It’s come to our attention that President Obama will “commemorate” the enactment of the hate-crimes bill this Wednesday, October 28th.
Let’s all pause and listen to the sound of a little more of your religious liberty being flushed down the toilet.
Because let’s be honest. This bill was never about addressing the “epidemic” of hate crimes against homosexuals that advocates claimed it was. There was and is no epidemic — as my colleague Bruce made very clear in this post.
The hate-crimes bill is, at its heart, about ensuring that those who believe in God’s design for male-female sexuality are scared into silence and coerced into acceptance. Gay rights activists—emboldened by an ally in the White House and Democrat majority in Congress—are pushing for the complete normalization of homosexuality in every arena of society.
And they’re not done yet.
They want private employers to be banned from making hiring and firing decisions based on their religious convictions about homosexuality (note to for-profit, Christian business owners and employers: beware). They’re also demanding more benefits for homosexual partners of federal employees, even after President Obama extended benefits by executive order. And let’s not forget their holy grail: repealing the longstanding military policy of preventing homosexuals from serving in the military. Or perhaps their holy grail is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. (You know, that pesky thing that defines marriage as – oh my goodness! – between one man and one woman).
So when Wednesday rolls around and President Obama and his gay activist allies are celebrating their victory over religious liberty in the White House, do a little pondering on this: elections matter.
On Friday’s Focus on the Family Action broadcast, Dr. James Dobson alerted listeners about recent actions taken by Congress and our President that could affect families and children for years to come.
He was joined by three members of our public policy team—myself as the education analyst; Tom Minnery, our Vice President; and Carrie Earll, the director of the Issues-Analysis team. Here’s a quick run down:
We began the broadcast by discussing our alarm over the appointment of “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings, including his commitment to pushing homosexual advocacy into schools down to the kindergarten level.
Also topping the list of concerns was President Obama’s pledge to work to overturn a federal law protecting traditional, man-woman marriage (the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA).
When Tom Minnery pointed out that the President’s pledge actually contradicts traditional-marriage measures passed in at least 45 states, Dr. Dobson expressed his distress: “Can you imagine, now, that the President of the United States stands up there and essentially contradicts and defies the will of the American people in 45 states? What gall!”
Also discussed was the “hate crimes” legislation, recently passed by the U.S. Congress. Carrie Earll expressed her concern about the “aiding and abetting” section that’s attached to the bill, which could eventually be used to attack pastors who dare to preach about homosexuality.
To listen to the whole broadcast, click here.
A pro-gay-marriage reader recently sent in the following comment after reading Jenny’s post about the Defense of Marriage Act:
I think DOMA sets a dangerous precedent regarding the 14th Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. What happens to the child of a married same-sex couple should that couple move from Massachusetts to Texas? Our Constitution calls for states to honor the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of other states for precisely this reason.
Using children as a foil for the advancement of gay “marriage” is nothing new. In traditional-marriage states, we’ve seen legislation proposed and lawsuits brought by gay advocacy legal organizations over same-sex adoption, or demands for birth certificates with same-sex “couples” listed as “parent A” and “parent B”, custody and support disputes, etc. The public face on these efforts is that “it’s about the children” because if it was admitted by anyone that it’s really just incremental steps to achieve same-sex “marriage” in any given state, it would be rejected out of hand. So it’s no surprise to see someone (like our reader) attempt to argue that DOMA is anti-child.
But DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution don’t say that states have to ignore the needs of children. DOMA simply allows states to resist being coerced into recognizing out-of-state marriages that would not be legal if performed within the state. And the FF&C clause has long been interpreted by the Supreme Court as allowing states with strong public policy reasons to reject conflicting “public acts, records and judicial proceedings” of other states.
In other words, we can protect traditional marriage AND protect kids. DOMA doesn’t force any state to choose between them.
The National Law Journal has a pretty thorough article up on the two federal lawsuits currently underway in Massachusetts asking the federal courts to declare a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The specific section of DOMA being targeted is the section that defines marriage as one man and one woman for the purpose of
“…determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States…”
The legal theory being espoused by the Massachusetts plaintiffs: Marriage is strictly within the province of the states to define, and the federal government must accept whatever the states do.
There’s just one problem with that, however, Ted Olson and David Boies (dubbed “Super-lawyers” by the media) are arguing in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars Californians from defining for themselves that marriage is between a man and a woman. So with regard to marriage, the federal constitutional interest supposedly trumps the state interest. Are you confused yet? Don’t worry, the “Super-lawyers” have an argument as to why that’s not inconsistent. It involves jamming square pegs into round holes. A post for another day.
