Obama Supports Defense of Marriage Act … but You Wouldn’t Know It

  • Bookmark and Share

The Obama Administration's Justice Department threw a curve ball at the same-sex marriage movement last week, filing a 54 page-brief on Thursday in support of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The Washington Times reported on June 16 that "Gay activists are fuming ... it represents a break in President Obama's campaign promise to repeal the 1996 legislation. The Justice brief upholding DOMA was filed in Smelt v. United States, a California lawsuit brought by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer asking the federal government to give them the same benefits as heterosexual couples. The Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and other gay rights groups issued a statement that said they were ‘very surprised and deeply disappointed' in the filing, and they unflatteringly compared it to actions taken by the former Bush Administration."

 This action dealt a heavy blow to "gay rights" activists and is in stark contrast to Obama's lofty campaign promises. Yet we have heard very little about it (even this report in the Washington Times was only a small item in the ‘Culture' section) and we have seen even less on the news. Why?

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The answer comes from a surprising source. John Aravosis, an openly gay activist, posited on his blog:

 "Note to our friends in the media. This is a story deserving a little national attention. It seems the Obama folks have gotten to the mainstream media - you'll note that practically none of the corporate media are covering the growing rupture between Obama and the gay community other than on their blogs, even after HRC [The Human Rights Campaign] sent probably the first chastising letter to a Democratic president since 1996 (and reporters always have told me in the past, it's not a story until HRC weighs in - well now they have, twice)."

Well, at least there is one thing agreed upon - the media are Obama's puppet.

Only three programs have covered this topic. One is The Rachel Maddow Show. Maddow is an openly gay host, and showed obvious disdain for the briefing and called Obama out for lying during his campaign.

The media is giving Obama cover, so are liberal big-wigs. Howard Dean, former DNC chair, had only this to say: "I think this is a big mistake. ... DOMA is unconstitutional. ... The language in the brief is really offensive and really is a terrible mistake. I doubt very much the President knew this was coming. I don't think for a minute this represents the President's position. He is now going to have to dig himself out of this because people are really upset about this, not just in the gay and lesbian community, but in the community of people interested in equal rights."

So, the President of the United States shouldn't be held accountable for what the President of the United States releases?

This was not good enough for Joe Solmonese, the president of HRC. He wrote a lengthy letter to President Obama directly imploring him "...to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress."

So why would the mainstream media completely ignore this brief when it has obviously angered homosexuals, an outspoken, minority strongly in support of the Democratic Party?

Oh, well maybe it's because they think Obama is "sophisticated", "professorial", and a full blown "rock star."

Or maybe he's just "sort of God" to the media lemmings.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I confess my bias here

I agree with Obama's defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. So, take everything I say here with that grain of salt. Like Obama's compliance to military and diplomatic professionals in Iraq, I find it hard to condemn him for switching to what, I believe, is a sound policy.

If Obama can be persuaded by reason, that's to his credit. If, however, his position is strictly a result of prevailing winds, even if the winds blow in our favor on this issue for now, I'm not so comfortable.

They make Supreme Court justices defend their opinions in writing. I sometimes wonder whether presidents should be made to the same.

I think you address my concerns

In California, Prop 8 passed and a large percentage of blacks and Hispanics voted in favor of it.

Even in DC, black politicians realize their constituents do not support gay marriage.

So is this Obama defending sound policy?  My gut tells me it's not so much that as it is Obama not wanting to offend the black/Hispanic communities that make up a much larger voting bloc than the gay community.  And, I don't doubt Obama's smart enough to figure out that - when marriage amendments are on state ballots - they pass in favor of traditional marriage time and again, and that's not just because some blue-haired octagenarians go to the polls.  In Wisconsin, a heavily blue state, a marriage amendment passed in 2006 like 60/40, with Democrats winning most of the state's votes.  We voted for Obama in 2008 (I say "we" as in the state; I voted for McCain).  Which means - logically - that liberals, Democrats, young people, atheists/agnostics, and people from ALL demographics have to be voting for traditional marriage.

