Home > News > God & Country > While Defending It in Court, White House Vows to Repeal Defense of Marriage Act

While Defending It in Court, White House Vows to Repeal Defense of Marriage Act

Reader Comments
Back to blog

If there really were more genuine Christians in this country, Anti-Marriage Equality Amendments and homophobic laws would never appear on the ballot or get passed by legislatures.
Unfortunately, too many (but not all) Christians, for the most part, have become the Lions and We have become the meal.
Martyrs are very often sanctified and made into religious icons. I think the next great religion should be more "human centered" and people should be encouraged to wear jewelry pendants around their necks depicting Matthew Shepard's body crucified to a split-rail fence. It is time to put an actual human face on suffering and not substitute a very real and unacceptable tragedy with the unrealistic remoteness of an ancient myth.
If Jesus actually was a god, he would be so ashamed of the so-called "faithful". But who would want to believe in this magical being when his own followers prove that they do not believe in him by their acts of cruelty, bigotry, and selfish disregard for their fellow human?
The evil which people do, on lonely fields in Wyoming and at the ballot box, would make Christ weep.
(c) Bud Evans
My Blog: rainfish2000(dot)blogspot(dot)com

Bud Evans of KS 11:34AM June 19, 2009

In my mind, these arguments are moot. LGBT couples have always been and will always be. No amount of legislation can take that away or change that.
Having the right to marry the person I love is an important one that I wish to have. It would be nice to have the same rights as all other couples and to be recognized as an American citizen, with the same ability to live a happy, full life, as everyone else. It's not fun to have your relationship marginalized or to be told that somehow your love is not worthy of recognition.
However, regardless of what people think, how much they preach, and stamp their feet, and whine, LGBT COUPLES WILL ALWAYS BE. Whether or not you recognize my relationship does not stop me from loving my partner, living with her forever, and having healthy, happy children. Say what you will, I will continue to live my life as I have been and you cannot stop that.
Feel free to get on your pulpit and tell me that my relationship is wrong, that I have some sort of disorder, and that my relationship will somehow damage an entire country, because so far no great nation crumbles when I kiss my partner, nor will it ever.
I would love for you to treat me as a human, to see me for who I am and not whom I love. I would love for you to be a true Christian and treat me as Jesus would, with love and respect, rather than being judgmental and hateful. I would love to be able to marry my partner and commit to a life with her. I would love it if, when my partner has a child, I can be recognized legally as the second parent for the child.
As far as I can see, this is not going to be the case. So for now, I will love my girlfriend. And no one can stop that.

Allison of OH 12:03PM June 18, 2009

Sara, I share your concerns about single parent families, and what it sometimes does to the children. I agree that a high number of marriages end in divorce these days; and that is a marked change from fifty or sixty years ago.
Where we disagree is on the facts about who is getting divorced most frequently. Among religious groups in the U.S. the highest divorce rates are found among the evangelicals. The states with the highest divorce rates are predominately in the so-called Bible Belt, where large percentages of evangelicals live.
These evangelicals, rather than work to strengthen marriages, or to change the laws to make divorce more difficult or marriages more stable, focus on other issues that are less tempting to them personally. They vigorously oppose abortions being legal. They try to deny and/or eliminate all LGBT persons, or at least deny them their equal rights under the Constitution of the U.S., including access to the legal protections of marriage for their lifelong commitments.

Asinus Gravis of TX 12:33PM June 17, 2009

“it is not primarily a 1st amendment issue”
Asinus restatement does not equal rebuttal: I used Chai Feldblum in the ‘Banned in Boston’ article as an authority. She is the most prominent gay rights attorney in the country. She begs to differ with you.
“NO settled form of marriage”
Your examples only support my assertion, that despite changes in focus and understandings at different times and places marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That is indisputable and it is something even President B.O. affirms.
"message of the Jewish prophets and Jesus of Nazareth"
It is an extremely strong claim to hold that orthodox Christian Churches misrepresent the Biblical tradition on homosexuality. Good luck showing that. Most people simply reject the authority of the Bible and argue from philosophical liberalism while proposing s.s.m. You are on a hiding to nothing down that path Asinus.
"based on your imagination"
My method of using the reasoning and imaginative faculties are the same as yours. Best attend to the premises of the argument or I am entitled to say you merely imagine the harmlessness of s.s.m. Your understanding of choice is deranged, its almost as if you would have no political debate about how to order our common life together and allow groups to have whatever they like at whatever expense.
"failed to give any valid arguments"
Merely asserting I have failed to provide valid arguments is not the same as actually rebutting the arguments. I think you imagine you have rebutted them.
"SSM are more serious about lifelong committments"
You introduce social scientific conclusions to assure that gays are more monogamous. If you believe that then I have some (vernacular) to sell you. See gaysdefendmarriage.com ‘monogamy’ section.
"must stay with their biological mother and father???"
I wrote ‘notwithstanding some unfortunate exceptions’ the ideal is for children to be reared with their biological mom and dad. This is an uncontroversial claim. It does not provide warrant to change the norm which s.s.m would do.
“ which otherwise is rapidly going down the tubes.”
There are two ways with this, join the correct side of history and support marriage renewal and protect the US from culturally destructive redefinition of marriage.

