Skip to comments.Obama Still Supports Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act, White House Says
Posted on 03/17/2009 4:14:03 AM PDT by Man50D
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed on Friday that, as promised on the campaign trail, President Obama would work to repeal a Clinton-era law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which protects states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states.
The president's position remains the same, Gibbs said in his daily White House briefing on Friday when a reporter asked him if Obama would still like to see the legislative repeal of DOMA.
The president would would work with Congress in order to not just on this, but on other ideas institute what he promised he'd do in the campaign, said Gibbs. I don't have a specific update on where the legislation is.
DOMA, signed by President Clinton in 1996, protects states from having to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states. Ordinarily, under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution, states are required to recognize "the public Acts, Records and judicial proceedings of every other states."
If DOMA were repealed, every state would be required to recognize, for example, the same-sex marriages contracted in Massachusetts.
Gibbs statement appears to fall in line with statements Obama made on the presidential campaign trail last year. In an open letter to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual (LGBT) community that was posted on Obama's campaign Web site on Feb. 28, 2008, Obama wrote that he favors repealing DOMA.
"Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate," Obama wrote in the letter.
"While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether, he wrote. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does."
The pride section of the Obama campaign Web site also said: "Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized unions.
On July 31, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com that she would support Obama in repealing DOMA. (For video click here.)
In July 1996, the Republican-controlled House approved DOMA by a vote of 342 to 67.
Pelosi voted against the bill along with 64 other Democrats.
The bill passed the Senate on Sept. 10, 1996 by a margin of 85 to14.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) voted in favor of DOMA as a senator in 1996.
Though Obama has no power to create legislation alone, The Washington Blade, which is a publication for the LGBT community in Washington, D.C., reported on March 6 that the only openly lesbian member of Congress, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), plans to introduce legislation that would provide benefits to same-sex partners for all federal employees by the end of March.
According the Blade, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) plan to introduce a corresponding bill in the Senate.
The bill would grant the partners of gay federal employees the same benefits that are available to the spouses of straight employees, reads the Blade.
Neither Lieberman nor Baldwins congressional offices replied to CNSNews.coms requests for comment before this story went to press.
The Constitution isn’t even a general guideline for 0bama and his ilk.
You said — “The Constitution isnt even a general guideline for 0bama and his ilk.”
It doesn’t appear, to me at least, that the Constitution has too much to say about the definition of marriage. However, our tradition in this country has a lot to say about marriage. The most compelling, though, is what the Bible says about marriage. But, these days, a lot of people don’t care what the Bible has to say about anything...
It is clear that certain reporters are assigned specific questions to bring up at gibbie’s pressers.
Guess that’s all fine with the msm.
At this point, the big issue is not marriage here. The big issue is states rights, and the worst president's ever on going attempt to expand the grip of the federal government in general; and the executive branch specifically, beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
If this is allowed to continue unchecked, things do not bode well for the future of the country.
If--big IF--the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize out-of-state gay marriages, then no federal law can change that fact. In other words, you can't end-run the Constitution on Congress's say-so. That's not how things work in this country.
On the other hand, if the U.S. Constitution doesn't require states to recognize out-of-state gay marriages, then the law isn't even necessary, and repealing it would have no impact.
My point could have been better stated. I don’t think the Constitution gives the feds the power to define marriage, or to force states to submit to a particular definition.
You said — “My point could have been better stated. I dont think the Constitution gives the feds the power to define marriage, or to force states to submit to a particular definition.”
Ummmm..., well, that argument doesn’t work too well in keeping “DOMA” then... LOL...
That argument almost *approves* of Obama’s actions to get rid of DOMA, because that’s definitely “the feds defining what the states do about marriage”... :-)
I’m all for maintaining (and gaining back) states rights issues [except for the right of secession from the union... :-) ... ].
I’ve said this before.....there is not one single point in support of gay marriage that does not equally support marriage between two blood relatives. You can’t support gay marriage without supporting incest too.
You’d think that Obama’s teleprompter has bigger fish to fry than the Defense of Marriage Act...
Aunt Euphegenia's House ping
Why am I not surprised that the Man of Abortion is doing this?
What for? The states are required to comply with the Full Faith and Credit clause, so the 10th Amendment is irrelevant here.
The List, ping
If the fed continues to push against the States... we may end up with one United States and one United Socialist States. Of course statists love their all powerful federal gooberment.
The courts will eventually have to interpret whether states have to recognize other states homosexual marriages. The Defense of Marriage Act says they don’t have to, but that has not been tested in court yet.
The other piece of the Defense of Marriage Act that nobody here has mentioned is that it defines marriage for all purposes of federal law as one man and one woman. So, even if states were forced to recognize Massachusetts and Connecticut same-sex marriages for purposes of their own state laws, the federal law of 1 man and 1 woman would be unchanged. That also has not been challenged in court, yet.