What do Democrats think of the Defense of Marriage Act?

Here’s the story from Life Site News.


A federal judge in Boston has ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which enshrines in law the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.

Judge Joseph Tauro claimed in a ruling Thursday that DOMA violates the right of homosexual couples to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” wrote the judge.

“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”

The DOMA bill was passed by a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate. Republicans believe in traditional marriage.

And some reactions to the recent ruling:

[Democrat] Attorney General [Martha] Coakley, who made headlines earlier this year as the U.S. Senate candidate unexpectedly edged out by Republican Scott Brown, applauded the ruling Thursday. She called the decision “an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts.” Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

[…]Posting on Twitter, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the ruling “great news!”

[…]…DOMA is likely to face a tough battle in the Supreme Court, especially in light of the nomination of Elena Kagan. Should Kagan be confirmed to the highest court in the land, she would bring another certain vote in favor of striking down the law, as she has already come out strongly in favor of the homosexualist agenda.

In addition, pro-family leaders have pointed to a controversial brief authored under Kagan as U.S. Secretary General, in which the legal defense for the law was gutted by rejecting the ideological basis for maintaining marriage as between a man and a woman. Instead, the brief acknowledged that the Obama administration considers DOMA “discriminatory, and supports its repeal,” before arguing that the plaintiff in the case lacked standing.

Interesting. So this is what Democrats think about traditional marriage. They don’t believe in the right of children to have a stable relationship with the man and the woman who brought them into being. They’re committed to the breakdown of traditional marriage and family. And they don’t care about what is best for children. They care about votes from powerful special interest groups.

Related posts

25 thoughts on “What do Democrats think of the Defense of Marriage Act?”

  1. By the ‘logic’ of this judge, *anyone* should allowed to marry whomever (and how many) people they want. (And let’s not kid ourselves: that, in the end, is the goal: child marriage/legalized abuse a la NAMBLA; plural marriage; etc.)


  2. There is a simple way to sort this out. Only civil unions between a man/woman, man/man or woman/woman. Marriage can be a term used for a ideological ceremony for whichever belief the parties adhere to.

    WK, I have to take exception with you linking good parenting and family with marriage. Where are you statistics supporting your stance.


    1. I updated the post with the links to the studies.

      Just FYI, marriage is special, and that’s why it gets a special name and social recognition. It has a special purpose – to bind men and women to each other and to their children in order to provide the children with a stable environment to grow up in. There is a social utility to marriage. Consider the costs of divorce and illegitimacy on society today. Same-sex unions need to be evaluated to see if they are as good for children as marriage. Take a look at the research.


      1. I think that there is some very poor research out there that has been ideologically driven, so agree that more is needed. There is a bit of a summary here http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar13.htm.

        One of your links had a very sloppy comparison of marriage period versus homosexual relationship periods. Apples and oranges. The comparison should have been between hetro and homo relationship periods. Some of the other statistics had the same flaw.


    2. “There is a simple way to sort this out.”

      There is no intelligible way to allow same-sex unions and not others. If nature doesn’t matter in marriage, then there can be no logical argument for having only 2 person marriages.

      “Only civil unions between a man/woman, man/man or woman/woman”

      What is so magical about the #2? Why not allow polygamy or incest? Nature doesn’t matter, as you assumtion proposes. The argument that we should have 2 person marriages is based on norms not reason. Same-sex unions are not the norm in the west but that doesn’t stop people does it? The #2 is wholly arbitrary.

      “Marriage can be a term used for…”

      Notice the admitted redefining of marriage to something that isn’t in nature objectively. To such people it is just a construct. One that is just in the way. Which is why some people oppose marriage. Way different understanding of marriage from people who laid the societal foundations of the west, such as Plato.


      1. The traditional notion of two opposite-sex parents sacrificing and avoiding adultery in order to provide children with a stable environment to grow up in is not compatible with the notion of marriage as a vehicle for adults to have happiness any way they want to. Either marriage is for the children or it’s for the adults.


        1. Exactly, as Plato & Aristotle noted, marriage exists because of children. Its not an abstract construct. Children, for humans unlike any other animal, must get 3 things from their biological parents: existance, nurishment, education. The couple stays together (generally) for life to help the children achieve THE full Form of man, such as Socrates lifelong struggle to reach The Good. Which includes teaching them the world through, science, politics, aesthetics, philosophy, and yes god. But remove the obligation of these things for biological parents and you get the craziness that has happened for example with the IVF situation.


