Skip to main content

Divorcing from DOMA

Image
By

On September 21, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Amendment into law. This law was passed by a large voting margin in both houses of Congress. In short, the bill says: “Marriage is a legal union between one man and one woman.” This bill has been challenged on several occasions in court, one which declared it to be unconstitutional. July 2010, a federal district court judge rendered a decision that has been under appeal since that time.  February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that based on an opinion by President Obama, the Department of Justice would no longer defend the bill in the courts. It seems that President Obama believes the bill to be unconstitutional, according to media sources. Attorney General Holder said that the debate leading up to the passage of the bill, which was signed by President Clinton, included language and speech that he defines as “animus.”  The definition of animus in Webster’s Universal College Dictionary is: “Strong dislike, or enmity, animosity.”

So then, we are to understand that based on the opinion of President Obama and Attorney General Holder that strong language indicating dislike, enmity, or animosity in a debate leading to the passage of a bill qualifies to determine the unconstitutionally of a bill.

The question that must be asked is the one dealing with principle or preference. Should the constitutionality of a law be determined by the supposed views of those who entered into the debate on the issue leading to the passage of a bill? When that argument is considered to be valid, we then have entered into a time that policy and lawmaking is no longer based on right, wrong, or common good, but upon biased views of those people who argued for or against an issue. We have a larger issue in this debate, and that is the personal preference of the president. When has it become the responsibility of a president to determine the outcome of an issue that is being tried in the courts? When has the president been given the assignment of determining the constitutionality of a bill that is working its way through the federal district court system? The president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, not to act as a Supreme Court Judge and announce a law to be unconstitutional. 

There is a deeper issue in the debate that goes beyond the recorded history of the sanction of marriage. That issue is the overreaching of the Executive Branch of government into the Judicial Branch. With the type of reasoning being made public by the Obama Administration, we have no need for a Judicial Branch. Why should we trouble judges with opinions and rulings of law if the president is going to declare a bill to be constitutional or unconstitutional based on his personal preference regarding the issue?

There is enough unrest and trouble in the world-at-large. We are a nation that has been governed by the rule of law. When that which has governed us for all these years collapses we no longer will enjoy the freedoms on which this nation was founded.

It is no secret that President Obama is obligated to those people who are pushing for the recognition of same sex unions as a legal marriage. At this time there are five states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia who by vote or court order have established a system by which same sex unions are accepted as a legal marriage.  Georgia has a law on the books that defines legal marriage, which is recognized by the state as a union between one man and one woman. California passed a law with this same definition that was declared unconstitutional by the courts and is now working through the appeal process to support the will of the majority of the voters on this issue.

As this debate continues, we have heard people argue for the government to stay out of the recognition of marriage. The issue that would then arise is without a legal recognition of marriage by the government; what would happen to the shared legal property of the couple upon the death of one of the people involved in the union?  It is hard to imagine what the culture would look like with no legal sanction of marriage seeing the mockery many people make of their marriage in our country.

Ray Newman March 2, 2011 All Rights Reserved


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Now is not the time to give up

By
The sound was mournful; “I am giving up.” The young man I overheard talking on an elevator caught my attention because he was talking loudly, wanting all within hearing distance to know of his decision to quit. I could not help but engage him in conversation about his decision to quit by throwing in the towel and giving up. As I spoke with him, I heard what has become familiar speech from other people with whom I have spoken. This young person was talking about the never ending cycle of disappointment regarding the political issues we are facing in our country now. “They are all lazy, stubborn, and wrong,” this young man went on expressing his opinion to me about what he observed on the national level in the political world. As I talked more with this young man, I asked him about his level of involvement. To which he answered, “I never vote.” “I don’t understand politics,” he said. To which I then asked, “Let me get this right, you are throwing in what towel?” I am amazed at the num...
Post a Comment
Read more

Gambling is too great a risk

By
It does not take anyone with superior intelligence to understand when money is dangled in front of people, most of the time, they will take the bait. With the outcome of the vote on the Republican ballot about expanding gambling, there are people who are pushing harder to open a casino. According to the Secretary of State’s web site 31.34% of the registered voters or 1,636,371 people voted in the Primary last week. Out of that number 955, 857 voted on question number one on the Republican ballot. That question, you will remember, asked if we had more gambling with money going to education, would we approve such a move. 480,313 voted yes and 475,544 voted no. The difference in the vote was 4,769. 50.25% voted yes and 49.75% voted no. With one half of one percent voting in favor over those who opposed the question, the gambling crowd was ready to crow about the overwhelming victory. The willing media is quick to find church folks who applaud the idea that we will soon have a casin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ears Opened, Mouth Closed To Learn

By
  My parents were not blessed with much formal education, but both of them were wise in dealing with the issues of life. Mother and Daddy insisted that their children receive as much formal education as could be attained.   Daddy called it, “book learning.” My sister, brother, and I continued our training in the formal levels of education beyond college graduate degrees. It did not matter that we had surpassed our parent’s levels of formal training; in my opinion, we never reached their level of wisdom. My mother understood the basic principle of economics to be that one must never spend more than they have available. She believed in being frugal in her budget goals for our family. Daddy understood the political world like no one I have even known. He always looked at the character of a person when determining how he was going to cast his vote. With very high moral standards, Daddy held those who represented him to those same standards. As children, we often heard our parents...
Post a Comment
Read more