Surprise! I don’t completely support the Defense of Marriage Act

This week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear a case on same-sex marriage. At the crux of the argument is the demand that states without same-sex marriage be forced to accept the marriages of same-sex couples from another state that does accept it. It could be a very definite challenge to the aspect of federalism in America. Once again, in full disclosure, I support civil unions and stand by the belief that marriage is defined as a bonding relationship between one man and one woman. I do not want to see our Constitution, namely the 14th Amendment, Section I, be used as a pawn in advancing “equal protection under the law” clause.

The 14th Amendment, passed by a Republican Congress, was developed for the sole purpose of protecting the new American citizens who were once slaves – and made citizens by the 13th Amendment. Now, through legalistic maneuvering, the 14th Amendment is being used for women to enter America illegally and give birth in order to retain occupation here in our Republic – the “anchor baby” practice.

But this week’s SCOTUS hearing on same-sex marriage will be interesting and it seems we have come full circle from the Clinton administration and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

But what is even more interesting is a House floor speech given by one Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) who was against DOMA — but made an astonishing comment.

As reported by CNSnews.com, “On July 12, 1996, when the U.S. House of Representatives was debating the Defense of Marriage Act, Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.), who opposed the act, argued that government did in fact have a duty to “enforce morality in interpersonal relations.” DOMA, which was signed by President Bill Clinton, defined marriage for federal purposes as the legal union of one man and one woman. It also protected states from having to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. In this case, the Obama administration is arguing, through the solicitor general’s office, that the Constitution requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages. “Yes, there is a role for morality in government. Of course there is,” said Frank, during the DOMA debate. “The government has an absolute overriding duty to enforce morality in interpersonal relations.”

I know, hard to believe right? Now look, you cannot legislate morality, I know that, but you cannot force the sexual preferences and behavior of one group upon another. But it seems that the state is now dead-set on doing such and eschewing the standard of federalism in order to make that happen.

And if you don’t believe that Rep. Frank said those words, here is an excerpt of his speech:

“No one has come forward and said, can you please arrange so that the Republican Party and the House of Representatives will express their approval of my lifestyle. That is not a request I have ever gotten nor expect to get. What people have said is, can I regularize this relationship so we are le legally responsible for each other. Can I get to the point where if one of us gets very ill we will be protected in our ability to undertake financial responsibilities? Can we buy property jointly? Can we do the other things that people do? Can we decide that one will work and one might be in child rearing, there are people who have children in these relationships. That is what they are asking for. What kind of an almost totalitarian notion is it to say that whatever the Government permits, it sanctions and approves? That is what is clear. Yes, there is a role for morality in Government. Of course there is. The Government has an absolute overriding duty to enforce morality in interpersonal relations. We have a moral duty to protect innocent people from those who would impose on them. That is a very important moral duty.”

What Rep. Frank spoke of could be achieved by civil unions — marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. And the entity that grants that privilege is the state, so the federal government should not be forcing anything upon the states in this arena.

If I had been a Member of Congress at the time DOMA was brought forth, I may not have supported the measure based on the ideal of federalism. The issue of same-sex unions should be debated and decided at the state level. And where the voting electorate in the state has decided based on referendum of the people, then activist judges should not feel it is their “right” to overturn that referendum based on their misguided conception of social justice or social egalitarianism. Not all things in a society are equal, nor are they intended to be made so by the whims of a few by way of judicial process.

No one should be discriminated against based on sexual preference, but one’s sexual preferences should not enable him, her (or other) to make demands on a society. I am still trying to understand what defines a “gay right?” All I know is that all of us in America have the unalienable rights granted from our Creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And if one’s pursuit of happiness is to be with someone of the same-sex, I fully support that right — heck, I served 22 years in the Army to protect that right. However, that pursuit of happiness cannot be used as a hammer to pound away at the First Amendment freedoms of others — namely their religious beliefs and the free exercise thereof. Government has a moral duty to protect that freedom and not seek to impose its will against its citizenry.

Let’s move past this debate and ask this question — will the SCOTUS have to decide that since a person who resides in Colorado or Washington state has legalized marijuana, then anyone from those states should be able to smoke marijuana legally in any other state? If it is permissible is those states, why is it not permissible in others — after all, is that not a behavioral choice and the individual is demanding “equal protection under the law?” Or what if one state were to allow polygamy, then go to the SCOTUS and demand ALL states recognize the polygamous relationship. And don’t tell me this isn’t possible.