      2. How do you reconcile a man and a woman in a life long relationship, who are not “legally” married? Does this provide additional assistance to meet Plato or Aristotle’s notes. I think not.

        As for the above comments about polygamy, there is probably no biological reason why this cannot work for some people ad long as all are willing and not indotrinated, such as the orthodox Mormon cults. Incest is a little bit different as there can be biological reasons that this is not desirable. How, if it is good enough for Eve, then shouldn’t it be okay for us (snarky, I know, but you can’t pick and choose verses from the good book)


        1. Just because a couple is in a life long relationship erotically/sexually/contractually does not mean that they are married. There are millions of people who have life long contractual relationships with others. Men and women through procreation have children and are bound by objective obligations. That is marriage. [WK paraphrase: relationships that cannot be naturally procreative are not marriage].

          We get pleasure from procreation but that is nature’s way of getting us to have intercourse! [WK paraphrase: the natural function of sex is not pleasure]. That’s like saying even though we get pleasure from eating, due to nature wanting us to survive, eating can be seen as actually about pleasure, not about getting the digestive intake we need to survive. Romantic love, sexual desire, courting, the chemical processes that have to do with such activities would not exist had marriage not existed.

          [WK snips some stuff]

          Monogomy is fundamental to human procreation as both parents give their lives, fortunes, time that would be spent to others, etc to their children and each other. The goverments’ laws on marriage come about because of this fact.

          [WK snips some stuff]

          Nothing I’ve said has to do with god. This is wholly secular. So I don’t know why you had to bring up scripture. You’re understanding of which, by the way, is poor.


          1. This is going to have to to be the last word. Sorry, but I am concerned about restrictions on speech. Please speak your mind on any other topic fully. Sorry Moo and Leno.


  3. Oh yeah, polygamy is such a great idea. The president of our country has 5 wives – though not all legally recognized. Heard some feminist the other day ranting on about how the other wives should be given legal status. What idiocy! This man acquires women the way some people get a new haircut and this is the way they think women can be empowered – by giving legal recognition to his womanizing? Gimme a break… Women deserve better. Children deserve better. Get this: marriage is not about you and your self actualization. Marriage is about your spouse, your children, the broader family, society, and God. If you’re in it for yourself, go get another hobby. Messing around with marriage is dangerous and irresponsible.


    1. Marriage is not about God. I am personally married, with 3 children and do not believe in the existence of a personal deity. You need to broaden your view of the world as most of the world does not believe the same as you do. Tolerance is a virtue that too many people underestimate. Your views of the topic should have any impact on the lives of people and their right to marry. This is an arrogant position as you assume that you have some moral authority.


      1. Are you tolerant of Mary’s view? Does Mary have a right to vote for policies like traditional marriage? Why is it “intolerant” when Mary thinks she’s right, and yet not “intolerant” when you think you’re right? Is Mary wrong? If you think so, then why aren’t you “intolerant”, according to your definition of intolerance? Where does this moral obligation to be tolerant come from, on atheism? To whom is the duty owed?

        More important, let’s cut to the chase. My view is that atheists cannot ground morality rationally. If you disagree, you tell me where moral rules come from on your view, what is the means of existence of moral rules and moral obligations, and why should humans treat moral obligations as meaningful and prescriptive when it goes against their self-interest. Where does the free will necessary for moral choices come from? Why should an atheist sacrifice their live to save someone else – e.g. – by hiding Jews in Nazi Germany? Why is it rational, on atheism? Why is it rational for an atheist to do anything other than to pursue pleasure in this life? What else is there other than pleasure in an accidental universe than can be the motive for action?

        Atheism is the negation of meaningful morality. (That’s my contention – it’s the denial of morality)

        The statement “I am an atheist” is equivalent to saying “Morality is illusory”. Dawkins should have called his book “The Morality Delusion”, because morality is a delusion if atheism is true.


        1. Yes, I am tolerant of Mary’s views when they do not infringe on the rights of others. If Mary believes that her marriage requires a commitment to god then this is fine. Nobody other than her immediate family are impacted. A gay couple, atheist couple, whatever couple should not be impacted or offended.

          As for morals, you have made a common mistake of tightly coupling these with faith. Morals have been around longer that religion, is evident (to a lesser extent) in the animal kingdom.

          You seem to be implying that religious people are more moral than agnostic. Is that right? There is no need going into the evolutionary reasons for morals as i am sure that you will dispute the credibility of the scientist and science. Something for another debate ;-)


          1. What do you mean by the word tolerate. Please define tolerance and explain why supporting traditional procreative marriage is intolerant but supporting the re-definition of marriage to include any arrangement between any number of people, animals and anything else is tolerant. Why is Mary intolerant because she holds to a different definition than you do, but you’re tolerant and you hold to a different definition (“anything goes”) than she does?

            I need you to answer my questions about morality, or I will assume that you think morality is illusory and there is no such thing as right or wrong. And no such thing as human rights. If that is true, then I will delete every comment you make that mentions morality or human rights. Either ground morality and human rights in your worldview or stop using moral language. Answer the questions. Ground the notion of morality or stop asserting how Mary ought to be.Ground the notion of rights on atheism or stop telling Mary that her ideas of morality violate other people’s rights.


          2. Moo,

            I have been reading your posts with some interest. I am curious about what you mean by “…I am tolerant of Mary’s views when they do not infringe on the rights of others”, in particular, I am wondering what you mean by rights.

            I assume I am safe in thinking you mean to say right, as in right to marry, but how is this right derived?

            The theist derives this right from God, given with a particular end in mind.

            I can think of some examples of how a non-theist may posit an answer, but I’ll let you answer if you have the time.



        1. They only thing he’s going to be able to reply with are his personal preferences (“Yuck, I don’t like broccoli, but I do like liver!”) or the cultural fashions of his time and place, (“Yuck, we don’t like slavery in this time and place, but we do like abortion in this time and place!”). Let’s see him answer my challenge about the ontology of moral values, moral rules and moral obligations. Are they subjective? If not, what is their means of existence? What makes them real and binding on us? Why should we follow rules when it goes against our self-interest and we can escape the consequences of being unfashionable?


        2. You seem to have a fascination for nambla.

          Seriously, this impacts on the rights of others (I.e. Children) You obvious did not read my previous post.


          1. Can you give Anon a direct answer on NAMBLA. Moral or immoral? And don’t forget to answer my questions about how you ground moral values, moral duties, free will, moral accountability, motivation for self-sacrifical morality, and ultimate significance of moral decisions. I want this all explained within the worldview of atheism. How does that all work on atheism?

            Where do “rights” come from on atheism. Name a right and explain to me how it exists in reality. Where does it come from, on atheism? If you can’t ground it, then what do you mean by using the word?

            Concepts like rights and morality and free will have no being in atheism. They don’t exist objectively. They’re not rationally grounded by an accidental, purely material, universe. You think you are referring to something real, but you won’t be able to explain those concepts. They are theistic concepts.


          2. Moo, on what basis do you say that impacting the rights of others (e.g. children) is immoral?


          3. The largest basis would be my upbringing. The values that were instilled in me by my parents, life experience, such as travelling extensively and living in other countries with a variety of cultural norms. I think that this is true for most people no matter what their beliefs are. You might want to acquaint yourself with “The Evolution of Morality” by Richard Joyce as it describes that the morals/values that we have are not contrary to other evolutionary factors. They are not a negative, in fact they are the things that have allows the human species to populate this world and flourish more than any other creature.

            The specific issue I have with NAMBLA and generally people who could be deemed as “predators” is that they are impacting on the lives of others without their consent. There is a grey area around “what is the age of consent”, however I do not have firm position on that as I would have to do more personal research if this was of interest.


          4. 1) If the moral standards are valid depending on “how I was raised” then in what sense is racism wrong if that’s how the racist was raised. Or, to put it more bluntly, isn’t it true that on your view NOTHING is right or wrong, people are just fed a bunch of customs depending on the culture of the time and place they were born into – which is ARBITRARY. And on atheism, morality is just ARBITRARY CUSTOMS, like driving on the left or right side of the road. “How I as raised”.

            2) Why is the population of this world by humans good, on your view? What makes humans so special, on your view, compared to any other creature who should “populate the world”? Explain where humans get their objective moral value compared to trees and snakes and maggots. And make sure that when you pick your criteria, that it isn’t just your opinion. It has to be objective – i.e. real.

            3) Why is it wrong to impact the lives of others without their consent, objectively? Is that just your opinion? Is it how you were raised? How about the opinions of another atheist, like STALIN, who killed 100 million innocent people because it was his opinion and how he was raised. Why are you right and why is he wrong, on atheism?


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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