NOM BLOG

Democrats Push DOMA Repeal – TIME TO FIGHT BACK!

 

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Led by liberal San Francisco Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598) today on a 10-8 vote. The party-line vote, with all 10 committee Democrats voting to repeal DOMA and the 8 Republicans voting to protect DOMA, sets the stage for a showdown on the Senate floor.

If enacted, the bill would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), jeopardizing the marriage laws of 44 states and steamrolling the will of the American people as expressed in statewide referenda 31 times in a row.

And that's why we must ensure it goes no further.

DOMA is the one federal law that protects marriage as the union of husband and wife, and protects every state constitutional marriage amendment in the nation.

We need you to help us draw a line in the Senate.

Together, we can stop this repeal of DOMA dead in its tracks, and stop Senator Feinstein and her liberal friends in the Senate from imposing their values on the entire nation, but only if we act now!

Please tell your Senators to vote NO on Senator Feinstein's (D-CA) DOMA Repeal Bill right now!

Tell your senators, "I oppose the repeal of DOMA, and I vote!" And please tell your friends and family.

Together, we can draw a line in the sand for marriage. It's time to fight back!

Faithfully,

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S.: Please think about who you know that would be willing to send their own message to Washington. Then forward this email, or post to Facebook or Twitter. Please do whatever you can to help spread the word about this dangerous threat to marriage that is being pushed hard in Washington right now.

29 Comments

  1. Bob
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    DOMA, or more accurately DOBA - The Defense of Bigotry Act, is unconstitutional and polls show that the majority of Americans now support its repeal. You're trying to create the fiction that repealing the law is some liberal San Francisco scheme that goes against the rest of the country. But you know it's a lie, Brian - and so do the majority of people reading your desperate words. Give it up pal.

  2. Randy E King
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    Bob,

    Please save your blatant lies and falsehoods for your fellow miscreants. In other words; go sell crazy somewhere else because we are not buying any.

  3. Brian
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    Ditto Bob....well said.

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    Many politicians are out of touch with the real world, but Sen. Feinstein and her ilk take it to a surreal level.
    Nearly everything she does is diametrically opposed to normality. Sadly, that also speaks ill of her constituency. She's been in DC far too long and has lost touch with anything close to reality.

  5. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    BTW, I've written my senators. I'm certain they will oppose Sen. Frankenstein.

  6. JR
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    Very well said, Barb. A vociferous , surreal minority is again trying impose its warped ' values' on those of us who still hold dear our traditional AMERICAN values.
    Well said.

  7. Louis E.
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 12:44 am | Permalink

    Feinstein hasn't formally declared for reelection next year (she'll be 79 next June) but polls say she'd be favored.But why are only SSM supporters on the Judiciary Committee for a party that has only 60% of its members backing this bill?

  8. Publius
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 1:42 am | Permalink

    Today's Intrade prediction market gives the GOP a 75% chance of controlling the Senate after the 2012 elections. This explains the Democrat's push on this, which incidentally may seal the fate of Democrats in the 31 states that have voted for state DOMA's. A Senator telling his constituents they are bigots is not a good election strategy. If I were a GOP strategist, I would make this a big issue in red and purple states in the Plains, West, and South.

  9. Davide
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 5:55 am | Permalink

    No place on earth has 'the people' ever voted to legalize same-sex 'marriages'. There is no great push to legalize SS'M' and it will never be a world-wide phenomena. The good people of CA voted it down twice. The judge in CA who overruled the ppl of CA was a active homosexual. In Spain it was the communist who pushed the law and the ppl of Spain hate it. Ask the Spainards what SS 'M' has done for them. The odd thing in all this most gays have no interest in marriage. Many that have interest are marry to the opposite sex. No one talks about that. Also keep in mind those persons who support SS'M' are also likely to support the killing of the yet to be born child. Homo activists since the early 90's has been propagating the theory that persons are 'born gay' yet they support abortion. 2 to 3 percent of the adult population has same-sex attractions yet the collective gay supports abortion. Now the question must be asked-how many of these babies that were killed by their mothers were gay? Yet homo activist support abortion. Does anyone think this is odd besides me?

  10. amcew
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    u wanna stop the repeal of DOMA then get better research to defend it. Oh wait. You can't.

  11. David in Houston
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    How disingenuous can you be? You know, and I know, that the Senate isn't going to even bring DOMA up for a vote... let alone repeal it. (That's the job of the Supreme Court, to repeal unconstitutional laws.) So why are you banging the drums about an issue that has no possibility of ever happening?

    Just a reminder: Less than a century ago, 31 states had bans on interracial marriage; and all those people thought they were on the 'moral' side of justice. History said otherwise. -- Just because the majority votes for something, doesn't mean that it's legal, justified or right.

  12. slick
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Whenever SSM has come up for a vote FOR THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE, it has always been voted down. I believe 31 states have had this on the ballot and every time it is defeated. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE!!!! A radical agenda that needs to be defeated at every turn. Yes indeed!

  13. Pat
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    Bigots, heh, heh. Yeah, all the billions of people throughout the centuries and today who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman are bigots.

    The BLTgs need to get over themselves. They really didn't even exist until a hundred years or so ago when some people with same-sex attraction decided to embrace their psychological disorder and give themselves the name "homosexual." How people could be bigots against a group that didn't even exist is a puzzle.

  14. slick
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    @ David.... I'm tired of folks like you trying to equate race with homosexuality. Being black isn't a behavioral choice. Even if one is "born gay" he must freely choose to engage in that lifestyle. Trying to equate one's skin color to one's behavior is ludicrous!

  15. Rob
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    I think it's great that more and more people want marriage equality. And most Americans want all married couples treated equally. On what possible basis should the government do otherwise?

  16. Pat
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    Actually, Rob, the polling data does not suggest that Americans WANT same-sex marriage; it more likely means that those who appear to be in favor of it are so because they mistakenly think that people with same-sex attraction have no choice but to be homosexuals and that same-sex marriage will have no effect on them and their children.

    Americans are a sympathetic bunch towards people who can't help themselves and who are harmless to others. It's politically incorrect to question the deceptiveness of a group that has been labeled as innocent victims. Knowing this, the BLTg activists have been promoting lies about homosexuality, its causes and its effects on society.

    If Americans knew the truth about homosexuality - and thanks to the overreaching of BLTg activists in Mass and CA, they are learning - we'd see a whole different set of polling results. Look at what happened to Prop 8 when the truth was revealed.

    Nobody really thinks same-sex attraction is a good thing, except for those who have it and have been convinced to embrace it. Public support for it is all based on sympathy couched in lies.

  17. Dan
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Yes look at Prop 8. The unconstitutional amendment that was overturned because it was discriminatory.

  18. GZeus
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    @Pat: Wow you are so ignorant. Just because the term homo$exual did not appear until 1869 does not mean that gays were not around prior to that. Why, even on here, some say the Bible took a break from destruction, r@pe, stoning and ince$t to give us a shout out.

  19. Pat
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    It was discriminatory, all right; the People rightly voted to assure that same-sex couples be treated differently because they are different and because they wanted their children to be protected from being indoctrinated into this dead-end minority lifestyle. Yes, discrimination against behaviors that are harmful to society is the basis for our legal system. The People had it right.

    The judge, who suffered from same-sex attraction and declared himself homosexual, wrongly declared it unconstitutional for his personal benefit.

  20. Pat
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    GZeus - Same-sex attraction and same-sex behavior existed, but a person's adoption of an identity based on this attraction was virtually unheard of until the late 1800s.

    So the idea that two people of the same sex would even have the desire to have an exclusive coupling would have been incomprehensible, indeed, nonsensical. How can you be considered bigoted against something that for all intents and purposes was not believed to exist?

  21. Louis E.
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Rob,there is no excuse for any but an opposite-sex couple to be regarded as qualified to be "married",as the institution of marriage exists solely to promote the practice of opposite-sex relationships.David in Houston,acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships can never be "justified or right".

