NOM BLOG

STOP OBAMA !!! URGENT ACTION NEEDED TO DEFEND DOMA – Congress Must Step Up

 

Dear  Marriage Supporters,

This may be the most important email I’ve ever sent to you. Please read, take action and forward this message to at least 5 friends immediately.

The Obama administration has just announced that they will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. In a statement released this morning, Attorney General Eric Holder explained that President Obama has decided that the definition of marriage contained in DOMA is unconstitutional, and has ordered that the Department of Justice should abdicate its constitutional duty and no longer defend DOMA against constitutional challenges.

This is it. The whole ball game. If we back down here, it will be all over.

It’s a constitutional outrage. Why do we even have courts if the President himself gets to decide which laws are constitutional?

But it’s not too late. Attorney General Holder admitted that Congress now has the ability to step in and defend DOMA. And that’s why we need your help.

Congress has the authority to independently defend the laws which it has passed. And we fully expect that Congress will intervene to defend DOMA in federal court – especially now that the Department of Justice has formally announced that it will no longer do so.

Email your congressman today! Tell them that you expect them to fully support Congressional action to intervene in the DOMA litigation to protect marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act.

It’s outrageous that President Obama would make himself the sole arbiter of whether DOMA is constitutional – our laws deserve a full and fair defense. If the Obama administration refuses to do so, it’s time for Congress to act today!

And don’t forget – Please forward this message to at least 5 friends right away. We need to take action immediately. Don’t let Congress off the hook – ask your friends to join you in demanding Congress to take action today!

Faithfully,

Brian Brown

Brian S. Brown,
President
National Organization for Marriage

49 Comments

  1. Rev. Tim Lehmann
    Posted February 23, 2011 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    I think that the oath of office that Mr. Obama took when he was sworn in as President included a passage that he would defend and uphold the constitution. DOMA is currently part of the constitution. As far as I can tell, Mr. Obama's decision to not defend this particular part of the constitution simply because he does not like it is a violation of his oath of office. I'm not sure where that leaves the US, but I, for one, am very unhappy with Mr. Obama's unilateral decision.

  2. Kadin Mercer
    Posted February 23, 2011 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    This is sad that the president has decided on what is best for the country on marriage. We need to defend the marriage between a man and a woman.

  3. Combatvet
    Posted February 23, 2011 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    He does not say DOMA is unconstitutional he says that section 3 is unconstitutional and as long a section 3 is included he will not defend it. He swore to uphold the constitution and his defense was forced to take a stand where precedent does not provide guidance. Your campaign is that of misinformation - please if you read the letter you will find it makes good sense.

  4. Angel Denker
    Posted February 23, 2011 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    Why does the President get to call this? I thought "we the people" had a vote re: gay marriage & we voted no. What will be the cost of the breakup of these same sex unions in regards to children they are adopting? What will be the cost to businesses who will be forced to provide benefits? Obama is a man who doesn't know what he believes in and changes like the wind, especially when his constituents on the left stop backing him. One day he says he's a Christian, the next day he's funding Planned Parenthood & gay marriage. He's a chameleon and dangerous to our country.

  5. Don
    Posted February 23, 2011 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    Combatvet:

    It doesn't really matter. What matters is that the DOJ, which is supposed to be independent of the president, is following a presidential order to NOT defend a law passed by Congress. That creates a new precedent and one which I view as very detrimental to the separation of powers and to the system of checks and balances.

  6. Posted February 23, 2011 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    DOMA was great… but now may be too late…
    Gay folks, such a jerks… cuz of them we have to work…
    Fight fight, we’re right… crazy queers need to see the light…
    Gay Marriage, very bad, kids needs a mom and dad…
    and Maggie Dear is very sad…

    It’s the end of the world as we know it
    It’s the end of the world as we know it
    It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine

  7. Posted February 23, 2011 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    and when you contact your congressman....

    ask him about that little Raines v. Byrd problem they are going to have....

    you know the one that will say... they have no standing and all the will be able to do is make a bunch of noise....

  8. Don
    Posted February 23, 2011 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    Whenever Paula Brooks draws near,
    with serpent's tongue, the good to smear,
    the faithful turn her a deaf ear,
    we shall prevail, we have no fear.

  9. Don
    Posted February 23, 2011 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    Paula:

    I wouldn't know. Tell me what it's like, Paula.

  10. John
    Posted February 23, 2011 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    Being kind of presumptious arent we. Do you HONESTLY think this is over? You are truly ignorant.

  11. Don
    Posted February 23, 2011 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

    John:

    Paula is just part of the local color, John. You know, like paprika on a side dish. Nothing of substance there. She belongs to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club.

    ;-)

  12. Pastor Paul K.
    Posted February 23, 2011 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    Clearly, congress has the right to intervene and defend DOMA on its merits. Moreover, there is indeed precedent and in God's truth we trust.