I wish for the day when we stop running to the courts to justify our lives and give us what we want. At some time there has to be a restoration of good ol’ common sense and intuitive cognizance. Instead, everyone wants to maneuver the law in a manner which meets their own special interest — sorry, race and gender are not special interests.

It will be interesting to hear what the SCOTUS decides later this year when the decision is released. And regardless of the outcome, the debate on this topic will be far from over — why? Because it has become a highly politicized topic. And my hope is that everyone reads this entire piece and thinks, rather than having the same ol’ typical flash-bang reaction. Then again, this is what our culture and society in America has become — a collection of fast food-mentality thinkers.

Leave a Reply

46 Comments on "Surprise! I don’t completely support the Defense of Marriage Act"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Patty
Guest

Last 2 sentences totally sums up all the issues

Balto2
Guest
This whole thing is going against the laws of God and it is the law of man usurping God’s Laws. I would rather see a legal means for assigning a friend or relative to be not only beneficiary but also in specific cases where there are no immediate family members, that a person’s name be put on a document as having legal authority, same as a spouse might have when making decisions of important concern. Example: A designated person to sign hospital documents or make decisions if a person is incapacitated, Keep the un-natural wedding ceremony out of the mix,… Read more »
Brendan
Guest

The legalization of gay marriage only means the government must recognize them and afford them equal rights under the law.
The churches do not have to accept them and they do not have to perform them.
In that regard, the sanctity of religious marriage is preserved.

if you view religious marriage as the only true marriage… married by a minister/priest/rabbi/monk or whomever in a religious ceremony… then those marriages done outside of your religion shouldn’t effect you.

Michael Jones
Guest
I see a problem with that only in that they are not equal and cannot be nor can they be treated the same under the law. That would be like requiring people to regard the color red as blue. You could do and the court could find it in the constitution by the same magic they are trying to use here but it would be wrong to do so and it would be a lie. Something that is by definition different cannot be the same or equal. The problem is people add judgments to what is not there. The definition… Read more »
PandaL
Guest

Funny….. We voted not once but twice that we did not want gay marriage in the state of California. But a mayor in SF did it anyway. And now the state allows it. Voting does nothing. It is just a stall tactic. Our voice here doesn’t matter. Same thing with 187. Immigration. Look what they did behind our backs. Slap in the face over and over.

Brendan
Guest

The courts exist as a recourse for individuals to challenge unConstitutional laws.
We are a Republic, a nation of laws, with democratically elected representatives.
Our Founders designed this system to protect the rights of the individual from the will of the majority.

that is why these laws banning gay marriage are being struck down in the courts.
Your neighbors can not vote to restrict your rights simply because they outnumber you. And to justify prohibiting the rights of gays to marry, opponents of gay marriage have yet to prove to the courts how it would harm them.

Michael Jones
Guest
No or rather not exactly the court is not for deciding what is and is not written in the constitution or rather it is only in the most rarest and dire circumstances is it to “reinterpret” the Constitution. The purpose of the court is to resolve matters at equity (injunctions) and matters at law. (money) The court is not for inventing new rights or creating new social classes or any of the things liberal seem to want to use it for. The matter was simple gay people needed protection granted we all agree They did not meet the elements of… Read more »
Camotim
Guest

So you would support nullifying laws infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

Brendan
Guest

When did I ever say that?
And how do you see that as any way related to what I wrote?

Camotim
Guest

You are a real ignoramus who does not understand simple punctuation.

Brendan
Guest

You made a crazy accusation and now that you have bee asked to explain yourself,you are just deflecting and hurling childish insults.

Camotim
Guest

I asked a question. Do you know what a question mark is? Do you know what projection is?

Brendan
Guest

So you don’t know English?
You see what I did there?
i began my question with the word “so.” which makes it accusatory.
That’s what you did as well.
You made an accusation out of thin air that was unrelated to anything previously discussed.
You’re deliberately trying to deflect and change the topic by trying to accuse me of wanting to ban guns.
That is absurd

Michael Jones
Guest

well since you seem to want to nullify the law on marriage …….
I am not saying you would but I would like to see how you base you decision since it is not grounded in the constitution or the bill of rights.
Keep in mind I am all for full and vital legal protection for homosexuals and Bi-sexuals in same-sex relationships and unions.

Brendan
Guest

There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage, straight or gay.
But there us plenty about equal rights and protection.

How anyone could think that supporting equal rights is related to wanting to ban guns makes no sense.

Earl Lee
Guest

Its not!

Ken Largent II
Guest

Exercise. Especially those rights granted by The Creator and enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Noah Webster had some interesting things to say about that very situation.

Steve Randolph
Guest

“At some time there has to be a restoration of good ol’ common sense and intuitive cognizance”? I wouldn’t hold my breath on that desire. Common sense is a rarity in today’s society. Today the by word is “live the moment”. And that is why society is spiralling toward destruction.

Laura Lowder
Guest

If you can support civil unions and think that it’s all about love, there’s a helluva lot you haven’t encountered in this battle, Col West.

PopArt
Guest

Thank you for a truly sane assessment of this issue. We may have different views on same sex marriage but I always felt like you do, that the process of state-by-state discussion was the best framework to avoid Tyranny from the Feds and also avoid unnecessary inflaming of passions. I’m praying that SCOTUS gets this and allows that process to continue without Federal interference one way or the other. Also praying that fearful and raging Americans put down their Bibles and Rainbow flags respectively and stop using them as truncheons against their fellow Americans.

Dot Garlow
Guest

Gays have the right to marry as I do. They just don’t want to marry the opposite sex. They have the right but don’t wish to do it. I can understand some kind of civil paper which gives two people the right to be legally responsible to each…but not God given marriage…. Two different things. The courts are in a big mess these days.

kknographer
Guest

Marriage isn’t from god and never was. Marriage is a convention, which originated in the context of property and progeny. Because organized religion commandeered marriage and sanctified it, this doesn’t change the fact that marriage is a social convention.

Brendan
Guest

The legalization of gay marriage does not force the church to perform them.
Religious marriage is “protected.”

Michael Jones
Guest

Actually it does ………See Bob Jones university v. United states
Nothing is spared because you changing the fundamental definition of the word itself.
This alters parental rights
Religious rights and expectations
Property rights
Presumption of parentage
etc.

hadenough57
Guest

The majority of us support civil unions, which will give the same benefits as man/woman marriage, just not the spiritual aspect of marriage.

The ultimate goal is not equality for gay people, but the destruction of marriage as it has been defined through the ages, between a man and a woman.

Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage

http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

kknographer
Guest

Who in the hell are you, or your religion, to tell the rest of us what we should believe? “Marriage through the ages” has taken different forms with different meanings, and christianity did not invent it. Not by a long shot. Marriage is a social convention that’s been commandeered by christianity- nothing more.

Michael Jones
Guest

sadly this is true of some gay people but not all
I will admit the ones in driver seat the ones who everyone listens to are this way but not all of us some of us are very much against SSM and in favor of civil unions in fact statistically there are twice as many SSC than SSM just so you know

Brendan
Guest

Do you think gay people are pod people, all acting with one mind?

Because some lesbian activist says she wants to destroy marriage, you assume that every homosexual is part of a plot to destroy marriage?

DudeWheresmyHealthCare?
Guest
DudeWheresmyHealthCare?

Of course they aren’t a hive mind or a part of a conspiracy. But when you struggle against God you are being used by the devil. And the devil certainly wants to destroy marriage.

Gay marriage will destroy the family ultimately and it’s really only become an issue in America. In Europe it is very common for gay people to oppose gay marriage on the grounds that it will destroy the family. A few weeks ago there was a big gay marriage protest in France consisting of only gay people.

majorwiblit
Guest

“But when you struggle against God you are being used by the devil. And the devil certainly wants to destroy marriage.”

talk about hive mentality….

When a man really believes that it is necessary to do a certain thing to be happy forever, or that a certain belief is necessary to ensure eternal joy, there is in that man no spirit of concession. He divides the whole world into saints and sinners, into believers and unbelievers,
into God’s sheep and Devil’s goats,
into people who will be glorified and people who are damned. ~Robert Ingersoll

DudeWheresmyHealthCare?
Guest
DudeWheresmyHealthCare?

The quote only makes sense if Christianity is not true. God only sees those who believe in Christ and those who don’t. It is the only division God cares about. So if God is real and Christianity is true then caring about who is and isn’t saved is very important.

It’s not about judging other people or hating them. Heck I’m as bad as anybody.

Brendan
Guest

How will gay marriage destroy the family?
I have been married to my wife for many years.
If gays are allowed to marry, how will that hurt my marriage and my family?

If you really want to make laws to save marriages and families, make laws that make it more difficult to divorce.

DudeWheresmyHealthCare?
Guest
DudeWheresmyHealthCare?

