For all of the Christians who voted for Obama, and the Assistant Pastor? Who stated that we should look at him as a modern day Lincoln?
Obama follows through, files to repeal DOMA
Jim Brown and Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 8/18/2009 6:20:00 AM
A conservative black pastor in Washington, DC, is expressing outrage over President Obama's decision to file a legal brief in support of repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
A new brief filed yesterday by Justice Department lawyer Scott Simpson declares that the Obama administration "does not support DOMA as a matter of policy," and "believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress." In a written statement, President Obama states that he has "long held that DOMA prevents LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered] couples from being granted equal rights and benefits." (See earlier story) In fact, as a U.S. senator representing Illinois, Obama stated his support for "the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act."
What will be the MOST LIKELY political fallout from Barack Obama's decision
to push for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act?
Vote in our poll
Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, says the Obama administration's brief is "an assault on biblical, God-ordained marriage."
"Evidently the president signaled to us during the Stonewall celebration, when he had all of the gay activists into the White House and made presentations of what he would do for them, that he values this constituency and he is responding to their urging to accelerate the process of redefining marriage," he points out. "So, I think it is very hypocritical on his part. I'm very outraged."
Jackson is joined in indignation by Brian Raum of the Alliance Defense Fund, who is disappointed the Justice Department is challenging the law which was passed in 1996.
"It's really troubling that the federal government has taken a position that federal policy is bad policy," says the attorney. "Federal DOMA was passed overwhelmingly and represents the prevailing view of the people of the United States that marriage is between a man and a woman and that's the optimal environment for raising kids," Raum contends.
According to Raum, DOMA also provides protection for states. "Well, federal DOMA makes it clear that states have the right to regulate marriage within their borders and that they cannot be forced to recognize same-sex 'marriages' from some other states," Raum explains. "If federal DOMA were to be struck down, that whole area of the law would be in jeopardy."
Jackson says as African-Americans, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder both should know that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, and that opposition to same-sex marriage is not the moral equivalent of racism.
States would be 'sitting ducks'
At the same time the administration has filed papers challenging DOMA, attorneys with the Justice Department are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a homosexual California couple who seek the same objective. Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, believes the DOJ may be playing political games in arguing against that case.
The government said in its legal brief to the court on Monday that the Justice Department will defend the 1996 DOMA but feels it is unconstitutionally discriminatory against homosexuals. Staver is eager to take a role alongside the Justice Department in defending DOMA because of what is at stake.
"We're asking the court to allow us to intervene on behalf of the Campaign for California Families so that we can literally, aggressively defend this case -- not just be a figurehead, like we anticipate the Department of Justice may ultimately be in this case," says Staver.
DOMA declares that marriage is between one man and one woman. Another provision in the law provides that states are not forced to accept homosexual marriages performed in other states where it is legal. But what if DOMA were declared unconstitutional?
"Then the individual states are sort of sitting ducks," Staver explains. "What would happen is same-sex marriage would rush over the dam of the various borders of the states, so to speak, like a floodwater rushing over the top of a dam, and [it] flood all the other states."
That is despite the fact that 30 states have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitution would override any state law to the contrary -- even if it is a voter-approved amendment to a state constitution.