Posted on 07/09/2009 6:13:10 AM PDT by IbJensen
Attorney Mat Staver is convinced the Obama administration is behind a federal lawsuit filed yesterday in Boston challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The first state to legalize homosexual "marriage" has filed suit against the federal government to overturn DOMA -- the Defense of Marriage Act -- which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. On Wednesday, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed the lawsuit in federal court in Boston. The suit claims DOMA interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define marriage as it sees fit.
In his race for the White House, Barack Obama vowed to overturn DOMA. But Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel believes that while yesterday's lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts, there are some political strings between there and Washington, DC.
Matt Staver"That's [Obama's] political preference [that DOMA be overturned]," Staver says. "There's no doubt in my mind, absolutely no question at all, that he and some of those in the Department of Justice are coordinating with individuals -- and perhaps even the attorney general in Massachusetts -- to literally bring these lawsuits and have a very weak defense so that the courts will ultimately overturn it without having the politicians and the president go on record showing that they are in favor of same-sex marriage."
Staver goes on to say that Liberty Counsel is not going to allow the Obama administration to tear down the nation's moral values, which he argues it seems intent on doing. He vows that Liberty Counsel will vigorously fight this latest challenge to marriage, just as it has a lawsuit in California targeting DOMA.
white house is doing some weird stuff........like spelling Bambi’s name wrong did they do it to make themselves look inept to lower expectations so they can take over more? can’t trust nobody these days...
And suppose Massachusetts defines marriage as only between two females and/or two males??? The human race would be wiped out......
“The suit claims DOMA interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define marriage as it sees fit.”
According to the 10th amendment they would be correct. Even though I do not agree with same sex marriage I also don’t believe in tearing up the constitution to enforce it.
Before DOMA was signed, Robert Byrd gave a good speech on it from the floor of the Senate. I caught it on CSPAN, wrote his office a letter thanking him and got a VERY kind reply in return, even though I’m not one of his constituents. They also sent me a copy of his remarks.
I wonder if the Obamination is waiting for him to retire or pass away before pushing for dumping DOMA. I do believe he’s petty enough to make it plain that he’s insulting Byrd.
“...the right of Massachusetts to define marriage as it sees fit.”
Oh great. Let’s allow individual states to start redefining words like murder, rape, legal, illegal “as they see fit.”
good point
that is what the gays won’t cede is that marriage means man and woman lifetime
not man and anything else
Look at it this way, they will all move to the “progressive” states and leave the rest of us alone. We can define marriage in the traditional way and they can’t do anything about it.
THAT SAID, is it NOT the responsibility of the Justice Dept, to now defend the laws of the land UNLESS the Congress decided to re-write them OR some Court (probably SCOTUS) rules in their favor?
Whether or not DEAR LEADER and his minions are behind this will become evident very quickly, depending on what his Dept. of [IN]Justice, Chicago-Thug, Holder, decides to do!
Oh great. Let’s allow individual states to start redefining words like murder, rape, legal, illegal “as they see fit.”
I believe that “murder” in some states would be “justifiable self defense” in other (saner) states, in some cases.
I also believe that in some states what is a legal marriage would be null and statutory rape in others. I could be wrong and don’t have time right now to research this at the moment.
IMHO DOMA, like Roe V. Wade, was bad law; anything not specified in the constitution should be left up to the states.
This jerk is the dip shi* of all dip shi**.
How is DOMA any different than the Assault Weapons Ban or any other “Act” for that matter? They do not derive their power from the constitution and attempt to enumerate rights at the federal level. It’s a slippery slope, one that can be turned against either party depending on who controls congress or the executive.
I’d prefer continued ambiguity at the federal level and enforcement at the state level. Our tax laws are primarily to blame for the push to recognize same sex marriage. The tax laws (and inheritance) convey advantage to “married” individuals which is really the only significant reason to have the state recognize their unions.
We as conservatives need to be careful trying to “legislate” our morality. When we are out of power the other side will take from our example and legislate their own morality. We should be against any and all government interventions in this area or we are doomed by numbers to have “morality” enforced by progressives.
State’s rights is our last refuge against the coming storm. We must make the states as powerful as possible or we will have nowhere to go.
Is that directed at me or our TOTUS?
“I believe that “murder” in some states would be “justifiable self defense” in other (saner) states, in some cases.
I also believe that in some states what is a legal marriage would be null and statutory rape in others. I could be wrong and don’t have time right now to research this at the moment.”
Your comments illustrate the problem with states defining concepts “as they see fit.”
Do you have to ask? The alleged leader of the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.