  13. Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:04 am | Permalink

    Losing ... is what your are feeling tonight Don....

  14. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    Paula:

    Lonely... is that what you are feeling tonight Paula...

  15. Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    precedent is on the side... they won't have standing...

    And i think it rather arrogant that you claim to speak for God

  16. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    Paula:

    Yes, lonely is what you are feeling.

  17. Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:13 am | Permalink

    Actually.... I am having a lot of fun busting your bigot chops... and I would not miss rubbing this in for the world....

    Its kind a like when Maggie showed up at the DC rally after the Maine lost....

    she taught me... and gloating is fun

  18. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    Paula:

    You are not the closed book that you think you are.

    If sniping in the comments on this blog makes you feel less lonely, then go ahead on. It does get you some much needed attention and it is a form of relatedness, even if adversarial.

    It's not uncommon to see such behavior in children who see negative attention as preferable to no attention at all.

    It's OK. There is room in our hearts for you.

  19. Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:20 am | Permalink

    No I don't think its over... I think you will spit and sputter and hit granny up for all the buck you can get over this.... for years

    But progress will march on,... DOMA will still be undefended... and hopefully granny with get it figured out you are all conning her because you dont really want to get jobs.... were you would have to do real work and pay taxes.... finally.

  20. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:23 am | Permalink

    Paula:

    Are you at all aware of how obvious is your obsession with Maggie? Obviously she has some meaning for you but a meaning which springs from something in your own life rather than from Maggie herself.

  21. Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Don... I am pretty sure this is going to go way over your head... because I am about to quote Shakespeare concerning Maggie....

    The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

  22. Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:31 am | Permalink

    and my problem with her is she has been making a lot of money... messing with MY rights,,,,

  23. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    Paula:

    "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

  24. Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    I am obsessed with NOM... in the same way Washington was obsessed with the British.... and for the same reasons.

  25. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:35 am | Permalink

    Paula:

    No, you are obesessed with Maggie. You know that whether you choose to admit it or not.

  26. Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:38 am | Permalink

    yeah this lady does protest... a lot.... which is one of the reasons DADT got repealed....

    And I learned if I can be part of an operation that can take on the US Military.... and beat them in less then 2 years.... your kind will only be a speed bump

  27. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    Paula:

    "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

    I think this time it went over your head. Not really, you're just pretending that it went over your head.

  28. Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    paul crook

  29. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:42 am | Permalink

    Paula:

    You know quite well what my Shakespeare quote meant. You feign a concrete interpretation.

  30. Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:47 am | Permalink

    smile now cry later.Always remeber what goes around wil come back around.

  31. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    Paula:

    Your belief that no one could possibly know what is really going on inside of you is mistaken.

  32. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 1:05 am | Permalink

    Paula:

    God knows all things. Believe.

  33. Posted February 24, 2011 at 1:58 am | Permalink

    It was political pressure from gay activist groups that led to this decision.

    Note the flak the administration got in its brief in Smelt v. United States (a brief that had argued that sexual orientation discrimination is only due rational basis scrutiny per High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office).

    Finally,. even if heightened scrutiny applies, the legislative summary and analysis of DOMA itself provides a compelling government interest. The summary mentioned that the Supreme Court spoke of the “union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885)

    Reading further into Murphy, the Court also noted that legislation seeking to establish a “free self-governing commonwealth” on this basis was “necessary” and “wholesome”. No doubt this was included in the summary to provide a ready defense against constitutional challenges. And far from ignoring that quote in subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court used that quote to reach holdings in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 and United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393 at 401. The government, had in fact, cited Murphy in its brief for its motion to dismiss in Bishop v. Oklahoma, Case No. 04-CV-848K(J), a constitutional challenge against DOMA and Oklahoma’s Question 711. (Brief of the United States to Dismiss at 5, Bishop)(The case is still pending in NDOK)

  34. Posted February 24, 2011 at 2:01 am | Permalink

    Thus, President Obama abandoned the longstanding legal position that sexual orientation classifications only merit rational basis scrutiny in equal protection cases, a position dating back to at least the Carter administration.

    The idea that homosexuals are a class entitled to greater scrutiny in equal protection claims than, for example, horseback riders, canal operators, or carpet cleaners, is not only inconsistent with what the Fifth Amendment means, but was rejected by every appellate court that decided the issue. See Cook v. Gates , 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008) Thomasson v. Perry , 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996), Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454 (7th Cir.1989), High Tech Gays, 895 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1990), Woodward v. United States, 871 F.2d 1068, 1076 (Fed.Cir.1989), Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1994)

  35. Pastor Paul K.
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 5:07 am | Permalink

    Paula, facts really do matter regarding standing. Here is the precedent, if you care to check your facts. Congress intervened in INS v. Chadha, defending the constitutionality of a section of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

  36. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    Dean:

    Who am I trying to proselytize and how? Who is the "bigot" you refer to?

