Barack’s DOMA Backfire: ‘Gay Marriage’ Future

Great article about the dumping of the Defense of Marriage Act by the White House over at National Catholic Register by Maggie Gallagher, “President Obama’s DOMA Outrage Will Backfire.”  Ms. Gallagher is the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage.

Ms. Gallagher writes that by having his Justice Department refuse to defend DOMA, (signed by President Clinton in 1996), he’s coming out into the open, alerting Congress of his support for ‘gay marriage,’ and allowing for the federal courts (likely the Supreme Court) to affirm the constitutionality of DOMA and put this silly issue to rest once and for all.  Here’s how she opens and a few other interesting excerpts with CP emphasis:

“By refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act DOMA, by calling it “legally indefensible,” by inventing a new constitutional doctrine i.e., that sexual orientation is a protected class never accepted by the Supreme Court, by rejecting controlling Supreme Court precedent in Baker v. Nelson on marriage, by nakedly politicizing the Justice Department, by nationalizing the marriage question and forcing major GOP leaders and presidential candidates to act, President Obama is not only helping build up a national marriage movement — he has actually made it far more likely the Supreme Court will ultimately vote to uphold DOMA.

“. . . Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, today announced that the House will act to intervene in the DOMA legal cases.  This is a huge victory for marriage — and hugely important to winning these cases in the Supreme Court. . . . Obama’s Department of Justice was quietly undermining the law by presenting only enormously weak arguments approved by the gay legal lobby.

Here she writes an excellent and useful reason for the legality of heterosexual only marriage:

“. . . Marriage is a union of husband and wife because these unions really are unique: They make new life and connect children in love to their mother and father.  No other union can do this, or serve the common good in this unique way.

“. . . It’s not discrimination to treat different things differently.  Two men cannot fulfill the public purpose of marriage; indeed, their inclusion in the pool of married couples will undermine the very idea that marriage has a clear public purpose, rooted in the natural family and in the need for responsible procreation.

She wraps up with an affirming statement:

. . . The bad news is: This is an incredible dereliction of duty by a sitting president.  The good news is: The chances we will win this fight just went way up.

To show how bad it could become for society, Ms. Gallagher refers us to the UK, where their judges are keeping Christian’s in line over ‘gay marriage’ and disordered homosexuality:

“In the UK, Christians need not apply to care for children — because the court ruled protecting sexual orientation trumps religious liberty.”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Culture, Opinion, Personal, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.