The Obama administration has promised homosexualists to trash the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), so its Dept. of Justice, while charged with defending DOMA in lawsuits, is setting DOMA up for defeat in the courts.
Meanwhile . . . The New York Times claims that limited-government conservatives also want DOMA defeated.
-- From "Basis of Ruling on Gay Unions Stirs Debate" by Kirk Johnson, New York Times 7/9/10
A judge’s decision on Thursday declaring that a state law allowing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts should take precedence over a federal definition of marriage has exposed the fractures and fault lines among groups working to bolster states’ rights.
The decision, by Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston, supports and echoes a central tenet of the Tea Party, 9/12 and Tenth Amendment movements, all of which argue that the authority of the states should trump Washington in most matters not explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the federal government.
Congress, the judge said, had infringed on a question that was the province of local voters and legislators.
But in using the argument to support gay marriage in Massachusetts, where the case arose, the judge created an awkward new debating point within the less-government movement about where social goals and government policy intersect, or perhaps collide.
Some people involved in the campaigns to limit Washington’s reach cheered what they said was a states’ rights victory.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama, marriage: 'Saboteur in chief'" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 7/9/10
An expert on the legal issues of marriage and family is accusing President Obama's administration of knowingly sabotaging marriage in America by ignoring the foundation for the nation's laws and instead citing "politically motivated" claims from special interests.
The accusation comes from Mathew D. Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which advocates for religious and civil rights and traditional American values including those belonging to the Judeo-Christian heritage.
The organization explained that in arguments submitted by the Obama administration in the case, the 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,'" Liberty Counsel said.
"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," Liberty Counsel said. "Having disavowed Congress's stated purposes for DOMA, the administration argued that Congress passed DOMA to maintain the status quo."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below for previous articles:
Obama & Homosexualists Conspire to Defeat Marriage Nationwide
Obama Restates Opposition to Defense of Marriage Act
Obama Pushes Gay Agenda, but Doesn't Want Us to Know It
Obama to Homosexualists: "Welcome to your White House"
Federal Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional (Calif. case)
