Congress to Defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Congress to Defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

House Speaker John A. Boehner announced on Friday that the chamber will take action to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  On February 23, President Obama and the Justice Department announced that they would no longer be defending the federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman and protects states from being forced to acknowledge same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Convening a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is the first step that Congress must take to defend DOMA.  The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is comprised of the top three House Republicans and the top two House Democrats.  That ought to be interesting gathering! Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as come out squarely against the defense of DOMA stating:  “I oppose Speaker Boehner’s effort to put the House in the position of defending this indefensible statute.”

While House Speaker Boehner’s statement included:  “It is regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy…  The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts – not by the president unilaterally – and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution.”

Thank you to all of you who have kept the defense of DOMA at the forefront and contacted your representatives to tell them to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  United Families International encourages the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to move quickly and provide the support necessary to protect this crucial statute that was passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support.

  • Joseph Quinn
    Posted at 06:49h, 20 May

    Obama and the “Progressive” Americans that follow him have swallowed the homosexual rights bait which equates limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman as unfairly discriminatory. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Homosexual relationships are not. Obama cannot change that.

  • Erik
    Posted at 21:34h, 15 October

    Ok so under your stance marriage is a religious act and ordained by your god.. Ok I respect that… But under that same argument marriage should not be supported by our goverment since it is a religious act and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. So by having congress pass a law such as the Defense of Family Act which defined marriage between one man and one woman is based on a Religious concept is UnConstituational. That pesky First Amendment and the bill of rights.

    As far as it being Discriminatory. Currently because of the religious nature of Defense of the Family act. Gay couples legally married in their respective states are unable to recieve over 1100 federal benefits that are awarded to Hetrosexual Couples.

    Now before you quickly spew out that I am just another progressive american who follows Obama.. Let me be clear I am 12 year combat infantry vet who Voted for McCain in 08. Recieved two BA’s from University of Alaska…I am Married to a great Catholic woman…oh and if you want a intresting read why dont you look up the current beliefs of the man who wrote the Defense of Family Act. Representive Barr..

  • United Families International
    Posted at 11:04h, 17 October

    Erik: United Families International’s position on same-sex marriage and DOMA is not based on religious beliefs. Our support for man/woman marriage flows from knowing that children are entitled to a married mother and father because that is the place where they can grow to become the most productive and happy citizens. The research is undeniable on that.

    Societies and governments, since the beginning of time, have known this too. That’s why governments have always privileged the heterosexual union, (thus the “1100 federal benefits” you site above). Marriage is a governmental imperative! If you can’t tie the children to the parents that gave them birth then society/government is left to take care of them – enter the societal and governmental “nanny state” which will eventually collapse from the load. “Whatever you subsidize you get more of” is an old public policy adage and in the case of man/woman marriage, the government subsidized it because they wanted more of it! Subsidizing “love and companionship” (same-sex relationships) isn’t the role of government.

    Do you really think that government should care who you love? Of course not! Marriage wasn’t created because government wanted to validate and honor who you love – it was created to tie children to the man and woman whose union brought them into the world. Period. Only reason. As for providing a means for disposition of property, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. – contracts for that already exist and are readily available to anyone – a marriage contract not needed for that.

    Heterosexual married couples who don’t or can’t bear children still support the societal norm and understanding that man and woman marry. They are still capable of providing both a mother and father to a child. Whereas legalizing same-sex unions unequivocally states that marriage has nothing to do with child-bearing and thus sends the destructive societal message that out-of-wedlock child bearing is OK and another equally destructive message that children don’t need BOTH a mother and a father. By the way, divorce, heterosexual cohabitation are also destructive to marriage and family and United Families works equally as hard to educate people as to those dangers to children.

    Support for DOMA is not a religious position.

Post A Comment