Obama Administration Moves To Uphold DOMA Before Supreme Court

The John Aravosis article is on AmericaBlog and available at:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-just...

The John Aravosis article mentioned in the story here is on AmericaBlog at:

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-just...

Rick, I disagree with your read on this.

This brief is The Obama Administration's first on the books, legal discussion of their position on DOMA, and it's pretty reprehensible. It's more strongly worded than similar briefs issued by the Bush administration. There's just no good reason for this brief. He gets nothing for issuing this, beyond a ratification of his apparent 'congress will fix everything' stance. Most sitting presidents would not have issued this brief simply because it weakens the administrative branch fundamentally. Most sitting judges will be offended by several of the assertions made in this brief, which boil down to,'Legislative language trumps all forms of governance, including constitutional review.'

I've been taking the position that we must wait and see what he would do on DADT and DOMA, but this one is the nail in the coffin for me. I'll no longer support Obama after he has taken such a gratuitous, un-called for, and damaging position on the rights of GLBT people.

So who do we support next election? Should we look for a more liberal Republican?

And let me be clear. John's lead issue, with the incest comparison, is by far the least of our problems with this document. The most damaging parts are:
- Categorical denials of minority, or class, status for homosexuals.
- Categorical denial that DOMA withholds rights from an identifiable group of citizens
- Denies homosexuals the Constitutional right to privacy
- Advocates Rational-Review as the level of scrutiny for GLBT issues

There are many other problems with this brief, but the points above, if enacted by SCOTUS, will set our movement back three decades. It is beyond belief that these points came out of the Obama administration. Dick Cheney is on record as opposed to many of the points above.

I am simply dumbfounded. And I'm getting pissed, and then I'm getting to work.

s-sdca wrote:

So who do we support next election? Should we look for a more liberal Republican?

I would say yes.

Republican Cheney has come out publicly FOR Gay Marriage.

Demosocialist Obamaniac CONSISTENTLY OPPOSES Gay Marriage and equal Rights for gay people.

Why did so many gay people reportedly upport him ?

If he WANTED to end DADT & DOMA, all he has to do is ASK Congress to repeal those laws since HIS party has a Majorit in BOTH houses of Congress.

Why won't he do that ?

Maybe because he's a typical black homophobe and a LIAR ???!!!

So why did all you gay people vote overwhelmingly for someone who is AGAINST us ???

Obama has, for all extents and purposes, stole the vote from the gays. The motivation for most gays voting for Obama is based on lies.

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
I would say yes.
Republican Cheney has come out publicly FOR Gay Marriage.
Demosocialist Obamaniac CONSISTENTLY OPPOSES Gay Marriage and equal Rights for gay people.
Why did so many gay people reportedly upport him ?
If he WANTED to end DADT & DOMA, all he has to do is ASK Congress to repeal those laws since HIS party has a Majorit in BOTH houses of Congress.
Why won't he do that ?
Maybe because he's a typical black homophobe and a LIAR ???!!!
So why did all you gay people vote overwhelmingly for someone who is AGAINST us ???

Here here!

It seems to me that if conservative religious organizations, and/or members of their congregations have been financing the anti-same sex marriage campaigns, that their property tax exemptions ought to be repealed!

Click on this link to read some thoughts of former Pres. James Madison, as to why christian religions should not receive favored status from our government:

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/memorial.htm

Liberal religious groups whose doctrines are different from conservative religious groups ought to have the same Constitutional Rights to marry couples in accordance with their teachings as the conservative religions do!

Are not these Conservative religious groups denying Freedom of Religion to others by insisting that their form of marriage be the only acceptable form of marriage in the United States?

I think that this is an issue of "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE".

Separation of Church and State Home Page
----------

James Madison on Separation of Church and State

----------
All quotation taken from Robert S. Alley, ed., James Madision on Religious Liberty, pp. 37-94.
----------

James Madison (1751-1836) is popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment. His understanding of federalism is the theoretical basis of our Constitution. He served as President of the United States between 1809-1817.

Madison's most famous statement on behalf of religious liberty was his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, which he wrote to oppose a bill that would have authorized tax support for Christian ministers in the state of Virginia.

Other sources for Madison's beliefs are his letter to Jasper Adams, where he argues on behalf of letting religion survive on its own merits, and a 1792 article in which he suggests that there is no specific religious sanction for American government.

Finally, a good deal of Madision's Detached Memoranda concerns the issue of religious liberty. This material is particularly important in that it gives Madision's views of a number of events that are sometimes disputed by accomodationists (eg., congressional chaplains, days of prayer, etc.).

----------

Direct references to separation:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

To read the above entry, by former Pres. James Madison, Father of the US Constitution, in context, and completeness, just click on this link:

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Sorry for the triple entry of the link.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Here is an excerpt from the above link, on some of former Pres. Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE:

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

----------
|Home||Constitution||FAQ||Topi cs|
|Messages||Documents||Timeline ||Kids||Vermont|
|Search||Survey||Support|

----------

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/s...

For further information on the separation of church and state, click on the above link, and see what former President John Adams had to say about whether or not America was founded on the Christian Religion.

Pay attention to article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, in particular.

The following is an excerpt from a speech by former President John F Kennedy, for the full speech just click on this link:

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2000/0...

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

I can't even stay in my own damn country as long as Doma denies me my right to bring my wife into the US -_- The longer he takes the longer I'm stuck here unable to pursue the job I actually WANT.

I believe that this is only the beginning of the surprises and shifts to come from this President. Gays aren't the only group with major concerns. Christians may soon be thanking the Almighty himself for the separation of church and state.

so why did nobody answer my questions about Obamaniac ?

We should IMPEACH him like we did the LAST Democrat President !

:)

s-sdca wrote:

So who do we support next election? Should we look for a more liberal Republican?

In 2010 we run primary challengers to all who vote against gay rights. I've already told my Representative and both my Senators that unless they actively work to pass gay rights legislation (like being a co-sponsor, etc) that I will be working for their primary opponent in the next election. Same thing goes for Obama come 2012.

But if it comes down to it, I WILL vote for a Republican just to punish those Dems who refuse to live up to their campaign promises. If I survived 8 years of Shrub, I can risk 4 years of some other Repube if it gets the point across to the Dems. What's the worst that could happen? DOMA & DADT stays in place, no ENDA or Hate Crimes legislation passed, no immigration reform. Gee that's what we got with the Dems in charge too.

If we vote Dem no matter what, then we have NO power and they know it. I refuse to be taken for granted.

^ Totally agreed. I've already written my Congressional representatives, the DNC, and the President to let them know that they won't get one more dime of my contributions, one more call made on their behalf, or one more vote from me. I will support the most moderate Republican in my district and watch happily as the Democrats get their power taken away from them for abandoning the minority they promised to fight for.

The time is not tomorrow, nor the day after, it is TODAY. And if the Democrats can't step up to the plate and fight for our equal rights as Americans right now, after campaigning on a party platform of civil rights equality for all gay Americans, then they are worse than the Republicans.

Please let your elected officials know if you agree with this, so they know just how many of us feel this way.