense of Marriage Act

Filed under: Corruption, Laws, Lies and more Lies, Obama, Progressives — Tags: , — - @ 9:34 am

Source: www.LC.org

Boston, MA – In his decision declaring section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, Judge Tauro characterizes Congress’s decision to define marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman as an “irrational” desire to “punish[]” same-sex couples based solely on “animus.” While Judge Tauro’s conclusions are unfounded, far-reaching, and should be reversed on appeal, even more shocking is the fact that the Obama administration is intentionally sabotaging DOMA.

In court papers submitted by the Obama administration, the federal government expressly disavowed the purposes set forth by Congress in passing DOMA. In particular, the administration stated in a September 2009 memorandum that “the government does not rely on certain purported interests set forth in the legislative history of DOMA, including the purported interests in ‘responsible procreation and child-rearing’ – that is, the assertions that (1) the government’s interest in ‘responsible procreation’ justifies limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman and (2) that the government has an interest in promoting the raising of children by both of their biological parents.” Not only did the administration disavow these important legislative justifications for DOMA, but it relied on various politically motivated statements by medical and social science organizations for the proposition that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. Having disavowed Congress’s stated purposes for DOMA, the administration argued that Congress passed DOMA to maintain the status quo.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “President Obama has been actively promoting an agenda to undermine the nation’s marriage laws. When you weaken the family, as President Obama is doing by his policies, you weaken society. Children fare best when raised with a mom and a dad. Redefining marriage to something it was not intended to be weakens the family and is not in the best interest of children or society. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder must defend the nation’s marriage laws. The Obama administration must defend DOMA, not sabotage the law.”

Related Articles:

Massachusetts Court Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

www.LC.org

Boston, MA – Today Massachusetts federal judge Joseph Tauro ruled against a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage for federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman.

In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Judge Tauro ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause under the Fifth Amendment. In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, Judge Tauro ruled that DOMA’s definition of marriage violates the Tenth Amendment rights of states to be sovereign, and the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause. However, DOMA does not prohibit states from defining marriage. DOMA states that for federal purposes, marriage is between one man and one woman. Thus, federal benefits provided to spouses in marriage apply only to opposite sex, not same-sex, unions. Judge Tauro found the law “irrational.” Judge Tauro did not rule on a separate section of DOMA, which provides that one state is not required to adopt a sister state’s same-sex marriage. The Gill case was brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and the other case by the Massachusetts Attorney General. The case was defended by the U.S. Department of Justice, which will likely appeal the case but has not stated its position on a possible appeal.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Every court until now that has considered the federal Defense of Marriage Act has found it to be constitutional. The federal government can rationally conclude that marriage between one man and one woman is superior to same-sex unions. Indeed, history and common sense show that marriage between a man and a woman has a procreative component absent from same-sex unions. Moreover, children do best when raised by a mom and a dad. Same-sex unions permanently deprive children from experiencing male and female parenthood. This activist decision must be appealed, and when appealed, I am confident it will be reversed.”

Liberty Counsel has defended the definition of marriage in more than 45 cases and has never lost a challenge involving the federal DOMA.

View this document on Scribd
Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: