“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Massive Opposition to Obama DOMA Repeal

imagesbannerscp_120x60Reprinted by permission of the Christian Post

By Katherine T. Phan
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Jan. 26 2009 09:05 AM EST

Thousands of traditional marriage supporters have contacted President Obama to voice opposition to his plan to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Almost immediately after the inaugural ceremony, the new administration updated the Whitehouse.gov website with a full outline of Barack Obama’s agenda, which included repealing DOMA and opposing a federal marriage amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

“President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples,” the Whitehouse.gov website states. “Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”

The next day, the National Organization for Marriage mobilized its supporters to e-mail the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and state legislators, urging them to uphold DOMA.

In less than 24 hours, thousands of people responded, according to NOM. The organization reported that so many e-mails were sent to Pelosi that her website started rejecting e-mails sent by traditional marriage advocates.

Traditional marriage is “simply common sense, not bigotry, recognizing the shared wisdom of humanity across all cultural, religious, and ethnic lines,” states the NOM e-mail. “Marriage connects a child to both her mom and her dad, giving her the birthright of love and support from her own parents that every child deserves.”

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted under the Clinton administration, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize same-sex marriages from another state. Congress approved the legislation in 1996 particularly in response to a 1993 Hawaii court decision that declared a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

The repeal of DOMA would jeopardize the marriage laws of 45 states, including constitutional amendments upholding traditional marriage in 30 states, says Brian S. Brown NOM executive director.

“Instead of protecting the will of voters all across the country, President Obama’s policy would allow a handful of judges in Massachusetts and Connecticut to force same-sex marriage on the entire nation,” says Brown, whose organization launched a website to fight any efforts to repeal DOMA at domadefensefund.com.

Many traditional marriage supporters have been taken aback by the pro-gay rights tone the Whitehouse.gov website has taken for its “Civil Rights” agenda, which supports the expansion of hate crimes statutes, discrimination employment laws that would grant special protections to the LBGT community, gay civil unions, gay couples’ adoption rights and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” policy.

Coral Ridge Ministries, a Christian media organization, also sent out an e-mail alert over the weekend stating, “Our new president wants to force Americans to accept homosexuality in the workplace and in the military.”

“Right now, the President has the political wind at his back. Most in the media and Congress are cheering for him and his agenda to succeed,” the ministry added. “That means he most likely will unless men and women of moral conviction and courage stand up and say ‘No!’”

Many have criticized the president for running under a campaign that opposed same-sex marriage only to now support an agenda that promotes it.

“President Barack Obama says he supports traditional marriage but is catering to anti-marriage forces by appointing known-gay rights advocate Eric Holder as Attorney General and by announcing his intent to reverse the ban on open homosexuals in the military,” said Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate, in a statement.

During the inauguration, volunteers of the Virginia-based group held a traditional marriage demonstration, handing out thousands of buttons, t-shirts, and stickers declaring “Preserve Traditional Marriage.” The group also collected video testimony in support of traditional marriage from 657 people, representing 27 states.

According to Public Advocate, the majority of attendants at the inauguration were in favor a traditional marriage. Of the people they approached, volunteers counted 37,357 people who agreed to wear the “Preserve Traditional Marriage” gear while 12,373 people refused.

Copyright 2009 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


14 Responses to “Massive Opposition to Obama DOMA Repeal”

  1. Why can't people just leave other people alone? Mind your own business and put your energy into constructive efforts. Why work at bringing other people down?

  2. I wish homosexual activists would leave people alone, too. Marriage is far, far too important as an institution and a vital foundation to any society. Not to mention the harm that undermining marriage will certainly visit on developing children. I honestly don't know why homosexual activists insist on putting their short-term personal agendas ahead of the good of children and society. It certainly would be good if they would quit bringing people down like this.