Martin of CT 1:30AM June 17, 2009

"SSM is not an attack on marriage. The Evangelicals in this country have already carried that out and largely destroyed the ideal."
I think it was the conservative evangelicals who, twenty years ago, complained about the increase in divorce in America and how it would impact the generations of children who grew up in single households without fathers....You know what liberal advocate groups were saying about them at the time? That they were out of touch with modern society. They laughed and poked fun at the idea saying that they were paranoid. Fifteen years later, I wonder what they are saying now? All of the problems children are facing today are in fact linked to the breaking down of the family structure. Fatherless homes are the greatest factor in crime, drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity and risky sexual behavior, psychological and behavior problems, and suicide. My family is divorced, my brother went through a very difficult time during his teenage years when my father walked out on us and never attempted to fix his marriage with our mom. My brother had a lot of love, was raised primarily by women, had all the support he needed and still struggled with his identity and what it meant to be a man. Today he is fine, but I've heard him talk about his experiences as an adolescent and how a part of him was never fulfilled because he never had a male in his life to show him how to be a man. Believe it or not, it was a biological need that was never fulfilled. Evangels were right fifteen years ago about the breaking down of the family structure and what would happen if children were brought up in single households. Theres something significant about the male and female combination. Children need both influences in their life. I believe structure in many ways reflects love and once you start messing with structure, more confusion, pain, and eratic behavior with surface. As far as evangels messing up the institution of marriage...thats ridiculous. They are the only ones not getting divorced now a days. They fall in the majority of individuals who chose to work their marriages out instead of getting a divorce twenty years ago. I don't believe all divorces are bad especially when abuse( psychological, emotional, sexual or physical), is occurring in the home or adultery. My parents got a divorce because my father was abusive to my mother. Now I know some would argue that it was better for my brother to be raised with no dad then with an abusive dad and you're right,but there was always apart of him that longed to have a male influence in his life. It was not an idea that was forced on him, it was a need that was never fulfilled. By redefining marriage, gays and straights a like are saying that children don't need a male or a female in their life, that the combination is not significant and that is simply not true. They need both, that is the ideal, that is the truth. Any other way, underminds the truth. Evangels are now asking, "why add on?"

Sara of ME 12:15AM June 17, 2009

SSM is an equal rights issue; it is not primarily a 1st amendment issue--of the press, assembly, separation of church & state. Gays and lesbians are citizens of our country, and as such are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens--including being allowed the legal status and protections of marriage.
There has been NO settled form of marriage "for all of history." You are operating with a myth. There have even been several "new definitions" of marriage in the history of the American colonies and states. E.g., in colonial Virginia marriages could only be performed by an Anglican clergyman. Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Quakers, Jews, need not apply.
Our generation is leaving our children and grandchildren an awful legacy in this country, due to the Religious Right and its blatant confusion of the views of socially conservative Republicans with the message of the Jewish prophets and Jesus of Nazareth. They have undermined respect for the Christian religion, for science, and for the poor and abused in this country.
You frequently write as if it is your call on whose rights are recognized and should be accepted, presumably based on your imagination of what would create a "disaster for society." It is not your call to dictate the choices other people are entitled to make. It is their gamble, not yours, if gays and lesbians choose to marry and commit to a lifelong loving relationship.
You have failed to give any valid arguments to show that SSM should be resisted. Insead you offer misinformation, fears, rumors, prejudices, and wild imagination.
The advocates of SSM are more serious about lifelong committments, and caring for their children, than are most heterosexuals in this country. Check out the divorce figures for the last few decades--especially among the conservative religius people.
Contrary to what you claim, some adopted children manifest no desire to meet their missing biological parent. I have adopted children, and I know well one who is in his early twenties who has never shown the slightest interest in knowing who his biological father is. If he ever does, and I'm still alive, I will tell him and share information about the person with him. I know other adopted persons who have shown no such interest either.
Contrary to what you think, I am inclined to believe that recognizing SSM offers a good chance to revitalize the institution of marriage in our society, which otherwise is rapidly going down the tubes.
I can make no sense at all out of your incoherent stuff about "deny them (?) a biological mom or dad." In a straightforward sense, every human being has a biological mother and father; technology may change that in the future. Knowing who those persons are is another matter. Are you systematically opposed to all adoption of children? Are you trying to insist that all children--come hell, high water, abuse, incompetence, et. al.--must stay with their biological mother and father???

