DOMA

by Keli Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:56 am

To the Editor:
By executive fiat, the Obama Administration has announced that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)! In other words, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are acting as judge and jury in determining that a federal law passed by Congress in 1996 is indefensible!
Sadly, we have reached a crucial moment in the history of our nation when the whims of some disenfranchise the will of the people. This outrage must be confronted!
We are incensed that another "victory" is being handed to the homosexual community at the expense of the God-ordained institution of marriage and the clear will of the American people. Every court until the Proposition 8 ruling rejected the argument that there is a "right" to same-sex "marriage"
under the U.S. Constitution. But as that sadly misguided decision illustrates, unless we go to court every time radical activists attack, marriage can be destroyed piece by piece.
Christians, please pray (II Chronicle 7:14). All those who oppose the Obama Administration's radical attack of DOMA should contact the Alliance Defense Fund www.adfmedia.org | twitter.com/adfmedia or other like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Do something. All that it takes for evil to abound is for good people to do nothing,

Pastor Terry K. Hagedorn
Calvary Baptist Church
PO Box 282 Reedsville, WV
Ph. 304-864-3870

http://mountainmanna.com

"Pointing Mountaineers to Mount Calvary."

by Aaron Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:09 am

The President is right on this one. As I told a gentleman on the Gazette forum, the United States is governed by the United States Constitution, not the Holy Bible and as such;

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage is nothing more then a contract between two people that confers legal rights...

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

...and as there is no vested interest in denying rights to some individuals while allowing them for others regarding this issue, strict scrutiny must be applied and as such, DOMA is unconstitutional. It’s pretty cut and dried.

The problem is, once gay marriage is legalized there will be those who will want to sue a church or pastor for refusing to marry them, which is their right. After all, pastors, preachers and the sort marry by “the power vested in them from state” so those couples will have what some consider a legitimate case.

Personally, I believe that as no government money is being spent they don't but to settling the issue is simple. Remove that power. Do not allow churches to conduct legal weddings. If a church wants to hold a wedding, that is all well and good but legally, make it to where it has no standing in the eyes of the state. Force those two people to go to the court house, as they do now when getting a license, and simply sign an affidavit in the court house that binds them. Problem solved.

by **Stephanie** Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:18 am

At the risk of having this become part of Aaron's signature tag:

I agree with Aaron on this one.

by **ohio county** Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:36 pm

The Federal government has no business getting involved in defining (or re-defining) marriage. This belongs to the states who are free to muck it up any way they choose.

I agree with Aaron.

by Keli Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:28 pm

ohio county wrote:The Federal government has no business getting involved in defining (or re-defining) marriage. This belongs to the states who are free to muck it up any way they choose.

I agree with Aaron.

Do you agree with the fact that O has just disenfranchised the American voters and their duly elected representatives?

by **ohio county** Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:04 am

O has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. By finding DOMA unconstitutional yet continuing to defend it (at the executive level) he violates his oath. If we are to be a nation of laws and not of men, O should defend the law in court. By continuing to defend it at the executive level but failing to defend it in court, he violates his oath.

Has he (per your question) "disenfranchised the American voters and their duly elected representatives?". Since we live in a republic, the American voter has not specifically spoken to this question. Our elected representatives, however, have. Yes, he has disenfranchised the Congress. His principled action would be to ask the current Congress to invalidate the law if he thinks it is unconstitutional. He knows they will not do that in the House so, yes, he has disenfranchised the Congress.

If you oppose the expansion of the federal government into areas in which it has no codified (by the Constitution) stake, why would you not oppose this expansion of the federal government's scope and power? To me that is the greater threat.

The sanctity of marriage and the proper gender of those participating is a question for the states.

by **ohio county** Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:10 am

Do something. All that it takes for evil to abound is for good people to do nothing,

I choose to live in West Virginia. By refusing to live in Massachusetts I am choosing with my legs (and moving van) to do something. Furthermore, I will not vote for the vacillating, pandering Obama administration.

One more thing - if a republican would bump O off in 2012 (via the ballot box only), would you support the new president's failing to defend in court the Healthcare Reform of 2010? It would amount to the same thing...

by **SheikBen** Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:24 am

I don't like marriage being defined by the United States, as it is not for the government to define. In fact, I did not want to report my marriage to the government, but was told that I had to. Well and good, we got the license and it is official. I resented it then (I still do) as my marriage is a gift from God and not the state of Ohio's doing (and surely not the federal government).

I believe that God has defined marriage very narrowly, and that it is for Him alone to define. As for the granting of legal contracts, however, I should like to see everyone be able to grant a legal contract securing benefits to one person of their choosing, with or without a sexual relationship. A culture that increasingly does not believe in Jesus and does not respect the Scripture will hardly be convinced to stand for the sanctity of marriage; I'd much rather encourage people to the former than try to kick bricks on the latter.

by **ohio county** Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:25 pm

With the U.S. Constitution human rights were granted by God Almighty and codified by the Constitution. And the effect is that even if our citizens fail to feel God in their own lives the Constitution codifies the rights and the rights cannot be taken away.

The sanctity of marriage, finally, falls to social mores. Sixty years ago pregnancies outside wedlock were not tolerated by society and that was a powerful deterrent. Now, sadly, not so much. And the atomization, the dilution, of society has suffered irreparable damage as a result. What kind of society, for example, would tolerate the slaughter of its most innocent members? It demeans us all.

These are questions the Great Society, as you know, has not only failed to resolve but exacerbated.

by **Stephanie** Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:17 am

I truly believe abortion on demand has resulted in a culture where all human life is less valuable. I think it is contributing to the destruction of our culture. I find myself frequently saying, "the culture has gone to shit". I mean that.

However, I disagree with "marriage is between one man one woman" premise. Yes, that is historically accurate for this country, but that doesn't make it "right". Throughout our history there have been a number of fundamental rights granted to various groups that had previously been denied. The two best examples of this are the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage.

I see no legitimate reason why two men or two women should be denied the same rights and benefits granted to me and my husband after our civil marriage ceremony. The government cannot legislate morality, and it certainly can't dictate who we want to share our lives with, who we love. It's none of their damn business.

I hope Cato's paying close attention. Although I understand some of his reasoning, I disagree with Congressman Paul on this issue.

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2011/02/24/ron-paul-condemns-obama’s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

by Aaron Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:23 am

I think the solution is simply and Mike hit the nail on the head. The government needs to get out of ALL marriages. If you want to get married in a church (or whatever your religion dictates) that's all well and good but understand that it's not legal in the eyes of the law.

To make it legal, truck on down to city hall, fill out a form and take an oath in the same manner a new citizen or new enlistee would. Open that up to ANYONE of adult age and boom, you have no problems as you're in compliance with the Constitution.

by Keli Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:04 pm

Aaron wrote:I think the solution is simply and Mike hit the nail on the head. The government needs to get out of ALL marriages. If you want to get married in a church (or whatever your religion dictates) that's all well and good but understand that it's not legal in the eyes of the law.

To make it legal, truck on down to city hall, fill out a form and take an oath in the same manner a new citizen or new enlistee would. Open that up to ANYONE of adult age and boom, you have no problems as you're in compliance with the Constitution.

Should you need a birth certificate to get married?

by **SheikBen** Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:20 pm

ohio county wrote:
Do something. All that it takes for evil to abound is for good people to do nothing,

I choose to live in West Virginia. By refusing to live in Massachusetts I am choosing with my legs (and moving van) to do something. Furthermore, I will not vote for the vacillating, pandering Obama administration.

One more thing - if a republican would bump O off in 2012 (via the ballot box only), would you support the new president's failing to defend in court the Healthcare Reform of 2010? It would amount to the same thing...

Hey OC, if I can have a quick crack at it. Presidents have ignored the War Powers Act as unconstitutional, even though the courts have not called it such. That, in my opinion, is wrong, just as Obama's failure to defend DOMA (despite my own libertarian approach to the issue itself) is also wrong, as the Chief Executive is to enforce the law. It is not the President's to decide what is or is not constitutional (and I might argue that Judicial Review itself is extra-Constitutional, but that is for another day). At least since Marbury v Madison some 208 years ago, the Supreme Court has been the arbiter of what stands or falls as constitutional, and not the President. This should be true whether the President agrees with the law personally or does not. I think Obamacare is unconstitutional, but I would oppose a Republican President by fiat ignoring it. Instead, go back to the Constitution, and let Congress fail to appropriate funds, or even better, elect a legislative branch less amenable to passing foolish laws.

by Aaron Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:24 pm

Keli wrote:
Aaron wrote:I think the solution is simply and Mike hit the nail on the head. The government needs to get out of ALL marriages. If you want to get married in a church (or whatever your religion dictates) that's all well and good but understand that it's not legal in the eyes of the law.

To make it legal, truck on down to city hall, fill out a form and take an oath in the same manner a new citizen or new enlistee would. Open that up to ANYONE of adult age and boom, you have no problems as you're in compliance with the Constitution.

Should you need a birth certificate to get married?

Do you now?

by **ohio county** Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:39 pm

It is not the President's to decide what is or is not constitutional (and I might argue that Judicial Review itself is extra-Constitutional, but that is for another day).

Since he took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" he'd better. My point (not that you asked) was a little finer. Obama has said the law is unconstitutional and ordered his AG not to defend it in court. He has said, on the contrary, that he will continue to defend it at the executive level. To me, that violates his oath. It is a myth that only the courts can interpret the Constitution. They all take the oath...

by **SheikBen** Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:40 pm

OC,

I know that the President takes an oath to defend the Constitution; where do you see the power of "Presidential Judicial Review" coming into play, here? It is one matter when a given law is blatantly unconstitutional; we can debate the Constituionality of DOMA or Obamacare but neither is frankly a blatant case of violating the Constitution. I don't want an "activist President," whether he is being activist for me or against me.

by ziggy Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:19 pm

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How can the president "defend the Constitution" by implementing
law(s) he believe violate the Constitution?

by Aaron Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:20 pm

Barrack Obama did not implement DOMA. GWB was the individual who signed that baby into law. And while I understand a President takes an oath to defend the Constitution, I have no problem with the Justice Department requesting judicial review.

by **ohio county** Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:32 pm

I know that the President takes an oath to defend the Constitution; where do you see the power of "Presidential Judicial Review" coming into play, here?

I know you know that, Sheik. I see a statement by Walter Dellinger, chief of the Clinton DOJ Office of Legal Council which follows:

... where the President believes that an enactment [by Congress] unconstitutionally limits his powers, he has the authority to defend his office and decline to abide by it. . . . The general proposition that in some situations the President may decline to enforce unconstitutional statutes is unassailable.

This is, I believe, a longstanding belief held by Presidents of both parties. I would never challenge your primacy in questions of political science, Sheik. Certainly, we will look to the courts as the final arbiter in constitutional questions. My point is, and has been, that Obama wants to stop defending the act in court but continue to enforce it. This highlights his hypocrisy and demonstrates his willingness to pander to any group that will contribute money and time to get him re-elected. It is not a principled stand.

by Aaron Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:17 am

Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3). It passed both houses of Congress by large majorities.

source

In addition to violating the 14th Amendment, DOMA also violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.

And in fact, what the Justice Departiment will no longer defend is the case in which the provision of defining marriage as between one man and one woman constitutional. They are agreeing with the federal judge who made this decision as is their right. Nothing says the Justice Department is required to defend a position until all appeals have been exhausted.

Were I in the religion business, I would be pushing for the government to stop recoginzing church weddings all together.

by **SheikBen** Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:01 am

Hi OC,

No worries about challenging primacy, dear friend. I'm a big boy:) Smile

Besides, on any given matter I know full well there are others here who know more than I. More years of schooling do not necessarily mean any greater wisdom or knowledge attained.

I also agree that Obama is exhibiting a gross amount of hypocrisy in all of this.

by SamCogar Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:14 am

If you want to get married in a church (or whatever your religion dictates) that's all well and good but understand that it's not legal in the eyes of the law.

To make it legal, truck on down to city hall, fill out a form and take an oath in the same manner a new citizen or new enlistee would. Open that up to ANYONE of adult age and boom, you have no problems as you're in compliance with the Constitution.

What is a common law marriage?

In a handful of states (listed below), heterosexual couples can become legally married without a license or ceremony. This type of marriage is called a common law marriage. Contrary to popular belief, a common law marriage is not created when two people simply live together for a certain number of years. In order to have a valid common law marriage, the couple must do all of the following:

- live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
- hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and
- intend to be married.

When a common law marriage exists, the spouses receive the same legal treatment given to formally married couples, including the requirement that they go through a legal divorce to end the marriage.

These are the only states that allow couples to create a common law marriage:

Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/common-law-marriage-faq-29086.html

by SamCogar Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:26 am

The Church has its Rules for Marriage and the State has its Rules for Marriage ......... and never will the twain agree.

The Church is concerned about morality and heirship.

The State is concerned about money and heirship.

by Sponsored content

DOMA

DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA

Re: DOMA