Homosexual Activists March on DOMA


DOMA Protects the People’s Vote

Homosexual activists protesting this week against DOMA  are part of the same forces who are working to impose their view on society by court mandate rather than by vote.

Instead of letting the people choose the laws they will live by, these activists argue that homosexuality is their right, and marriage is a human right, not to be denied.  They have argued their case in courts across the country, seeking to override the voice of the people with mixed results.

Already activists are turning their gaze from their substantial losses in California, Florida and Arizona, to the next round of states locally, and to repealing DOMA at the national level.  If DOMA is repealed, all states would be forced to recognize the same sex “marriages” of other states.

Nationally, DOMA is the only law that prevents one state’s Judicial tyranny from tyrannizing the entire nation, and must be protected.

photo by brainchildvn

photo by brainchildvn

Activists On the March:

“The federal-level protest is a transformation of sorts for grassroots activists who had remained focused on the ins and outs of passage of Proposition 8 – the California constitutional amendment that not only banned gay marriage but also put a stop to gay wedding celebrations occurring in the state. Of the 29 constitutional gay marriage bans in America, only blue California has revoked the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Many of Saturday’s protesters were still reeling from that loss.

“I’m deeply offended by people trying to repeal our being married,” Barbara Keehn, who legally married her wife, Colleen Hines, in California during the “summer of love,” told the San Diego Union-Tribune. “It’s a slap in the face.”

Protesters in Chicago marched in the downtown area and called on President-elect Barack Obama to repeal DOMA.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay and lesbian rights advocate, lists repeal of federal DOMA as a top priority.”

Read the rest of the story here.

There are many valid concerns with the legalization of homosexual marriage.  This is not an issue that ought to be forced on the country, as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom so famously declared: “Whether you like it or not!”

—Beetle Blogger



  1. January 15, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    What I would like to know is this. If “gay marriage” is a right, then wouldn’t marrying your sister also be a right?

  2. Euripides said,

    January 15, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    If those in favor of same sex marriage, it’s all about two adults giving consent and love. So I guess anything goes after those two requirements are met.

  3. Frisco said,

    January 15, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    See, let’s transport this back 40 years when you bigots wold have been active.

    “If we legalize black-white marriage, than I can marry my sister. Where does it end?” It’s completely the same argument, and it’s absolutely ridiculous.

    The racists who are afraid of being labeled as so have moved on to gays.

  4. beetlebabee said,

    January 15, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Frisco, bigot is a pretty strong word, are you sure it applies here?

  5. Ruby said,

    January 15, 2009 at 7:42 pm


    The anti-miscegenation laws were not something shared across cultures (or even US states) consistently through history. A black woman and a white man (or vice versa) still fit the definition of a marriage (shared across cultures and throughout history): one man + one woman.

    Gay marriage actually changes the definition. It is not simply dropping a restriction (for example, cousins can’t marry, or siblings can’t marry).

  6. Frisco said,

    January 15, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    Yep, I am positive bigot applies here. Thanks for asking though.

    Discrimination is the same, irregardless of the situation. I believe the US Constitution provides for freedom for all people, not freedom for all heterosexuals.

    God forbid we change the definition of a single word.

  7. FullWithFaith said,

    January 15, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    Everyone knows DOMA is unconstitutional — a ton of time, effort, and money has already been expended trying to strip District Courts of their jurisdiction to hear matters challenging DOMA. These attempts to strip them of jurisdiction failed, however. DOMA has not been challenged yet, but with New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts recognizing marriages between members of the same sex, it only becomes a matter of time before the constitutionality of DOMA is challenged. Besides, even Bob Barr, DOMA’s author, now openly states that he thinks that it is bad law. The litigation road on this (and other traditional family related issues) is sure to be a long one. Le sigh……

  8. beetlebabee said,

    January 15, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    “Bigot: One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”

    Where is the hatred or intolerance? How can that possibly apply here? I understand we disagree, but must we agree politically or morally in order to be tolerant of each other?

    Name calling is completely unnecessary.

  9. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 8:35 pm

    California doesn’t recognize marriage. The majority voted that same-gender marriage is inappropriate for society.

  10. Raytmimer said,

    January 15, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    “I believe the US Constitution provides for freedom for all people”

    You are absolutely right here. We already have, all of us have, the right to marry under the law, within the law.

    What you are demanding is a special provision. Separate issue.

    Like thousands of people who choose to never marry, you may not like your choices, you may never find the right one for you, but the option is absolutely guaranteed for you.

  11. Pearl said,

    January 16, 2009 at 2:20 am

    FullWithFaith, you said,

    “Everyone knows DOMA is unconstitutional….DOMA has not been challenged yet…it only becomes a matter of time before the constitutionality of DOMA is challenged.”

    This is inaccurate. The DOMA has been challenged…and upheld. With good reason, too.

    Wilson v. Ake

    “The plaintiffs argued that the DOMA exceeds the scope of that clause because Congress may only regulate the effect that a law may have, and may not prevent a law from having any effect. The court disagreed, concluding that the DOMA is ‘exactly what the Framers envisioned when they created the Full faith and Credit Clause.’ Adopting the plaintiffs’ ‘rigid and literal’ interpretation of the clause would ‘create a license for a single State to create National policy.’

