First Shot Fired to Take Down Federal DOMA

By Bob Ellis on March 4th, 2009

j0438752We knew an outright attack on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was coming under the Obama Administration, and here it is.

LifeSiteNews reports a lawsuit has been filed to challenge the federal DOMA.

A lawsuit was filed yesterday with the federal District Court in Boston that seeks to declare portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, unconstitutional.

The suit addresses the use of DOMA Section 3, which makes clear that spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees’ and retirees’ benefits, and in the issuance of passports are reserved for married couples only.

The plaintiffs in the suit are eight homosexual couples who say they are “married” and three individuals whose homosexual partners have passed away.

Nancy Gill, a postal worker “married” to Marcelle Letourneau, who is one of the plaintiffs, said that she was “shocked” when she tried to put her homosexual partner on her health plan, but was rejected. “My employer, the federal government, doesn’t protect my family the same way it does my co-workers’ families. That’s not right.”

I hate to break reality to you, Miss Gill, but if you don’t have a husband, you don’t have a marriage and you don’t constitute a family. I realize there have probably been several people lying to you and indulging your fantasy that two women can constitute a “marriage,” but wishful thinking can’t create one.  It’s sad both for her and for our society that she was appeased in this matter at all.

This is why we have for years needed a federal marriage protection amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

It’s sad that we should have to amend the constitution to spell out what people were once reasonable enough to glean from common sense, but in this age of activists judges, it is a necessity. Putting something as fundamental as marriage into the constitution is the only way to “put it up on a shelf” high enough to keep the belligerent and destructive hands of meddling activists and judges off it.

As this article points out, 30 states have amended their constitutions to protect marriage from being counterfeited in their states.

Several more states have DOMAs, but these are as vulnerable to activist meddling as is the federal DOMA.

Barack Obama made it clear before the election he intends to undermine marriage and family; it was on his campaign website.

He has since made disingenuous statements pretending he is not in favor of homosexual hijacking of marriage, but his actions prove otherwise.

This lawsuit may provide him some cover to continue pretending favor toward authentic marriage while allowing the DOMA to be overturned.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins expressed concerns that the Obama administration’s Department of Justice would not suitably defend DOMA against the lawsuit, given Obama’s personal position in favor of repealing the law.

Rose-colored glasses have enabled Obama to continue pulling the wool over the eyes of some relatively reasonable Americans, and pretending to defend DOMA (while mounting a lame faux defense of it, as required of the Justice Department) would provide the cover Obama needs to keep these drowsy Americans still in the dark concerning the truth about his radical plans for our society.

We cannot allow the most important foundation of any society to be counterfeited.  The damage to children, families, and society itself is incalculable.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , , ,

  • Anonymous
    What would you call yourself then? Activist and Government Meddler, we merely are doing the same thing you are when you preach about the stimulus package, being critical of the current legislation. Take a look in the mirror. Without activism, we would not have half of what America does right now. Expressing our Freedom of Speech just like you do everyday.

    For people that look at marriage as a institution, shame on you. A piece of paper does not mean you love each other. However, barring anyone from right that are afforded to others is NOT what this country was founded on. By the way, don't respond with "you do have the right, the right to marry a woman to have those rights" . It's a pathetic attempt to degrade, discriminate, and further propogate the idealisms that others are more deserving than others.
  • I believe I explained that, if you were listening. I, among others, seek to prevent activists within the government from meddling with fundamental human institutions such as marriage and family.

    If marriage is just a piece of paper, what are you and other homosexual activists so worked up over? Just go sodomize each other and leave families and society alone.

    Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals do. They simply don't want to exercise the rights they have. They do not deserve a special right to counterfeit the foundational institution of marriage, however.

    Attempting to call something "marriage" which clearly does not meet that definition is a pathetic attempt to legitimize that which cannot be justified, at the expense of all of society.
  • cinemaphile85
    Just go sodomize each other and leave families and society alone? My my Bob, you're in a hostile mood today! As usual, I can see the kindness and compassion of Christ shining through you!

    I always chuckle when you bring up that tired old "homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals do" excuse. When your daughter grows up, would you want her to marry a gay man, or a straight man?
  • Yes, like Christ when he branded the liars and propagandists of his day for what they were: snakes. And when he knocked over some tables in the temple.