And it should prove to everyone that Obama won't keep his promises. To anyone.  And that his words are just that: words.  Actions speak louder; Obama's actions indicate he's a glaring hypocrite (not that people weren't warned, mind you).  The truth of this reality bites.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Man and Woman

I do support DOMA.  However, I would support the Homosexual Community in the cover-up by the media.  I find the methods used by the press to ensure BHO only looks good is destructive to the country as a whole. 

Just report the news and let me determine if it is good or bad. 

 

http://thelazytriath...

Girls will be girls and

boys will be boys.  Girls have the right to girl anatomy.  A boy has no right to be born with a uterus.  Gays, pedophiles etc have no exceptional rights. 

jessieH     This is

jessieH     This is really getting old. Let's have a nationwide vote on the subject of gay rights & marriage. It's time to stop wasting time on this. WE have more important things to worry about. Korea, bailouts, corruption in the govt., global cooling, czars, ect....

Yeah, it's getting old. 

Yeah, it's getting old.  But if you've been paying attention, you'll learn two things:

  1. Ballot initiatives (i.e., Prop 8) that defend traditional marriage win.
  2. When they win, those who don't like the outcome go to activist judges to get the vote overturned.

It's also obvious that where marriage amendments pass, especially in blue states like California and Wisconsin (and as I said above), that more than old people vote in favor.  So I have a strong feeling a national amendment would defend marriage, and it would be a BIG problem.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Government should stay out

Government should stay out of the business of marriage.  Marriage is cultural and spiritual, it should not be political.  From a Christian standpoint, I care first about changing the heart of people, if their heart stays the same, if they choose to not have the same faith as I have, I am not going to force them.  If 2 or 10 people who do not have my same belief system choose to marry, it makes not difference to me, I am married in the Biblical sense (man, woman, under God).  I know people say it takes away from the meaning of marriage, but I disagree, if the meaning of marriage was dependant upon how people treat marriage, then Hollywood destroyed that meaning long ago.  Thankfully my belief system has nothing to do with what others choose to do.  I know people want to keep others from marying dogs and objects, but so what if they do?  You can still make it criminal to have sex with a dog or a minor.  This whole argument distracts us from the heart.

Parents who want to protect their kids from homosexual propoganda in the schools, to them I say, "what are your kids doing in the public school system?"  You are so afraid of the homosexual agenda, what about the anti-christian, anti-conservative, anti-science, anti-america, anti-capitalism agendas?  Your children should not be in those schools anyways.

Re Government

Nice words but it's about 500 years too late to keep government out of marriage. Marriage is tied into how income taxes are levied, as well as inheritances, wills, insurance, immigration, adoption, medical care, social security, and hundreds of other aspects of our system of government and law enforcement. Marriage itself is a legal process, a function of government.

And anyway, the day after homosexual marriage is deemed legal by the US government, the next objective will be to force all religions to do the ceremonies in their churches, temples and mosques.

Whether the government forces us to accept homosexual marriage, or the government says it cannot be forced on us, they are involved, like it or not.

Are you saying that it can

Are you saying that it can not be untied?  I think it could and now would be the perfect time to do it.  Marriage is not a legal process.  2 people can be married in the "Christian" way and not be legally married according to the government. 

If the churches do not claim tax-exempt status then the government can not force them to do anything.  I think God would have someting to say about beholding to the government and that is what churches do, they restrict their Godly activities and freedoms because they choose to take the tax exemption. 

The government can not force you to accept gay marriage, even if it is legal.  Whether you accept an idea is up to you.  I choose not to accept the idea that gay marriage is right, but I also choose to let people make their own choices.  I don't accept drunkenness, I don't accept adultury, I don't accept fornication, I don't accept the idea that giving a lazy person money will make them productive members of society, I don't accept crude jokes about women, I don't accept mean jokes about husbands....