Tag Archives: Defense of Marriage Act

News

Gay donors fuel Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign

3 Comments

From the left-wing Politico.

Excerpt:

President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign is banking on gay donors to make up the cash it’s losing from other groups of wealthy supporters who have been alienated and disappointed by elements of Obama’s first term.

Pleased by an all-out White House push to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” gay donors have surprised campaign officials with the extent of their support. And the campaign’s new fundraising apparatus appears designed to capitalize on their enthusiasm: Obama’s finance committee included one gay man in 2008; there are 15 this year, a source said.

The Obama campaign finance director, Rufus Gifford, was a top California gay fundraiser; the DNC treasurer, Andrew Tobias, is gay; and the White House social secretary — traditionally a key, if unofficial, fundraising job — is also a gay man, Gifford’s former partner Jeremy Bernard.

The spur for the gay community becoming an anchor for Obama’s reelection fundraising is a series of policy shifts in 2010. After a year of rocky relations and suspicion from Obama’s gay supporters that he wasn’t really committed to their issues, the last year saw a surge in activity. Along with the high-profile repeal of the military ban, Obama’s Justice Department recently refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. And the administration has taken smaller steps, like gay partner hospital visits and hate crimes legislation, concrete and important gestures that simply weren’t made during the Bush administration.

[…]Professional gay men, with a personal stake in politics and less likely to have children or college funds that would consume their disposable income, have long been key to Democratic fundraising. A rarely told story of Howard Dean’s 2004 rise, for instance, was his early, blockbuster fundraising from gay donors who appreciated his support for civil unions, then a cutting-edge policy.

This is what he gets for refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. Democrats don’t believe in marriage. They don’t believe that children should be raised by their mothers AND fathers.

News

Republicans hire top lawyer to defend traditional marriage against Democrats

1 Comment

This is from liberal CNN. (H/T Reuben)

Excerpt:

House Republicans have hired a prominent conservative attorney to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a pending lawsuit, legal sources say, and will make an effort to divert money from the Justice Department to fund its high-profile fight.

House Speaker John Boehner disclosed the legal and political strategy in a letter Monday to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The Obama administration, which normally would defend federal laws in judicial disputes, announced last month it believed the Defense of Marriage Act, often referred to as DOMA, to be unconstitutional. The law defines marriage for federal purposes as unions only between a man and woman.

Boehner said that with the Justice Department not participating, he had “no choice” but to act unilaterally.

“The burden of defending DOMA, and the resulting costs associated with any litigation that would have otherwise been born (sic) by DOJ (The Department of Justice), has fallen to the House,” Boehner said. “Obviously, DOJ’s decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA. It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the House, and not DOJ, defending DOMA.”

Such a move would require Senate approval, an unlikely prospect since Democrats control that chamber.

Boehner will probably end up finding money for the legal fight from other discretionary and non-discretionary spending sources, according to legal experts. There was no indication just how much the legal fight could eventually cost.

[…]Legal sources say the House Republican leadership hired [Paul D.] Clement, a Washington appellate attorney, to defend the law. He filed a brief Monday in a pending case from New York, where a lesbian received an estate tax bill of more than $360,000 after her longtime partner and legal wife had died.Clement is a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, serving from 2005 to 2008. It was his job to defend federal laws and executive actions in court, similar to what he will be doing now as a private lawyer on retainer. He was mentioned at one time as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

Separately, he also is representing more than two dozens states in their lawsuit against the administration over the sweeping health care reform law passed by Congress last year. That case is pending in a federal appeals court in Atlanta.

Once again we see the importance of conservative parents raising influential children. Everybody talks about traditional marriage, but only Paul D. Clement is going to be in a position to really do something about it. And why? Because he has effectively pursued skills and jobs that put him in a position to have an influence.

Podcasts

Jennifer Roback Morse on Obama’s rejection of traditional marriage

Leave a comment
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

A new podcast from Issues, Etc. featuring the magnificent Jennifer Roback Morse.

The MP3 file is here.

The first topic is Obama’s refusal to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act. A lot of people made a mistake when they voted for Obama in 2008. Although  he claimed to be a Christian and said that he believed in traditional marriage. Newsflash! Obama is a radical anti-Christian leftist who is deep in the pocket of the anti-marriage left. Of course he is opposed to traditional marriage! The lesson for 2012 is that Christians need to never believe what politicians say when they are trying to get elected – look at their record and see what they’ve done.

The second myth she punctures is that a secular left government is OK with Christian parents teaching children about Biblical morality. It’s not just that they would want to indoctrinate children to reject Biblical morality. It’s not just that they want to monitor what children say to make sure they don’t express any Biblical moral views in public. Its that they actually think that Christian parents should not be allowed to teach children in their care about Biblical moral views. You don’t own your children – the state owns them. The state decides what your children will believe.

BONUS:

Here’s a new podcast on The New York Times and “modern love”.