    You chuckle at the unpleasant truth because you realize the claim that homosexuals are somehow denied the same rights as everyone else is a load of hogwash. And you hate it when someone points that out.
  • cinemaphile85
    Yesterday you said to Braden:

    "If homosexuals want to be married so bad, they should find someone of the opposite sex and marry them. Until they do that, they do not meet the qualifications to form a marriage."

    I'll ask you again. When your daughter grows up, would you want a homosexual man to marry her? How about your son? Would you want him to marry a homosexual woman?
  • I think you're smart enough to figure out just what I meant, the implications of it, and from that, the answer to your own question.

    Well...given what I've seen from you in the past, maybe not. But I'll leave you wrestle with that. The mental exercise will do you good.
  • cinemaphile85
    Ok, so if a gay man wants to get married, he should marry a woman, even though he doesn't have the slightest romantic or sexual interest in the opposite sex. And you wouldn't mind if the woman he marries happens to be your daughter. That should make for a very fulfilling marriage!
  • Did you just hear the sound of something like a jet going by overhead? That was the sound of the truth going over your head.

    As I said, the mental exercise will do you good. Try again if you'd like. Just don't veer off in fear when the truth looms immediately ahead...
  • cinemaphile85
    Yes yes I know, the "truth" you want me to admit is that only one man and one woman can constitute a marriage. Understood. But a marriage should also have sexual and romantic compatibility between spouses, something that is totally absent when a gay man marries a woman. By ignoring that, you've basically reduced marriage to nothing more than a pairing of opposite body parts. And I'M the one cheapening society's most important institution?
  • beethovens10th
    I need to interject myself here to knock some semblance of sense into cinema. There are quite a few well-known homosexual activists, who identify as exclusively "gay", who were, for many many years, married to a member of the opposite sex, producing children over those many years in what they claim were once happy marriages. What do you make of their obvious ability to "perform" with a member of the opposite sex when they say they identify as exclusively gay? I'll give you names if you'd like, so you can do your own verification.

    Again, men self-reporting exclusive homosexuality, copulating with members of the opposite sex successfully enough to produce children, got it? These are verifiable facts. Are we to then conclude that their sexual orientation changed from heterosexual to homosexual? Or even, as you will no doubt argue, from bisexual to exclusively homosexual? I'm a little confused. All that I ever hear from you homo-apologists is that sexuality is fixed at birth and immutable. Again, what do you make of a person sexually functioning, for YEARS, in a heterosexual, child-producing marriage who identifies as exclusively "gay?"
  • I just want you to face the reality of what a marriage is and is not, and stop trying to live in a juvenile "Cuz I want to" fantasy world.

    I haven't reduced marriage an iota; in fact, I have stood unwaveringly for everything that a marriage is.

    Holding fast to the reality that you can't make a cake without flour in no way reduces the beauty, taste or content of a cake. Adhering to the required ingredients for a cake (as with the required ingredients to make a marriage) is what makes it possible in the first place.

    You can't substitute sand or sawdust for flour when making a cake, and you can't substitute a second man or a second woman when making a marriage.
  • cinemaphile85
    Fair enough. However, maybe you should consider Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, two perfect examples of what happens when a gay man marries a woman, and observe the "sanctity" and "honor" with which they have treated their marriages. Say what you will about committed gay couples, but when I want sex, at least I don't have to visit a male prostitute or lurk in airport restrooms.

    When a gay man marries a woman, it's not a marriage at all - it's a facade.
  • Granted, they are not good examples of sexual purity and responsibility...but many others are.

    As for the rest...did you hear that roaring sound overhead again?
  • cinemaphile85
    You mean "many others" as in you know of many homosexuals who are content being married to the opposite sex? Do tell.
  • "Many other" former homosexuals who have successfully and consistently managed to confine their sexual activity to heterosexual activity as God intended.
  • Braden
    I thought conservatives like yourself were in favor of small, limited government. But yet you want to be able to tell people who they can and cannot marry? Or is it "government so small it can fit in your bedroom"? Pretty intrusive if you ask me- government planning people's lives for them.
  • We are indeed! The minimum amount of government necessary is the idea upon which our government was founded, and is a key element of what has made us the greatest nation on earth.

