Steve Fountaion at CitizenLink on Obama's continuing "evolution" towards opposing all laws which protect marriage and the right of states to define it:
During a fundraising event in New York City Monday, President Obama for the first time personally called for the repeal of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
The law, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal laws and regulations. It also protects individual states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
“Requiring states like mine — which has one of the strongest marriage-protection laws in the country — to respect and uphold same-sex marriages from a state like Massachusetts would tear down marriage laws in the other 49 states,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan.
Former Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickels, who sponsored the Senate version of DOMA, concurred.
“If you believe in states’ rights, then we need DOMA,” he said.
... Though the Obama administration has done several things to undermine DOMA over the last four years — including not defending it in court when it’s attacked — the president’s address Monday marked the first time he’s publicly called for the law to be repealed or struck down outright.
13 Comments
"You cite a Department of Health and Human Services study that I have right here from December 2010 to support this conclusion. I checked the study... It actually doesn't say what you said it says."
Tom Minnery at the DOMA hearings caught lying to congress by Franken. Ah, good times.
Actualy, NOM, you've got it wrong. Protecting states' rights requires the repeal of DOMA, which currently prevents certain states from granting rights to their citizens.
Nice try though, in the "flip the script" game you love so much.
As suspected, Obama's completed "evolution" on the matter is not sufficient for those funding his campaign. Now the inconsistencies of his "position" (i.e. let the states decide, but repeal DOMA) are on display for all to see.
Republicans want to, and should, focus on the economy. But the marriage issue is just heating up, and it's not going away!
Anony - How does DOMA prevent states from granting citizen rights?
OvercameSSA, it allows states' marriage licenses to be ignored in other states. It prevents federal recognition of states' marriages.
DIng-ding-ding! Third period is about to start!
Where will Nobama's continuing evolution take him next? Let's all evolve his mailing address, shall we?
Uh-oh OSSA, I guess you'd better hurry on to third period. Might that be why you didn't post anything legitimate in your most recent comment?
OSSA, you either have an incredibly keen sense of irony, or you are terrible at illustrating the immaturity of others. Do you agree or disagree that DOMA allows states' marriage licenses to be ignored in other states and prevents federal recognition of states' marriages?
Michael -
Anony said that DOMA "currently prevents certain states from granting rights to their citizens."
States can't grant Federal Rights to its citizens, and one state cannot grant its citizens rights in another state. A state only has power to grant rights to its own citizens.
Anyone who seriously favors states' rights rather than national imposition of SSM would have to support the "Lite" Federal Marriage Amendment:
"Neither this Constitution,nor the constitution of any State,shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred on any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
However,SSM supporters only admit the right of states to say "yes" to SSM,which is no right at all if there is no alternative.
Overcame,
North Carolina will grant marriage licenses to first cousins. If that couple moves to Texas (where this type of marriage is illegal), Texas will still honor the marriage.
New York grants will grant marriage licenses to same sex couples (regardless of state citizenship) - thereby you are wrong. if this couple returns to Rhode Island, they are still married. If they return to Texas, they are not.
@Curious
Same-sex Marriage isn't illegal anywere. It's just not legally recognized. There is a difference here. If you call homosexual couples "marriage" the government isn't going to suddenly swoop in and throw the couple in jail. It just doesn't have the legal title bestowed upon them.
Oh and a fun fact; most states recognize people who are married to their first cousins as a legal union. Now I'm no supporter of this, but even the progressive states allow such unions to occur. And yes, that includes New York.
Either way, I'm not in favor of incest, nor any other definition of Marriage except between a man and a woman who have no blood relation to eachother.