Gay marriage won’t hurt your family, but it redefines what a family is. And it is very important for children to have a same sex parent because that is where they get their identity. This along with out of wedlock children and probably polygamous marriage at some point in the future and over time the family will cease to exist and will just be a group of people living together.

I agree it’s too easy to get divorced. Once upon a time you actually had to have a reason to get divorced.

kknographer
Guest

Baloney. Same sex parents are not necessary for either identity or healthy development.

Defining family as man/woman/children is bronze age nonsense. Family is about nurturing- not gender.

DudeWheresmyHealthCare?
Guest
DudeWheresmyHealthCare?

The family was created by God and if you don’t believe that you are saying nothing more than “I don’t believe in God” (big surprise!)

If you don’t believe in God you have no standard of right and wrong to judge my stance on marriage. Who are you to say I’m wrong? You don’t believe in God which means you don’t believe in right and wrong correct? So how can I be wrong? By your own standards my opinion is just as valid as yours.

Karl Knize
Guest

If your world view is wholly dependent upon the mythology of a vengeful/merciful, kind/cruel, absent/present sky god, I think you should be careful about telling others what they believe. But this IS what so many good christians do, now isn’t it?

Christianity or religion in general has no stake on the truth, or ethics. Rational thought and ethics begins with Aristotle and Plato. So who is their god?

Rational thought- science and observation- says that traditional man/woman parenting is not required in order to raise healthy individuals.

Here on earth, reason is what makes society work, not blind faith.

DudeWheresmyHealthCare?
Guest
DudeWheresmyHealthCare?

I would have agreed with Barney Frank at the time, but the left always uses arguments that are advantageous at the time and will later contradict themselves. Do you think Barney Frank wants the court to force gay marriage on the entire nation? I’m betting he does.

Even Obama claimed to support traditional marriage when he first ran for president.

Maya Pinion
Guest

Well said, Allen! Can you please take this to Washington and read it to SCOTUS?

Michael Jones
Guest
If only the SCOTUS could display this level of rationality and clear mindedness Aside from the fact that Justice KAGAN and Justice Ginsburg are legally required to recuse themselves and will not. The court should say no there is no right to either and do something else equally rare for the SCOTUS to do warn congress. Many times before the SCOTUS has warned congress to take up a issue and find a solution or they will be forced to act. This would be the best course refuse the bastardization of the 14th amendment and issue a warning to congress to… Read more »
majorwiblit
Guest

bastardization of the 14th amendment??
*laughing*

A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it’s obvious that some are treated as if they are not…

Brendan
Guest

Why are they required to recuse themselves?

Ken Largent II
Guest

They should recuse themselves because Sotomayor has served as a judge on this particular case in a lower court and Ginsberg has made public statements before hearing the case that clearly indicate that she is already biased.

Xavier
Guest

Trademarks of the Tea Party

-Ideological purity
-Compromise as weakness
-A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
-Denying science
-Unmoved by facts
-Undeterred by new information
-A hostile fear of progress
-A demonization of education
-A need to control women’s bodies
-Severe xenophobia
-Tribal mentality
-Intolerance of dissent
-Pathological hatred of the US government

They can call themselves the “Tea Party”, they can call themselves “conservatives”, and they can even call themselves “Republicans”, though Republicans certainly shouldn’t. But we should call them what they are – the American Taliban.

majorwiblit
Guest

Isn’t it interesting that a country founded to allow freedom from religious persecution is now using religion to persecute freedoms?

majorwiblit
Guest
For those who argue that legalizing Gay Marriage violates the “Sanctity of Marriage”; sanc·ti·ty ˈsaNG(k)tədē/ noun ~ the state or quality of being holy, “SACRED”, or saintly. “the site of the tomb was a place of sanctity for the ancient Egyptians” synonyms:holiness, godliness, blessedness, saintliness, spirituality, piety,piousness, devoutness, righteousness, goodness, virtue, purity ************************************ sa·cred ˈsākrəd/ adjective connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a “RELIGIOUS” purpose and so deserving veneration. “sacred rites” synonyms:holy, hallowed, blessed, consecrated, sanctified, venerated, revered.. RELIGIOUS rather than secular. “sacred music” synonyms: “RELIGIOUS”, spiritual, devotional, church, ecclesiastical ,”sacred music” (of writing or text) embodying… Read more »
Booker
Guest

This is gonna end up like Roe v. Wade. The should just scrap marriage licensing all together. It was originally used to prevent interracial marriage. Since that relic has been destroyed, we might as well get rid of this one.