    Thanks, Marcel

  3. You mean you'd like homosexual activist to leave people alone just like this Christian group from Virginia did with people at the inauguration? The article didn't say that homosexual activists were bothering attendee's at the inauguration. It was the other way around. It wasn't the homosexual activists pushing their so called agenda on everyone, but rather the Christian group pushing their agenda on others.

    You also seem so worried about the children, which is nice, but maybe your energy should be in keeping childrens' parents married and lowering the number of divorces that these kids have to deal with. I think heterosexual marriages have done a far greater job at undermining marriage than anything homosexual unions have done. But in your eyes, I guess a man and woman ripping apart their marriage and the lives of their children is far better than two men or two women being married and raising a child with some kind of stability. The gay community isn't asking for your church to recognize anything they do. They are only looking for our government to treat them with the same equality and justice that you have so graciously taken for granted.

  4. You must be talking about the infantile liberals who taunted President Bush at the inauguration: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/01/liberal-angs….

    If you read Dakota Voice regularly, you would know that I (and other pro-family people) devote considerable energy toward the preservation of marriage and married couples. The divorce rate is a tragedy. But allowing marriage to be counterfeited is obviously not a move in the direction of restoring respect for marriage.

    If homosexuals want to call their unions “marriage” (or “split pea soup,” for that matter) amongst themselves, have at it. But homosexual activists are asking the state and society to recognize an illegitimate sexual union as healthy, normal and legitimate. It is none of those things, and the state is under no obligation to indulge in the delusions of homosexuals.

  5. Rob, it quickly became apparent you have no interest in even grappling with the truth, much less accepting it. I'm perfectly willing to take the time to help someone who is open to the
    truth, but you have made it apparent that you are not.  Unfortunately I
    simply don't have time to waste on the obstinate and deliberately ignorant. 
    So I symbolically shake the dust off my feet and bid you farewell with my hopes that you someday become ready to deal with the truth.

  6. there is no turning back….I will see full equal rights as a citizen and a lesbian within my lifetime living in the United States of America. At 55 years of age I have been through the Anita Bryant years and there is no turning back the clock. “Come Out Come Out Where Ever You Are” also means equal representation in the voting block. Realize that approx. 1 out of every 10 individuals are of the LGBT community…yes there is power in numbers, and with our supporters today….you figure it out!! I will live to see the day I have full and equal rights.

  7. Allow me to let you in on a little secret, Lenny: you already have equal rights. What you don't have (no one does) is the “right” to hijack the most foundational and important institution in any society: marriage. If you want to marry someone, find someone of the opposite sex, because it requires both a male and a female to comprise a marriage.

    Oh, and according to a survey commissioned by the pro-homosexual Human Rights Council last year, only 2.9 out of 100 Americans is homosexual. But it wouldn't matter if it was 10 out of 100: it would still be an immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual practice, and one that does not even begin to meet the prerequisites for marriage.

    You would spend your time more productively if you accepted the reality of how your sexuality should be expressed (i.e. with the opposite sex within marriage) and stop seeking to counterfeit the genuine article

  8. Bob you make no sense. You talk about how marriage is so important and cherished but you also go out say that homosexuals should ignore their sexual orientation and marry someone of the opposite sex, someone they aren't attracted to and likely do not love, which will likely lead to the marriage ending in divorce possible with children involved. This view does far more damage to the concept of marriage than allowing homosexuals to marry the person of their choice does. This type of argument that you’re not being discriminated against because you can still go out and marry someone that society does consider appropriate has been tried before by the defenders of bans on interracial marriage it didn't hold water then and won't hold water now. People like yourself need to spend less time concerning yourself over what other people do with their private lives and be more concerned with living your own lives. History will look back on you and label you a bigot just as today we look back on those opposed to de-segregation as racists.

  9. Dan, you seem very bigoted toward normal, healthy sexuality. You also seem to be concerned about promoting what should be a private matter into the public square, as well as forcing everyone in our society to consider these private sexual dysfunctions and even treat them as if they constituted legitimate sexual behavior on an equal plane with marriage–which it can never be.

    Homosexuals should overcome their sexual dysfunction and marry someone of the opposite sex. They were obviously created for heterosexual sex (the obvious function of their sex organs should tell them that, if nothing else), and they can correct their dysfunction if they are willing to work at it. Unfortunately, many in society today are lying to them, telling them they cannot correct that dysfunction, and should not. However well intentioned that lie may be, it is a harmful act they are committing against homosexuals enslaved to their dysfunction.

    Ultimately, if someone insists on performing acts that are unnatural, unhealthy and immoral, they're probably going to succeed. But a healthy, sane society is under no obligation whatsoever to indulge that error and dysfunction, and should in fact discourage the legitimization and acceptance of such error at every turn–both for the benefit of the individual and society as a whole.

    There is nothing positive about humoring someone who obviously has a problem and is in error.

  10. Bob

    Who defines what is natural and not natural. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to impose you views of what is natural or unnatural on others. If you answer is that the bible is what defines what is natural or unnatural please remember that there is a separation of church and states which prohibits the government from endorsing religion including religious morality, let alone impose it on others. America is a secular society not a theocracy no matter how much you might want it to be. In a secular society people are free and are to be treated equally. Laws that deny freedom or treat people inequitably must serve a justifiable secular purpose.

    For example when it comes drivers licence qualification the elderly are not treated the same as younger people they have to under go various tests to test their responsiveness and vision on a much more frequent basis than younger drivers. This is done for a justifiable reason because vision can get poor with age and reaction time can get more sluggish with time.

    When it comes to same-sex-marriage despite all the huff and puff from religious conservatives there is no justifiable secular reason to justify denying same sex couples the right to a civil marriage licence. Religious doctrines and values are not a justifiable secular reason, because someone fines it unnatural is not a justifiable secular reason, and as for the arguments about procreation they are null and void because no one holds heterosexual couples to the same standard. Opposite sex couples can be sterile and still marry, can be to old to have children, or simply refuse to have children and yet they are still permit to get a marriage certificate. The bans on same sex marriage for government issued marriage licences serve no legitimate purpose other than to ease the minds of the religious intolerant people who stress themselves out about something that doesn't affect them, and easing the minds of people who are intolerant is not a justifiable secular purpose.

    P.S If someone who didn't agree with your religion or something else about you told you that you it was a dysfunction that you needed to correct you would feel very insulted the same applies to you telling homosexuals that they need to stop being who they are because you disagree with the fact that they happen to be sexually attracted to people of the same gender where you are not.

  11. Natural is what it is, and it is quite obvious. Homosexual activists certainly do not have the right to redefine it. It is overwhelmingly obvious that the natural function and use of the male and female sex organs is for the male sex organs to be used in concert with female sex organs, and vice versa. If you don't understand this, you might want to take a biology or human sexuality course, because every aspect of the function of these organs indicates quite clearly that they were meant to be used in a heterosexual fashion, and have no legitimate use or function whatsoever when applied in an unnatural homosexual fashion.

    While you're educating yourself, you might want to learn a bit about the U.S. Constitution and our form of government, as well. If you do, you will find that the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. You will, however, find in the First Amendment this statement: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” And if this isn't clear enough to indicate that the Constitution in now way prohibits the application of the moral values of Americans to the laws adopted by Americans, you may want to follow up by reading some of the many writings of the founders which indicate they intended that there be no official state church or religion, not that religious values be sanitized from the public square.

    Homosexuals are already treated equally and have the same rights as heterosexuals. Homosexuals are just as free as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex; because they choose not to exercise that right does not mean that right does not exist. Homosexuals do not, however, have a special right or foundation to redefine nature or redefine the fundamental human institution of marriage.

    There is no reason whatsoever for the state to allow marriage to be counterfeited or redefined, and the state is under no obligation whatsoever to allow this fraud. In fact, the state has many compelling reasons to preserve and protect the institution from being hijacked. If you don't understand this, I suggest you read this: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/05/society-and-

    It is quite obvious through science, biology, moral authority, health data and more that homosexual behavior is an unnatural aberration (even a HRC-sponsored poll found only 2.9% of the population is homosexual) which serves no useful biological purpose, provides no useful function to society, and carries with it tremendous public and private health risks. If you could manage to step back from your emotional response to and investment in this practice, this truth would become overwhelmingly obvious to you.

  12. Bob

    Who defines what is natural and not natural. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to impose you views of what is natural or unnatural on others. If you answer is that the bible is what defines what is natural or unnatural please remember that there is a separation of church and states which prohibits the government from endorsing religion including religious morality, let alone impose it on others. America is a secular society not a theocracy no matter how much you might want it to be. In a secular society people are free and are to be treated equally. Laws that deny freedom or treat people inequitably must serve a justifiable secular purpose.

    For example when it comes drivers licence qualification the elderly are not treated the same as younger people they have to under go various tests to test their responsiveness and vision on a much more frequent basis than younger drivers. This is done for a justifiable reason because vision can get poor with age and reaction time can get more sluggish with time.

    When it comes to same-sex-marriage despite all the huff and puff from religious conservatives there is no justifiable secular reason to justify denying same sex couples the right to a civil marriage licence. Religious doctrines and values are not a justifiable secular reason, because someone fines it unnatural is not a justifiable secular reason, and as for the arguments about procreation they are null and void because no one holds heterosexual couples to the same standard. Opposite sex couples can be sterile and still marry, can be to old to have children, or simply refuse to have children and yet they are still permit to get a marriage certificate. The bans on same sex marriage for government issued marriage licences serve no legitimate purpose other than to ease the minds of the religious intolerant people who stress themselves out about something that doesn't affect them, and easing the minds of people who are intolerant is not a justifiable secular purpose.

    P.S If someone who didn't agree with your religion or something else about you told you that you it was a dysfunction that you needed to correct you would feel very insulted the same applies to you telling homosexuals that they need to stop being who they are because you disagree with the fact that they happen to be sexually attracted to people of the same gender where you are not.

  13. Natural is what it is, and it is quite obvious. Homosexual activists certainly do not have the right to redefine it. It is overwhelmingly obvious that the natural function and use of the male and female sex organs is for the male sex organs to be used in concert with female sex organs, and vice versa. If you don't understand this, you might want to take a biology or human sexuality course, because every aspect of the function of these organs indicates quite clearly that they were meant to be used in a heterosexual fashion, and have no legitimate use or function whatsoever when applied in an unnatural homosexual fashion.

    While you're educating yourself, you might want to learn a bit about the U.S. Constitution and our form of government, as well. If you do, you will find that the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. You will, however, find in the First Amendment this statement: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” And if this isn't clear enough to indicate that the Constitution in now way prohibits the application of the moral values of Americans to the laws adopted by Americans, you may want to follow up by reading some of the many writings of the founders which indicate they intended that there be no official state church or religion, not that religious values be sanitized from the public square.

    Homosexuals are already treated equally and have the same rights as heterosexuals. Homosexuals are just as free as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex; because they choose not to exercise that right does not mean that right does not exist. Homosexuals do not, however, have a special right or foundation to redefine nature or redefine the fundamental human institution of marriage.

    There is no reason whatsoever for the state to allow marriage to be counterfeited or redefined, and the state is under no obligation whatsoever to allow this fraud. In fact, the state has many compelling reasons to preserve and protect the institution from being hijacked. If you don't understand this, I suggest you read this: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/05/society-and-

    It is quite obvious through science, biology, moral authority, health data and more that homosexual behavior is an unnatural aberration (even a HRC-sponsored poll found only 2.9% of the population is homosexual) which serves no useful biological purpose, provides no useful function to society, and carries with it tremendous public and private health risks. If you could manage to step back from your emotional response to and investment in this practice, this truth would become overwhelmingly obvious to you.