    Davide,I am strongly in favor of abortion rights and some "homo activists" are not...there are errors on the stereotypical "right" as well as "left".Anti-abortionism and same-sex "marriage" are both grounded on false "equalities".

    GZeus,homosexual orientation does not offer the slightest excuse for homosexual activity,which simply because it is homosexual is therefore completely indefensible.

  22. Little man
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Rob: You can't figure it out for yourself? You ask: 'I think it's great that more and more people want marriage equality [yes, but opposite-sex civil marriage is already 'equality']. And most Americans want all married couples treated equally [yes, within their State]. On what possible basis should the government do otherwise?' ANSWER: Why don't you read what the Supreme Court has to say about this? States are NOT required to accept a same-sex civil marriage from another State. Each State can do so, if they decide to, but are not required by law to do so. Plain and simple, the Fed. gov. has not recognized the so-called Public Interest of same-sex marriages. Just because a State legislature temporarily reached a majority which passed a law, doesn't mean the Fed. government has to follow. For stability purposes, US Congress, not a single State's legislature, decides the federal definition of civil marriage. It is very easy for a State to reverse its decision on passing same-sex civil marriage, as i believe will happen. Once some same-sex couple gets married by a State, some people (and some Judges) have the opinion those marriages cannot be later annulled (It's a real 'can-of-worms'). The Federal government would need to keep track of all these State reversals, and the not annulled State marriages in particular, and that's why the Fed. gov., through Congress, decides these things independently, at a much higher political level (more difficult to bribe). The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution assumes that all States held to the same definition of civil marriage (true, and expected, at the time). 'According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments. Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws, in other states.' (from Wikipedia). If a State passes 'marriage is between a woman and her 7 husbands', the Fed. gov. doesn't have to recognize it. That would give to much power to a single State legislature. It's easy to ask questions. Much harder to answer them. But there you are.

  23. Little man
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, Davide: In the 1990's some ill-defined scientific research concluded there was a gene which identified persons who described themselves as of homosexual tendencies. That's what triggered all the religious and civil questions, and to this date, many still believe there's a so-called 'gay' gene, though peer review (in science) has shown the conclusions to be invalid or at least highly questionable or ambiguous. It is certainly not a proven, scientific fact. Same-sex civil marriage advocates used the results of this ill-defined research, which did not pass peer review (essential in science) to convince people 'they were born that way'. Entire mainstream Christian denominations, not versed in scientific procedures, re-interpreted their Bible, only to find later there is no so-called 'gay' gene. When the so-called scientific evidence vanished, the same-sex civil marriage advocates downplayed this obsolete research with the excuse that, if there was a 'gay' gene, 'heterosexuals' would test clinically for the gene, and then might/could abort the fetus. This would decrease the per capita numbers of so-called 'homosexuals', and ultimately reduce their political power. After my reading of the subject, with a science background, i realized we are ALL prone to 'homosexuality' to some degree. This is not something the majority would admit, but science doesn't care hurting people's feelings. Humans can enter all kinds of irregular behavior, specially sexual, when the sexual act to them becomes not an expression of love and intimacy, but an expression of domination [Therefore the phrase 'F you', which implies sodomy -r a p e-, a punishment, a -t o r t u r e-, and -d e m e a n i n g- act.] Once we see in ourselves the potential tendency to homosexuality, and realize a trauma or inability to stand up to male domination, can lead us to that, the words 'heterosexual', 'lesbian' and 'homosexual' vanish and become obsolete. Only then can we really understand the issue of same-sex civil marriage, because we are able to understand the issue of 'homosexuality'. We understand how 'homosexuality' can become in vogue, just to be novel, and to feel tolerant. The Bible does not discuss 'homosexuality' without referring to specifically to the sexual act, and classifies the act along with other sexual vices. It is not for anyone to glory, because the New Testament also classifies it along with liars. Wow! Wait a minute... At first, i thought the homosexual act therefore was not too bad. Then i realized how bad and destructive lying is. Our political system is plagued with lying, and people just expect it and ignore it. Same-sex civil marriage passing in some State legislatures is the least of our problems. Political lying is the worst - creating a very inefficient political process, and ultimately making us a weak nation. Some men are naturally sensitive (i would say, most) but are influenced to not show it. Sensitive or even effeminate men can fell rejection, leading to thinking they are so-called 'gay'. Nothing further from the truth. Men are naturally sensitive, and many women appreciate that as a good trait in a man (someone who won't beat her up). But it doesn't mean the man is a 'homosexual'. He is simply a man. Look at how women chase sexually after musicians - men who have developed their sensitivity to extreme, and know hoe to be 'different'.

  24. Kim N.W.
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    I listened to a comment once made by a very wise person. With the moral decline of our society, our Nation you see the parallel decline in our society...it is not just happenstance; In the mid 1980's Homosexuality was thought and taught to be a psychological disorder; today that seems to not be the case in the everchanging baseless field of psychology; today in 2011 pedophilia is a psychological disorder and a crime against an innocent child; changing, easing into and submerging our society into moral falsehoods [ssm] cannot possibly lead us away from the dangerous moral, dastardly pitfalls out there lurking to pounce on our precious children all in the name of new age 'rights'. Oh, and I think it is a grave disservice of all those that fought valiantly, who were lynched, and to this day whose descendants are still denied equal rights to be put in the same category with those striving for something completely opposite. A large part of the Civil Rights Movement was based on submission, and walking in the will and authority, and strength, and faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

  25. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 12, 2011 at 1:05 am | Permalink

    "I think it's great that more and more people want marriage equality. And most Americans want all married couples treated equally. On what possible basis should the government do otherwise?"

    How does DOMA purport to treat married couples unequally? Unequal compared to what? How does marriage between a man and a woman deny individual citizens equality? Examples, please.

  26. Little man
    Posted November 12, 2011 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    If analogies to race and the Civil Rights Movement were acceptable legal proof of DOMA discrimination, then the same analogies can be used to prove any kind of discrimination. Not everyone who jumps up and down yelling 'i want my rights', get them. That is the weakness in the argument based on analogy. And that is because analogies are good to explain things by example, but analogies never prove anything. Using an analogy to prove something is circular reasoning. But, of course, lots of people don't realize the blunder, believing deep inside themselves that they have proven their point. Far from it, for anything could then be proven with analogies, including the opposite argument.

  27. Zak Jones
    Posted November 13, 2011 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    I want to ask...
    Since NOM is against SSM, what other type of relationship word should be uses to define two same sex people who live together and share joint finances? Since the word "married" is off the table, would you accept domestic partnerships to be valid and a replacement for a marriage?

    I ask this because my grandmother once told me a story about 2 women friends of hers who lived together & neither ever got married. This was probably in the 1930's based on the teller of the story. Well, one of the woman died, and no "next of kin" came to collect the body. The "roommate" had no legal authority to do anything with the body. So she had to watch her friend be swept up by "the unclaimed body" department and plainly disposed of.

    Grandma had a tear in her eye at that point and I thought to myself, what a horrible thing to have happen. It's bad enough handing a pet off to a vet for "euthanasia & disposal", and every time I held the pet until he had expired, loving him till the end. I just could not imagine watching "the unclaimed body" department taking my "partner" of many years.

    Call it “marriage”, call it “domestic partners”, call it “Civil union”. Call it something, but make it nationwide and recognized by the IRS, if not all federal government.

  28. P. Edward Murray
    Posted November 14, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Bob,

    At the time our Constitution was written, same sex marriage did not exist. Furthermore, Our Founding Fathers had a markedly different viewpoint than you have now...

  29. P. Edward Murray
    Posted November 14, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Zak,

    Wouldn't plain old fashioned compassion and common sense rule here?

    I think so.

One Trackback

  1. By Senate Lawmakers Launch Attack on Marriage on November 15, 2011 at 9:00 am

    [...] Last Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on legislation that would repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). All 10 Democrats on the committee voted against DOMA. [...]