It is consistent to argue that both the states and feds have an interest in legislating about marriage, which is what pro-family groups have argued for years in their attempts to obtain a federal marriage amendment as well as state marriage amendments. The federal court lawsuits to redefine marriage, however, merely prove that gay activists will try anything to get a court to do what voters will not.
Jenny, the opening brief filed by the DOJ in support of its motion to dismiss this case (Smelt v. U.S.) created an uproar in the LGBT world because it was too thorough in defense of DOMA. Now, in its second brief, the Obama administration is desperately trying to pander to mend LGBT fences without jeopardizing its legal position in the case.*
The lawyer pulling the laboring oar on this case for DOJ is a career attorney by the name of W. Scott Simpson who’s been around DOJ for 20 years. He’s been involved in a couple of other marriage cases: the original Smelt case which was dismissed a couple years ago, and a 2005 DOMA challenge in Oklahoma. In the brief he filed for the DOJ in the Oklahoma case, Simpson cited numerous court cases (including the U.S. Supreme Court) validating the procreation and child-rearing rationale for the usual opposite-sex definition of marriage. In the brief filed this week, however, he throws procreation and child-rearing under the bus and cites as authority…statements (???) of the Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and other pro-gay medical groups. Those statements are based on questionable “conclusions” that Jenny has criticized before.
I’d hate to be Mr. Simpson, who must take direction from his political-appointee bosses. It’s one thing to advocate in good faith an argument you don’t personally agree with. But to ask an attorney to advocate the precise opposite of what he only recently argued, without controlling precedent in his favor, puts him in a frustrating position.
*(Update): Professor Gerry Bradley thinks the government sank its own “rational basis” argument by focusing on the political reasons for the law.
The American Bar Association wants to shore up its waning membership. SO they’re hiring consultants to solve the problem: are their dues too high? Are they not appealing to younger lawyers or smaller law firms? Is the bad economy to blame? Some of those might factor in, no doubt. But there’s more to it.
I think they’re clueless. The truth is, they’ve lost a significant portion of the legal profession due to their advocacy of liberal public policies. Evidence?
Here’s their own headline following their recent national meeting: “Gay Marriage Measure Passes House Without Debate.” It seems no one could be found that would speak in opposition to the motion that calls upon Congress to repeal the federal definition of marriage as contained in the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, on the executive summary of the recommended motion to the ABA members sponsored by the Family Law Section, it actually states: “No minority views or opposition have been identified.”
Now in a professional association with almost 400,000 members (about 50% of the nation’s lawyers), there could be found not a single voice, a single argument for supporting DOMA? Please.
Newsflash. I dropped my membership in 1990 when the ABA came out in support of abortion-on-demand. So did lots of conservative attorneys I know. It was obvious then that the ABA had been taken over (as many professional associations are) by folks with liberal political agendas. Nothing’s changed apparently.
Except that now the ABA has lost all touch with reality, and needs consultants to explain it to them.
The gay news service Ontopmag.com* is reporting that 5 [federal] U.S. senators or representatives have pledged their votes to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. It defines marriage as one-man, one-woman, and ensures that no state must legally recognize a differing definition of marriage from another state.
They elected leaders pledging their votes to repeal are:
- Senator Patrick Leahy–Vermont Democrat
- Senator Christopher Dodd–Connecticut Democrat
- Congresswoman Kirsten E. Gillibrand–New York Democrat
- Senator Charles Schumer–New York Democrat
- Senator Tom Harkin–Iowa Democrat
Three of the senators–Leahy, Dodd and Harkin and then Congressman Schumer–voted for DOMA in 1996.
Senator Leahy’s comments about his change of mind are particularly nonsensical. In an NPR interview he said that DOMA is “unnecessary and should be repealed” citing the handful of states which have legally redefined marriage to include homosexual couples.
He went on, “I was concerned at the time I voted for it that we may be facing the possibility of having a national law that would override states and would not give Vermont to do what it want or California the freedom to do just the opposite of Vermont [sic].”
So let’s see if we can get this straight. He voted for DOMA so that states could protect their definition of marriage, and now that there actually are states with differing definitions he will vote to repeal DOMA because that is no longer a concern?
Nevermind the 30 states with one-man, one-woman definitions. Six states with a redefinition of marriage (three of these by court order) is a consensus for Sen. Leahy. If he was truly concerned about a national law overriding state laws he would continue to support DOMA. But I think we can assume that his concern for states’ rights is right up there with his concern for motherless and fatherless children.
Relatedly, former President Clinton has also decided that he supports redefining marriage. Read more here.
* not a Web site endorsed by Focus on the Family Action so navigate at your own risk.