  37. Don
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Paula wrote: "we'll see Pastor Paul K. Freeloader..."

    Nice, Paula. Name-calling, abuse and insults. That pretty much sums up everything your side of the debate has to offer.

    That's the sort of thing that children do, call names. What was it which resulted in your arrested emotional development, Paula?

    Oh yes, and I see that you are VERY powerful. Those who seek to appear powerful to others are usually those who feel completly powerless in their own lives.

    You know, Paula, you might better spend your time seeking professional help to become a more emotionally healthy and happy person.

  38. Jennifer
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Here is a little civics lesson for everyone saying "how can Obama do this?" What Obama did is no different than what the governor and AG did in California with prop 8. One a democrat and one a republican no less. Governors and presidents are the executives of their governments. It's called executive authority, similar to executive orders. Their primary duty and oath of office is to uphold the constitution. If the executive deems a law contrary to the constitution, especially if the AG agrees, then the obvious conclusion is to side with the constitution. Similar to the prop 8 case, the AG and Obama had a deadline (March 8th) to issue a brief related to the constitutionality and defense of DOMA. Obama didn't arbitrarily do this.

  39. TC Matthews
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Jennifer, he did do it arbitrarily. That is also his right, but it doesn't mean we have to agree with him. There are rights congress has to pick up the ball where Obama's administration left it. If you don't agree with what Obama's doing, manipulating the system, being judge and jury instead of POTUS, then contact your congressman!

  40. Ken Tomlinson
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    I support the President of the United States and if we have laws that are unconstitutional then the President SHOULDN'T enforce those laws. They are UN-Constitutional. And THAT IS upholding the Constitution. That only makes sense.

    I also support the Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

    Though I may not like it, I think the President is doing the right thing in upholding the Constitution by refusing to defend DOMA. Like I said, I don't agree with it but if it violates the Constitution then DOMA should NOT be defended! First, we are all Americans! Our first loyalty should be to the Constitution of the United States which clearly states, "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

  41. TC Matthews
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    If President Bush had decided that Roe V. Wade was unconstitutional and refused to support it, I wonder if your argument would be the same.

  42. Posted February 24, 2011 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    I support the President of the United States and if we have laws that are unconstitutional then the President SHOULDN'T enforce those laws. They are UN-Constitutional. And THAT IS upholding the Constitution. That only makes sense.

    So what Supreme Court ruling upheld DOMA as unconstitutional?

  43. Mildred Votendahl
    Posted February 24, 2011 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

    How can the president of the United States refuse to uphold a law. I thought he was a lawyer but it seems to me that he needs a lesson in law. He also needs a lesson in biology.

  44. Mya
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    If Obama is a Christian he hasn't taken it to heart. This means that he is no better than gay folks out there flatly going against the Word in deed and action. God doesn't care about "feelings" he cares about obedience. But at least they are upfront about it, Obama instead moves with the wind. He is neither hot or cold. He is lukewarm, which doesn't make him much of a leader or a Christian.

    Anyone who supports abortions and gay marriage like he does is not a Christian! It is a sad day when our morals go down the toilet right along with our economy. We are witnessing the unravelling of our country from the inside out.

    This guy is like a frat boy, who succumbs to what's so-called popular and caves into his liberal base, instead of backing the will of the people.

  45. justadude
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Why dont we just sing Cheech and Chong's song:
    "Momma talk a too me try to tell me how to live, but I dont listen to her cause my head is like a sieve"
    this seems to be the leaders ability to support good things..like a drugged up person without thought.

  46. Posted February 25, 2011 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    "Why do we even have courts if the President himself gets to decide which laws are constitutional?"

    Well... several courts have already decided that DOMA is unconstitutional, right? I am pretty sure that the President and Attorney General are just agreeing with those decisions. Sounds pretty fair to me.

  47. Paul Bargar
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Someday he will die and who do you suppose will be waiting for him????

  48. Posted March 1, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Well... several courts have already decided that DOMA is unconstitutional, right?

    And other courts ruled it constitutional.

  49. Posted March 1, 2011 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    A federal district court in Massachusetts ruled the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 as unconstitutional in July 2010.

    The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

    Judge Joseph L. Tauro agreed that DOMA forces the state to discriminate against its own citizens and ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

    He also struck down DOMA on Tenth Amendment grounds, stating that marriage is the province of the states, not the federal government. This is a bit of a "pie-in-your-eye" to conservatives: the Tenth Amendment is basically an anti-federalism "states' rights" amendment. Judge Tauro basically took it and said "States' rights? You got it. States get to decide who gets 'married'; not the federal government."

One Trackback

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by NOM, TakingBackAmerica, graham_r, Rob Schell, Brian S. Brown and others. Brian S. Brown said: URGENT: #Obama unilaterally declares #DOMA unconstitutional. #Congress must step up! #NO4M #Marriage #SSM #Prop8 #WH http://4rd.ca/aaacLs [...]