Asinus Gravis of TX 10:45PM June 16, 2009

To various:
First Amendment experts disagree that s.s.m. is innocuous see Maggie Gallagher's article 'Banned in Boston'. This is the mega-cultural battle of the next decade.
Social experimentation on an institution with a settled form (man and woman) for all of human history for the sake of the promiscuity of gays is madness. Our children will say of us 'it would have been better had that generation never been born, for the legacy they have left us'.
Gambling and pornography are not promoted by the State homosex lifestyles will have to be by law with the introduction of s.s.marraige. This is a push to have homosex normalised, to have it equal with marriage but it is not and never can be. Legislating for honor will not help gay ppl, the push to erode the uniqueness of marriage in books, schools, public language and policy will continue unabated. This is the logic of legislated equality on an institution that is a union of opposites. All this would be an unqualified disaster for society.
I argued the push for s.s.m is unreasonable and ought to be resisted and not accommodated. That people are sincere is not a valid reason to make real their desires for the culture, we are susceptible to sincerism in our age - Oprah guru 'be true to yourself' subjectivism. So being 'put in my place' was an attempt to draw attention to a blind spot in our age.
Not withstanding exceptions the IDEAL of marriage includes children and lifelong commitment. It is in the interest of the State to promote this conception and thoroughly not in the nation's interest to promote novel ones that our ancestors and future generations would be amazed at.
Committed partnership laws that protect for inheritance, health insurance etc etc are not denied s.s. attracted people. It is fair that they choose which erotic partnerships they wish to enter into. That is a different matter to the imposition of a new definition of marriage for all US citizens by a tiny tiny but vocal, powerful and well organized minority.
Asinus: none of what you write is good grounds for a radical re-definition of marriage, you expect us to take your promises on faith but I am not willing to gamble with young people's or the nation's well being. You assert gay rights to marriage but blithely deny them a biological mom or dad. Adopted children desire to meet their biological parents everyone knows that - you would make this grief and seperation normal for children rather than an unfortunate exception.
S.S. marriage is the logical conclusion of the attack on marriage that did not begin with gay people but will end with them. It will mean the final nail in the coffin of efforts to renew marriage.
Christians are 'bigoted' and hold 'irrational arguments'. This immoderate language is disturbing proof of what is in store for Christians and marriage supporters in general if the will of the people is usurped by judicial imposition of s.s.m.

Martin of CT 6:17PM June 16, 2009

Martin you need to be truthfully "put in your place" for the first time. The last try was an authoritarian fiasco, shot full of lies.
Whatever the percentage of persons wanting SSM is irrelevant; it is a matter of equal rights. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing how many persons would choose SSM were it legally recognized in this country.
This matter of equal rights is not "ruthless," not "radical," not "liberal," but constitutional.
Marriage is not exclusively, or necessarily, about raising children.
The LGBT persons I know at my church are mostly busy raising their own children, and doing a damned good job of it.
There is no "right" to be brought up by one's biological parents. It is not even always desirable that children be subjected to abusive persons who happen to be biological parents.
SSM is not an attack on marriage. The Evangelicals in this country have already carried that out and largely destroyed the ideal.
The plethera of fatherles children in this country is a legacy of your ideal of marriage, and well antedates the push for SSM.
You seem to be committed to education by lying to school children about a significant percentage of our population, i.e., the LGBT persons. By the way, their desires are neither more nor less "disordered" than are yours.
Much of Christianity is already a bigoted institution--just look at their irrational arguments regarding SSM. The push for equal rights for all persons is an effort to change that for the better.
You need to read and study and think about the First Amendment to the Constitution; you have a grossly distorted view of what it says and means.
Your conception of marriage does not fit the notion of an "essential institution." Rather, it is a blatant denial of fundamental rights under our Constitution.

Asinus Gravis of TX 12:44PM June 16, 2009

But how he defended it. He is *arguably* required to defend the laws on the books. But Obama did not have to drag out every conceivable argument in support of DOMA. The DOMA defense memo was particularly offensive to gay couples. It claimed our marriages had no more constitutional standing than incestous child-marriages; that gay couples are free loaders; and that gays aren't discriminated against since they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. In other words, it could've been written by someone of the hard right.
It is one thing for Obama to remain silent and inactive on gay issues while he has other important things on his plate, it is quite another to actively cause harm to gay people and their families--especially when they donated so much of their time and money to get him elected.

Elizabeth of DC 12:30PM June 16, 2009