Skip to comments.Traditional marriage is discriminatory, DOMA opponents charge
Posted on 09/16/2009 10:26:00 AM PDT by NYer
.- Charging that the traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory, U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) has announced that he will reintroduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). One critic of the measure is warning that it will lead to discrimation against those who support marriage between a man and a woman.
DOMA defines marriage for federal purposes and protects states that do not recognize same-sex marriage from being forced to do so. The Act was passed in 1996 by a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives of 342-67 and in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 85-14.
A September 15 statement from Rep. Nadlers office characterized the legislation as one of the United States most discriminatory laws, accusing DOMA of singling out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment and denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights such as Social Security.
In its place, Rep. Nadler and 91 co-sponsors have proposed a Respect for Marriage Act. Rep. Nadlers office said the act would repeal DOMA in its entirety but would only pertain to the recognition of marriage for the purposes of federal law.
It claims that marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided by each state. However, it also claims to restore a historical approach of states determining whether to recognize a marriage under the principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit.
DOMA was passed in part because of concerns the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution would force states to recognize homosexual marriages contracted in states which recognize the unions.
In support of families throughout the nation, our legislation will extend to same-sex, legally married couples the same federal rights and recognition now offered to heterosexual married couples, nothing more, nothing less, argued Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Co-Chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus.
She said the repeal of DOMA was a necessary step toward full equality for LGBT Americans.
Rep. Nadlers office said the legislation had been written with the cooperation of LGBT and civil rights stakeholders and legislators. The statement also noted that President Barack Obama has endorsed the repeal of DOMA on the grounds it is discriminatory and interferes with states rights.
However, a statement from the National Organization of Women criticized the Obama administration, saying the administration strongly denounced and defended DOMA.
Rep. Nadler is doing what the Obama administration has failed to do: take a hard line on DOMA and say discrimination and bigotry do not belong in the law, said NOW Executive Vice President Bonnie Grabenhofer.
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), criticized the effort to repeal DOMA.
The citizens of 39 states have worked hard to pass legislation and constitutional amendments to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, she said. DOMA ensures the integrity of our constitutional system and the will of Americans. DOMA reflects the reality that marriage provides unique benefits to individuals, children, and society which cannot be replicated by any other living arrangement.
Wright remarked that the Defense of Marriage Act anticipated the assault that homosexual activists would inflict upon marriage, saying that the legislation honored the will of the people.
Shari Rendall, Director of Legislation and Public Policy at CWA, charged that homosexual activists and their congressional allies are making the outrageous claim that protecting marriage is a form of discrimination.
Rendall asserted that overturning marriage laws will result in reverse discrimination against those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman.
We all knew that one was coming.
Can we finally stipulate that modern democrats are just homosexual?
Take it up with God, Nadler.
Laws discriminate by definition. We can keep going and declare that the law discriminates against pedophiles, too.
Good luck with that, Nads.
Let’s hear one for the Nadster.
Why should I care what Jabba thinks?
I’ve always found that married women tend to discriminate against going on dates with me. Apparently it’s not my fault.
Nadler should concentrate on banning his waistline.
Hey Jerry, Clinton signed DOMA. Why don’t you take it up with him.
Right. Or what about people that want to marry their dog. I’m sure there are more than a few out there. What about men that want to marry their daughters, women their sons, etc., etc., etc.
It seems there’s no limit on the depravity that we are supposed to allow because someone might be offended or discriminated against.
Actually, one of the most discriminatory laws is the one that says a person needs to be at least 18 years of age to vote. There's really no way to get around that. At least homosexuals have the option of marrying somebody of the opposite sex if they truly want to get married.
He’s just trolling for a Defense of Fat Bastards Act.
If you think about any requirement long enough, you can argue that it discriminates against x or y group.
Height standards for flight attendants discriminate against short people. Age requirements for the military discriminate by age. Ability to lift ___ pounds requirements for custodial jobs discriminate against women and older folks.
People could get over themselves and realize how lucky they are just to have the good fortune to be Americans.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Non-Gay Men with Girlfriends get Married to Each Other (James O’Keefe alert!!)
I would reckon that more Orthodox Judaism views this as heresy but how does your average Reform temple see this issue?
..AND if you can dilute or eliminate marriage then all of a sudden automatic inheritance is eliminated and if you die intestate the money AUTOMATICALLY goes to the government even if you have a “spouse.”
This is not true. If you die intestate and are unmarried, each state determines who will inherit your estate from a list of “next of kin.” The order differs from state to state. I was single for many years, I had no children, my parents were deceased, I have no siblings, and I did not have a will. A lawyer friend of mine told me that if I died intestate my estate would be divided among any surviving aunts and uncles, with the surviving children of these aunts and uncles (e.g., my first cousins)receiving the share otherwise due to any deceased aunt or uncle. This was enough for me to immediately have a will made!
so marrying a dog is discrimination too right or how about the LDS church .
can they have as many wives as they want?
I find it ironic the left hates the LDS with a passion but have no problem with saying discrimination to having two homo men or women getting a sham marriage and then thinking they should be parents
just said the same
there is a line
one side it is normal traditional marriage as nature and some would say God created .
You cross that line the anything should be considered marriage .
I know which side of the line I’m on.
Just look at how messed up liberal parents are, most have no rules, are perverted and way out of this world with their views.
There is no discrimination.
Any currently-unmarried American of marriageable age has a God-given, constitutionally-protected right to marry a currently-unmarried individual of the opposite sex.
Of course the traditional marriage is also discriminatory against polygamists, bestial marriage proponents, etc.
I am speaking of the notion that the left wants to de-legalize the family.
If the law recognizes NO family ties then intestacy would equal a 100% death tax. Remember the whole marriage debate is about destroying the family.
You are correct, under current law (common and legislative).
I see your point now. It’s the best argument against my own (admittedly libertarian) view, which is that the government ought to get out of the marriage business altogether. I fear that the alternative is a continued extension by government of “marriage” to unions of all sorts that conservatives find abhorrent.
These folks need to have a lobotomy.
An interesting and astute comment. Have you noticed that over the past several years, more and more laws are being passed that overturn others enacted under a 'judeo-christian' system of morality? Essentially, under the guise of relativism, we are restoring a pagan society where anything is valid and to be treated with respect.
That's what marriage is supposed to do. Make a distinction between one person and all others.