Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

DOMA: Obama’s stance deserving of praise

Letter by Nan L. Paris, University Place on Feb. 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm with 28 Comments »
February 28, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: “Obama won’t defend law banning gay marriage” (TNT, 2-24).

I praise President Obama for his step forward for equality by no longer defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

My beautiful, intelligent daughter would not have awakened one morning deciding it would be “fun” to be gay to endure potential discrimination, physical abuse and worse. Now living in Australia, she and her partner, as do all residents, have a civil union which includes social security and federal tax filing.

She told me years ago she wanted what my husband and I have: marriage (48 years), children and a house with the “white picket fence.”

Please remember the last five words of the Pledge of Alliance: “liberty and justice for all.”

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 28
  1. bobcat1a says:

    The DOMA people don’t care about justice for all; they care about justice for themselves alone.

  2. DOMA supporters do support justice for all.

  3. hansgruber says:

    I guess we don’t need a court system since Obama will decide what is constitutional from now on?

    Scary stuff. DOMA was signed but Clinton and has been upheld in the Fed courts as constitutional and now the Prez sez it’s unconstitutional.

    As Mr. Arnold says “Hold onto your butts”

  4. frankiethomas says:

    I support gay marriage. Is this the best Obama can do? This seems pretty passive to me. ANd what happened to to “If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States.” WHERE IS HE? And how about the hacking away at reproductive rights? The silence from the White House is DEAFENING.

  5. hansgruber says:

    signed by Clinton-sorry

  6. frankiethomas – hear, hear.

  7. It is interesting how long it takes for the majority to catch on. It really shouldn’t be this difficult. Time passes and one by one we as a majority determine which minority group gets to exercise the same rights we all enjoy as human beings in this country. Why do all of these fights have to happen? These people rights have not a single thing to do with yours. Leave them be.

  8. The President ordered the DOJ not to try to defend the Constitutionality of DOMA. He did not proclaim it Constitutional.

    Nor did he order DOJ not to enforce the law.

    Two nuances lost on the neocons.

  9. xring…this is why those on the left who do support gay marriage find the presient’s move passive and political. He does just enough to try o reconcile himself to whomever he’s alienated, but never enough to stand for anything.
    He’s pure politician I’m afraid, to his core. As for putting on his shoes and being in the crowd with anyone, it would seem you need celebrity status to get his company.

    Nan, I will stand with you for your daughter’s rights. I personally view marriage as a religious union and therefore reserved for a man and a woman, BUT I (and oh so many others like me) will fight for the rights of your daughter. These two positions are not mutually exclusive.

    jellee, your snotty little comments don’t help anyone or anything. You generalize, caricaturize and judge with prejudice. It would appear you are no better than the people you claim to disdain, those who approach political dilemas with bigotry.

  10. Sozo,
    Can you come up with a faster way to get DOMA repealed than through the judicial system, and can you come up with a faster way to get DOMA thru the legal system than not defending it.

    God knows we could never get repeal through the House being as they are so busy creating jobs and curing the economy.

    “Marriage” is a religious sacrament and therefore forbidden to all levels of government. Thus ALL civil “marriages” are just civil unions.

  11. hansgruber says:

    The question of when the executive branch may disavow laws enacted by Congress is a thorny one, particularly in light of the constitutional command that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

    2-23-11
    WASHINGTON — In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.

    Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

  12. BlaineCGarver says:

    Let’s have a national vote…whatamatta, scared? I abhor gay marriage, but I would obey the law if it were changed. OhBummer needs to follow the rule of law. What else is he going to personally ignore? This is sickening….

  13. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    As much as it pains me to say so, Obama did very little wrong here.

    When no legitimate defense for the law could be put forward, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals instructed the administration to make a determination on the Constitutionality of the law to determine whether or not to continue defending it. Obama simply followed the instructions of the court.

    The only problems here are: 1) courts can’t instruct defendants to make Constitutional judgements about their own defense — particularly when the defense is defending a law they have a stated Constitutional obligation to defend, and 2) Obama can’t apply an instruction from one circuit court to a case in another circuit.

    The Second Circuit Court erred by passing the burden of judging the case onto one of the parties.

    The DOJ did not err in following the court’s instructions, but Obama did err when he ordered the DOJ to follow the ruling he made (at the wrongful request of the judiciary) in all cases regardless of venue.

    That being said, even though I don’t like Obama, I agree that DOMA is bad law that never should have been enacted, is probably unconstitutional, and should be repealed.

  14. JudasEscargot says:

    Quick……look….look over here!!!!!

    There’s gay people wanting to be married!!!!!

    Avoid looking at the violation of the law that was committed by barring people from the capital building in Wisconsin.

  15. sozo, i apologize for being so “snoty” as to question why people are withholding rights from people because of how they were born. i wasnt being general, i was using a parallel without listing every single group that has had to fight for their rights. using terms like “prejudice” and “bigotry” to describe anything about me is not only childish but pure lunacy.

  16. ItalianSpring says:

    For all……except some of the unborn I guess.

  17. Not based upon your comments here and elsewhere jellee. Take a lingering look at yourself to find your personal prejudices. They are alive and well.

    As for obeying and defending the law, many people who abhor abortion have honored the legalization of it as law. That’s how it works.

  18. sozo—so your claim is that there must be someone out there that i hate, in proportion to the hate you readily display in your comments? and this based on my initial questioning why people hate other people in general? interesting conclusion, sir.

  19. Who cares?

  20. What the heck IS an Obama anyway?

  21. Please indicate comments of mine that reflect hate jellee.

    I am offended by arrogance and I doubt if I’d like some of the folks who post comments here, but I don’t feel hatred for them.

  22. Hey Jellee. Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait. Do your
    research.

  23. uscha – I think you should do your research – there is no proof that homosexuality is an adaptation and quite a bit of evidence that supports the theory that it is an inborn trait.

  24. HeyBoy. For every one research that states homosexuality is an inborn trait,
    I’ll find two that says it is not. I suggest you expand your research. You may
    learn something.

  25. Something is missing here, again…..our constitution guarantees ( not gives) our rights not as corporations, not as unions, not as trios, lobbying organizations, NGO’s, NPO’s, quartets or couples, but….as…. individuals.

  26. Sozo…you singled me out for questioning y people have to fight each and every battle for human rights when it should be a given. You apparently took offense and started attacking me. Where is the hate? You offer examples repeatedly.

  27. If homosexuality is acquired, why does it occur in every culture though out human history?

  28. uscha – please start fulfilling your promise to provide the research. As James Brown sang: sayin’ it and doin’ it ain’t the same thing.

    Larsman – not sure how your statement relates to the thread but it seems that you agree with me that the granting of personhood to corporations and thus providing them with Constitutional rights through a clerical error in recording the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad ruling is one of the most absurd interpretations of law ever.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0