Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Traditional marriage is discriminatory, DOMA opponents charge
cna ^ | September 16, 2009

Posted on 09/16/2009 10:26:00 AM PDT by NYer

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)

Washington D.C., Sep 16, 2009 / 03:34 am (CNA).- 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. Nadler’s 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. Nadler’s 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. Nadler’s 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Philosophy; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 111th; bho44; bhohomosexualagenda; catholic; doma; education; healthcare; homosexual; homosexualagends; islam; marriage; military; moralabsolutes; nadler; obama; palin; politics; veterans

1 posted on 09/16/2009 10:26:01 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


2 posted on 09/16/2009 10:26:43 AM PDT by NYer ( "One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone"- Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; ItsOurTimeNow

Ping!


3 posted on 09/16/2009 10:27:12 AM PDT by NYer ( "One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone"- Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

We all knew that one was coming.


4 posted on 09/16/2009 10:27:26 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Can we finally stipulate that modern democrats are just homosexual?


5 posted on 09/16/2009 10:27:43 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Charging that the traditional definition of marriage is “discriminatory,

Take it up with God, Nadler.

6 posted on 09/16/2009 10:29:17 AM PDT by Southside_Chicago_Republican ("During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." --Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Laws discriminate by definition. We can keep going and declare that the law discriminates against pedophiles, too.


7 posted on 09/16/2009 10:30:57 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Good luck with that, Nads.

Let’s hear one for the Nadster.


8 posted on 09/16/2009 10:31:33 AM PDT by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Why should I care what Jabba thinks?


9 posted on 09/16/2009 10:32:16 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes (You don't have to be ignorant to be a Democrat...but if you are...so what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’ve always found that married women tend to discriminate against going on dates with me. Apparently it’s not my fault.


10 posted on 09/16/2009 10:32:38 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Nadler should concentrate on banning his waistline.


11 posted on 09/16/2009 10:33:34 AM PDT by brooklyn dave (Where's the birth cert?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Hey Jerry, Clinton signed DOMA. Why don’t you take it up with him.


12 posted on 09/16/2009 10:35:33 AM PDT by pray4liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

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.


13 posted on 09/16/2009 10:37:36 AM PDT by Roos_Girl ("Obama is Kenyan for idiot" - CC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer
A September 15 statement from Rep. Nadler’s office characterized the legislation as one of the United States’ “most discriminatory laws,”...

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.

14 posted on 09/16/2009 10:39:14 AM PDT by Isabel C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

He’s just trolling for a Defense of Fat Bastards Act.


15 posted on 09/16/2009 10:39:33 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
In its place, Rep. Nadler and 91 co-sponsors have proposed a “Respect for Marriage Act.”

*******************

LOL! Right.

16 posted on 09/16/2009 10:41:59 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


17 posted on 09/16/2009 10:42:05 AM PDT by freespirited (Liberals are only liberal about sex & drugs. Otherwise, they want to control your life. --DHorowitz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
IMPRECATORY PRAYERS BUMP
18 posted on 09/16/2009 10:43:18 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

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 ]


19 posted on 09/16/2009 10:47:29 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ruh3TZvdkQ0&feature=player_embedded#t=220

Non-Gay Men with Girlfriends get Married to Each Other (James O’Keefe alert!!)


20 posted on 09/16/2009 10:47:41 AM PDT by Sybeck1 (No teleprompters were harmed in the creation of this post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

I would reckon that more Orthodox Judaism views this as heresy but how does your average Reform temple see this issue?

21 posted on 09/16/2009 10:50:03 AM PDT by wardaddy (I could care less if you think I am a racist...really...just try to defend your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

..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.”


22 posted on 09/16/2009 10:52:27 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
” ... 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!

23 posted on 09/16/2009 11:06:52 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

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


24 posted on 09/16/2009 11:13:42 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman, end of. -end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl

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.


25 posted on 09/16/2009 11:15:42 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman, end of. -end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


26 posted on 09/16/2009 11:22:07 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (Two blogs for the price of none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Of course the traditional marriage is also discriminatory against polygamists, bestial marriage proponents, etc.


27 posted on 09/16/2009 11:22:56 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

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).


28 posted on 09/16/2009 11:36:18 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

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.


29 posted on 09/16/2009 11:41:48 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NYer

These folks need to have a lobotomy.


30 posted on 09/16/2009 12:20:46 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (TAZ:Untamed, Unpredictable, Uninhibited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
Laws discriminate by definition. We can keep going and declare that the law discriminates against pedophiles, too.

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.

31 posted on 09/16/2009 4:00:40 PM PDT by NYer ( "One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone"- Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Traditional marriage is discriminatory, DOMA opponents charge

That's what marriage is supposed to do. Make a distinction between one person and all others.

32 posted on 09/16/2009 5:52:39 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("A cultural problem cannot be solved with a political solution." -- Selwyn Duke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson