Tag Archives: Constition

Obama vows to repeal Defense of Marriage Act in speech to gay activists

Story here at LifeSiteNews.

Excerpt:

In his speech to the homosexualist Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Saturday evening, President Obama again professed loyalty to the homosexual agenda and criticized people who hold to “old attitudes” about homosexuality. The President also vowed to repeal the “so-called Defense of Marriage Act” and praised the U.S. House’s approval of homosexual hate crimes legislation on Thursday.

[…]”Despite the real gains that we’ve made, there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open,” Obama told the cheering crowd.

“There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking.”

[…]On Saturday, President Obama called the movement’s quest to normalize homosexuality on various fronts a quest for “basic equality.”

“I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight,” he said.

Obama also praised the passage of homosexual hate crimes legislation in a House defense policy bill on Thursday, and said he was preparing to sign the law after it passes Congress.

[…]Addressing the lobby’s concern over Obama’s perceived lack of zeal in dismantling federal marriage laws and other such issues, Obama said Saturday: “I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that, because it’s important to be honest among friends.”

He assured the group that “my commitment to you is unwavering,” and pointed out that he has called on Congress to “repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.”

[…]The President expressed broad support for HRC’s mission to drastically alter America’s cultural perception of marriage and the family.

“My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see … a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman,” said Obama.

LifeSiteNews also reports on the new hate crime bill. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

The United States Senate approved an amendment yesterday adding “hate crimes” legislation to the annual Defense Authorization bill, which would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of federally-protected classes.

[…]Critics have warned that the bill has a chilling effect on religious free speech against homosexuality, pointing out that similar laws in other nations have facilitated the prosecution of Christians who speak against homosexuality, particularly in Canada and the United Kingdom. More importantly, they charge, “hate crimes” laws violate the guarantees of equal protection under the law by creating preferential classes for justice.

“‘Hate crimes’ laws contradict the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and create unequal justice by elevating some groups of victims at the expense of others,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. Wright pointed out that under the proposed law, “Victims who engage in homosexual, transgender, or other sexual behavior get special treatment over victims who are military officers, police officers or veterans,” such as the military recruiter who was slain in June by a Muslim convert at a shopping mall in Little Rock, Arkansas.

This is what the many Christians who voted for Obama have achieved. They voted to “tax the rich” and to “bring the troops home” based on ignorance of economics and foreign policy. But what they achieved was the silencing of Christian moral convictions on marriage and family in the public square. And the children who will now be raised without mothers or fathers will reap the whirlwind.

Here’s a refresher on why people oppose same-sex marriage.

Why do people oppose same-sex marriage?

UPDATE: The research paper seems to have expired from the FRC web site, but you can see the whole thing here.

I found this research paper at the Family Research Council web site. The paper compares same-sex couples and heterosexual married couples, in the following ways:

  • relationship duration
  • monogamy vs. promiscuity
  • relationship commitment
  • number of children being raised
  • health risks
  • rates of intimate partner violence

Are there really significant differences between the two arrangements? Let’s take a look at the some of the data.

Relationship duration

% of Marriages Remaining Intact
% of Marriages Remaining Intact

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)

Length of Current Homosexual Relationship
Length of Current Homosexual Relationship

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

Monogamy vs Promiscuity

% Reporting Sexual Fidelity
% Reporting Sexual Fidelity

Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170.

Rates of intimate partner violence

Intimate Partner Violence
Intimate Partner Violence

Sources: “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence,” U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: 30; “Intimate Partner Violence,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report:11.

Conclusion

Marriage is a relationship that has a specific purpose. That purpose is to bind together two opposite natures and to produce children that are biologically linked to the parents. The children gain the benefits of being parented by the two different natures, so they get two perspectives. The fact that the children are genetically linked to two parents helps to ensure the stability of the commitment, as we see in the animal kingdom where animals protect their young.

The goal of marriage is not to increase the happiness of the adults, or to “recognize” the love of adults. The goal of marriage is have two people enter into a relationship where they understand that it is not about adults being fulfilled. Marriage is about people having a goal of raising children, which are tremendously stressful to raise. Marriage requires self-denial and sacrifice in order to raise those children – that is the main point of it. It also requires fidelity and chastity, so that the environment is kept stable for the children over a long period of time.

Children benefit from the stability that is more common in traditional marriages than it is in other arrangements, including heterosexual co-habitation which is similarly unstable (50% greater chance of divorce, more domestic violence, etc.). Therefore, it is important to keep the concept of marriage separate from other kinds of relationships so that the focus on commitment for the sake of the children is clear to those who contemplate marriage. Society needs to give special recognition to married couples, in view of their child-focused commitment.

I apologize in advance if this post causes anyone any harm or distress, I am just trying to explain why people have that opinion. They could be wrong, but that is the case they make. Obviously, married couples fall short of the goal, but that is their goal.

Further study

Two much bigger challenges to marriage are big-government socialism and especially no-fault divorce. I also wrote about same-sex marriage and co-habitation before, in the context of European states like Sweden and Norway.

You may also be interested in a recent post about whether homosexuality is caused by a “gay gene”.

The Family Research Center evaluates Barack Obama’s first 100 days

Has Obama been a good President for Christians? Should Christians have voted for him? How well has he done at fulfilling his campaign promises to pro-life and pro-marriage social conservatives?

Watch this 7-minute video and see for yourself how prudent it was for Christians to put their faith in Obama’s promises. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

The Cloak Room lists the decisions of interest to Christians and social conservatives from the first 100 days of Obama’s regime.

I think we should judge presidential candidates on their record, not on their speeches or their appearance. How did Obama vote before his campaign started? Did the Christians who voted for Obama take the time to find out?

This video follows the story of the Democrats’ Hate Crime bill, which allows the government to imprison bloggers and Christians, (much like Iran’s theocratic government). My original post on Obama’s attempts to intimidate Chrysler’s creditors, thereby undermining the Constitution and the rule of law, is here. And it has now been corroborated over at Hot Air, here.

Regarding the intimidation of Chrysler’s creditors, Hot Air has a follow-up story from the Business Insider:

Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as “a farce,” saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.

Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said. …

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person said described the administration as the most shocking “end justifies the means” group they have ever encountered.  Another characterized Obama was “the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger.” Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a  “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

Hot Air comments:

Well, that’s certainly reassuring.  The man at the helm during one of the biggest economic crises in decades is a madman who will act in an unpredictable and irrational manner if he doesn’t get his way.  It sounds like they paint Obama as either a lunatic or a petulant child.

The “madman theory” of the Presidency? Is that what uninformed Christians who voted for Obama expected?

UPDATE: Ace has more here and here. (H/T Commenter ECM) And Hot Air (Ed Morrissey) has more here.

Barack Obama outlaws capitalism: threatens Chrysler’s non-TARP creditors

UPDATE: More details about this story and related stories of government intervention and wealth redistribution are here.

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from 4Simpsons! Thanks for the link!

This bombshell comes to me from my favorite commenter ECM.

Newsbusters is reporting that the White House is making threats to Chrysler’s creditors. Obama is living that these creditors allowed Chrysler to go bankrupt, because he would prefer to throw your money at his auto union worker constituents. What does it mean when the President of the United States threatens and coerces private investors?

  • Private property is abolished
  • The free market is abolished
  • The rule of law is abolished
  • The Constitution has been abolished
  • Private contracts are abolished
  • Capitalism is abolished

It means that socialism has come to the United States, just as the rest of the world is abandoning a failed system.We are now the equivalent of Zimbabwe and North Korea! Our run of liberty and prosperity is now OVER.

The source of the story is a radio interview conducted between 760 WJR’s radio host Frank Beckmann and Tom Lauria, the attorney representing Chrysler’s non-TARP creditors. I am reproducing the full transcript, because you need to read the whole thing, especially what I’ve bolded.


Beckmann: So what’s the matter with your vulture clients who are so greedy and selfish. Why won’t they go along with this?

Lauria: Well, they bought a contract that says that they get paid before anyone else does by Chrysler. And they have been told by the government who is in complete control of Chrysler, oddly enough, that despite their contractual right, they do not get paid before everyone else.

So they are standing on their rights, standing on the law, trying to defend in effect what is the Constitution of the United States, to make sure that they get what they’re entitled to for their investors.

Beckmann: Tom, let me make the argument against you in another way. We’ve heard the President say this, “I wouldn’t want to stand on their side.” Ron Gettelfinger says “Everyone else has made concessions. These people won’t; they’re greedy.” Why not take a concession that is being asked of everybody else and is being accepted by everybody else, including other hedge funds that had bought some of these bonds in Chrysler?

Lauria: Well that’s a great question, because let me tell you it’s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent, and that’s a moving target.

I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House, and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.

Beckmann: Was that Perella Weinberg?

Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.

Beckmann: All right.

Lauria: Now let me just tell you, to be clear, that we do not oppose the rehabilitation of Chrysler. We think it is vitally important that a company like Chrysler be protected to the extent that it can be within the framework of the law. I want to also say that we do not oppose the government backstopping or supporting the pensioneers and retirees and workers of Chrysler.

I actually think that in a troubled economic time like we’re in, that is an appropriate role for the government to perform. What we do oppose, however, is the abuse of the bankruptcy law to coerce first-lien lenders subsidize the rehabilitation of Chrysler or the backstop of the obligations to the pensioneers and retirees beyond what they will do voluntarily.

And just to be clear, these clients of mine have agreed to compromise 50% of their first-lien position to help support the rehabilitation of Chrysler — Contrary to what the President said yesterday in his new conference that “these people will not give to support the effort,” they have agreed to compromise 50% of what they’re owed to support the rehabilitation of Chrysler, despite the fact that they’re under no obligation whatsoever to do so.

That is what we stand for, and that is what we’re going to go to court to fight for.

Beckmann: OK, so they have offered to take 50 cents on the dollar. What are they being offered in return, and how does that compare to what other stakeholders, say the UAW, are going to be receiving?

Lauria: Here’s the troubling circumstance here. My clients bought a position in the Chrysler capital structure that entitles them to be paid “first dollars out.” That is, they’re to be paid 100 cents of what they’re owed before any junior creditors get a penny.

The government has offerend them 29 cents on the dollar, in the context of a restructuring of Chrysler that will send over $10 billion of value to junior claims. And when I say $10 (billion), that’s a floor. As we’re continuing to review the papers that Chrysler has filed in the bankruptcy court, that number may actually be more like $20 billion. So in other words, my clients, who are contractually entitled to 100 cents on the dollar, are being asked to take 29 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors are being offered somewhere between $10-$20 billion of value in the Chrysler rehabilitation.

Now I ask your listeners, what would they do if they were in our position?

Beckmann: Now Tom Lauria, let me cite a New York Times piece, I believe this was yesterday’s New York Times. No, it’s today’s as a matter of fact. And it says about the creditors who are standing firm: “Many of them bought Chrysler debt for about 30 cents on the dollar.” So what they’re saying is, “Look, they got a discount to begin with. They’re getting a good deal here. If they bought it for 30 and they’re being offered 29, that’s a great deal, better percentagewise than anybody else got.”

Lauria: Well, what people need to understand, first of all, that that is only speculation. There are people who bought this debt at par in my group, there are people who bought this at 70 cents, there are people who bought it at other prices. But what people really need to understand is that the people who bought this debt are pensioneers, teachers’ credit unions, personal retiree accounts, retirement plans, college endowments. That’s who my clients act as fiduciaries for. And they make all kinds of investments. And as you can imagine in this economy, there are numerous of those investments that have gone bad.

This was an investment that people made based on their assessment of the assets of Chrysler, and the view that this was a very secure, very safe investment. And they bought a contract that said they would get a very low rate of return in exchange for that high level of security. So the argument about what they paid for their investment really is irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is they bought a contract that said “you’re first in line, and in exchange for that you’re going to get a very low rate of return.” And I think everybody in this country should be concerned about the fact that the President of the United States, the executive office, is using its power to try to abrogate that contractual right. If the President will attack that contractual right, what right will it not attack?

Beckmann: You made a comment to me before we went on the air about the significance of this case as it relates to the Constitution. I’d like you to explain that to my audience.

Lauria: Well, look, there are kind of two aspects to that. The first is the right to property and the right to contract are kind of sacronsanct in this country. I think everybody understands that when you make a deal it’s supposed to be honored, and if it’s not honored you’re supposed to be able to get protection in court. And what is happening here, through the force of the United States government, and that’s what’s disturbing about this — I mean, private parties have contract disputes all the time — but for the United States Government to step in, the Executive Office of the United States Government, who under the Constitution is charged with enforcing the laws to step in and try to in effect break the laws, I think we should all be concerned about that. That is a constitutional issue.

OK, number one. Number two, realize that our Constitution is premised on the notion that there is a balance between the three branches of government: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.

And what’s going to be happening, in fact I’m going to have to go here, because I’m heading down to the bankruptcy court to start taking on this battle, which is of epic proportions. But what is going on here is you’ve got the executive branch coming into the judicial branch. And I think it is really important for the Constitution of the United States that people understand that the judicial branch can stand independent and interpret and apply the laws as it’s required to do under the Constitution in the face of intense pressure from the Executive branch to do otherwise.

Beckmann: Tom Lauria, really appreciate it. Final question, will Oppenheimer Funds and Stairway Capital, your other two clients in this, are they committed to standing firm? I’ve got to believe they’re facing the same pressure Perella Weinberg did before it changed its mind and said “Okay, we’ll go along now.”

Lauria: Well they are today, but the Executive Office hasn’t called them yet and made threats to them. So, maybe by tomorrow I won’t have any clients, and maybe this fight will be over.


Click the link below to see more commentary from National Review, Wall Street Journal and Hot Air.

Continue reading Barack Obama outlaws capitalism: threatens Chrysler’s non-TARP creditors