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!!)
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.