Voice of the Nation—Defense of Marriage Act Repealed?

Join Heather and Angela for

Voice of the Nation

Family Values Blog Talk Radio

sandstrom_rockwood

“Those who think the…assault on marriage won’t affect them had better think again….we’re very close [to a ] a nationally imposed right to same-sex marriage whether we like it or not. That is the ultimate game plan of the gay marriage forces.” ––Maggie Gallagher

On Thursday– Gay marriage activists have lobbied to repeal the national DOMA for years.  Will they finally get what they want?  What is the Defense of Marriage Act?  And why are gay rights activists so keen to destroy it?  Join us as we discuss today what is at stake with the current effort to repeal the DOMA.

Guest: William C. Duncan –  Bill Duncan, Director of the Marriage Law Foundation, will be a guest on the show this week to talk about the bill put forward in Congress yesterday that aims to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

William C. Duncan is director of the Marriage Law Foundation. He formerly served as acting director of the Marriage Law Project at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and as executive director of the Marriage and Family Law Research Grant at J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, where he also served as a visiting professor. He has published numerous articles on constitutional and family law issues in a variety of legal journals.

Mr. Duncan is married to Catherine Allred Duncan and they are the parents of seven children.

TUNE IN HERE

The Family Values Blog Talk Radio show is a joint effort between United Families International, the Digital Network Army, and other Pro-Family organizations in highlighting current issues facing families in the Pro-Family Movement.

Call in to VOICE OF THE NATION every Thursday at 2pm PST.  The call-in number is

347- 215-6801

What’s At Stake in the Attack on DOMA?

Bill-Duncanby William C. Duncan, Marriage Law Foundation

Those who are pushing a redefinition of marriage in the United States promote an ideology that says when it comes to marriage, all adult relationships are the same and that adult desires are more important than children’s needs. A corollary to this idea is that anyone who disagrees is a bigot. When you see the world in this way, you are likely to believe that anything that advances your goal is permissible no matter how radical. The current legal attack on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a good illustration.

DOMA Background

DOMA was overwhelmingly approved by Congress (and signed by President Bill Clinton) in 1996. At that time, at the order of the Hawaii Supreme Court, a trial court in Honolulu was deciding whether that state’s marriage law was constitutional. A decision to redefine marriage there, many activists were claiming, would mean that every state would have to recognize same-sex marriages contracted there.

Thus, the need for DOMA. This legislation has two parts. The first makes clear that whenever federal law mentions marriage it means the union of a man and a woman. The second makes clear that no state will be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another state.

Lawsuit Attacks on DOMA

It is this first part that is being attacked in two separate lawsuits, both arising from Massachusetts-the first state to have legally redefined marriage, by court order.

The first lawsuit was brought by the group behind the lawsuit that resulted in same-sex marriage in Massachusetts; Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). This new lawsuit argues that DOMA is unconstitutional because same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts cannot get marriage benefits (like Social Security death benefits, or government employment compensation) under federal law.

The second lawsuit is brought by the state of Massachusetts itself. The state, it seems, is perturbed that it cannot unilaterally change federal law to adapt to Massachusetts’s new definition of marriage. This suit argues that it is unconstitutional for the government to define marriage in a way different than the state of Massachusetts. The state says it is harmed because when it administers federal laws like Medicare (and, of course, federal tax money) it has to do it in a way it believes is “discriminatory.”

DOMA and the Administration

The current presidential Administration has announced that it would like to see DOMA repealed. Just this week, a number of Democrats in the House of Representatives announced they would be introducing legislation to do just. Unlike the Massachusetts lawsuits, however, the repeal would apply to both parts of DOMA.

Another legal attack on DOMA was recently turned back. This one was brought by a same-sex couple in California who argued that it was unconstitutional for one state to not recognize a same-sex marriage from another. Their lawsuit was disfavored by activist groups because they felt it was premature. Many of the legal arguments made in the case were flawed as well, so it was quickly dismissed.

Interestingly, though, it was not the case but the federal government’s role in it that made headlines. Early in the suit, the federal Department of Justice had filed a submission to the court that pointed out that DOMA served important government interests. The DOJ noted that marriage is society’s best way of protecting a child’s opportunity to know and be raised by his or her own mother and father-certainly a vital interest. This is also an interest that has been recognized as a valid justification for state marriage laws by the highest courts of New York, Maryland and Washington. The argument did not go over well with activist groups and the media who complained that the argument was “hurtful.”

Thus, the next time the DOJ had to file a brief in the case, the arguments in favor of a child-centered view of marriage had disappeared. In fact, they were expressly repudiated. Instead, the brief announced that the Administration thought DOMA was a bad idea and made clear it was only defending the current marriage law reluctantly. This kind of attempt to undermine marriage laws by attorneys who are supposed to be defending them is not new. The attorneys general of California and Connecticut also refused to offer robust defenses of their states’ marriage laws and the attorney general of Iowa did not even bother to participate in a lawsuit challenging that state’s law.

Consequences of Losing DOMA

These attacks on DOMA undermine not only the law itself, they distort the meaning of constitutional provisions, threaten the separation of powers, and threaten to harm marriage.  If the marriage definition provision of DOMA is lost, a new definition of marriage imposed by courts and legislatures in a handful of states would apply to all federal laws that reference marriage.  All without input from the taxpayers in other states who would be helping to cover those costs.

While a state can decide on its own laws, it has no “right” to demand federal funding to cover the costs of those decisions. If Massachusetts were really concerned about federalism, perhaps it could argue that the federal government ought to get out of the business of providing funding for a myriad of social programs, rather than argue (as it is in this case) that Massachusetts should be able to set the conditions for receiving federal money.

It would also put the federal government in the position of endorsing the idea that marriage is just about adult choices and that men and women, mothers and fathers, are essentially interchangeable.

If Congress were to repeal both parts of DOMA, other states’ definitions of marriage could be threatened. It is probably the case that a state could refuse to recognize another state’s same-sex marriage even without DOMA, but DOMA makes that clear as a matter of federal law. Doing so decreases the likelihood that a state or federal court would find a spurious “right” to have a same-sex marriage recognized by other states.

A repeal of DOMA could embolden some judges and legislators who would see it as a sign that the political will to resist importation of same-sex marriages across state borders is flagging. The majority of states with state marriage amendments would be protected but the states without such amendments would be particularly vulnerable.

There is also no telling whether a federal court might decide to create a “constitutional” mandate to recognize same-sex marriages even for states with marriage amendments.

Marriage is worth protecting and because this is so, DOMA is worth preserving as well.

Marriage Matters to Kids!

Because No State has the Authority to Deny Children the Fundamental Right to both a Mother and a Father

www.marriagematterstokids.org

As I was out and about today I came across these some resources from our Catholic friends that I hadn’t seen before.  I thought I’d pass them along. Good stuff here!  –Beetle Blogger

every_child_deserves_a_mom_and_a_dad2

California Prop 8 Rally at the Capital!

siren

Go!  Rally!  Bring Your Signs and Spread the Word!

This resolution would put the Assembly on record as supporting the repeal of Proposition 8 and declaring that the initiative was an improper revision to the California Constitution. -Equality California Website

Dear California Supporters of the Family,

State Assembly and Senate Considering Resolution Encouraging State Supreme Court to Overturn Prop 8!!!

SR7 and HR5

On Tuesday, February 17th at 10:30 am, The Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing followed at 12:30 pm by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Proposition 8. The committees will be considering crafting a joint resolution encouraging the California State Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8. By issuing the resolution the Assembly will officially express its opposition to Proposition 8, calling for its repeal, and stating that it was an “improper revision” to the state constitution.

Read HR5 and Read SR7

Passing these resolutions flies in the face of the will of the voters.  Prop 8, was passed by a clear majority of California voters in November 2008. Fifty-two percent of California voters stood up to protect the family, which is the lynch pin of civilization. William Glaston, a former policy advisor to President Clinton, is quoted in the UFI Marriage Advantage Family Guide. He states, “Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike….Whether American society succeeds or fails in building a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern.”

Don’t let the Assembly take your vote away. Join us in protecting marriage, children and the future of family and our society.

california_voted


What You Can Do

DOT.jpg Attend the hearing. It is taking place Tuesday, February 17th at the state capitol in Sacramento. The Assembly hearing will be in room 4202 at 10:30 am. The Senate hearing will be in room 4203 at 12:30pm. We encourage you to make the trip. By attending you will send a visible signal to the committee members in support of the family. To get driving directions and parking information follow the click on the links below:

For directions
For parking information

DOT.jpg Call the members of the committees and fax letters asking them to vote no on HR5 and SR7
Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5

Assembly Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on HR5

Committee Members District Phone E-mail

Dem-42 (916) 319-2042 Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov

Rep-68 (916) 319-2068 Assemblymember.tran@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-41 (916) 319-2041 Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-7 (916) 319-2007 Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-9 (916) 319-2009 Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov

Rep-36 (916) 319-2036 Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-43 (916) 319-2043 Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-53 (916) 319-2053 Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov

Dem-27 (916) 319-2027 Assemblymember.Monning@assembly.ca.gov

Rep-2 (916) 319-2002 Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov

Senate Judiciary Committee-Vote NO on SR7

Ellen Corbett
Phone: 916 651 4010
Fax: 916 327 2433

Dean Florez
Phone: 916 651 4016
Fax: 916 327 5989

Tom Harman
Phone: 916 651 4035
Fax: 916 445 9263

Mark Leno
Phone: 916 651 4003

Mimi Walters
Phone: 916 651 4033
Fax: 916 445 9754

Please forward this to your friends and family members. We believe that through a grassroots movement, we can secure a safe future for families in our state.

United Families California

Family Structure–How Does Gay Marriage Hurt My Family?

The family trend of our time is the deinstitutionalization of marriage and the steady disintegration of the mother-father child raising unit. This trend of family fragmentation is reflected primarily in the high rate of divorce among parents and the growing prevalence of parents who do not marry. No domestic trend is more threatening to the well-being of our children and to our long-term national security.  —National Commission on America’s Urban Families, Families First 19 (1993).

What is a Family? (from Wikipedia):

Boyfriend · Casual · Cohabitation · Concubinage · Consort · Courtesan · Domestic partnership · Family · Girlfriend · Husband · Kinship · Marriage · Mistress (lover) · Monogamy · Non-monogamy · Pederasty · Polyamory · Polyfidelity · Polygamy · Romantic friendship · Same-sex relationship · Significant other · Soulmate · Widowhood · Wife

Who is next on the “marriage rights” list?  Stretch meanings of words too far and they become meaningless.

–Beetle Blogger

Kids as Pawns in the Gay Agenda

by Pink Sherbet Photography

Photo by Pink Sherbet Photography

California Actively Promotes Gay Adoption Agenda at the Expense of Children

What is California doing handing children out as legitimacy prizes for gay agenda promos?  Shouldn’t they be more concerned with giving children a chance at being a part of real families?

Gender matters in child raising.  Homes with single parents or same-sex parents are not equipped to give a child the same things homes with a loving mother and father could.

The American College of Pediatricians says that homosexual parenting is sadly less than ideal for children:

“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development,” the college states in a position statement about homosexual parenting posted in the “Position Statements” section of its website, acpeds.org.

“Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation,” it says. “This position is rooted in the best available science.”

The American College of Pediatricians’ position statement references the many studies that have found that children thrive best in families with a married mother and father.

So, if there’s no equal substitute for a real family, why are we giving children away to gay couples?  And why is California pushing the issue and giving money it doesn’t have to promote the gay agenda?

Bankrupt California buys ads for ‘gay’ adoptions

hrccampaign1

SACRAMENTO – Facing a $42 billion deficit and a state debt that grows by $28,000 every minute, California has managed to find enough room in its budget to sponsor an elaborate statewide campaign to promote homosexual adoption.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation has partnered with the California Department of Social Services and the Los Angeles County to promote a “Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Family” campaign that invites homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to adopt children.

According to a Campaign for Children and Families report, the state has sponsored two billboards promoting “gay” adoption in West Hollywood and Alameda County.

In April 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed John Wagner as director of the Department of Social Services. Wagner is openly “gay” and is an advisory member of the Human Rights Campaign.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a California pro-family organization, released a statement saying the state has no business sponsoring the campaign when it has decided to issue taxpayers IOUs in place of their annual returns.

“At a time when the state doesn’t have enough money to provide hard-working people with their tax refunds, it’s a shame that state and county funds are being wasted on this propaganda,” he said.

The Campaign for Children and Families cited a 2001 University of Southern California “study of studies” on raising children in same-sex families titled, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” The campaign includes the following discoveries by sociology professors Judith Stacey and Timothy Blibarz on its website:

  • A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.
  • Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. However the sons of lesbians exhibit “an opposite pattern” and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.
  • Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to “sex-typed cultural norms.” And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.

Thomasson said children are more likely to experience healthy childhoods when they are raised by loving heterosexual parents.

“When the facts confirm that children do best with a married father and mother, there is no reason other than selfishness for anyone to advocate placing vulnerable children into these sexually confused and sexually charged environments.”

Kids deserve a home with a mom and a dad and a chance at normalcy.  Children are not prizes or pawns in to be used in pushing the gay agenda on society, so why is our government exposing children to social experimentation?

–Beetle Blogger

DOMA Buttons!

doma_circlebutton

DOMA Button Graphic Arts Contest

The DNA is having a graphic contest to support the Defense of Marriage Act! Create a picture/graphic to support the DOMA and win a prize (or at least a small amount of fame and respect).

The purpose is to get a collection of graphics we can spread around to post as profile pics on facebook, post on blogs, etc. All of it whipping up a storm of information and attention for the DOMA.

The best videos and graphics will be highlighted on the DNA website!

Free!  Take!  Create!  Spread the word on DOMA!

As my contribution, I’m posting copies of all the DOMA button submissions so far…some good ones here!  They are free to take and use but not to modify.  They are Creative Commons Licensed by the DNA, but we have permission to use them wherever we want.  Make a statement on facebook or your blog!

If you have one you’d like to add, send me a comment with a link!

–Beetle Blogger

sherrybuttondoma_throwaway

domababy-copydoma_rectangle
doma_backdoma_heartcandy

my_doma1i_support_doma1

doma_traditional_marriagedoma_candy1

doma_candy3
doma_candy4

doma_rose1doma_candy2
doma_logodoma_equation
doma-_close_eyeslisas_doma_buttonlove_domapuzzle250pxsharp-light

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.