    Accordingly, we should not allow activists to misuse government to interfere with the family and with a fundamental institution such as marriage in order to counterfeit that important institution.

    Activists and government meddlers keep out! Leave marriage and family alone. Only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage, and only a man and a woman can create a family.
  • Braden
    "we should not allow activists to misuse government to interfere with the family and with a fundamental institution such as marriage in order to counterfeit that important institution."

    So if marriage is such a fundamental and important institution why are you trying to deny it to millions of people? Or are only people like you and me entitled to this institution? Are you telling me that two people who have been together their whole life finally getting married is more of a counterfeit of marriage that Britney Spears' 24-hour just-for-fun marriage was? Doesn't make much sense to me.

    "Leave marriage and family alone"

    These people already have families. It's just that they can't get married because people like yourself think it is somehow your business. How would you feel if the government told you that you couldn't get married? I know I'd tell them where to shove it.

    "only a man and a woman can create a family"

    So should couples unable to conceive not be allowed to marry? Marriage is about love not reproduction.

    Your disdain of gay people is really confusing. They just want the same thing that you and I and every other American has: the right to marry someone they love. I think the real reason is that conservatives always need someone to be prejudiced against. First, the conservative southern Democrats argued that slaves would destroy the "sanctity of citizenship," because after all, they weren't real people. Then they argued that women would destroy the "sanctity of voting," because everyone knows women can't make rational decisions. Now one of the last targets is gay people, who obviously want to destroy the "sanctity of marriage." Let's call this what it really is: marriage discrimination- allowing some citizens to marry who they please and denying that ability to others, the very definition of discrimination. But this, just like past acts of discrimination in America, will not last. And thank God. After all, He made ALL men equal, not just straight ones, remember?
  • I have no more disdain for homosexuals than I do any other human being who obstinately insists on committing immoral acts and demands that society accept them as totally legitimate.

    You're awake, right Braden? You're conscious, right Braden? Not high on pot or something right now, right Braden? How many times does this have to be spelled out for those who like to live in fantasyland:

    Only-a-man-and-a-woman-can-constitute-a-marriage.

    You don't get to walk into a police station, check out a patrol car and call yourself a copy just because you want to. You aren't qualified.

    You don't get to walk into an airport, hop in the cockpit of a 747 and call yourself an airline pilot just because you want to. You aren't qualified.

    You don't get to walk in front of a French military formation and demand they follow you as Emperor Napoleon. You aren't qualified.

    You don't get to walk into a pet shop and call yourself a cat just because you want to. You aren't qualified.

    If one doesn't get to claim a status such as these to which they obviously aren't entitled or equipped, they certainly aren't entitled to remake a fundamental human institution like marriage based on a whim.

    You don't get to walk into a courthouse with your end table under one arm and demand a marriage license to marry said end table. You aren't qualified.

    You don't get to march to the altar with your mother and demand a member of the clergy marry the two of you. You aren't qualified.

    You don't get to grab another person of the opposite sex, have sex with them and call it "marriage." You aren't qualified.

    Only a man and a woman can form a marriage.

    Go into a plumbing store and look around. Can you marry two female plumbing parts together? Uh, no. Can you marry two male plumbing parts together? Uh, no. The male and female bodies were created to join together. When you come into the institution of marriage, you are joining a commitment emotionally and physically.

    You just can't join two men or two women together in any sort of legitimate way, any more than you can two male or female plumbing parts.

    Most of us learned by the time we reached high school that "Cuz I want to" wasn't going to cut it in the real world. What happened to you and the other homosexual apologists? Why is reality so distasteful and hard for some people to accept?

    If homosexuals want to be married so bad, they should find someone of the opposite sex and marry them. Until they do that, they do not meet the qualifications to form a marriage.

    (How shameful for you that I have to explain what should be obvious to someone I presume to be an adult and educated person)

    Some people may be willing to indulge make-believe as a way of life, but I have no desire to play such games, especially with something as important as marriage. (God isn't buying it, either).
  • Anonymous
    Grim economy, war going on overseas, corruption, and two people in love who would like the privilege afforded to others to themselves. What is the most dire subject?

    How would altering the ban on gay marriage going to effect marriage? The ever so predictable responses are, what else? Marrying a family member, dog, tree, etc. etc. Well, those arguments don’t stand up when it is not consensual. Could lifting the ban on gay marriage possibly help the economy? Yeah it might, never know until you try.

    If someone is comfortable in their own skin and not threatened by the idea of homosexuality, this should not be an issue.

    Who are you trying to save here? Immoral, Unhealthy, Unnatural??????

    Immorality has changed over the centuries, decades, and years. It is subjective from one person to another. There is no such thing as an ultimate morality. Those of you who think that are just narcissists that don’t bother having any empathy whatsoever. Universal immorality would be murder, theft etc. However, we have mitigating circumstances that make those permissible. How is loving someone immoral?

    Unhealthy, every single statistic can be manufactured to prove either side of the argument. SEX is unhealthy if done irresponsibly.

    What is more natural than to love someone? Scientists have proven that attraction causes biological and chemical reactions in the human body. Are all homosexuals just “tricking” their body into attraction for the member of the same sex? If so, we are really talented, far more than heterosexuals if we can do that. We must be superior beings since we can alter our state of mind from the time we reach puberty.
  • The counterfeiting and undermining of marriage is even more dangerous to America than economic turmoil, corruption and war overseas.

    When we undermine the value and unique nature of marriage by allowing something which clearly does not fit the definition be called by that definition, we wreck the stability of the most foundational institution in any society: family.

    This issue goes far beyond the sexual desires or emotions of two people, whether they be a male and female couple, or two men or two women.

    Marriage is the only proper and sound foundation for the family. When we allow marriage to be counterfeited, we threaten the stable and healthy environment children desperately need to grow up healthy and balanced.

    Right and wrong never change, and they are not subject to polls and societal whims. You cannot change the true definition of marriage any more than you can make an elephant a rooster simply by calling it one.

    Homosexual behavior is immoral according to every religion. Homosexual behavior is clearly unnatural; the natural use of our sex organs is beyond obvious. Homosexual behavior is unhealthy, as Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics and mountains of other evidence shows. It is clearly illegitimate on every front.

    Beyond that, to undermine marriage and family by attempting to call homosexual unions "marriage," activists go beyond merely self-destructive and immoral tendencies and into a full attack on society and civilization itself.

    That is an assault good and mature people will not stand for.
  • Anonymous
    Immoral tendencies into a full attack on society? Again, what do you call this! I am married, I am probably more healthy than you are. Morality, considering that I waited until a ring was on my finger BEFORE I had sex of ANY kind speaks a lot to everyone single person. The unnaturaln-ess is denial of the things that GOD put in your heart.

    By the way my comment was supposed to be sarcasm for people who believe that homosexuality is a choice.

    Get over yourself and be humble.

    And by the way, if someone has been told from day one that an elephant is a rooster, it is to them. Also marriage never had a true definition, and not ALL religions think homosexuality is wrong. MANY believe that every kind of sex is wrong, and some ancient religous text from East identified a third gender that some scholars believed to be homosexual.
  • When someone seeks to transform one of the most fundamental human relationships--the one upon which all societies and civilizations depend (i.e. family and child raising), you bet that's an attack on society.

    And just so you're clear on this, something that is unnatural is something that runs contrary the overwhelming majority of natural processes, and to nature as God intended it. God clearly intended human beings to express their sexuality in a heterosexual manner; even the function of our sex organs testifies to this reality. As to what is in the heart, God said that the human heart is wicked and deceitful; it is not at all a good measure of what is correct.

    You said "if someone has been told from day one that an elephant is a rooster, it is to them." To an extend, that is true. But if they start insisting the rest of the human race join them in this lunacy, they should not be indulged; it is no longer just "to them" as you put it.

    Yeeeees, marriage has always been in every nation and society between a man and a woman, and every religion does recognize that homosexual behavior is immoral; it is only heretical and rebellious elements within some religion that will perpetuate this fallacy. It has never been more than a tolerated subset of a handful of societies, and even then recognized as not a part of the natural order. Even if some had, it would not make it so (some religions have claimed that an animal vomited and out came the universe), but you will find none that consider homosexual behavior moral and normal.
  • cinemaphile85
    "Marriage is the only proper and sound foundation for the family. When we allow marriage to be counterfeited, we threaten the stable and healthy environment children desperately need to grow up healthy and balanced."

    Would you mind citing a few sources that prove that? All of the research I have seen, including studies conducted by conservative and anti-gay organizations, have found absolutely no developmental differences - be they physical, social, emotional, or otherwise - between children raised by opposite-sex parents and children raised by same-sex parents.
  • beethovens10th
    Would you say it's perfectly fine and healthy for a child to be denied both a mother and a father? This is what happens in a same-sex relationship - the relationship pre-empts the possibility of a child ever having the possibility of experiencing the natural influence of both. Two women can never represent a father, and two men cannot fill in for a mother. If you think the difference in the sexes is insignificant, that a man and a woman are interchangeable, then you have deeper problems that need to be addressed in a different thread.

    I'm sure the premature studies you cite are dubious at best. Homosexual adoption is only years old, an infinitesimal sliver of time against the backdrop of centuries of sound, established evidence of the beneficial effect of an intact, natural family, at least in form. You're like the clueless, petulant teenager who rebelliously begins smoking a pack per day and then says after a few months, "see, I'm okay - no harm done."
  • I don't need to cite sources to prove the obvious. I don't need to cite sources to convince you the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't need to cite sources to convince you that if you smash your finger with a hammer, it's going to hurt like heck. You're free to deny reality and believe otherwise, but only an idiot or a propagandist asks for documentary proof of the obvious.

    You claim that thousands of years of marriage, family, sexual and moral practice should be ignored. Since you insist on adopting a position that runs counter to thousands of years of experience, common sense and nature, the onus is on you to prove your contention.
  • cinemaphile85
    That's odd...I could have sworn I posted about five or six sources yesterday.
  • cinemaphile85
    Aw dang, I tried posting those sources for the second time, and wouldn't ya know it, they STILL didn't make it up! That is such a weird coincidence!

    Should I even bother trying a third time?
  • They haven't been through the comments system at all.

    Maybe because they don't exist...?
  • cinemaphile85
    Ok Bob. Three tries and still nothing. Look them up yourself.
  • They must have just been in your imagination.
  • realityexists
    You failed to mention in your article that all of the couples in the lawsuit are LEGALLY married according to the laws of the state of Massachusetts.
  • The recognized law in the United States says it's perfectly moral to kill your own child in the womb--which is also incorrect. What is legal is not always what is right. Corrupt and morally bankrupt government officials--especially judges--sometimes eagerly subvert morality and ethics and call their subversion "legal."

    If the people of Mass. want to allow their government to indulge this woman's fantasy that two women can be married, I suppose they're entitled to ignore reality and common sense and do so.

    But thankfully the federal government moved to end this coddling on a federal level 13 years ago. She is not entitled to bilk the federal taxpayers in her pursuit of indulgence.
  • Live n Let Live
    Why do you care who marries who and loves and nurtures a family. It's obvious that heterosexual haven't gotten marriage right and I’m sure homosexual are going to go through the same thing. It just a same that we have people like you telling others what they can and can't do and who they can and can't love and marry. Would you like it if I were to meddle in your personal business, probably not? So don't be upset if you meddling in others lives have some negative repercussions.
  • beethovens10th
    Your name is a misnomer. Where homosexual couple recognition has gained the widest acceptance, it is anything but "live and let live" for those who refuse to believe the lie that two men or two women is every bit the same as a husband and a wife. The most outrageous oppression and the discarding of centuries-old value systems have been the result of the conflicting ideologies - one must win, and a homo-friendly political landscape makes that choice for the unfortunate religious practitioners. I do not need to cite the examples for you, they are pervasive in recent news for anyone caring to look.
  • Heterosexuals have done a lousy job honoring marriage...so let's totally pervert the meaning of marriage and allow it to mean something it clearly does not? That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it. If your house was on fire, I suppose with this logic if your house caught fire, you'd call in a gas tanker truck and have them spray it down, eh?

    You can't "live and let live" when marriage is being undermined, any more than we can "live and let live" when U.S. currency is being counterfeited--which is what the concept of homosexual "marriage" does. In fact, counterfeiting marriage is even worse, because it undermines the value and stability of the most foundational element of any society. This jeopardizes the welfare of all citizens, but especially children.

    I can try to call myself a cat, and I can try to pass off a gum wrapper as a $20 bill...but people shouldn't indulge my insanity...any more than two men or two women trying to call their union "marriage" should be indulged.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »