CRISIS: Obama administration files court papers against the Defense of Marriage Act

Story from the Associated Press. (H/T Breitbart)


The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continue to defend the law.

[…]In the court papers, the administration urges the repeal of the law but says in the meantime, government lawyers will continue to defend it as a law on the books.

[…]”The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, because it prevents equal rights and benefits.

The law, often called DOMA, denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Obama has pledged to work to repeal the law.

I have written before about the real reasons why people oppose same-sex marriage: because it is bad for children and because it is bad for liberty. So, by extension, everyone who voted for Obama is (effectively) voting against the well-being of children and against liberty, especially religious liberty and freedom of speech. Obviously most of them don’t know what they are voting for, but that’s their own fault for not studying hard enough.

At this point, it may be worth recalling all the “Christians” who voted for the most pro-abortion President ever, and who have now voted for the most anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-child President ever.

2008 voting broken by religious groups
2008 voting broken by religious groups

(Click for larger image)

Part of the reason that I am disappointed with the church is because they never discuss anything related to the real world. Too much time is spent on inwardly-focused practices like singing. And then the “Bible-believing Christians” go out and vote for Democrat candidates who oppose authentic Christianity (and religious liberty itself). They seem do vote Democrat on the basis of vague feelings of compassion, which causes them to support big government social programs instead of individual charity.

I wonder if the pastors will finally learn their lesson when the state jails them for refusing to perform same-sex marriages or for citing the Bible? Or will they just compromise on moral issues tomorrow, the same way they compromise on intellectual rigor today? It was so easy to invent nice-sounding justifications for dismissing apologetics from the church. I am sure they will find it easy to justify same-sex marriage and abortion in time, in order to keep the pews filled. Just look at Rick Warren.

And I think the root of the problem is the unwillingness to talk about evidence for and against Christianity in the church, to show debates and to host public debates as well. If Christianity is not real, then people are not going to integrate their faith with the rest of their lives outside of church in the real world. And that real world includes the voting booth.

Note: I am angry. To my regular commenters, please cut me some slack. I went to church again on Sunday and it was fine. (Mostly useless, but not heretical). But right now, I am incensed at the spiritual malpractice that led to “Christians” voting for a thoroughly anti-Christian candidate for President.

13 thoughts on “CRISIS: Obama administration files court papers against the Defense of Marriage Act”

  1. Uhm…My Church (And by that I mean the Roman Catholic Church) sent circulars to the various parishes a week before our general elections to think and introspect before we vote. Actually they were very strict on not giving in to our whims and insisted on voting for a party which would uphold our rights to practice and preach our faith. (You know there was the anti-incumbency problem, the Sri Lankan tamil problem, the inflation problem which had made the people disgruntled with the ruling government). Anyway, better sense finally prevailed and the truth is, the media and everybody were so surprised to see the then ruling party being re-elected, that too by such a huge margin! Sure the Church did it’s part in my country!


  2. That’s a really interesting chart. It makes you wonder if black churches lack substance even more than the other Protestant denominations.

    One thing you should take heart about is that Jesus prunes his own people. The churches that fail to represent him properly wind up getting disciplined. That’s why Evangelicals have made such progress in America compared to the “mainline” denominations which have declined. If churches do not act like churches, God hands them over to Satan.

    One trend that I have noticed is that the most legalistic religions tend to embrace liberalism. As long as you are having to work your way into eternal life, I guess it’s easier for people to convince you to act like a slave.


  3. “So, by extension, everyone who voted for Obama is opposed to the well-being of children and opposed to liberty, especially religious liberty and freedom of speech.”

    Yikes, that’s some heavy rhetoric.

    I agree that Obama is all of those things, and I sure as heck didn’t vote for him, in large part for those reasons (oh, and his policy stances overall, and that he’s a liar, but I digress…), but I don’t think it’s fair to paint everyone who voted for him as being anti-liberty and anti-children. Those are conversation stoppers.


    1. I mean this was the effect of their vote. And they should have known that this would happen by looking at his voting record and understanding what it means for government to encroach on the free market. They should have known about the support he was getting from groups who favored abortion and same-sex marriage.

      I fixed up the main post to better reflect what I meant. I apologize.


      1. Heh, I’m sympathetic. People are starting to open their eyes to the snake oil salesman that Obama is. But they SHOULD have known all along, had they done the homework that a diligent citizen will take in participatory government…

        As your edit says. I like it. :)

        Interesting tangent: I’ve noted that by and large, people don’t like to admit that they were fooled by a politician, or that they simply didn’t see what should have been plain. They’re fairly happy to admit that they were lied to (don’t try to make this reasonable, your head will explode… it just IS…). I think this gives them a layer of personal protection from failure, and also gives them the appearant vindication of now making the liar a “them” and the person who voted for him an “us”. When possible, I recommend giving a person the “out” that they were lied to rather than requiring them to admit they should have known better. You may win the argument (and be right!), but you may lose the person.


        1. I think you’re right about that. I was just so infuriated having these conversations with people before the election who told me that Obama was more pro-life and pro-marriage than McCain. But when I produced the evidence from his voting records, they would not listen to it! And these are people who are fundamentalist Christians who attend church every week. Nothing they heard in the church during all their lives allowed them to recognize the threats Obama posed to the unborn or to children raised without a father or mother in a same-sex marriage.

          This is not even to mention the stress put on working families from an imploding economy, nor the coercion from anti-Christian policies such as hate crimes bills, etc.


          1. Right. Head-explodey confusion on that guy.

            I run a 20’s bible study group. You might not be suprised to know that he’s popular with the young’ns. I encouraged them all to vote, as part of their civic duty and Christian responsibility, but I also told them that candidate research is a necessary requisite for that duty and responsibility.

            I’m pretty sure that few of them researched, but also that few of them voted. I guess that’s sort of a lose-lose, but better than the wrong mix.

            My head did almost explode when one of them complained out of the blue (REALLY out of the blue, we were working on Acts ch 18 at the time…) that, “it should not be allowed that Obama be called the antichrist, because if anything, he’s more like the second coming.”

            Head explodey.

            If I recall correctly, this kicked off that line of discussion in media:


            (And no, I don’t think Obama is the antichrist, and no I don’t think thats part of useful dialogue, and even IF he ends up being a character revealed in Revelation, we certainly don’t have enough clues as given by scripture, and yes I’ve seen that YouTube video, it’s garbage)

            I told her that calling him the antichrist was unmeritted, that he has certainly done things to disqualify himself from being Jesus, and that further details could be provided after the group study. :p


      2. I think the original statement was fine. If you vote for someone who supports and promotes abortion and who supports an promotes homosexual behavior and sexual immorality in general, then your are indeed guilty of promoting those very things. Call it a conversation stopper, but the truth is the truth. That’s why there is no way a Christian can legitimately vote for democrats because by voting for them you support their ungodly platform of murder and immorality.


        1. I think this starts to get into the mind reading arena.

          Have you ever voted for someone whom you agreed with entirely, on every public office vote, public statement, and policy stance?

          It’s not helpful to assume that all people who voted for him voted because of his stance on life. I’m sure some voted in spite of his stance on life. Same because/in-spite mix assumption could be made across politicians and across policy stances.

          Some people who voted for him may be actively against pro-abortion policies, but feel like there’s no traction on the issue one way or another, and was therefore moot in this election. It’s at least arguable (again, I think wrong…)

          I’m guessing that most Christians who voted for him chose to ignore those bits and focus on his rhetoric about social justice. I’ve heard from many Christians who are weary of single-issue voting, and I can concieve of why they were drawn in by the very slippery, non-specific things he promised he would improve upon.

          I’d further guess that VERY few people did even the most basic sort of research about Obama, nor listened to others. I think a majority of discussion I had with people was either, “so you know about Obama’s voting record on…?” “OH yeah, I’d never vote for that guy,” OR “What, oh no, I don’t like to talk about politics, sorry, I think it’s just important to go on your gut instinct.”

          I think they’re dead wrong… what could be more important than life? For that matter, why would we look to the government for social justice? The church should be advancing the Kingdom of God. Paying your taxes once a year and sitting back just don’t cut it.

          My main point is: I don’t think its fair to paint people with that sort of absolutism. There’s simply too many other distinct and real possibilities on why that could have (wrongly!) voted for Obama.


  4. There is a far cry from voting for someone you have a lot of disagreement with than voting for someone who promised to increase abortion spending, who promised to defeat DOMA and promote the homosexual agenda. You cannot justify EVER voting for someone whose stated goal is to bring upon society more and more of this evil. If you vote for this, then you are guilty of it. Period. These are the worst moral issues of the day, and they should very well be the litmus test.


    1. The problem is that people think that redistributing wealth is compassionate. They think that stealing other people’s private property, so that the favored special interest groups of Democrats can act irresponsibly and wastefully, is consistent with Christianity. And pastors don’t EVER talk about the virtues of liberty, the rule of law and free market capitalism. It all stays at a vague emotional level that doesn’t educate people about what is really consistent with Christianity.

      What is consistent with Christianity is CHARITY. Not government-controlled redistribution of wealth.


      1. Right, perfect. As Chrisitans, we have gone far far far astray when we look to the government to do our work.

        There is debate on Adam Smith’s Christianity, but his economic views succintly address the problem of human sin, by depending selfish motives which can meet altruistic ends.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s