    And so what if Bob Barr has flip-flopped? This could just as easily be due to extortion or blackmail as it could suggest unconstitutionality of the DOMA.

  12. SlinkyPea46 said,

    January 16, 2009 at 3:19 am

    Hey thanks, Pearl. I had never heard of Wilson v. Ake. Very interesting. Good point about Barr, too.

  13. January 16, 2009 at 3:26 am

    If we legalize black-white marriage, than I can marry my sister.

    I don’t understand how this statement relates to my question.

    If “gay marriage” is a right, then wouldn’t marrying your sister also be a right?

  14. Frisco said,

    January 16, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    Tolerance of each other would not include discrimination.

    And it applies directly, as it uses the same slippery slope theory you are entailing. The same logic was used when inter-racial marriage was passed by largely the same constituents who oppose gay rights.

  15. January 16, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    Thanks Frisco,

    I don’t understand this slippery slope theory and I don’t understand how interracial marriage logic is being used in my question. Are you trying to relate interracial marriages with brother sister marriages? If you are I don’t see the connection.

    I would like to know your opinion about brother sister marriages.
    If “gay marriage” is a right, then wouldn’t marrying your sister also be a right?

  16. beetlebabee said,

    January 16, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    The same logic was used when inter-racial marriage was passed by largely the same constituents who oppose gay rights.

    Frisco, this is quite a large leap here. You’re making some assumptions about two separate issues, the comparisons don’t hold for the issue or the inferred “constituents”.

  17. debbie said,

    January 17, 2009 at 11:52 pm

    It appears to me that part of the problem is that groups that are dissatisfied with the particular outcome of a ballot measure, turn to the courts. That was not their original intentof the courts. Really. They were to enforce the law, not make the law. We as a nation use the Supreme Court when we do not get our way. Wrong. Little by little, in doing this, we have given up many our rights as quaranteed in the Declaration of Independence. Read it some time. We do not get our rights from the gov’t. Therefore, they cannot take them away. They were endowed to us by our Creator, NOT THE SUPREME COURT.
    So, anti-8 groups are mad, and now are going to legislate through the courts. If we do nothing to fight this, we deserve what we get. And gays, do not think that this will some day not come to bite you in the butt.

  18. Frisco said,

    January 18, 2009 at 12:16 am

    Sorry, we do get our rights from the government. I don’t know what civics class you took in school, but clearly you weren’t paying attention. If the government suddenly took away the right to strike, and your “creator” gave you it, I’m positive you would still go to jail for breaking the law if you did strike.

    I agree mostly with the fact that the courts shouldn’t legislate. But laws should also not be put to uneducated citizens so they can make their uninformed mark.

  19. amy said,

    January 18, 2009 at 1:21 am

    “But laws should also not be put to uneducated citizens so they can make their uninformed mark.”

    Yikes! WHO decides WHO is uneducated? WHO decides WHO is uninformed? I feel like I just stepped back a few hundred years…no thanks.

  20. beetlebabee said,

    January 18, 2009 at 3:17 am

    Frisco, look up “unalienable” rights. Government does not give rights. If governments give rights, then governments could take away rights. One of the main points of the Declaration of Independence was to declare that the government (of England) could not give, and therefore could not take away rights.

    ” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    These words—called by historian Joseph Ellis “the most potent and consequential words in American history”—came to represent an ideal for which the nation should strive, notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln, who popularized the now-standard view that the Declaration’s preamble is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted. (from wikipedia)

  21. Frisco said,

    January 18, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    A simple academics test in basic skills would determine who was smart enough to vote. I guarantee a sizable portion of the voting population would fail.

    Beetle, I have no issue with the Preamble. The government frequently takes away rights, as in the ability to be a prostitute, do drugs, drive the speed you want to drive, etc. Sure, some of these laws may be necessary, but it’s a violation of a human’s right to do what they want.

    The only reason I disagree with the Preamble is the use of religion. Unless my parents count as my creators, then sorry, no Creator gave me my rights. The supernatural does not exist.

  22. beetlebabee said,

    January 18, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    Whether you believe in a creator or not is immaterial. The point is that they are inherent rights. Because we exist and we are humans, we are given these rights, we ought to have these rights, and no one can or ought to take them away unless and until our exercise of those rights steps on the similar rights of others.

    Which is the very point. Freedom to marry who you want, when you want is a freedom with limitations. It is not a right. Rights and freedoms have natural limitations in order to preserve the freedom of the society.

  23. Frisco said,

    January 18, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    I don’t follow how limiting the rights of marriage preserves the freedom of society. That’s a rather illogical argument.

  24. Liberty Belle said,

    January 18, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Freedom to enjoy life liberty and the pursuit of happiness would be limited for children of close relatives were they allowed to marry each other. There are limitations on those relationships for many reasons, not the least of which is detriment to the health of the children produced under such circumstances.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: