NOM BLOG

US Bishops' Aide Tells Catholics: Be Ready for a Legislative Fight to Defend DOMA

 

All hands on deck:

A spokesman for the US bishops' conference has challenged all American Catholics to "step forward and advocate for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as federal policy," after President Barack Obama announced his support for repeal of the legislation.

"We just can't simply sit back," said Daniel Avila, a policy advisor to the bishops on marriage issues. While he acknowledged that repeal of DOMA is not imminent, he urged Catholics to stay alert: "All those concerned about the preservation of marriage simply need to pay attention, stay tuned, and be ready to respond."

41 Comments

  1. Mylar2001
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    How can you defend something as transparently unconstitutional as DOMA? DOMA sets up differing legal standards for legally married gay and straight couples.

  2. John Noe
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    Of course it is not just Catlolics but all persons of faith and conscience whether religious or not that need to be vigilant and on alert. DOMA is of course perfectly constitutional and the Obama administration is simply trying to appease a base of his party.
    We need to understand that our civil rights and liberties to define and defend marriage are at stack. We the people know what is best for children and what is best for our society. The needs of our society supercede the selfish egotistical desires of greedy adults only concerned with their sexual desires.

  3. Louis E.
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    DOMA is a critically necessary defense of the principle that nothing is more important to whether a relationship merits recognition as a marriage than that the partners be of opposite sexes.So long as any state permits same-sex "marriages" this must be effectively counteracted.

  4. Mike Brooks
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    There is no sexuality barrier to marriage: no one is ever asked what their sexual preference is when they apply for a marriage license. Everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the law and under the Constitution.

  5. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    There is nothing Unconstitutional about treating different relationships, differently. DOMA will ensure less govt. interference in our private lives--not more. SSM brings more govt. into private relationships, especially where paternity matters are concerned, not less.

  6. Lisa
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    It may not be "imminent" but it's certainly under way. Given that SS'M'ers in NY have already started their attacks on the federal level, a second Obama term, thrown in with some waffle republicans in the House or Senate would spell the end of our Constituional protections from overreaching impositions, like Louis E. pointed to in his comment.

  7. Leehawks
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    When this SSM idea got started didn't anyone ever think to question that those marriages are never consumated? True marriage is about physically uniting two people as one which can result in conception. They can't conceive together, they can't unite, (sodomy or articial enhancements don't count.) so how is this a true marriage at all by any definition? It used to be that an uncomsumated marriage could be annulled without question.

    So let's see...
    It's not a true marriage since it's based on lies and delusion.
    It's not tolerance based since they have no tolerance for anyone who doesn't believe the way they do.
    Not to mention they're the vengeful hate-filled bigots against anyone who publicly speaks or writes against SSM by going after them and getting them fired from their jobs.
    It's not a civil rights issue because any one person can marry any one person of the opposite sex. Men and women are treated equally.
    They lie about all the polls saying everyone agees with them when there are 33 or so states that voted against them and they will never win a state vote.
    They can't claim any moral standing because even their founding statements as in the Homosexual Manifesto say they aim to get rid of the Age of Consent Laws. That implies a very evil intent.
    And they can't maintain that it's just about them because polygamous groups in Canada are already using the gay agenda blather to justify their "lifestyes".

    See all that and I didn't even mention religion.
    The whole gay agenda is just ridiculous on every level. There's a reason the people won't vote for this garbage.

  8. Garrett
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    DoE, under your logic, there's nothing "Unconstitutional about treating different [people], differently" either. And that is what led to Jim Crow laws.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Garrett,protections intended for people are not intended for acts.If we don't allow right and wrong acts to be treated differently we lose all authority to regulate behavior at all.Jim Crow laws are wrong because there's no distinctly white or black way to sit on a bus or drink from a fountain.There are plenty of areas where sexual orientation makes no legitimate difference.But the public interest in promoting opposite-sex relationships in no way extends to same-sex relationships,and homosexual orientation offers no defense for same-sex relationships any more than alcoholism does for drunkenness.

  10. RobinMichigan
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    The US Constitution protects ALL citizens, not just some. There is no exception listed for gays and lesbians.

  11. bman
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    "RobinMichigan: The US Constitution protects ALL citizens, not just some. There is no exception listed for gays and lesbians.

    That is why no one checks for orientation when you apply for a marriage license.

    Also, in Baker v. Nelson The US Supreme Court found that same sex marriage is not required under the US Constitution.

  12. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    Garrett, you're mixing apples and oranges: race is immutable. Sexual attraction has not been proven so. Marriage has its basis in opposite sexes, which are immutable (even with self-mutilation sex change surgeries). I think your example has been debunked hundreds of times. BTW, you put words in my mouth: I said "relationships," & you changed it to "people." There's a world of difference. For example, the govt. doesn't license or regulate best friends, parents and their biological children, or extended family relationships, does it? Those are all different kinds of relationships, in which neither race nor sexual attraction has any relevance to the govt. When it comes to marriage, though, govt. doesn't offer marriage licenses to siblings, or parents and their children, or groups of 3 or more. Is that a racial issue (or a "homophobic" issue) as you suggest? Or is that the govt. treating those different kinds of relationships, differently?

    But you already knew all of that.

  13. Posted July 29, 2011 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    Bisexuals are already pushing for plural marriages The slippery slope is unveiled..

  14. JohnnyC
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    WOW, the level of doublethink shown by NOM supporters is really astounding!! Do Maggie and Brian strap you kids into rat face-cages?

  15. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 29, 2011 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    JohhnyC, could you please give us a thorough explanation as to what you mean by "doublethink?" Thanks. We get the scorn, but the basis for your accusation is hardly evident. Name-calling is hardly a good substitute for a rational argument.

  16. Louis E.
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 12:25 am | Permalink

    The Constitution is not there to protect our bad habits,but to protect us all from the bad habits any of us have.

  17. JT1962
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Actually, bman, the US Supreme Court found no such thing. They refused to hear the case. It is only because of how it came to the court that makes the lower court's decision a precedent. That doesn't change the fact that there was actually no finding. Perry v. Schwarzenegger isn't the same type of case and will definitely supersede the Baker v. Nelson case if and when it is heard by the US Supreme Court.

  18. bman
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    JT1962: bman, the US Supreme Court found no such thing. They refused to hear the case. It is only because of how it came to the court that makes the lower court's decision a precedent. That doesn't change the fact that there was actually no finding.

    It came to the court under rules that required the court to weigh the merits of the case. Thus the dismissal is the same as a decision on the merits.

    A dismissal under those rules also meant the case was settled for all courts in the nation, and not just for the lower court that handled the case.

    " Perry v. Schwarzenegger isn't the same type of case and will definitely supersede the Baker v. Nelson case if and when it is heard by the US Supreme Court.

    Perry is under appeal. The fact the appeal court issued a stay also means it believed a substantial argument existed for the Prop 8 side.

  19. Ken
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    bman: Baker v Nelson was 40 years ago. Much has changed in our society in the last four decades. I predict that Baker will eventually be the Pace v Alabama of same-sex marriage. If you're not familiar with case, I suggest you look it up.

  20. bman
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Ken: Baker v Nelson was 40 years ago. Much has changed in our society in the last four decades. .."

    Your point is moot since the majority of high courts to consider the issue, as well as the majority of people voting on it, have rejected a right to same-sex marriage.

  21. bman
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    I meant to add "since 2003" to that.

  22. Ken
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Bman: Most courts have affirmed marriage equality. Linking to another one of Maggie's anti-gay organizations doesn't help your case.

  23. Ken
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Also, more relevant to the original post is that the recent WaPo/ABC News poll shows that the majority of Catholics actually SUPPORT same-sex marriage rights.

  24. bman
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    Ken: Linking to another one of Maggie's anti-gay organizations doesn't help your case.

    Is it right to simply dismiss facts because you disagree with who quoted them?

    If that is your rule, you must also want us to reject anything you say simply because we disagree with you!

    The proper approach is to recognize a bias exists but to examine the facts offered.

  25. Ken
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    I'n saying they're biased. Hint - if you want uour arguments taken seriously, cite reputable sources. But a NOM supporter lecturing me about dismissing facts? Now that's rich.

  26. bman
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Ken: I'm saying they're biased. Hint - if you want uour arguments taken seriously, cite reputable sources. But a NOM supporter lecturing me about dismissing facts? Now that's rich.

    Everyone is presumed to have a bias. That is why you must look at the facts offered even if its your opponent who offers them.

    And there are facts cited in the article which you are dismissing without sound reason.

    Check the facts but ignore the bias, don't ignore the facts too.

  27. bman
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Ken: I'm saying they're biased. Hint - if you want uour arguments taken seriously, cite reputable sources. But a NOM supporter lecturing me about dismissing facts? Now that's rich.

    Everyone is presumed to have a bias. That is why you must look at the facts offered even if its your opponent who offers them.

    Facts are cited in the article which you are dismissing.

    Check the facts but ignore the bias, don't ignore the facts too.

  28. JT1962
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Perry is under appeal, true. But the hearing date has been set by California's Supreme Court regarding standing. It is quite possible that the appeal will be moot because of that issue. It's rather funny that when the anti-gay side had the best opportunity to present their side, their expert witnesses crumbled and basically agreed with the other side. But do keep those arguments coming. They're good for a laugh.

  29. bman
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    JT1962: But do keep those arguments coming. They're good for a laugh.

    Also Known as The Horse Laugh tactic. .

    It occurs when mockery is substituted for lack of a substantial argument.

  30. Louis E.
    Posted July 30, 2011 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    Ken,if you didn't dismiss facts you'd BE a NOM supporter.

    And I look forward to the Goodridge decision being remembered in the same vein as Dred Scott...a judicial claim of protection for something so hateful that the entire nation quaked until it was ended for all time.

  31. Ken
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Louis: I have the screen shots to prove NOM's aversion to facts. I'd be happy to share them. 

    Consider this fact: My Pace/Baker comment compares a court decision that upheld discrimination in marriage laws to another court decision that upheld discrimination in marriage laws. Your Dred Scott/Goodridge comment compares a case that upheld slavery and denied citizenship to people of African decent to one that found that gays and lesbians have the right to marry a person of the same-sex under a state's constitution. Talk about a ridiculous and irrelevant response. You're grabbing at straws, Louis. But you still maintain that the facts are on your side - right?

  32. bman
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    Ken: But you still maintain that the facts are on your side - right?

    Of course you don't know if they are or not since you refuse to check.

  33. JT1962
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Nice to see you ignore all but the last sentence of the post, bman. Nothing to say about the rest of it? The truth is, you blew it at trial. Now you're wasting money grasping at your own straws. And you have the audacity to say I'm reaching for an argument?

  34. bman
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    JT1962: Nice to see you ignore all but the last sentence of the post, bman. Nothing to say about the rest of it?

    I ignored the bulk of your post because its speculation until events unfold. No need to answer that.

    The part about "expert witnesses" had no specific details and so it did not need an answer either.

    The truth is, you blew it at trial. Now you're wasting money grasping at your own straws. And you have the audacity to say I'm reaching for an argument?

    I view this as a vague claim not as an argument.

    Many of the problems with the trial came from Walker's agenda bias and we hope a different set of judges will see that.

    If you want to deal with arguments you might start with: Judge Walker's Phony Finding of Facts

  35. bman
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    The link in my last post is not working. Its not in the source code either. Looks like the system deleted the url I added.

    If anyone wants to see the article you can do a web search for :

    Judge Walker’s Phony “Finding” Versus Defendants’ Modesty About Predicting the Future

  36. Louis E.
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Ken,the Goodridge decision denied the fact uniting males to females is the sine qua non of marriage,and treated desire to do something else and have it treated,in defiance of all relevant fact,as if it were of as much worth to society,as enrolling someone in a protected class against which it was "discrimination" to further the critically necessary state interest in perpetually securing to opposite-sex relationships the preferential treatment to which their being opposite-sex entitles them.A black day in the history of jurisprudence just as was the Dred Scott decision.A "marriage" to someone of the same sex must be denied foever to everyone,with being "gay or lesbian" of no possible relevance.

  37. JT1962
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Let's see. I read the original argument in that article. It was all conjecture on the part of the writer, nothing concrete. Some of it was the arguments presented at the trial, the ones that the Prop 8 witnesses then said weren't that relevant after all.
    Here's the truth about marriage. Younger generations are finding it irrelevant and have been doing so for the last 40 years or more, much longer than the fight for same sex marriage. You're part of a dying gasp trying to blame the problems that marriage has been facing solidly onto the backs of gays and lesbians, rather than taking responsibility for the mistakes that heterosexuals have made.

  38. Louis E.
    Posted July 31, 2011 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    No amount of other problems with marriages takes away from the intrinsic unworthiness of same-sex sexual relationships to qualify as marriages.

  39. Ken
    Posted August 1, 2011 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    Bman I had to laugh at your defense of your Dred Scott comment. I mean come on, how convoluted can an argument get?

  40. bman
    Posted August 2, 2011 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Ken: Bman I had to laugh at your defense of your Dred Scott comment. I mean come on, how convoluted can an argument get?"

    Which post of mine are you referring to?

  41. bman
    Posted August 2, 2011 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    JT1962: Let's see. I read the original argument in that article. It was all conjecture on the part of the writer, nothing concrete

    Your reply is over generalized. No way to tell what statements you are referring to.