Opposing Views: Obama Will Not Uphold Defense of Marriage Act

Obama Will Not Uphold Defense of Marriage Act

Opinion by FRC
(January 31, 2010) in Society / Gay Issues

When President Obama said he wanted to embrace bipartisanship, hugging Gov. Charlie Crist (R-Fla.) isn't what most Americans had in mind. But after his State of the Union headed south, the President decided to follow--joining the slumping Governor in Florida to talk about the administration's new $8 billion high-speed rail project. In an obvious detour, the President made some interesting social policy points during the question and answer portion of a Tampa townhall. A local student took his turn at the microphone, and essentially asked the President whether he would be as committed to repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as he is to repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The President replied, "Look, as I said last night, my belief is, is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you're obeying the law, if you're following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are. I think that principle applies to gay and lesbian couples."

He continued by pumping up the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act (S. 1102 and H.R. 2517), which is winding its way through Congress as we speak. Essentially, the bill would make the same-sex partners of federal employees eligible for the same benefits as married couples. "I think it's the right thing to do," the President said, even though the legislation is a direct strike on DOMA. "... [I]t makes sense for us to take a leadership role in ensuring that people are treated the same. Look... regardless of your personal opinions, the notion that somebody who's working really hard for 30 years can't take their death benefits and transfer them to the person that they love the most in the world and who has supported them all their lives, that just doesn't seem fair. It doesn't seem right."

Actually, what "doesn't seem right" is that the President of the United States is actively backing legislation that disobeys DOMA and devalues marriage. Fortunately, he's solidly in the minority for a cultural shift on marriage. In Indiana, the state Senate is riding the pro-family wave of Maine, New York, and New Jersey and moving quickly to protect marriage with a constitutional amendment. By a 38-10 vote, members passed the ban out of their chamber and into the House, where liberal House Speaker Pat Bauer has traditionally blocked the bill before the people could vote on it. "Some people don't have enough to do creating jobs and moving the economy forward," Bauer said, "so they think up divisive things." Tell that to the White House.

Regarding Opinion

In this article the President.......

states that the DPMO Act will treat people the same. Seems fair. But then we might be treating people equallly, a concept that is hard to understand by a lot of people in the United States.

It would seem that equality would be a freedom that we should appreciate. A lot of other countries seem to determine who is equal and who is unimportant. A lot of other countries monitor what religions are acceptable, not a freedom.

The United States is the leader of the free world, correct? But
there have been a few battles internally to determine who qualifies for that right. And it seems to continue, but now determined by the religious organizations with lots of tax free dollars.

- bhall January 31, 2010 11:52PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Individual Equality Does Exist; Institutional Equality Does Not
  
  Hey BHall, Have you ever taken a position against affirmative action ? Affirmative action was upheld not "as a counterbalance of inequality suffered by minorities ", but because the Supreme Court decided it was in the public's interest to have a diverse institution rather than a homogenous one. White heterosexuals are constantly refused acceptance to institutions soley because they are white and will not contribute to the diversity of the institution. Get that through your thick skull! Let me repeat it; White heterosexuals are denied acceptance into institutions simply because they are white. Where is the equality for individuals there? All things being equal, a white heterosexual is not as valuable to an institution simply because they are white, this is the stance of our Government. Are you upset about that?
  
  Regardless if you or I or anybody else is upset, it doesn't matter, it is the law .
  
  Now how does that relate to homosexual unions ? Let me tell you.
  Marriage is an institution, not an individual. As the affirmative action case illustrates, not all institutions are considered equal by the government . The Government has ruled that the benefits to the general good in a diverse institution are more important than an individuals right to be treated equally under the law without regard to race . Let me repeat that; the Government does not consider all institutions equal but considers more diverse institutions better for the general good, than less diverse institutions. Hundreds of thousands of white heterosexuals are discriminated against (i.e. treated as inferior) simply because of their race.
  
  Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals if not more. If a homosexual is treated unequally by the government it is because they are white, not because they are homosexuals . What is not treated equally by the government is the homogeneous institution of homosexual unions as compared to the heterogeneous institution of heterosexual marriage .
  
  I repeat; What is not being treated as equal are the two institutions of a homogeneous union and a heterogeneous union. I understand that this may indirectly affect a homosexual's individual right to be treated equally, but there is robust precedent for this under affirmative action.
  
  - bababooey February 1, 2010 12:19PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Thank you for another eloquent
    
    response.
    
    In the past the people have cumulatively prompted changes, Obama is an example. You WILL see more changes.
    
    - bhall February 1, 2010 12:39PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Nostradamus
      
      Wow, I will see more changes-you're another clairvoyant.
      
      You people are ridiculous. Does white America get any credit for Democratically electing a black man? If were so racist why the hell did he get elected? You'll take that Democratic result but refuse to let the people decide on homosexual marriage .
      
      Bye the way...I don't think I've ever seen less change created by a cheif executive in my entire life. The cheif executive of Pixar has more influence on our Nation than the current president.
      
      - bababooey February 1, 2010 1:31PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Clairvoyant?
        
        Because I said Obama was a change the people wanted? Its done, how does that qualify me as clairvoyant? Or maybe it is because I said change will come. There will be no changes in the future? That doesn't make me clairvouant either. And while I'm at it, being a democrat or republican does not exclude you from having respect for all people.
        
        I mentioned race once in another posting and you can't turn it loose. I compared civil rights issues as different for the gay population and the African American people and you are still wound up. And don't forget this is Black History Month!
        
        And while I am thinking about it, who are "you people"?
        
        I tried to end conversation with you previously and yet you persist in trying to shove your opinion down my throat. And before you accuse me of ignoring the facts that you have presented. There are facts in what you have said. Just because they are facts does not make them agreeable with everyone.
        
        You are beginning to remind me of some of the religious organizations that think they can force the people of the United States live according to their beliefs.
        
        The funny thing about all of this is that there are probably issues we agree on. But I have the right to want to see some things diifferently.
        
        This website is opposing views, OPINIONS. Who said opinions have to be based on a fact!
        
        What possible effect could same sex marriage have on your life? It is proven that it would be good for the economy .
        
        And now I am going to use the "you people" phrase.
        
        I would like to know at what point you decided to be heterosexual, (if you are) where was the fork in the road?
        
        If you have ever loved anyone, who picked out that person for you? Was that attraction based on some facts, or did it just happen?
        
        And if you are married , who gave you permission.
        
        And lastly is it anybody's business what you do in your bedroom?
        
        You have your mind made up just like my late World War II father. And he went to his grave a miserable, hateful old man who could not allow people to be themselves. If it was not just like HE thought it should be, to hell with them.
        
        Now I do not intend to respond to anymore of your OPINIONS! I will accept and respect the fact that you have them, but I also have mine. We do not agree, and you have no intention in considering the possiblity that there might be a consideration of meeting in the middle.
        
        I hope at some point you are able to accept the fact that we are all different because we are, and not because of a law that makes it necessary for you to tolerate their existance.
        
        - bhall February 1, 2010 7:31PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - white heterosexuals
    
    "Let me repeat it; White heterosexuals are denied acceptance into institutions simply because they are white."
    
    That doesn't make a great deal of sense...
    
    If they are being denied acceptance because they are white then their sexuality (hetero / homo) doesn't matter.
    
    - MrBook February 1, 2010 10:30PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A simple matter of right and wrong

The parallel with the civil rights movement seems obvious: the denial of rights to a portion of the population based on a single defining characteristic.

Fortunately the momentum towards removing this injustice seems to be shifting now, with a decent, fair man in residence at the Whitehouse.

Religion does not "own" the institution of marriage , the establishment of which pre-dates written history, and the term is not theirs to define.

People do not have the right to tell others who they can and can't marry. It's nobody else's business. Surely it's that simple.

- The Celestial Teapot February 4, 2010 12:31PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.